Posted on 08/30/2010 4:05:22 AM PDT by mattstat
There is a certain way that philosophers talk that make them sound, to outsiders, like they’re spouting nonsense. Take David Miller, for example. He writes on the subject of equality in Philosophy and Politics:
"Complex equality…recognizes a number of relevant dimensions along which individuals may be scored, but it does not insist that scores be equalized along any dimension in particular. Instead it claims that overall equality can be achieved by counterbalancing among the different dimensions. If the dimensions are independent, in the sense that there is no connections between how a person performs on one and how he performs on others, then relative gains in one direction can be set against relative losses in another."
A professional philosopher will know that Miller is merely summarizing the learned literature on “equality theory.” But a lay or uninformed reader will presuppose that the man has lost his mind. Do philosophers really say that equality—the sublimest of all goals—can be had if only we could look into each heart and weigh or score each dimension of desire, awarding to each what he wants in proportion to how these rewards fit in with what each other persons’ desires?
They do say so, but you must understand that in philosophy we often discuss situations that might happen, that are theoretically possible, no matter how unlikely they might be. For example, we can imagine a Star Trek-like transporter device, and then ask questions about what happens if such a machine existed, all the while acknowledging that building such a device is next to impossible. So Miller might be talking theoretically and therefore might not be as nuts as he sounds...
(Excerpt) Read more at wmbriggs.com ...
One measure of a person’s character is how they answer the question, “If you could only have one, would you prefer equality or freedom?”
That would be difficult as I have never heard a objective, comprehensive definition for either.
I am glad Mr. Briggs is a statistician to the stars and I am glad I am not a star. This may be a fine game of mental masturbation for a few but its practical application escapes me.
If he is telling the socialists/Marxists that equality is impossible he is wasting his time. They already know that. Their goal of equality is just a facade, a lure to the have-nots. They know the 80-20 rule will always prevail no matter how many times they shuffle the deck.
Otherwise, I don’t see the interest in his theory even as a game.
Or security versus insecurity? Or certainty versus ambiguity?
That would be difficult as I have never heard a objective, comprehensive definition for either.
You are right in that there are many different flavors of each. One flavor would be - We are all equally free. That would satisfy both.
Yes, and even lawbreakers were treated impartially in court.
Do you think that was the message in this thread and the purpose for posting it?
Its not that the progressives want equality as an objective, they want equality as a tool to gain absolute god like power.
Progressives talk about equality, because they want to be overlords.
.
That's because the Framers saw to it that we are a nation of laws, not a nation of men. "The rule of law" undergirds the Constitution.
From my profile page - I'll let C.S. Lews explain:
"We and our rulers are of one kind only so long as we are subject to one law, but if there is no law of nature, the ethos of any society is the creation of its rulers, educators, and conditioners, and every creator stands outside his own creation.” ~ C.S. Lewis - The Abolition of Man
Marxists define equality as everybody having the same property and income regardless of ability, and freedom as everybody having (what they regard to be) "the necessities of life". To accomplish this, it is necessary to enslave the productive segment of the population for the benefit of the unproductive. This produces poverty, as the productive lose their incentive to produce.
Well stated. Succint yet inclusive.
it’s a subjective question measuring ones preference. We don’t need an objective definition.
Without an objective definition then what are you measuring? Preference for what?
Mind-numbed. Obviously, you are not a star, so it’s unlikely we’ll run into one another.
But, for fun, I can tell you that Marxists etc. do not know that equality is impossible. There is a large and growing literature on the subject. Obviously, the author I quoted was writing in that vein.
Which means, naturally, that there is work to be done to set these folks straight.
We had a president once who quibbled over the definition of the word "is". It's not a good trait
As opposed to the incredible usefullness of "guaging the reaction someone has" to something with no objective meaning.
There is nothing superior about an objective definition if one is interested in subjective reaction. There is nothing inferior about the subjective if that is the point of one's interest.
I know this is a bit complex so try reading it a few times to better understand it. I am interested in a persons gut level reaction to "freedom" versus "equality" as that person understands those words.
That tells me something about their character, information I have already gained about yours.
I guess we all learn something. I too am fascinated by things. I am fascinated at how so many use sophistry to avoid the issue of objective meaning or rational conclusions. When everything is a rhorschak test then one is never wrong. Subjective reations to meaningless statements can mean whatever anyone wants them to mean. They are used to validate whatever preconceptions one has.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.