Dear Friends,
It seems to me that the statement “I find it morally wrong that some people have so much while others have so little.” is comparative. It compares that which the speaker knows nothing to that which the speaker knows little. And so, it says more about the speaker than it does society.
Because how can anyone actually know the heart and the true worth of another? Is the person the speaker has in mind about to go bankrupt. Is a terrible accident about to happen to a loved one of the person with too much. Or is the person with too little actually a miser?
Groups are ever more slippery. Because statistics are so poorly done. They are wielded like scientific certainty when there is increasing evidence, (scientific evidence) that statistics are misleading at best. If they are done right they can be informative but they are so rarely done with the proper scientific scrutiny that most are useless. Since groups must be compared statistically the comparison is ever more flawed.
The assumption is that material wealth is the paramount attribute. All others are tangential to it. And so a large difference between the top ten percent and the bottom ten percent is seen as a metric on the moral value of society. But if that is so then they must believe that a society with perpetual want is preferable to one where obesity is a constant threat to the impoverished.
The Desiderata says, “If you compare yourself to others, you may become bitter or vain, for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself. “ How much worse comparing others to others?
If a metric to apply the morality of a system is needed then take the lowest segment and compare their lot with the aggregate world standard of living. If the impoverished in a society live at or above the average standard of living in the world then we can say, empirically, that society is moral.
On the other hand if the average standard of living in a society is lower than the world average then we can say that this society is less moral. There is some roadblock to that societies effective use of the market system.
In both cases we look at the fruits of a given economic policy not the intentions. If the results are a high standard of living for the lowest 10 percent then the difference between the lowest and the highest is irrelevant. If the intent is simply to make the economic outcome equal for all players then the only workable means is to lower everyone’s.
I cannot ski that well. It is too late for me to learn to ski at more than a remedial level. If skiing were economic outcome then the socialists, progressives and communists would have to break the legs of those that ski well. So I would n’t feel inferior to them. Because it is impossible to raise me to their level so it is only possible to lower them to mine. But there are people who cannot ski at all…
But, like most things romantic anti capitalists say, it sounds great until you actually think about it. Then it sounds pretty silly.
