Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
I'm just trying to get at what you mean by 'equal' if you don't mean it in terms of value. You said that we're equal in that we all have our parts to play, but how is it equality if we're all playing different parts?
|
The parts may not be equal, a street-sweeper may not have the capacity of a lawyer, however, that to me does not imply that one is more important that the other. If we didn't have street-sweepers what would occur? Somebody has to play the part.
I suppose I am placing 'value' in that scenario, within the context of 'value v's importance'... rather than 'value v's capacity' as RCAlyra2004 has expressed above, we are not the same.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
A number of people here have mentioned societal equality as being a worthy goal. I'm not sure I agree.
|
Would this be more to the point of placing a "ranking of importance" to each and every person? Or is this giving everybody the utilities to become equal in capacity? I don't believe everybody can become 'equal in capacity'.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
I certainly think that justice is a higher goal than equality, and since justice is everybody getting what they deserve, equality of outcome is not necessarily going to be the most just outcome (though some distribution of goods which is Pareto efficient probably is going to be -- cf. Theory of Justice). In theory, equality of opportunity is, I think, a good thing, but given the fact that we have limited resources, I wonder if it is even possible to provide this.
|
I agree with your views on justice. I also see equality of opportunity as a good thing, it may be something that is possible to provide, however I don't see that every individual will take, or make the most of, any opportunities presented. This would follow on from the theory that we are not all the same, I don't think everybody will strive for the same aspirations.