Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor
4th April 2009, 23:13
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luck_egalitarianism
Luck egalitarianism was one of my main justifications for being a communist. However, I am beginning to doubt this argument. Therefore, I need to defend it, create new egalitarian arguments, or reject leftism. I'm leaning towards the middle choice as my next adventure. However, I thought I would see if you guys had any justifications to support luck egalitarianism. It is as follows:
Basically, individuals who contribute more to society should not expect more because their ability to contribute is a matter of luck. This seems reasonable.
Counterarguments:
Case 1:
1. A machine produces productivity as a result of five parts. It will still produce goods if any part is destroyed. Because one of the four parts, part X, produces fifty percent of their profit, management prioritizes the maintenance of part X. The machine is valued only with respect to its production. It seems reasonable to consider part X at a higher value. Part X did nothing to deserve its importance. It simply, fact of the matter, is more important. No set of ideals can deny this fact.
2. A utility of a moral community is the result of five individuals. The community will produce utility if any individual is destroyed. Because one of the individuals, individual X, produces fifty percent of the utility, the government prioritizes the interests of individual X. The community is only valued with respect to utility. It seems reasonable to consider individual X at a higher value. Individual X did nothing to deserve their importance. They simply, fact of the matter, are more important. No set of ideals can deny this fact.
Case 2:
Two individuals, X and Y, are living together. X is superior to Y in every aspect. They collect food to sustain themselves. Because of sheer talent, X collects 75% of the food. After eating his 25%, Y is still hungry. Because he values Y's company, X gives up part of his labor. X has eaten 50% and Y has eaten 49%.
First, Y claims he deserves half. X responds that he earned the majority of the food so he is entitled to it. Y responds with the luck egalitarian argument. X says that is true, but he still earned the majority of the food. The innate unfairness of life is not something, X says, he should be held accountable for fixing.
There are plenty of situations in capitalism where exploitation is ridiculous. The income differences we see are rarely the result of differences in talent. In addition, differences in talent rarely justify income differences to the extent we see in society. Cases of limited food resources would rarely occur if we fairly distributed goods with respect to socialist considerations. Give people resources according to what they actually earn.
The communist scenario allows more talented individuals to work shorter hours for the same gains, perhaps, but this is a luck egalitarian advantage. Presumably, we would require the talented to produce for three hours alongside the untalented. Furthermore, we don't want a society where talented individuals simply quit working when they've put in a quota. To hold the most talented individuals to the standards of the average person would be a huge loss in innovations and other areas.
The communist considerations avoid most of these problems by assuming a excess of resources. This will simply not hold for all circumstances. It seems like the talented are still entitled to more resources with respect to limited resource situations. If someone does a huge favor for me, I appreciate it. If their ability to do this favor is the result of natural talent, should I appreciate it less?
For instance, if I can save two individuals from a burning fire, but my fat, slow-witted accomplice can only save one, are my actions no longer morally superior because my skills are the result of fortune? This seems difficult to accept. If a prize is awarded to the person who contributes the most to society, is this unfair?
If you accept luck egalitarianism as a justification for equality, what do you say to the objections? If not, what is your rationale for egalitarianism? I am working on something in a Nietzsche style. It goes like this, basically.
Everyone seeks individual advantage in an egoist war. Society is a cooperative mechanism to extend individual advantage. When the rich justify their wealth because they contribute more to society, this does not matter. To actively allow someone to accumulate more than you is only practical when it does not disadvantage you. If it does, you eliminate the advantage. Because wealth advantages, in themselves, are cumulative, they are dangerous. Allowing a single individual to obtain material leverage in this egoist war assumes they will never act against your interests through the use of this advantage. This is contrary to what we observe.
This justifies a worker control of the means of production. If individuals are judged based on their innate capabilities, we need a method of distribution with respect to limited resources. If we do so based on skills, the weakest individuals have no incentive to put forth extra efforts and will resent the unfairness of life. Furthermore, the elite will contribute what is necessary to surpass those below them and no further. Considering rarity with respect to effort allows individuals to compete with varying skill levels and maximizes the goods across society.
What about individuals who are naturally lazy or less capable? We gauge individuals based on effort and those less capable of exerting such efforts are marginalized. They realize their effort capacity is lower and forgo trying. So far, we have the following conceptions of rarity division:
1. The elite receive more.
2. The hard working receive more.
3. Egalitarian distribution of rarity.
#1 fails because it contributes less utility than the equal encouragement of all based on efforts. #2 seems desirable, but it does discourage those less capable of exerting effort, and there is no feasible way of considering this with respect to an analysis of effort. One could simply claim the easiest act was their maximum effort capacity and, thus, they deserve rewards.
An egalitarian distribution encourages individuals to contribute to society for the benefit of society in and of itself. However, individuals can work for society without respect to #2. There can also be a minimum probability of all individuals to gain access to rare resources as to not entirely marginalize the naturally lazy. Of course, though, we have to accept that society is group domination, the naturally lazy may desire complete egalitarianism with respect to rarity. However, because they are lazy, it is unlikely they will gain control of society in the first place.
The idea of egalitarianism based on group domination seems to continue a communist thought, but it is a bit pessimistic. We would essentially be oppressing the elite because it is convenient. We would fail to recognize their innate contributions to the moral community not because they don't matter but because it isn't advantageous to consider them. They will still work for society to receive diminishing return advantages (though maybe not as hard, which is a worry). I'd rather have some sort of conception of communism based on justice, but I am really doubting the merit of luck egalitarianism as an idea.
Luck egalitarianism was one of my main justifications for being a communist. However, I am beginning to doubt this argument. Therefore, I need to defend it, create new egalitarian arguments, or reject leftism. I'm leaning towards the middle choice as my next adventure. However, I thought I would see if you guys had any justifications to support luck egalitarianism. It is as follows:
Basically, individuals who contribute more to society should not expect more because their ability to contribute is a matter of luck. This seems reasonable.
Counterarguments:
Case 1:
1. A machine produces productivity as a result of five parts. It will still produce goods if any part is destroyed. Because one of the four parts, part X, produces fifty percent of their profit, management prioritizes the maintenance of part X. The machine is valued only with respect to its production. It seems reasonable to consider part X at a higher value. Part X did nothing to deserve its importance. It simply, fact of the matter, is more important. No set of ideals can deny this fact.
2. A utility of a moral community is the result of five individuals. The community will produce utility if any individual is destroyed. Because one of the individuals, individual X, produces fifty percent of the utility, the government prioritizes the interests of individual X. The community is only valued with respect to utility. It seems reasonable to consider individual X at a higher value. Individual X did nothing to deserve their importance. They simply, fact of the matter, are more important. No set of ideals can deny this fact.
Case 2:
Two individuals, X and Y, are living together. X is superior to Y in every aspect. They collect food to sustain themselves. Because of sheer talent, X collects 75% of the food. After eating his 25%, Y is still hungry. Because he values Y's company, X gives up part of his labor. X has eaten 50% and Y has eaten 49%.
First, Y claims he deserves half. X responds that he earned the majority of the food so he is entitled to it. Y responds with the luck egalitarian argument. X says that is true, but he still earned the majority of the food. The innate unfairness of life is not something, X says, he should be held accountable for fixing.
There are plenty of situations in capitalism where exploitation is ridiculous. The income differences we see are rarely the result of differences in talent. In addition, differences in talent rarely justify income differences to the extent we see in society. Cases of limited food resources would rarely occur if we fairly distributed goods with respect to socialist considerations. Give people resources according to what they actually earn.
The communist scenario allows more talented individuals to work shorter hours for the same gains, perhaps, but this is a luck egalitarian advantage. Presumably, we would require the talented to produce for three hours alongside the untalented. Furthermore, we don't want a society where talented individuals simply quit working when they've put in a quota. To hold the most talented individuals to the standards of the average person would be a huge loss in innovations and other areas.
The communist considerations avoid most of these problems by assuming a excess of resources. This will simply not hold for all circumstances. It seems like the talented are still entitled to more resources with respect to limited resource situations. If someone does a huge favor for me, I appreciate it. If their ability to do this favor is the result of natural talent, should I appreciate it less?
For instance, if I can save two individuals from a burning fire, but my fat, slow-witted accomplice can only save one, are my actions no longer morally superior because my skills are the result of fortune? This seems difficult to accept. If a prize is awarded to the person who contributes the most to society, is this unfair?
If you accept luck egalitarianism as a justification for equality, what do you say to the objections? If not, what is your rationale for egalitarianism? I am working on something in a Nietzsche style. It goes like this, basically.
Everyone seeks individual advantage in an egoist war. Society is a cooperative mechanism to extend individual advantage. When the rich justify their wealth because they contribute more to society, this does not matter. To actively allow someone to accumulate more than you is only practical when it does not disadvantage you. If it does, you eliminate the advantage. Because wealth advantages, in themselves, are cumulative, they are dangerous. Allowing a single individual to obtain material leverage in this egoist war assumes they will never act against your interests through the use of this advantage. This is contrary to what we observe.
This justifies a worker control of the means of production. If individuals are judged based on their innate capabilities, we need a method of distribution with respect to limited resources. If we do so based on skills, the weakest individuals have no incentive to put forth extra efforts and will resent the unfairness of life. Furthermore, the elite will contribute what is necessary to surpass those below them and no further. Considering rarity with respect to effort allows individuals to compete with varying skill levels and maximizes the goods across society.
What about individuals who are naturally lazy or less capable? We gauge individuals based on effort and those less capable of exerting such efforts are marginalized. They realize their effort capacity is lower and forgo trying. So far, we have the following conceptions of rarity division:
1. The elite receive more.
2. The hard working receive more.
3. Egalitarian distribution of rarity.
#1 fails because it contributes less utility than the equal encouragement of all based on efforts. #2 seems desirable, but it does discourage those less capable of exerting effort, and there is no feasible way of considering this with respect to an analysis of effort. One could simply claim the easiest act was their maximum effort capacity and, thus, they deserve rewards.
An egalitarian distribution encourages individuals to contribute to society for the benefit of society in and of itself. However, individuals can work for society without respect to #2. There can also be a minimum probability of all individuals to gain access to rare resources as to not entirely marginalize the naturally lazy. Of course, though, we have to accept that society is group domination, the naturally lazy may desire complete egalitarianism with respect to rarity. However, because they are lazy, it is unlikely they will gain control of society in the first place.
The idea of egalitarianism based on group domination seems to continue a communist thought, but it is a bit pessimistic. We would essentially be oppressing the elite because it is convenient. We would fail to recognize their innate contributions to the moral community not because they don't matter but because it isn't advantageous to consider them. They will still work for society to receive diminishing return advantages (though maybe not as hard, which is a worry). I'd rather have some sort of conception of communism based on justice, but I am really doubting the merit of luck egalitarianism as an idea.