[sp332]

Let's say things are set up to pander to the majority, even when it puts a minority at a disadvantage. What is the argument for making things harder for the majority, to equalize things for the minority? On average, society would come out worse, so you'd have to argue that equality itself is more valuable than any advantage for the majority.

[king_jester]

> What is the argument for making things harder for the majority, to equalize things for the minority?

Nobody is arguing to make things harder or worse for those with privilege. Generally people are asking for equal consideration and opportunity and a recognition of past and existing injustice.

[sp332]

Well you may not be, but many people are.

[thwest]

Show me where people are advocating anti-white and anti-cis policies.

[sp332]

If you’re straight, consider a commitment ceremony but don’t get married until all people can share in that legal right should they so choose.

If you’re a white person with wealth and children, choose to invest in and send your children to a local, public, neighborhood school or at least a private school with a strong commitment to diversity and inclusion rather than a lily-white private place with connections to the Ivy League.

http://everydayfeminism.com/2012/12/how-to-talk-to-someone-a...

[thwest]

How does asking people to consider choices "make things harder or worse for those with privilege"?

[sp332]

The article is asking people to make their lives worse. The suggestions are predicated on the assumption that the alternatives listed are less desirable.

[rsml]

Taken to its logical extreme, you could argue that sometimes it is advantageous for a society to harvest the organs of a healthy person, so that multiple people can have their lives extended through transplantation. Eugenics can also be argued for by saying that there's a net benefit to society.

One argument against this is based on the philosophical concept of a Veil of Ignorance[1]. We should create the rules of society as if we don't already know what our position in society will be. No one wants to live in a society where they could be randomly selected for organ harvesting, for example.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

[phillmv]

Well, by your own metaphor on _average_ society would come out the same, by definition. (I suspect you meant median).

As a result, it sounds like you're saying "screw you, I got mine". We can flip the question around: why does this majority deserve better opportunities? There aren't very good answers to that question.

The main thing I'd point out is that unlike your metaphor society is not a zero-sum game.

[sp332]

Well, by your own metaphor on _average_ society would come out the same, by definition.

No, if you make things worse for 90% of the population, and make it better for 10% of the population, the total is worse and therefore the average (mean) is worse.

Edit: an example. Let's say the first 9 people rate society at 10 points, and the last one rates it a 4. Total 94, mean 9.4, median 10. Now change things around so everyone is equal and ranks things a 9. Total 90, mean 9.0, median 9. Even though the majority is almost as happy as before, and the minority is much happier, most measures come out worse.

[phillmv]

Why is the total going down in the after picture? Because our points only belong to the set of natural numbers ;)?

We're assuming in this totally contrived example that points are a measure of total resources + opportunity in our closed system, since we're implying a redistribution of a fixed pool of resources^1.

So, the total in the "after" picture would still be 94 and thus the mean would remain at 9.4 and the median would be 9.4 - (and down from 10).

I'm not a fan of arguing from averages - realistically, the picture is more like 1 - 1000pts, 2 - 100pts, 3-50pts, 4-30pts, 5, 6-7 - 20pts, 8-10 10pts

~ 1270 total, avg 127, median 20.

But these are all contrived examples (in the above I'm more leaning on income distribution, which I've reproduced from memory and may be skewed). If we equalize the above, the median would go up.

The argument for redistribution can be made on an economic/statistical basis - but the argument for equality, I think, is ultimately moral. It's not about fairness per se, but about justice.

^1 Not quite my stance but for the sake of argument.

[sp332]

Oh, I see! I wasn't really considering a zero-sum situation. In the argument from justice, you think it's a moral mandate to take money away from people because other people have less money?

[phillmv]

Well, if you're going to compare two scenarios using a numerical example, I think the assumption that the total pool of opportunity would decrease is a rather strong one!

>In the argument from justice, you think it's a moral mandate to take money away from people because other people have less money?

Well, not because other people have less money.

My politics are roughly "people should do whatever they want, but they should have to pay the price of the externalities of their actions", sprinkled with "reducing overall human misery is virtuous".

More like, because in order for the massively wealthy to exist there's a strong argument that there has to be a massive underclass to go along with it. In this light, being rich creates the externality of forcing people to be poor, and as a result it's perfectly moral to redistribute some of that wealth.

Another argument goes, we have a more vibrant and stable society if we ensure that a) everyone is healthy and gets a good education and b) no one person or group in particular can amass so much power as to be capable of destabilizing society as a whole.

There are a few other argument, but at the time of writing I think those two are the strongest. We can talk about right wrongs from the historical record, we can talk about the duty to minimize misery, we can talk about private property is a state-regulated right and thus it's legitimate to argue over it, we can talk about theological underpinnings, etc etc.

You may disagree, of course.

[shinratdr]

> On average, society would come out worse

That's a massive leap in logic. Society isn't a simple one in, one out metric.

[FkZ]

"What is the argument for making things harder for the majority, to equalize things for the minority?"

That is an argument no one is making. What are you talking about?