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.Originally Posted by English Assassin
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.
Bookmarks