Luck Egalitarianism

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

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.

[Lord Hargreaves]

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.

I don't see how this is a counterargument, because it is perfectly circular. If a society values utility alone, then of course individual X will be the most valued in that society. But... so what? Luck egalitarianism is a theory of justice, so a hypothetical where the conception of justice is presupposed like it is here is irrelevant.

If you see luck egalitarianism as a Kantian attempt to further the kingdom of ends, then it is clear that the total product should be distributed not to each of the five individuals on the basis of their contribution, nor on the basis of indiscriminate equality, but unequally on the basis of needs. This simply is communism, is it not?

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.

Again, the question is basically:what if someone disagrees with me? Not exactly a counterargument. You say "X is superior to Y in every aspect" in your example, but obviously this is false in the crucial respect - that of moral worth.

You also have to consider orthodox socialist considerations when it comes to property here, i.e. can we really say that the food collected (or the land that is used) is completely unowned before it is appropriated? I would say, probably not

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I am saying moral worth should have a materialist basis. To speak of humans as "they should have been" is to ground morals in nothing, essentially.

To punish someone for being superior, whether through luck or otherwise, seems unfair. Whether through luck or otherwise, they "are" that person.

For instance, intelligence, strength, and wisdom. These qualities all have some natural components and are gained through luck. Would you say that, if we could, we should equally distribute these resources? Would you consider it fair if you suddenly became stupider at the expense of a moron?

Wealth generally isn't earned as a result of advantages, but there are cases where it is. Shouldn't these cases be considered? Luck egalitarian seems illogical to me. All it says is that the person, in themselves, did nothing to deserve more worth. In what sense? If I do well on something, it is because of natural capacities, environment, et cetera. Determinist notions, basically, I didn't actually do anything. However, the elimination of free will doesn't eliminate variance in worth. As shown with the machine example, a part that contributes more, by default, deserves more attention. If we suddenly make those parts, people, something changes?

I am a little confused why luck egalitarianism is supported when it has no material basis. Sure, it would be nice if people were equal. They aren't. For the most part, they are, but there are many exceptions. It would also be nice if all people had to sleep the same amount of time. If I was forced to sleep less, I would suffer because I naturally sleep longer. If someone is forced to give up the fruits of their labor, it seems like the same thing to me.

I think we should consider arguments for egalitarianism without respect to changing circumstances that already exist.

[Cumannach]

[QUOTE=Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor;1404299]

To punish someone for being superior, whether through luck or otherwise, seems unfair. Whether through luck or otherwise, they "are" that person.

But letting someone have more of society's resources because their particular talents are relatively rare, is punishing the people that don't have that particular talent. To bring this notion to it's logical conclusion: paraplegics, on average, contribute less to society than non-paralegics. So really, the disabled parking space should not be closest to the store, it should be furthest, at the far end of the car park. In fact there shouldn't be a disabled car space. Car parking spaces are a finite resource. They should also have to pay more taxes, since it's for them that wheel-chair accessible ramps have to built everywhere, and so on etc.

Communism starts from the principle that everybody, by virtue of being human, has an equal right to have their human needs fulfilled, if they contribute honestly to their full ability, whatever that ability is, to human society.

This is taken as a self evident moral truth. No justification required.

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

This is the simple answer to why communism is natural and is infact validated by many religions.

1.The average person must agree all people are equal
2.If all people are equal then people must have equal living rights
3.Equal living right's pertain to housing,food,opportunity,human rights,working rights and yes right to money

If you believe in equal rights then you can only be two things a hypocrite or a communist