Thoughts on Equality

No one in this world claims to be immoral. Morality changes with the times, and that can certainly produce intergenerational conflict, but in any case people try to live morally according to their own standards. A sense of morality is characteristic of human beings living in society.

It is hard to know exactly how demands for equality have evolved, but in every society egalitarianism is widely shared as one branch of morality. The term “inequality” carries a negative nuance in itself regardless of context, so we instinctively root for the weak, and words that are frequently invoked—such as “gap” or “deprivation”—are also used on the premise of equality. Some disciplines have even gone so far as to create and measure statistics such as income distribution ratios and the Gini coefficient, quantifying and measuring the degree of material equality in a society. In the news in most countries, we are constantly inundated with inequality between the rich and the poor, labor and capital, men and women, Seoul and the provinces, large corporations and small and medium-sized enterprises. As if these were grave problems, people compete to expose inequality and condemn its immorality. Inequality is taken to mean a state that ought to be corrected—a truly immoral and uncomfortable condition.

Egalitarianism is an ideology of the left, but it also carries a moral imperative, and that is one reason left-wing philosophy still remains so powerful despite its great and profound failures. Morality, through the virtue of equality, is in effect taking the left’s side. But egalitarianism must be able to answer two uncomfortable questions, and I have never seen advocates of equality properly answer even one of them.

Question 1. Is egalitarianism a value that can actually be realized in the real world?

Human beings exist by exclusively occupying a particular time and space. Just as each person has individuality and uniqueness, no human being can share the exact same time and space with another. From the very beginning, every being accumulates different experiences from a different position, constantly building up his or her own character, personality, ability, and contingencies. Some stand in the sunlight while others remain in the shade. Some are thrown into cold places, others into deserts. Some are born with attractive looks, while others are born with lazy genes. Some are born male or female, with the looks of an actor or with plain features, or even with severe disabilities, and pass through life in unhappiness. Some are talented in music; some write well. Some are athletically gifted, some are right-handed, and others are left-handed... Every difference implies inequality, so correction is not really a feasible idea. Who, and by what standard, is to implement equality? How are we to calculate the inequality between a second-degree disabled heiress who inherited tens of billions of won and a poor but beautiful woman with an attractive face and figure? Should inequality in a society be corrected only within that society? For example, should a starving child in Pakistan and an obese child in South Korea not be compared under the standard of equality? What, exactly, is equality supposed to mean in practice?

Question 2. Even if we assume egalitarianism is legitimate and a moral value that all of us ought naturally to pursue, can you really practice it?

When your own child has a cold and a runny nose, you provide all kinds of food and medicine—but with what attitude do you look at someone else’s child suffering from leukemia? While happily and regularly buying pet food and supplies for your pretty dog, what are you doing for a poor child struggling on the brink of starvation? You who cheer for sports stars like Tiger Woods or Roger Federer rather than an unknown athlete who worked desperately hard but has no notable title to his name—are you qualified to speak of egalitarianism? You who frequently visit famous restaurants while discriminating against tasteless and expensive ones, who prefer pretty and slim women to ordinary women—just as Hayek said, how many climbers do you remember who tried to scale Everest but sadly failed? I am by no means trying to criticize you for sparing no effort for your own child and pet, or for choosing your favorite restaurants, sports stars, or beloved spouse. My point is to ask what such actions mean against the philosophical backdrop of egalitarianism, and what kind of answer egalitarianism has prepared for such contradictions. That is the issue at hand.

As these brief questions make clear, the equality people desire is a certain kind of equality—equality with those who have more than they do and are superior to them—not equality starting from themselves.

There may be no idea in the world as immoral as equality.

Taeyoung Kang / Economic Commentator

---

Original title: 평등에 대한 단상

Author: Tae-young Kang

Date: 2018-10-09

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=column&pn=16&idx=11139