Equality again

[English assassin]

A while back, in the good old days of JAG, I started a thread asking why equality should be considered such an overriding goal for social policy. I'm not sure we ever reached any conclusions but we kicked about the various ideas of different types of equality, opportunity, outcome, equality before the law and so on. Needless to say most people regarded at least some forms of equality as very desirable. I did myself

A recent thought made me wonder how much we really do believe in equality though. Here is a thought experiement:

A maniac has kidnapped two children. One is your own child, the other the child of a stranger. He tells you that he will kill one child and release the other, but that you can choose which is killed and which goes free. If you refuse to choose within an hour, he will kill both.

I don't think any parent would find it all that difficult to choose to save their own child in that case. (I'm not saying that you would be remotely happy to be in the scenario, or pleased the other child would die, simply that deciding to favour your own child would, I think, be obvious). Obviously, though, on any objective measure your child has no greater claim to survival than the other child, and the equal option is to toss a coin.

I concluded from this that I don't REALLY believe in equality, even if I think I do.

And the scenario is not hypothetical, and it doesn't have to relate to anything nearly so extreme as death (although as it happens it does). I spend my own resources, and taxes are spent on my behalf, to favour my children, and children who live in the UK, when those same resources could be spent (to greater overall benefit) on children in the developing world. I know this and yet I intend to do very little about it, maybe the ocassional donation, maybe the occasional comment that trade and aid in Africa is a good thing, but certainly nothing that materially impacts on my children.

I conclude that I, and the vast majority of us, are in fact screaming hypocrites who do not beleive in equality at all.

Or am I being too harsh?

[Fisherking]

What else would you suggest? Would you flip a coin? Anyone would choose the child they know vs. someone unknown to them even if it happened to be just someone down the street. Of course you could wait for the Police and likely get no one back.

I don't see how this is equal treatment, equality is an ideal but true equality does not exist.

[BDC]

I think you might be confusing equality with social morals. Obviously we're all greedy bastards too.

There's a train riding down some tracks, and it will kill 5 men. However you can push one man in front of the train. He'll be mangled and killed, but it will save those five men who will die otherwise. Do you do it?

Article on "Impaired emotional processing affects moral judgements" (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11433-impaired-emotional-processing-affects-moral-judgements.html)

[CountArach]

The example you present is irrelevant. Equality in a social sense would be nothing like this.

[Sjakihata]

Or am I being too harsh?


Not at all - you're spot on. People are screaming equality with their mouth while snatching away with their hands.

I truly believe in equality, that is material equality. No one has a great right to life than I, however, everyone has equal right to material benefits. This does not necessarily mean that I have to spend my entire fortune and income helping children in Africa or whatever, because this needs to be dealt with in the grand scale. The same with pollution, it doesnt really matter if I save an extra litre of water pr. day when 6.5 bilions of others are consuming away happily.

What I mean to say is this: I do favor a transnational programme, but if I should be the only donor I would not - where's the equality in that?

[English assassin]

The example you present is irrelevant. Equality in a social sense would be nothing like this.


No its not and yes it would. The extreme example establishes that when the chips are really down equality is not a consideration. Then we generalise and find, distrubingly, that the extreme example is not so far from the real world. For example, in common with most of the west, my children have access to clean water. Children in africa often do not. My children live, african children die.

When did you last send all your spare income to provide clean water to african children? I know I haven't.

I'm not celebrating this. I'm just observing that there is a lot of talk about equality but if you look at the actions no one really believes it. Except Peter Singer maybe.

[CountArach]

I know that true equality is unatainable, however we, as humans, must have something to strive for, and what better than the furthering of mankind?

As you are not celebrating this, I see no point to argue it though.

That and I can't be bothered...

[doc_bean]

I think the situation is a fallacy. It isn't just a question of equality, it's also a question of selfishness (it's *your* child) and duty (as a father).

Rephrase the question with a white and a black child. I wouldn't care who lives or dies. A Belgian or a British child ? I might slightly prefer the Belgian one if forced to make a choice, but only by a hair. Girl or boy ? Don't care. Christian or Jew, I'd flip a coin, etc.

Does true equality mean that I consider myself worth as much as the next person ? That would be counter intuitive. While I don't go around screwing over other people (I actually tend to be quite helpful) in a live or death situation I'd prefer it if I was the survivor.

Equality should mean that you consider other people equal, fine, but that's just a base assumption, you're relationship with those people can change your view on them. You'll either like them or loathe them (or remain neutral), there's nothing wrong with that. You don't always have to actually meet other people in order to have a 'relationship' with them. Poverty in your area affects your living environment, so you'd prefer your area to be better off, while you probably won't care much about the next area. This is one of the reasons taxes mostly go to our own countries and not Africa.

True equality will indeed never happen, because it is against human nature, but we've certainly reduced the amount of inequality in the world.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I like to think I would toss a coin. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I just picked my child simply because he was mine.

[Franconicus]

It is a question of love. The father or mother in your example chooses the life of his/her own child, because he or she loves it. However, even the parent in your example would not pretent that his child has more right to live than the other one. Right?

So this is not a question of justice or equal rights. It is a question of love. And I assume noone - except hardcore saints - would tell you that you can or should have the same feeling to everyone.

All you need is love ~:pat: :hippie: :knuddel: :gorgeous: :heart: :iloveyou: :sweetheart: :kiss2:

[Banquo's Ghost]

I don't think the concept of "equality" equates to everyone being exactly the same, except perhaps in some fevered communist minds.

To me, equality has always meant "equality of opportunity". Any other equality such as posited in your first example is pointless, since human beings are not exact replica robots, and therefore will always have different motivations.

Equality of opportunity would mean the other child's parents would get a choice too. :stupido2:

[Sir Moody]

its the wrong question - i asked a similar question back at school in a Humanities debate on Morality - mine was far clearer

"your a doctor in a hospital, you have 2 strangers are brought in near death and only you can save them. The first is a Rich young white woman with no family, the Second is a poor Middle aged black Father of two. They have both an equal chance of surviving the treatment and you only have enough Time to save one - who do you chose?"

during the course of the next 5 minutes not one student failed to chose one of the 2 for a multitude of reasons but not one treated them equally - the only answer of course is they both have an equal right to life and the only way to decide while treating them equally is to flip a coin

[doc_bean]

its the wrong question - i asked a similar question back at school in a Humanities debate on Morality - mine was far clearer

"your a doctor in a hospital, you have 2 strangers are brought in near death and only you can save them. The first is a Rich young white woman with no family, the Second is a poor Middle aged black Father of two. They have both an equal chance of surviving the treatment and you only have enough Time to save one - who do you chose?"

during the course of the next 5 minutes not one student failed to chose one of the 2 for a multitude of reasons but not one treated them equally - the only answer of course is they both have an equal right to life and the only way to decide while treating them equally is to flip a coin

While they both have the same right to live, it could be argued that from a more general point of view, helping the father will also help his children and thus will increase the welfare of society. While they are both equal, the 'rights' of other people (the children) can also influence the decision.

[Sir Moody]

but doesnt the young women deserve the right to have a chance at having a family? see the second you start you start taking their respective positions into a account you treat them un-equally and you toss equality out of the window :book:

I phrased the question like that on purpose to catch as many flys in the honey as i could there are so many reasons to pick one or the other but the question is really "which has a greater right to life?" the answer is neither if you subscribe to Equality

[Sigurd]

The hypothetical question in the initial post is IMO not about equality. If any of us is placed in that situation I fear the natural man will break any golden rule we might follow. The natural man or our congenital instincts dictate that we save our offspring. It would be un-natural to do any other thing. It would be the ultimate sacrifice to let your son or daughter die. Only a parent understands this.
I will not derail this discussion into religious territory even though the theme permeates of religious lore. Just to illustrate this I might relate a similar story from a religious discussion about God sacrificing his son:

A man has as a responsibility to operate a train-bridge over a river that turns 90 degrees when large boats need to pass the bridge. It is operated by a button in his watch shed. A secondary security lever is situated on the other side of the river where he could manually turn the bridge. One day as a train neared the crossing, the button didn’t work and he had to hurry across the river to operate the manual lever. As he was about to let the train pass, he notices his son on the bridge, apparently this son when not finding the man in the shed went looking for him. The man had the choice of turning the bridge back and let the train crash into the river or let the train pass killing his son but saving all the people in the train. The man let the train pass killing his son.

This story used by religious teachers is supposed to make us understand the atonement and the ultimate sacrifice.

I have a problem with equality. I live in a country that has flaunted its equality since WWII. There shouldn’t be suffering in my land. And there aren’t because of our welfare system. This system is costly and I pay for it. I don’t like the idea that some lazy bugger is sitting home taking my tax money as social benefit, playing BF2 all day getting good at it. When I return home having 1 maybe 2 hours of spare time after a long day slaving for the benefit of my nation; I get creamed by this lazy bugger that have trained ALL DAY. When the broken body of my online soldier start feeding the worms, I read the message: “lolz.. you suck n00b”. Where is justice in this? :no:

Maybe this discussion should pair up equality with justice?


:beam:

[doc_bean]

I phrased the question like that on purpose to catch as many flys in the honey as i could there are so many reasons to pick one or the other but the question is really "which has a greater right to life?" the answer is neither if you subscribe to Equality

The choice isn't based on their right to life, but you need to make a decision, I don't see this as a real problem of inequality.

Not hiring women, black people, people over 50 or under 30, etc. are problems of inequality. Thinking all muslims are terrorists is a problem of inequality. The problems presented here force you to make a decision, something every 'succesful' human being is quite capable of doing, whatever the decision is based on. I'd personally put the fate of the actual children over that of the unborn children and take that into account. but that's all the info I have and I have to make a choice.

if the guy had gotten shot by the police for robbing aliquor store and the woman was a rape victim I might swing the other way, i might not, depending on how I feel I'll make a choice, as long as it's not systematic i don't see this as being a big problem for equality.

[econ21]

I conclude that I, and the vast majority of us, are in fact screaming hypocrites who do not beleive in equality at all.

EA, I agree with some other contributors, the scenario you depict has nothing much to do with equality but rather with altruistic morality. Many of us recognise the moral appeal of perfect altruism, but as you say only a few saints will live by it. I am not sure if that makes us all hypocrites or makes perfect altruism a deeply flawed moral code. Neither probably.

To consider equality rather than altruism, try choosing between the life of two of your own children, Sophie's choice. You will realise like Sophie that morally it's impossible, you can't choose on moral grounds. You may, like Sophie, be able to choose the one you love more or something, but the moral repugnance with that would haunt you forever.

I suspect life and death scenarios make for bad moral law - why not consider something more mundane? Say, a birthday cake? How would you share it out amongst your kids? Or your inheritance? Or educational opportunities? Pocket money? Christmas presents etc? Or food more generally? Sure you may give more to the child who needs more (growing more, working out, bigger body etc). The politically interesting case may be whether you give more to the one who contributed more, is better behaved or is otherwise more deserving. But generally speaking, I suspect equality will be the norm (as it is with bequests in the UK and US, for example) - at least, in the absence of "objective measures" which justify deviating from it.

From this I would conclude that you, like the vast majority of us, does believe in equality in at least some form.

[Productivity]

EA I think you're tainted by being too close to one of the children in the scenario you describe. You probably do beleive in equality based on what everyone usually argues for in terms of equality (gender, race, religion etc.). Would you choose a black boy over a white girl or would you flip a coin (mentally at least?).

It's the same reason as why a jury is meant to be independant. If you're too close to someone, you can't make a level judgement.

[Husar]

A maniac has kidnapped two children. One is your own child, the other the child of a stranger. He tells you that he will kill one child and release the other, but that you can choose which is killed and which goes free. If you refuse to choose within an hour, he will kill both.

I don't think any parent would find it all that difficult to choose to save their own child in that case. (I'm not saying that you would be remotely happy to be in the scenario, or pleased the other child would die, simply that deciding to favour your own child would, I think, be obvious). Obviously, though, on any objective measure your child has no greater claim to survival than the other child, and the equal option is to toss a coin.
Well, a thought I had was about the maniac. Ok, in a clear cut case I really don't know but I'd likely choose my own, the parents of the other kid appearing could make me change my opinion. But there are even other factors I would consider.
For example the maniac could have put up a trap and kill both if you choose yours because he thinks you're selfish in that case. So you'd have to know whether he knows the situation and analyze whatever you can about why he did that. I might consider to sacrifice my kid if there was an obejctive point that would suggest doing so, but then again I don't have kids and don't really qualify, but I do know that I try not to be selfish in such situations, I might not be able to face the family of the other kid if I chose my kid, I might feel selfish.
Now that doesn't necessarily have to do with what you're up to, but I think isolated cases without any circumstances never happen in reality and that's why the circumstances are important.

[rory_20_uk]

Whether 1, 10, 100, or 1000 etc etc I'd choose my child.

I have no pretensions about equality - my family is worth an infinite number of someone else's.

~:smoking:

[nokhor]

i agree with econ21 that EA's original question is about altruism and not equality, but if the question was rephrased to ask about equality instead, how would the question look like?

[English assassin]

I suspect life and death scenarios make for bad moral law - why not consider something more mundane? Say, a birthday cake? How would you share it out amongst your kids?

Well, not winner takes all, I agree.

Hard cases make bad law may be as true of morality as it is of the law, I supopose, although if equality is abandoned when things get really tough then it is at best a more limited principle than it first appeared.

Possibly (I am unsure) considering a relative vs a stranger has introduced something into the thought experiment that changes the nature of the dilemma. I would certainly agree that if the two children were strangers I would almost certainly just toss a coin, regardless of their characteristics. It still seems inescapable that I do NOT regard the rest of the world as equal in all respects to my close relatives. And that makes me wonder about how I feel about my friends, other Londoners, other people who ride motorbikes, etc etc.

Equality as between people I do not know and don't much care about except in an abstract sense doesn't seem like much of a moral principle to me.

[Andres]

"your a doctor in a hospital, you have 2 strangers are brought in near death and only you can save them. The first is a Rich young white woman with no family, the Second is a poor Middle aged black Father of two. They have both an equal chance of surviving the treatment and you only have enough Time to save one - who do you chose?"

during the course of the next 5 minutes not one student failed to chose one of the 2 for a multitude of reasons but not one treated them equally - the only answer of course is they both have an equal right to life and the only way to decide while treating them equally is to flip a coin

Well, if you treat one, the other one dies. So maybe the correct answer is: let them both die? For the sake of the ideal of equality?

[Sir Moody]

That is another anwser yes :idea2:

[doc_bean]

Well, if you treat one, the other one dies. So maybe the correct answer is: let them both die? For the sake of the ideal of equality?

Hah, figures a lawyer would give that kind of answer :laugh4:

[econ21]

It still seems inescapable that I do NOT regard the rest of the world as equal in all respects to my close relatives.

But you would probably agree it would be equally wrong if someone bombed some other poor kids rather than your own?


Equality as between people I do not know and don't much care about except in an abstract sense doesn't seem like much of a moral principle to me.

But aren't moral principles, like legal ones, rather abstract and impersonal? I think some kind of universality or anonymity is the cornerstone of most systems of morality. In practice, we will tend to favour our own but would that make it right? For example, if you interviewed for a job, would it be right to favour your brother? If you judged a case? Gave out a government contract? Set a tax code? Marked an exam paper?


And that makes me wonder about how I feel about my friends, other Londoners, other people who ride motorbikes, etc etc.

It is interesting how concepts like loyalty, family, patriotism, friendship etc are rather hard to square with a universalistic moral system. I suspect how you feel about people close or similar to you is important at a personal level, but perhaps not at a moral one.

There is a case for trying to find a less demanding moral code than a perfectly altruistic one, as if the code becomes too demanding that may allow us to dismiss it as irrelevant. But I am a little leery of going too far down that road and saying whatever we do in practice must be moral. Conscience probably should be uncomfortable at times.

[rory_20_uk]

Each one of us lives by a moral code. Some of us espouse a different one from what we in fact live by.

In the latter category IMO these people have never been placed in a situation where their supposed morals have really been tested. It is easy to say you'll put two others before yourself, but most people if push comes to shove will push and shove to preserve themselves.

I have asked the initial postulation asked in different ways many times. Most people initially desperately to add extra dimensions to the question to avoid answering it. Most like to think that they'd do the right thing, but faced by the choice know that they wouldn't.

It is far better to know your own moral code than to try to work out what it should be.

~:smoking:

[Watchman]

Personally, I figure it's not worth the time to dwell too much on it. How people would like to react in dire circumstances tends to have rather little to do with how they actually do, so worrying about it beforehand seems a tad pointless.

As for the OP, eh, so pointless. All other things being equal people prioritize those they're familiar with, nevermind now blood relatives or your own darn offspring. We're put together that way. Doesn't mean we need to like it of course, but, well, life's a dog of the female persuasion.

[AntiochusIII]

When push comes to shove (or whatever inexplicable colloquial sayings people like to use), some people do act the very opposite of most and save others before them or their own.

Many of these don't do it due to any abstract moral codes either. Instinct is a delicate thing. People read too much of the Heart(s) of Darkness and Lord(s) of the Flies of the world and assume the absolute worst of humanity and forget that sometimes someone just throws out an act of incredible sacrifice out of quite literally nowhere as well.

The moral dilemma of the first position can be deceptive. Most people react that they will save their child, then lament their own "moral hypocrisy." But precisely when someone acts on the opposite and save the other unknown child, he or she commits the same "moral hypocrisy" despite the extra torment and effort that person has to go through to achieve the decision. Even a flip of a coin is hypocritical; it causes the decision preferring one to another nonetheless.

And to add another angle to the discussion: Some in the West (usually them intelligentsia) acquires the mythical view of the East as a place where the Selfish Man is suppressed in favor of family/community/society/whatever. Naturally, that's a bloody lie -- the "East" isn't a dime better than the West by any realistic measures. But it's interesting in the viewpoint that these people in the modern "Western" developed society find their society to be a place of stifling selfishness devoid of "heart" and selfless responsibility, and probably have mixed feelings about daring open admissions of self-interest like the one Rory made here; a disillusionment of which I find rather fascinating.

Ah well, me optimist.

Edit: And just to crown myself Master of the Obvious, I'd add that the concept of equality in its many incarnations often, once theoretically applied, turns out to be very heartless. Most people's desire to "save the African children" (to encompass the many desires of such nature) are driven by their compassion and not the moral basis of equality, and therefore are not subject to convictions of hypocrisy.

[Ice]

Whether 1, 10, 100, or 1000 etc etc I'd choose my child.

I have no pretensions about equality - my family is worth an infinite number of someone else's.

~:smoking:

I understand you point of view, but it is a bit irrational. How about 10,000?
100000? 1 Million? 10 million... the entire world?

[Ice]

Oh, and also, I believe in such things as racial/sexual equality. NOT IN FINANCIAL EQUALITY.

[rory_20_uk]

I understand you point of view, but it is a bit irrational. How about 10,000?
100000? 1 Million? 10 million... the entire world?

I agree that the entire world is possibly going too far. But 95% of the population of the planet have no bearing on my life, so why get worked up about their death? Every year something like 50 million people die. The flu pandemic finished off 21 million. Mao's Great Leap Forward finished off 30 million.

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Here is a thought experiement:

A maniac has kidnapped two children. One is your own child, the other the child of a stranger.
I concluded from this that I don't REALLY believe in equality, even if I think I do.

Or am I being too harsh?I don't think you're too harsh, I think you're simply dealing with absolutes too much. There's the fallacy of your argument. You take an ethical problem, you drive it too it's extreme, reach a conclusion based on this most extreme of circumstances, and then re-apply this conclusion to cover the whole continuum.
That didn't make sense. What I mean is, that just because when push comes to shove you'll choose your own, this doesn't mean that under any circumstances the good of your own takes absolute preference, or that the principle of equality is exposed as nothing more than a hypocritical illusion.

Off course you'll choose your own child when presented with your dilemma. But I'll bet your solidarity, your sense of equity, of compassion, extends to those of others too. Man is a social animal, we rely on others, like they rely on us. We are not an ant colony though, where one worker is the exact equal to another and whose life is entirely subordinate to the colony. Nor are we solitary animals, or living in a Hobbesian war of each against all.
Somewhere between these extremes are us human apes, with an infinitely refined set of rules of moral conduct. Equality of intrinsic worth is not the same as equality of identification with, or solidarity with, or amount of social interaction with.

The sheer extremity of the situation of your dilemma also means it can't function as the guiding principle for moral conduct under more normal circumstances.

[Suraknar]

The exemple of the children are an ehical dilema, and does not make a fair argument versus equality.

Equality in a world wide sence would mean the Industrialised countries, stop (in a reducing and gradual manner) exploiting third world countries.

Many of us may live in super-consumer countries, but as the end users, we never ask ourselves, who is actually producing the coffe that I drink every morning. How much oil had to be used every time I buy a soft drink or a bottle of water for my daily jogging run, or the couple of hours at the gym and so on and so forth...and finally..who is really profiting from all this consumption, and on who's back?

So somewhere allong the line, it does start on an individual basis...yet, the counsciousness and actions of a few, will not make a difference. But its a start, and that should not be an excuse for no one to do nothing.

[econ21]

Well, if you treat one, the other one dies. So maybe the correct answer is: let them both die? For the sake of the ideal of equality?

That's the problem with "either/or" dilemma EA posed, you can't treat them equally without doing them both a disservice. I guess it still is an argument against equality (better save one, even you can't save them both) but just not the one EA made.

But to give equality a fair shake, I think we need scenarios where equality is a serious option. How about you, your child and one other child without an accompanying parent are pushed together by circumstance (school outing, stuck in public transport during a blizzard, whatever). You have a loaf of bread, just enough to feed the three of you, but will still all be left hungry. How do you share it out?

[English assassin]

But to give equality a fair shake, I think we need scenarios where equality is a serious option. How about you, your child and one other child without an accompanying parent are pushed together by circumstance (school outing, stuck in public transport during a blizzard, whatever). You have a loaf of bread, just enough to feed the three of you, but will still all be left hungry. How do you share it out?

You and your child eat the bread as a starter, then you kill and eat the other child as a main course, of course. :yes:

Point taken. This scenario is helpful, in that it shows that equality in some cases seems to be quite a deep seated instinct (I'm assuming that we all felt we would share the bread evenly, with a nod to those who would give the bread to the children alone, which is really only saying that you would share it equally and on the basis of need.)

And yet I confess I don't feel the same way about , say, access to education. Of course in the abstract I agree that everyone should have equal access to the best education. (Although even here I depart from equality in thinking that the best education should go to those most able to benefit from it, which im my view, perhaps perversely, means dividing the best teachers between the most intelligent and those with learning difficulties. But that is maybe not a complete departure from equality any miore than giving more of the bread to the children than the adults would have been.)

But in the real world I don't feel all that much compunction about manoeuvering to get my children the best education I can. There are some things I would not do (ie lie), but I don't, for example, object to private education on the grounds that it is unequal. I do object to it on the grounds of social division but that is not quite the same thing.

I can't help feeling at some point there must be an inconsistency, given that my view on equality changes between the bread scenario and the education scenario.

[Sjakihata]

How about you, your child and one other child without an accompanying parent are pushed together by circumstance (school outing, stuck in public transport during a blizzard, whatever). You have a loaf of bread, just enough to feed the three of you, but will still all be left hungry. How do you share it out?

The white middle-aged western man gets 75 %, the woman gets 25 % and the black jewish gay person gets the crumbs.

[Suraknar]

But to give equality a fair shake, I think we need scenarios where equality is a serious option. How about you, your child and one other child without an accompanying parent are pushed together by circumstance (school outing, stuck in public transport during a blizzard, whatever). You have a loaf of bread, just enough to feed the three of you, but will still all be left hungry. How do you share it out?

Yes now that is a very nice exemple closer to the issue.

2 fifth for each child and 1 fifth for the adult I would say in extreeme situations, and evenly amongst the children in temporary "normal" situations.

On education well, it depends in which context one lives in (country, laws economical system), while I have seen many people in NA argue about having issues with equal education, based on effort vs merit, since education is not exactly free in NA...there are countries where education is free all the way to university, in those countries equal education is not even an issue, its a fact of life.

[rory_20_uk]

Concerning the bread, the siege of Leningrad gives a good example of how noble and yet oh so stupid people are: the children were often given two rations, that of their own and that of their parent. When the parent then died the child died shortly afterwards. If the parent had eaten both, there is a much greater probability that at least one of them would survive the siege.

With teachers, there are often "best" teachers for different groups. An exceptionally bright one might be excellent at stretching the brightest, but hopeless at teaching the average / lesser students.

I agree that the best results come from stretching the top to go further, but the ones at the bottom are never going to achieve even what those in the middle could. Surely get the lowest ones to a basic level and spread the rest of the resources amongst the other two groups.

~:smoking:

[econ21]

Of course in the abstract I agree that everyone should have equal access to the best education.

Again, this shows you do believe in equality at a moral level. What's troubling you are the implications for your personal behaviour. I think the issue of altruism or "why be good?" rather than equality per se. To focus on the equality aspect, just imagine you are dealing only with your own kids. Both equally bright, capable of learning etc. But one of them just happens to be, say, female. Now would the idea of denying your daughter education and lavishing it all on your son be repugnant? Probably, because the equality instinct is pretty deeply held nowadays. Instead of the favouring the boy scenario, we could substitute first born or favorite or red-head or whatever, and you'd probably have the same reaction.

Or think just about other people's kids. Imagine you are a government, a school or whatever but someone with no special responsibility (e.g. parentage) for anyone set of kids rather than another. Whatever system of education you would support would probably be based around some aspect of equality, although probably qualified as you did, by "objective criteria" such as ability to benefit from education etc.


But in the real world I don't feel all that much compunction about manoeuvering to get my children the best education I can. There are some things I would not do (ie lie), but I don't, for example, object to private education on the grounds that it is unequal.

I've never understood the left-wing hang up about personal use of private education - or the charges of hypocrisy that go with it. Sending your child to a good school does not seem much different from feeding them well or giving them a PS3 or an inheritance or whatever. It does not mean one can't support state redistribution or state-funding of education, but to expect a private individual to forebear some activity when the redistributive impact would be effectively zero seems strange.

There's also a "levelling down" aspect to such criticisms of private education, not unlike Andreas's satirical proposal to let both kids die in the name of equality.

It would, of course, be hypocritical to want to ban private schools and yet use them, but I am not sure how many people seriously advocate such a ban nowadays.


I do object to it on the grounds of social division but that is not quite the same thing.

To be honest, I've never really understood that social division point either. House prices and other settlement patterns often divide society pretty neatly without private education. My state school was fairly solidly white middle class; private schools where I live now have surprisingly diverse intakes (e.g. very high ethnic diversity - lots of small business owners etc).


I can't help feeling at some point there must be an inconsistency, given that my view on equality changes between the bread scenario and the education scenario.

Maybe the change is because, unlike bread, education is more instrumental rather than something you value in and of itself. Kind of like fuel. If there was rationing, we would share out the bread fairly equally like in WW2. But the fuel would probably go to the priority users - emergency services, transport sector, disabled drivers whatever - like in the fuel protests a few years ago.

More generally, I think the distinction between abstract universal morals and specific personal responsibilities is significant. You could think about it as a kind of decentralisation. The best way to ensure kids are well fed, go to school, safe etc is to entrust their care to those who love them - their parents. It's rather like Adam Smith's invisible hand, only this time it's the selfish gene, not the profit-motive, that's doing the work.

I could push the decentralisation point to cover nation states and why countries perhaps should tend to look after their own. This could also bear on your initial concern about aid to Africa. It really is not a good idea for Africa to rely on the kindness of strangers to feed her. Britain and other Empires tried taking that kind of responsibility and it did not work very well - ask the Irish in the 1840s or the Bengalis in the 1940s. It's much better if national governments take this responsibility, as then democracy, the press and other pressures can ensure they fulfill it. This links to the point the economist Amartya Sen has made, explaining why post-Independence democratic India has avoided famine.

[Watchman]

I've never understood the left-wing hang up about personal use of private education - or the charges of hypocrisy that go with it. Sending your child to a good school does not seem much different from feeding them well or giving them a PS3 or an inheritance or whatever. It does not mean one can't support state redistribution or state-funding of education, but to expect a private individual to forebear some activity when the redistributive impact would be effectively zero seems strange.What I've never quite understood is where this idea that "the Left" was inherently against things like private education (provided there is a decent public education system as well of course) originates from in the first place...

Well, I see similar assumptions a lot in the rhetoric of posters of certain political leanings around here, but I'm personally kinda short of empirical evidence of such attitudes having any meaningful currency among their supposed adherents.

[econ21]

What I've never quite understood is where this idea that "the Left" was inherently against things like private education (provided there is a decent public education system as well of course) originates from in the first place...

In the UK, Labour politicians get flak even if they send their children to a state school that is not the nearest one to their home. I am not sure any dare send them to private schools (I think there was one recent case where the child had special needs). The fear is of criticism partly from their own (the left) and partly from the media (the right) charging them with hypocrisy. But it is true, you'd have to look hard to find a Labour Party manifesto that advocated banning private schools (removing charitable status is probably the furthest that has been seriously advocated).

Quite a few Labour politicians are products of private schools though - notably Tony Blair - which is one reason I am sceptical of the argument that private schooling is socially divisive; it has not stopped them identifying with and relating to the wider public.

[Watchman]

Quite a few Labour politicians are products of private schools though - notably Tony Blair - which is one reason I am sceptical of the argument that private schooling is socially divisive; it has not stopped them identifying with and relating to the wider public.I doubt if that has anything to do with one's educational background - it's part of the professional skills of succesful politicians isn't it ?

The argument about social divisiviness AFAIK has rather more to do with the fear of the affluent being able to monopolize "proper" education (and contact networks etc.) for their children through their attendance of quality education in private schools instead of lackluster public ones, as was the case not too long ago. In essence, regaining the lock over higher education and hence prospects of wealth and power they had in the bad old days before the 1900s.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is a really interesting disscussion.

I think I can sum up my view by saying I would believe in equality if everyone was the same.

Consider some of the issues that have been legislated against, ageism, sexism.

I'm ageist, I think older people have greater experience, but they're not going to be working as long.

I'm definately sexist, I preference women in most situations, I was brought up to respect women in a very different way and for different reasons than my respect for other men.

Why? Mainly because men and women react differently to each other, different age groups react differently together etc.

Equality is a myth and in a practical sense I don't think it's very desirable.

[Watchman]

When most people think of "equality" they basically mean "fair, equal and impartial treatment" and "equal opportunities", you know.

Hardly things considered undesirable by most folks these days.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But is that really true?

How many women expect you to give up your seat on the buss, or open the door for them?

And how many of us like doing it?

[Watchman]

Ancient historical stuff that's ended up as part of what's regarded as "good manners" (for the record, shaking hands is apparently a Zoroastrian tradition from Central Asia...). I fail to perceive the relevance.

[econ21]

The argument about social divisiviness AFAIK has rather more to do with the fear of the affluent being able to monopolize "proper" education (and contact networks etc.) for their children through their attendance of quality education in private schools instead of lackluster public ones, as was the case not too long ago. In essence, regaining the lock over higher education and hence prospects of wealth and power they had in the bad old days before the 1900s.

That's a leftie argument - I suspect it was not what our Conservative friend EA was referring to when he said he was worried private education was socially divisive. I think he was referring to something more cultural, about classes not mixing etc.

[Watchman]

They don't (at least in school), if there's a major difference between expensive private education of meaningful quality and as-such free public schools that barely teach the kids to read. That sort of setup leaves the rich kids among their kind and the poor kids theirs, and ne'er shall the twain meet.

Decent public education and private schools affordable to the less affluent as well (I attended one for a good part of my elementary school actually) obviously largely avoids that.

[TevashSzat]

But how are you going to get private schools cheaper or public schools better?

The government says that it is trying to improve the schools system, but in reality all they are doing is giving out benchmarks that schools have to pass and end up wasting class time as teachers try to make sure all of their students pass.

If you have private schools that gives children that attends them an advantage, it will naturally be more desirable and its price will increase due to supply and command. It is impossible to avoid this circumstance unless the gov controls the private school at which it will become public and then spiral down in quality

[Suraknar]

But how are you going to get private schools cheaper or public schools better?

The government says that it is trying to improve the schools system, but in reality all they are doing is giving out benchmarks that schools have to pass and end up wasting class time as teachers try to make sure all of their students pass.

If you have private schools that gives children that attends them an advantage, it will naturally be more desirable and its price will increase due to supply and command. It is impossible to avoid this circumstance unless the gov controls the private school at which it will become public and then spiral down in quality


Stop treating education as a business...that is a start to attain these goals :P

[Watchman]

But how are you going to get private schools cheaper or public schools better?There's a thing called "subsidies". If farmers and starting businesses can get them, why not schools ? Ours do AFAIK.

And decent pay level and working conditions have their own attractions.


If you have private schools that gives children that attends them an advantage, it will naturally be more desirable and its price will increase due to supply and command. It is impossible to avoid this circumstance unless the gov controls the private school at which it will become public and then spiral down in qualityWell duh - set up the system so the private schools don't give an advantage, which means enough decent funding for a proper public education structure.

What's with that "public = low-quality" assumption anyway, incidentally ?

[Suraknar]

What's with that "public = low-quality" assumption anyway, incidentally ?

Its not an assumption on the other side of the world...its is how education is in NA.

This is why, education in NA in order to be able to improve needs first to stop being looked at as a business. The problem is not how to do it, the problem is how to do it in countries where business is everything...

[rory_20_uk]

If a school can pay more for good teachers - regardless of how good is defined - the school will get better results.

People are prepared to pay a lot for the best start for their children, and so will pay for these better teachers. Unless private schools are banned they will generally be better than state schools - and that's leaving aside issues such as getting the best peer group and networking possibilities.

I think that all pupils should have a voucher that they give to the school they attend. Top ups are allowed as well. This is so those attending private schools are not paying twice, which affects those whoare sacrificing most for their children's education.

~:smoking: