Equality again

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?

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.

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"

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

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.

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...

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.

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.

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:

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:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

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

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English Assassin

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

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.

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 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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

"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?

That is another anwser yes :idea2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndresTheCunning

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

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:

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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