Oh, and also, I believe in such things as racial/sexual equality. NOT IN FINANCIAL EQUALITY.
Printable View
Oh, and also, I believe in such things as racial/sexual equality. NOT IN FINANCIAL EQUALITY.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
~:smoking:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndresTheCunning
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:Quote:
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?
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.
The white middle-aged western man gets 75 %, the woman gets 25 % and the black jewish gay person gets the crumbs.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Yes now that is a very nice exemple closer to the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
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.
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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).Quote:
I do object to it on the grounds of social division but that is not quite the same thing.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
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.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 ?Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xdeathfire
Stop treating education as a business...that is a start to attain these goals :P
There's a thing called "subsidies". If farmers and starting businesses can get them, why not schools ? Ours do AFAIK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xdeathfire
And decent pay level and working conditions have their own attractions.
Well 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.Quote:
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
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.Quote:
What's with that "public = low-quality" assumption anyway, incidentally ?
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...
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: