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.

[CountArach]

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

[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.

[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"

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.