Day 229: Can Equality only be Achieved through Inequality? | Equality and Human Rights – Part 7

Within the next blogs to follow within the Equality and Human Rights Series, we will be working our way through some selected quotes/statements with regards to Equality and Inequality.

These statements are either direct quotes or summarizations of lengthy statements which have been summarized for the sake of brevity from the book ‘Political Ideas’ compiled by S.L. Kant.

Within this blog we will be looking at the following statement, which mostly consists of a quote by Robert Nozick, who was an American political philosopher and strong proponent of the minimal-state:

There are two ways of providing equality of opportunity, namely “by directly worsening the situations of those more favored with opportunity, or by improving the situation of those less well-favored. The latter requires the use of resources, and so it too involves worsening the situation of some: those from whom holdings are taken in order to improve the situation of others”

The first point which requires to be clarified, is that in political and philosophical discourse a distinction is made between various ‘kinds’ or ‘types’ of equality.
Examples of this are:


- Legal Equality
- Political Equality
- Social Equality
- Equality of Opportunity
- Economic Equality

Within the context of Equal Money and the Equal Life Foundation, we only focus on one ‘kind’ of Equality, which is Equality as Life:

The First Fundamental Human Right that the Equal Life Foundation Promotes and Underwrites is that: Every Individual, Every Human Being has an Equal Life Right. That means: the Life You Have is Equal in Each One at the Point of Birth. That which Separates Man from Man is What Happens After-Birth once your Education starts for instance or your Environment Influences you, your Parents Influence you or the System Influences you - then You Start becoming a Separate Individual and are Taught Not to Respect the First Point that Makes your Existence Possible, which is Life. Life - that is the One Thing that is the Same. You cannot say: “One Person Has More Life than Another Person” – that Life, as a Life Force, is the Same in Each One and thus is the First Fundamental Right.

Day 362: Human Rights and the Equal Life Foundation

The Equal Life Foundation recognizes the Equal Right to Life as the first Inherent and Inalienable Right of Every Human Being endowed with the Breath of Life and Herewith Declares that an Equal Life Right Shall Include for all Living Men, Women and Children

The Equal Life Foundation – Bill of Rights

The point that every human shares, the point that all Living Beings share – is that they are alive. We are all Equally, living, breathing, beings – Here – on this Planet. So whether you are a person with the characteristics to make a philosopher or a person with the characteristics to make a baker – the fact still stands that you are a human and you are alive. This stands indeterminate of the variety of characteristics we share among ourselves that make us ‘different’. So even though we are ‘different’, we can, and are still, equal: in Life – and should treat each other accordingly.

Day 221: Are Humans Equal? - Equality and Human Rights – Part 2

Thus, as we have seen in the previous blog Day 227: When is something Equal and Unequal? – Equality and Human Rights – Part 6, the only Equality which is relevant is that which is directly linked and connect to the support of Life, and the Inequalities which are relevant are those that hamper/diminish Life.

We will thus ignored the first part of the statement in terms of the statement referring to ‘Equality of Opportunity’ and we will take this as Equality in general.

So, within this statement a distinction is made between two particular groups, the ‘more favoured of opportunity’(Group A) and ‘those less favoured’ (Group B). The assumption is made that, in order to come to Equality, we have two options available:

1. Group A needs to be disadvantaged in order to be ‘level’ with Group B
2. Group B requires advancement in order to be ‘level’ with Group A

The writer states that, no matter which course we take – we end up ‘abusing’ Group A, because we either directly ‘disadvantage them’ or indirectly disadvantage them by ‘taking resource from them’ to provide support for Group B.

There are several points which require to be addressed with regards to the implications of this statement:

1. Narrow Definition of Equality: Equality as Sameness
2. False/Irrelevant Dilemma
3. Ideas and Values concerning Intervention (Interpretation of Inequality)

Narrow Definition of Equality: Equality as Sameness

This issue has been discussed in Day 225: Equality and Disinformation - Equality and Human Rights – Part 4, where it was said that:

Those who come from a more liberal point of view, tend to use the word Equality and Inequality, synonymously with ‘the same’ and ‘different’ respectively. Thus, whenever something is different – the argument is made that it is ‘unequal’. When something is ‘exactly the same’ – it is supposedly equal (Which explains where ludicrous statements such as ‘if you want to make people equal you will have to genetically disable the more able’ come from).

This leaves us on the one hand, with a very ‘black and white’ view on Equality -- Where two beings or more are equal only, if and when they are the same in every respect – and on the other hand a very broad view on that which is Unequal, where any two or more beings are ‘unequal’ the moment any form of ‘difference’ is exhibited. As we all know, there are many things that can be ‘different’ and thus it is easy to argue that something is ‘unequal’ when one places one’s definition of ‘Unequal’ equivalent to ‘Different’.

This is applicable to the particular statement we are discussing today, as the writer takes on a very limited view on Equality as Sameness where apparently to be ‘Equal’, those who are ‘more favoured’ require to be ‘unfavoured’ in some way or another to be just as ‘disadvantaged’ as everyone else. So if you would broadly split up humanity into for instance people who have complete physical functioning and those who were either born or through events ended up with some form of physical dysfunction or handicap – we would have to disable all those who are physically completely functional so that everyone can be dysfunctional / handicapped and thus ‘be the same’. In terms of Equality as Life, this is of course complete nonsense because this ‘Equality as Sameness’ as ‘Everyone being just as Dysfunctional/Disabled’ has got nothing to do with Supporting and Honouring Life and is thus not Real Equality. In fact, from an Equality as Life Perspective, this would constitute a Human Rights Violation because we are unnecessarily limiting Life for the sake of a Perverted Idea of Equality as Sameness.

False/Irrelevant Dilemma

The writer puts forward a False Dilemma within giving us an ‘either/or’ option to be able to achieve Equality. This Dilemma falls away instantaneously when we recalibrate our definition of Equality to that of Equality as Life. This is because the Dilemma stems from the narrow definition of Equality within looking and analyzing the situation from a purely homogenous perspective, where the writer’s conception of Equality as Sameness can only be achieved by either adding or extracting the variable which makes us heterogeneous/different, and as such this ‘dilemma’ is not Relevant to Equality as Life as these additions or extractions are not in function of the support of Life on Earth, and does have nothing to do with Actual Equality.

Ideas and Values concerning Intervention (Interpretation of Inequality)

This point relates to the author’s perception of outcome within intervening within the current allocation and distributive system of resources. Since physical resources are relevant to the support of Life on Earth, their allocation and distribution is relevant to the discussion of Equality. Within our current world system and established ‘way of life’ – resources are distributed through a system of merit and discrimination, where one needs to ‘pay up’ and ‘deserve’ resources before one’s Life is secured. Life Security is not a given, and made a variable/function of one’s ‘favorability’ -- to use the writer’s words – which can broadly be interpreted as one’s productive capacity (skills, talents, education) and productive background (social and economic).

Not all Life is nurtured and supported, where some beings are being allocated resources excessive of their actual physical needs and requirements – and where others are being allocated resources deficient of their physical needs and requirements, inhibiting their ability to sustain themselves as Life.

The writer is concerned that the distribution of resources in order to achieve Equality will result in a form of ‘diminishment’ and ‘worsening’ of one’s situation – which is often what is meant within saying that ‘Equality can only be achieved through Inequality’ – where the ‘taking of resources’ which are or could have been ‘someone else’s’, is a form of violation of a person’s integrity and value which is seen as an unacceptable sacrifice. In terms of the ‘concern’ factor as a ‘fear of abuse’, it is suggested to read the following Justice and Human Rights Series blog: Day 228: False Dilemma: Abuse or be Abused – Social Justice and Human Rights - Part 6, which explains how the fear aspect can easily be eliminated once we understand how we are able to work together and yet eliminate abuse.

Again, because the writer is coming from a view on Equality as Sameness, any change/alteration made to be an ‘inequality’, and thus by virtue of it being an ‘act of inequality’, would invalidate the very end of Equality (meaning, it is unacceptable to achieve Equality if it has to be done through Inequality).

Here, we simply again recalibrate our definition of Inequality to that of Inequality in Respect to Life, where Inequalities are only relevant/matter in so far that they hamper and reduce one’s ability to Live a Life of Quality. As such, any movement and distribution of resources towards the insurance and security of a Life of Quality for All on Earth, cannot possibly be deemed to be an act of ‘inequality’ as one’s ability to Live a Life of Quality is not being diminished in any way whatsoever, but merely being extended to everyone else on the Planet as well. Any movement of resources which would result in a lack or diminishment in one’s ability to Live a Life of Quality would be in violation of one’s Right to Life and would have to be immediately rectified.

Related articles

• Day 225: Equality and Disinformation - Equality and Human Rights - Part 4
• Day 227: When is something Equal and Unequal? - Equality and Human Rights - Part 6
• Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
• Day 223: Equality of Opportunity: Introduction - Equality and Human Rights - Part 3
• Day 221: Are Humans Equal? - Equality and Human Rights - Part 2
• 359. Equal Life Rights

Read More

Day 228: False Dilemma: Abuse or be Abused – Social Justice and Human Rights - Part 6

Before we proceed with discussing the Principle of Need as a basis for social justice, as ‘what is a morally right and just way to distribute the goods and services in a society among the members of it?’ – more requires to be said about the Principle of Merit and Desert as the principle upon which we have built our current economic system, and this, simply because the gravity of the situation must be stressed and understood.

For context, also read:
Day 118: Justice and Human Rights
Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2
Day 222: Justice and Human Rights - Part 3
Day 224: Justice and Human Rights - Part 4 - Social Justice: Merits and Deserts
Day 226: Deserving Life or Death - Social Justice and Human Rights - Part 5


The Divine Power to Decide on Life and Death

When we say that one must deserve the support one requires to fulfill one’s needs in order to live a decent life in this world, we are literally holding people’s lives in our hands and stating that it is possible for us as humans to decide about life or death. Many Gods in various religions throughout time have been attributed this responsibility of power over life and death, but within accepting an economic system where merit determines value, we have come to now attribute this power to ourselves. There is a reason why this power has been linked with Divinity – because it requires an extreme level of insight, integrity, understanding and consideration to make such assessments. These are qualities we as humans don’t possess. We do not even understand our own mind, our own thoughts, our own experiences. We are not yet an Authority in our own Inner Realities, because that would require us to be fully Aware and fully Response-Able in every moment, where we have proven to ourselves moment after moment that we can be Trusted with Life. If this were the case, we wouldn’t have imaginary realms in our mind where we play-out our nastiness against others to prevent us from actually acting them out in this physical reality. We haven’t even understood that the nastiness of our thoughts, our secrets, our desires, our grudges, our spite – are showing us who we are and thus, indicate, that there is a serious problem with ‘human nature’. So long as we have a mind – we know one thing: We cannot be trusted with life. And yet – we’ve assumed the power to judge others, the power to judge their lives, the power to decide whether they should live or die, whether they should suffer or live in abundance.


We are All Accomplices in All Crimes against Life

There is a sense in which we feel that what is described above has nothing to do with daily human life and that we do not actually hold people’s lives in our hands, where we place their hearts on the one side of the scale and a ‘feather of justice’ on the other. We do not feel that this has anything to do with who we are and the life we live, because – obviously, it is not something that we actively and consciously do. And - we have an inherent belief and conviction that if we do not actively do something, then we didn’t do it – or that, if we didn’t have the intention of supporting such actions, then we didn’t. Yet, when we accept and allow a crime against life to take place – then we are part of the crime, we are an accomplice to the crime.

This notion of accomplice is contrary to what is commonly accepted under the term:

“An accomplice may assist or encourage the principal offender with the intent to have the crime committed, the same as the chief actor. An accomplice may or may not be present when the crime is actually committed. However, without sharing the criminal intent, one who is merely present when a crime occurs and stands by silently is not an accomplice, no matter how reprehensible his or her inaction.” [1]

Present or not – intention or no intention – when we within ourselves accept and allow the idea that it is ‘just’ and ‘righteous’ to place a condition on an individual’s access to the very things a person requires to survive – in the form of the principle of merit - then we are DIRECTLY responsible for ALL DEATHS resulting from lack. Why? Because, within ourselves, we gave permission for them to die - we gave the go-ahead for mass murder as soon as we thought ‘Yeah, it makes sense to have to earn one’s living’. It seems like such an innocent little thought, right? This is what I mean with: we do not even understand our own minds and we do not understand the consequences of our own thoughts.


Writing and Reading – our Responsibility with Words

When academics write out their convictions and ideologies in terms of what they envision to be the ‘just society’, they do not consider the power and implication of their words. Supporters of the principle of Merit and Desert did not in fact realize or even investigate what they were truly saying. And neither did those who studied their words – which makes it ironic to call it ‘studying’ – because all that happened within the ‘study’ is that either the information was merely copy/pasted into one’s own mind, or it was assessed whether one ‘likes’ the words in terms of the particular energetic experience that came up when reading the words, of which the student wasn’t even aware. That is why we say ‘it sounds good’ – not because the physical sound of the worlds have any particular harmonic qualities, but because when we read them, we ‘feel good’ – the words resonate with our own self-interest and our own hidden agendas – to which, most of us are oblivious.

And as soon as we feel good, we stop asking questions and do not see the implications behind the words, behind the thoughts – which is why we feel puzzled when we are shown what we are truly responsible for and why we do not remember having given these permissions – because we weren’t aware that we were giving them.

That is the reason behind this blog – to reveal the ‘whole story’ and how this story plays out in actual reality, in actual lives – so that we can look beyond our feelings and consider the reality of the situation in having all the information available before making any further decisions on which principles we should build our society and build our economic system on, for them to be just. And so that we can develop the skill of questioning our thoughts and their implications instead of blindly accepting them without consideration for the ramifications.


The Psychological Justification for the Principle of Merit or Desert

We can now further consider why the principle of merit or deserts is a principle that often ‘resonates’ with us as ‘sounding good’ or ‘sounding right’. The underlying psychological element that justifies the principle of merit and deserts is fear of being abused through being taken advantage of.

These fears arise specifically in group-situations where the well-being of the group is dependent upon the efforts and contributions of each individual – and where individuals are not the same in terms of intellectual capacity, creativity, discipline, physical strength, agility and perseverance. Within such a scenario, of course, not every individual contributes in the same way or to the same extent, because abilities differ. The fear of being taken advantage of steps in when one perceives that the level of well-being the group generates does not reflect the efforts and contributions one personally put in – where one perceives that one is not equally receiving according to what one gave. Herein, an experience of ‘unfairness’ will rear its head, because one perceives it to be unfair that those who one perceives ‘contributed less’ are receiving the same standard of well-being as oneself. The tendency is to then blame those that one perceives as ‘having done less’ for one’s own experiences of dissatisfaction. Almost immediately, a feeling of ‘being abused’ follows, because we feel conned by those we perceive has having done less, where we think that they deliberately took advantage of one’s efforts and contributions.

From here – those that perceive they have been abused will call for greater individualization – where the focus now shifts from the well-being of the collective as a result of a group-effort – to the well-being of the individual a as a result of individual-effort. So – it is fascinating that one immediately takes in an anti-group position in reaction to a perceived ‘injustice’ – where blame is placed on others and self-interest overrides any other consideration. (For those who still resonate with this justification in thinking ‘that sounds like the right thing to do’ – remember the above discussion in what the consequences are of reacting in such a way – where from a ‘seemingly reasonable mind-set’ we’ve created an economic system that outcasts millions because their value is not being registered as being ‘sufficient’ – and so they have been condemned to a life of suffering and premature death. Instead of trying to appease one’s conscience, we have the ability of actually fundamentally changing our attitudes in a way that would produce real solutions.)

Now, going back to the group-setting – what would be the alternative to individualization?

There are two possible scenarios in terms of why some individuals contribute less.
Firstly – there are those who, due to differing mental and physical capacities, will be unable to be as productive or as contributing as others. Herein, any reaction of feeling abused by them would be inappropriate, because no harm was deliberately being done. The reality of the matter simply is that each one is doing the best they can, and as such – the level of wellbeing in the group is as high as it can be. Does this mean that individualization is necessary so that those who contributed more receive a ‘higher share’ of the well-being? Obviously not – it is a matter of understanding that those with more ability have a responsibility towards those with less – simply because, if they were the ones in the group with less ability, they would want others to take responsibility for them too. Such attitude is one of caring, of consideration, of respect – all of which we is highly valued in any society. The best one can do is to ensure that each one is indeed contributing in a way that they are most effective, which would require them to be passionate about what they do, because passion implies self-motivation, which implies pursuing self-perfection within one’s particular expression. And so – with each one optimally contributing in their particular capacity and expertise, the group is like an organism that will function most effectively.

So – the critical factor in this scenario is that one places aside one’s fears of abuse, which – if one looks at it is irrational from the perspective that no-one is taking advantage of anyone, but that each one acts in accordance with their responsibility towards themselves and so each other – and that one practices the values that are preached, in order to build a group and an environment that is pleasant, that is supportive, that is cohesive – one that, in the end, everyone would benefit from. Why benefit? Because such an environment does not only ensure that the particular task at hand is being completed, but it also nurtures the social and psychological well-being of each one.

In the second scenario, some are contributing less because they are endeavoring to maximize benefits while minimizing costs – and thus, are purposely ‘parasiting’ off the efforts of those who put in more work. Now, if those who do contribute to the best of their ability would not react in outrage for perceived abuse – what would happen?
It would simply be assessed that there is a problem in the group where there are some that are not equally participating and who are placing their self-interest above the interest of the group and where – as a result – the group is less effective and each one enjoys a standard of living below the potential that would be achieved if each one would have actively participated. The common sense thing to do in this situation is to, as a group, intervene and confront the individuals in question with the consequences of their behavior and show how a change on their part is required for the group to function as a whole. If understanding is not sufficient for change to take place – then other factors must be looked at that may be contributing to a psychological state of apathy, where, for instance, the individual is not performing the task that they would particularly enjoy most, or the individual struggles with the task at hand, where, incessant experiences of inadequacy led one to ‘give up’ - and, in order to deal with experiences of failure in this regard, the person uses the self-manipulation of ‘I don’t care anyways’. It is not actually so that one doesn’t care, but a lie one tells oneself so one isn’t plagued by the same experience of guilt, failure, anxiety and inadequacy over and over again. So – here the apathy is merely a self-protective wall the individual put in place due to not seeing how to move oneself out of this situation. So – such underlying factors must be identified to bring clarity on how the individuals may be assisted and empowered to break through their apathy and allow the group to function most effectively.

In the second scenario the critical factor is to not take the situation personally – where, yes – those individuals were acting in a harmful way towards the group – but it has nothing to do with anyone on an individual level , where one is now ‘under attack’ and one requires to ‘protect oneself’ from the evil that is lurking. If one looks at it – those individuals who deliberately contributed less, within themselves, took on an ‘anti-group’ position. So – to now demand individualization, which is also an anti-group position, is like fighting fire with fire – an effort we can all see will not provide real solutions – because it is the very anti-group position attitude that is the cause of abuse and harm on the part of others within the group. Therefore – to attempt to protect those who perceive themselves to be abused through installing a system of reward based on individual merit – one is in fact attempting to manipulate the ‘flow’ of the abuse – where abuse is in fact accepted, but one directs it in such a way that it befalls on others.
And that is exactly what we see within the current capitalistic system, that it is in fact a system of abuse, where the abusers, which are the ones who live a comfortable life, will justify the abuse based on the fear of being taken advantage of by others. This is how those who fear being abused in fact become the abuser.


False Dilemma – Abuse or Be Abused

Ultimately, then, the psychological justification for a distributive system based on the principle of individual merit – lies within the false dilemma of ‘abuse or be abused’. We have shown above that this is indeed a FALSE dilemma because there are alternatives if only one practices the ability of placing aside one’s fear to be able to consider a common sense solution. The fact that these skills are not being practiced in a school or home environment as part of every child’s education may very well be the fact that the world is in such disarray.

One can argue that the principle of merit and desert is the only possible expression of ‘social justice’ exactly because of how humans are psychologically wired. Yet – if one looks at the very endeavor of implementing or bringing about social justice – it is to distribute goods and services in a way that is morally correct – in order to create a morally correct society. To believe that one can reconcile such a morally upstanding society with human beings that are unable to act in a morally upstanding way – is delusional. To attempt to change society without changing the humans that ARE the society, will never really create any change at all. So – change must happen both within and without, and if social justice is to become a reality, education must play its role within developing the required skills so that individuals are able to uphold a socially just society. There is simply no two ways about it.


[1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/accomplice

 

Related articles

• Day 209: Correcting instead of Sidestepping
• Day 396: Paranoia: the Home of Human Reason - Part Two
• Day 225: Equality and Disinformation - Equality and Human Rights - Part 4
• The Starting Point
• Day 297: Redefining A Life of Escaped Negativity
• Day 204: It Can't be That Easy
• DAY 387: Anarchists, Mothers and Brainwashing
• Day 315: How many Human Rights Can You Afford?
• Day 306: Capitalism is NOT the Best System We Have
• Day 207: Buying Power and the Idea of Freedom

Read More

Day 227: When is something Equal and Unequal? – Equality and Human Rights – Part 6

Continuing from:
Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
Day 221: Are Humans Equal? – Equality and Human Rights – Part 2
Day 223: Equality of Opportunity: Introduction – Equality and Human Rights – Part 3
Day 225: Equality and Disinformation – Equality and Human Rights – Part 5

In the previous blog we discussed the problems that ensue when a word has not been clearly defined, and how one ought to agree upon a singular definition and thus use a particular word consistently with its agreed upon meaning, to be able to have a meaningful discussion (which so far hasn’t happened in the history of the concept of Equality).

We also saw that the ‘Great Divide’ on the subject of Equality has mostly been of an illusionary nature, exactly because of the lack of agreement on a definition of Equality. How can we say that there is a disagreement on a singular issue, when both parties mean completely different things with ‘the one issue’?

All of this came forth as we were looking at one of the arguments/justifications (Equal starting point/Equal Treatment leads to unequal outcomes – so why bother) as to why we should not enforce/promote Equality within society, as we had to investigate in which sense ‘equal’ and ‘unequal’ was used in the sentence.

Within this blog we will be looking at ‘what is equal’ and ‘what is unequal’ within using the definition of Equality as Life – where Humans are Equal by virtue of being Alive and being Animated by the same Life Force.

So, we have ‘Life’ as our starting point, as within this rests our Equality. Yet this this Life is not self-sustaining and particular conditions require to be in place for Life to thrive. We can then say, that any situation/circumstance which hampers the ability of Life to thrive, is one that is unequal or is a situation/circumstance within which inequality exists.

When we look at the statement ‘Equal starting point/Equal Treatment leads to unequal outcomes – so why bother ‘ from this perspective, we can clearly see that it does not make any sense, because having Life as one’s starting point cannot have the diminishment of Life as an outcome/end. And promoting Life as a value/principle cannot have the diminishment of Life as an outcome. So when statements are made about ‘what is equal’ and ‘what is unequal’ – we have to investigate/look at each point terms of measuring its relation to Life: does it enhance or does it reduce Life?

When we look at Equality and Unequal/Inequality from this perspective – a lot of the statements/justifications as to why Equality should not be pursued ‘fall away’, as the logic behind the statement becomes inconsistent. Here we can for instance look at the statement that to ‘be equal’ means to ‘genetically disable the able’. Such actions obviously do not enhance Life and thus does not promote Equality among human beings as each one enjoying an Equal Life Experience. When we speak of Equality and Inequality, we are thus bound to keep ourselves to subjects and topics which directly affect human beings’ Living Standard and Quality of Life. This does not mean ‘Equal Treatment’ in the sense of the distorted definition of ‘giving each one the Same Treatment’ – but to treat one Another Equally as to support and assist another to the utmost of our ability so that one can enjoy the Best Quality of Life Possible. Here we have to be clear that ‘the same’ and ‘equal’ – are two different, separate concepts. Different people have different needs – and thus depending on how much support and assistance one requires to reach a Standard of Living that is Optimal – one will receive ‘less’ or ‘more’ to attain this Level – but yet the Outcome is Equal – as Life is each time respected and supported to the greatest extent possible. When one is born with a particular disadvantage which leads a particular individual to experiencing their Life as being obstructed – then the necessary steps require to be taken to remedy this point to the utmost of our ability, to ensure that this person despite their ‘born disadvantage’ may still experience a Life of Quality, as the Life we would have wanted for ourselves would we have been in the same position. Failure to address such impediments to a Thriving Life, would be termed an ‘Inequality’ and would thus be a Problem which requires to be Corrected.

Within the next blog we will look at some more points/statements anti-egalitarians come up with in an attempt to refute the promotion of Equality within society – and how these arguments lose all validity once the factors and variables are intricately linked and connected to Life and the support thereof, as how we explained it in this blog.

Related articles

• Day 225: Equality and Disinformation - Equality and Human Rights - Part 4
• Day 223: Equality of Opportunity: Introduction - Equality and Human Rights - Part 3
• Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
• Day 221: Are Humans Equal? - Equality and Human Rights - Part 2
• Day 363: Basic Human Rights and Crime (Part One)
• Day 389: Humans Rights with Children and Health Care

Read More

Day 226: Deserving Life or Death - Social Justice and Human Rights - Part 5

This blog-post is a continuation to:
Day 118: Justice and Human Rights
Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2
Day 222: Justice and Human Rights - Part 3
Day 224: Justice and Human Rights - Part 4 - Social Justice: Merits and Deserts

In the Previous blog-post we discussed the Principle of Merits and Deserts as a basis for just distribution of resources. It became clear that to distribute goods and services based on 'who deserves them' is a more complicated matter than it may initially seem to be. There are different definitions to the word 'merit' or different conditions under which it could be applicable and it is not clear which is preferrable. As such, there is also no way of measuring merit in an objective way.

Furthermore, the implications of distributing goods and services based on merit must be understood. Distributing goods and services is not a matter of distributing 'prizes' after a match. Everything a person requires to live in this world is either a good or a service. Therefore, can we really make such things as whether or not a person has a lifeline, dependent on a game of 'see who's better than who'? Do we need to deserve to stay alive? Currently this is implied in our economic system. I know we've all been taken in by the 'Survival of the Fittest' Theory and regardless of the debate on its validity - do we really want this to be who we are? That we let people die because apparently in some way it has been 'assessed' that they weren't worthy of life, that they didn't deserve to live?

We were all born onto this planet, we are all alive - where does it state that we now also have to deserve to be alive? Because - that is what we literally do by participating in this economic system and going to work: trying to 'earn our living'. Isn't that an absurd idea?

We grow up as a child, some of us in the illusion of being able to play all day and have fun, still ignorant about the 'complicated stuff' of the 'grown-up world' - where we still believe in magic, because we don't see how it's a problem that something just pops up out of nothing and that there must be a trick behind it - where we trust what others tell us because we don't see a reason why we wouldn't - to then some day wake up in a world of competition and struggle, where you're now told: This world is a scary place! You better prepare yourself because otherwise you won't make it! You can't pay the rent, get out! You can't afford that, put it back! Didn't anyone ever teach you that in this world it's every man for himself! Toughen up!

Obviously - if you hear these words by the time you're a teenager, you're lucky, you still had a pretty good life - there are children out there who are exposed to the cruelties of the world from as early as they can remember.  What do we say to them? Sorry, you just don't deserve any better? What apparent superpower decided that the world has to be this way that we now apparently all have to continue living our life in service of it?

In the next part of this series we discuss the Principle of Need as a basis for distribution.

Related articles

• Day 225: Equality and Disinformation - Equality and Human Rights - Part 4
• Day 223: Equality of Opportunity: Introduction - Equality and Human Rights - Part 3
• Day 315: How many Human Rights Can You Afford?
• Day 224: Justice and Human Rights - Part 4 - Social Justice: Merits and Deserts
• Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2
• Day 221: Are Humans Equal? - Equality and Human Rights - Part 2
• Day 222: Justice and Human Rights - Part 3 - Substantive Justice
• Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
• Day 367: Investigating Human Rights
• 365. Labor is a Human Right |Equal Money

Read More