If you had to come up with a new name for a fictional video game platform, and you wanted to make an amalgam using PlayStations and GameBoys, what title would you choose? Would you use GameStation or PlayBoy? Yeah. Me too. Although this week's thought experiment would beg to differ.
--------------------------------------------------
John and Margaret went shopping to buy Christmas presents for their three sons: Matthew, aged fourteen, Mark, who is twelve, and Luke, ten. The loving parents always tried to treat their children equally. This year, they had budgeted to spend £100 on each of them.
For once it looked as if their shopping would be trouble free, for they soon found what they were looking for: handheld PlayBoy game consoles at £100 each. Just as they were about to take three to the checkout, John noticed a special offer. If you bought two of the new, top of the range PlayBoyPlusMax consoles at £150 each, you would get an original PlayBoy free. They could spend the same amount of money and get superior goods.
"We can't do that," said Margaret. "That would be unfair, since one of the boys would be getting less than the others."
"But Margaret," said John, excited at the thought of borrowing his sons' new toys, "how can it be unfair? This way none of them gets a worse gift that he would have done, and two of them do better. But if we don't take the offer, two of the kids are worse off than they would otherwise be."
"I want them all to be equal," replied Margaret.
"Even if it means making them worse off?"
Source: A Theory of Justice by John Rawls, 1971.
Baggini, J., The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 2005, p. 259.
---------------------------------------------------
If I was the parent, I'd get the two extra-nice consoles (with one regular one thrown in) and insist on rotating them among the kids on an equal time basis or perhaps according to how well they've done their chores. Societies are most productive where everyone works hard, has purpose, and cooperates fully, so I try to encourage that dynamic every chance I get. What stops such a utopian dream from occurring? Free riders, misdirected hedonism, and hierarchical oppression mostly, but since I've already written quite a lot about these subjects in general—and economic inequality in particular—let's hear what Baggini had to say about this thought experiment during his discussion:
What we need to ask is when inequality is acceptable. John's explanation to Margaret about why they should treat their sons differently provides one answer. Inequality is permitted when no one is worse off as a result, but some people are better off. This is very similar to what the political philosopher John Rawls called the "difference principle." In essence, this says that inequalities are permitted only if they are to the benefit of the least well off. ... One reason to be against inequality is precisely the effect it has on social cohesion and the self-esteem of the poor. As social psychologists have pointed out, even though materially people are no worse off if their neighbours get rich at no financial cost to themselves, psychologically they can be harmed by their increased awareness of the wealth gap between them. Seeing equality and inequality solely in material terms could thus be a terrible mistake, both in politics and in families.
That's nice, and Baggini had major space constraints, but I would go much further in my analysis of why inequality is an important problem to tackle. As I said though, I've already written a lot about this, particularly in my posts on Karl Marx, on John Rawls, and on What Evolution Can Tell Us About the Economy. If you haven't read those, go back and check them out. Especially that last one, which included this point which acts as a nice summary:
Perfect equality is not possible, but extreme inequality is not sustainable in the long-term. Wealth is generated by talent and effort. Extreme wealth is generated by the economic system and the rules that society has evolved over the course of its history. A large portion of extreme wealth is therefore owed to society. Citizens will need to come to an agreement over what are acceptable ratios of wealth inequality. Ten to one? Thirty to one? Two hundred to one? Three thousand to one? Over the vast history of evolution, the ratios of wealth within tribes were significantly less than they are today.
If you don't need to go back and reread any of those posts, then maybe just watch this video as a great reminder of what we are up against. Thanks.
--------------------------------------------------
John and Margaret went shopping to buy Christmas presents for their three sons: Matthew, aged fourteen, Mark, who is twelve, and Luke, ten. The loving parents always tried to treat their children equally. This year, they had budgeted to spend £100 on each of them.
For once it looked as if their shopping would be trouble free, for they soon found what they were looking for: handheld PlayBoy game consoles at £100 each. Just as they were about to take three to the checkout, John noticed a special offer. If you bought two of the new, top of the range PlayBoyPlusMax consoles at £150 each, you would get an original PlayBoy free. They could spend the same amount of money and get superior goods.
"We can't do that," said Margaret. "That would be unfair, since one of the boys would be getting less than the others."
"But Margaret," said John, excited at the thought of borrowing his sons' new toys, "how can it be unfair? This way none of them gets a worse gift that he would have done, and two of them do better. But if we don't take the offer, two of the kids are worse off than they would otherwise be."
"I want them all to be equal," replied Margaret.
"Even if it means making them worse off?"
Source: A Theory of Justice by John Rawls, 1971.
Baggini, J., The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 2005, p. 259.
---------------------------------------------------
If I was the parent, I'd get the two extra-nice consoles (with one regular one thrown in) and insist on rotating them among the kids on an equal time basis or perhaps according to how well they've done their chores. Societies are most productive where everyone works hard, has purpose, and cooperates fully, so I try to encourage that dynamic every chance I get. What stops such a utopian dream from occurring? Free riders, misdirected hedonism, and hierarchical oppression mostly, but since I've already written quite a lot about these subjects in general—and economic inequality in particular—let's hear what Baggini had to say about this thought experiment during his discussion:
What we need to ask is when inequality is acceptable. John's explanation to Margaret about why they should treat their sons differently provides one answer. Inequality is permitted when no one is worse off as a result, but some people are better off. This is very similar to what the political philosopher John Rawls called the "difference principle." In essence, this says that inequalities are permitted only if they are to the benefit of the least well off. ... One reason to be against inequality is precisely the effect it has on social cohesion and the self-esteem of the poor. As social psychologists have pointed out, even though materially people are no worse off if their neighbours get rich at no financial cost to themselves, psychologically they can be harmed by their increased awareness of the wealth gap between them. Seeing equality and inequality solely in material terms could thus be a terrible mistake, both in politics and in families.
That's nice, and Baggini had major space constraints, but I would go much further in my analysis of why inequality is an important problem to tackle. As I said though, I've already written a lot about this, particularly in my posts on Karl Marx, on John Rawls, and on What Evolution Can Tell Us About the Economy. If you haven't read those, go back and check them out. Especially that last one, which included this point which acts as a nice summary:
Perfect equality is not possible, but extreme inequality is not sustainable in the long-term. Wealth is generated by talent and effort. Extreme wealth is generated by the economic system and the rules that society has evolved over the course of its history. A large portion of extreme wealth is therefore owed to society. Citizens will need to come to an agreement over what are acceptable ratios of wealth inequality. Ten to one? Thirty to one? Two hundred to one? Three thousand to one? Over the vast history of evolution, the ratios of wealth within tribes were significantly less than they are today.
If you don't need to go back and reread any of those posts, then maybe just watch this video as a great reminder of what we are up against. Thanks.
