Thought experiment #1

[Vater Araignee]

Is "Equal Distribution of Wealth" moral.

Yes or no.

Why?

[torn asunder]

Is "Equal Distribution of Wealth" moral.

for sake of argument, please define...

[Vater Araignee]

The same measure of valuable material arranged over a group of humans quantified by zero contact with others outside of the group or we can call the group ALL HUMANS.

ADD assumption: resources are finite.

Replace why with justify.

Edited March 11, 2011 by Vater Araignee

[Msterbeau]

I wouldn't call it moral. Perhaps it's desirable, perhaps not. What's not moral is the deliberate and systematic hoarding of resources by a small segment of the group.

[Vater Araignee]

Slow down Turbo this is an experiment, what is or is not moral outside of it has no bearings.

[torn asunder]

Is "Equal Distribution of Wealth" moral.

Yes or no.

Why?

isn't "even distribution of wealth" another term for socialism?

maybe i'm unclear as to your intent - what kind of a discussion would you like to see here?

[Vater Araignee]

isn't "even distribution of wealth" another term for socialism?

maybe i'm unclear as to your intent - what kind of a discussion would you like to see here?

It is experiment to see if people can work out if something is right or wrong buy working out the ramifications of action.

It took me less than 2 minutes to understand how this particular scenario would play out to the end of recorded time and caused me to rethink.

[DJ Nocker]

No, its not. Its just something that peple who dont have wealth, would like.

Happy? I answered with something that wasnt a question, lol.

Edited March 11, 2011 by DJ Nocker

[Vater Araignee]

No, its not. Its just something that peple who dont have wealth, would like.

Happy? I answered with something that wasnt a question, lol.

You only gave a partial answer then described how you perceive what the concept is.

Justify the reasoning, why is it not moral?

And I completely understand where Torn is coming from.

Intrigued by the concept of the experiment yet fears it is trap and will try to poke and prod in hopes of springing it without actuly being caught.

[DJ Nocker]

You only gave a partial answer then described how you perceive what the concept is.

Justify the reasoning, why is it not moral?

And I completely understand where Torn is coming from.

Intrigued by the concept of the experiment yet fears it is trap and will try to poke and prod in hopes of springing it without actuly being caught.

Morals are in the eye of the beholder. But from a wealthy point of you (me not being the wealthy)

Equal distribution would mean to take from someone who currently is getting more, and to take from someone who is not giving is immoral by mosts standards and could be considered stealing.

[candyman]

No it is not moral. It works in movies, and it creates chaos in real life...or at least it creates a whole country full of poor hard working people instead of classes making it so bad that no matter how hard you work you will NEVER make it to a point where you could even be considered middle class...

[torn asunder]

You only gave a partial answer then described how you perceive what the concept is.

Justify the reasoning, why is it not moral?

And I completely understand where Torn is coming from.

Intrigued by the concept of the experiment yet fears it is trap and will try to poke and prod in hopes of springing it without actuly being caught.

don't fear it's a trap, just don't want to waste time and energy crafting a response that has little to do with what you are looking for. that, and i was trying to establish some guidelines for other members so that they might be more encouraged to participate...

[Vater Araignee]

don't fear it's a trap, just don't want to waste time and energy crafting a response that has little to do with what you are looking for. that, and i was trying to establish some guidelines for other members so that they might be more encouraged to participate...

simply take the thought process from beginning to end and use zero emotion to determine the logical outcome.

example:

is it right to imprison bigots just because they are?

Apply imprisoning bigots as a universal law.

Answer: No.

Reasoning: Imprisoning a bigot is a bigoted motivation itself so under universal law everyone would have to be imprisoned and because everyone is imprisoned everyone dies.

[Enishi]

In terms of the amount of schooling and sacrifice needed for certain jobs, no, 100% equal distribution isn't realistic. Expecting people to put in the effort to become a doctor when it's doesn't pay more than working at a fast food joint would not work.

"More" equal distribution could potentially work though. I'm not sure if it would ever come to pass, but the top jobs paying 130,000K while the lowest pay 30,000K sounds quite nice. Such things would need to be decided on a horizontal rather than a vertical top down (centralized) basis however.

Edited March 12, 2011 by Enishi

[~Tszura~]

Just had a thought from reading this.....

If money is what drives people to do certain things, like become doctors, lawyers, CEO's, etc, then those same people, if that is purely what is driving them, would not want to spend time/effort into evolving into those professions due to not getting any more out of it than the next person who is just sitting on their bum.

If I am thinking about a Utopia of sorts, however, I wouldn't want those kinds of people to head up those professions. I would want someone who wants to become a doctor no mater how much money they are making because they are doing it for their joy, and to help out their fellow human.

The way human beings are now, though, we can't handle Utopia, so I will get back to the question.

The way our societies are set up now, I agree with Joey in that even if we all want to take some money away from the billionaire to help those who have nothing, we are taking away something from someone that they have, however they came to have it, and that is stealing from them, which is immoral. What is also immoral, is that billionaire refusing to give up some of his/her wealth to help someone else out who is less fortunate.

Whether moral or not, at this point, as a whole, we would not be able to handle "even distribution of wealth." There are always going to be some shmucks out there that are going to set up things to hoard resources, and try to gain power.

[phee]

The question itself... framing it in a "Yes or No" format I think is what throws me off... I try not to think in absolutes like that. There is a vast and infinite grey area when it comes to the nuances of a question such as this. I think it would depend on: How much wealth; who's wealth; for what reason it is being redistributed; to whom is it being distributed to; etc.... you get my point I hope.

I mean if I were to ask a question like "Cake... is it good to eat yes or no?" Depends on the cake, I mean there is chocolate cake, vanilla cake, urinal cakes, yellow cake uranium, etc....

I guess what I am saying is... case by base basis.

[Vater Araignee]

The question itself... framing it in a "Yes or No" format I think is what throws me off... I try not to think in absolutes like that. There is a vast and infinite grey area when it comes to the nuances of a question such as this. I think it would depend on: How much wealth; who's wealth; for what reason it is being redistributed; to whom is it being distributed to; etc.... you get my point I hope.

I mean if I were to ask a question like "Cake... is it good to eat yes or no?" Depends on the cake, I mean there is chocolate cake, vanilla cake, urinal cakes, yellow cake uranium, etc....

I guess what I am saying is... case by base basis.

Ah but Phee, the whole point of the exorcise is to determine if something is good for all or bad for all.

BTW there is no gray area in an absolute.

"Cake... is it good to eat yes or no?" with the qualifies you add is not by any stretch of the imagination, an absolute and is there for an extremely flawed representation of the point you are failing to make with me.

Now just taking it as an absolute.

"Cake... is it good to eat yes or no?"

Maxim: Humans start making cakes and consuming cakes.

Answer: No.

Reasoning: Type not defined. The following is only 1 scenario that results in NO.

In some areas people can't afford to make "Food Cakes" so people start eating cakes made from what ever materials they can find and dieing for various materiel choice related reasons. Gradually destroying the labor chain causing "Food Cake" supply shortages creating a feed back loop that can only end with the death of the last human.

The above played up with many many other factors but all they did was hasten demise so I truncated.

[phee]

Nothing is good or bad for ALL though....

Case in point.... Someone steals something wealth from another, he is caught and the wealth is returned: IE the wealth was redistributed to the person it was stolen from = good for the person who got the wealth back and bad for the person who got caught.

The question in the thread is too general... because nothing is good or bad for ALL.

I suppose if the question was "Is redistribution of wealth good or bad for all" the answer would be NO it isn't good or bad for all.

[torn asunder]

then this is an invalid argument. there are no absolutes, because everything in the world is subjective. that makes this a seemingly pointless exercise, in my opinion...

[~Tszura~]

If we're only dealing with absolutes of anything, it seems as though, Vater, in this vein of thinking that no matter what the maxim, it will always end in the death of humans.

[phee]

If we're only dealing with absolutes of anything, it seems as though, Vater, in this vein of thinking that no matter what the maxim, it will always end in the death of humans.

+1

[Vater Araignee]

Nothing is good or bad for ALL though....

Case in point.... Someone steals something wealth from another, he is caught and the wealth is returned: IE the wealth was redistributed to the person it was stolen from = good for the person who got the wealth back and bad for the person who got caught.

The question in the thread is too general... because nothing is good or bad for ALL.

I suppose if the question was "Is redistribution of wealth good or bad for all" the answer would be NO it isn't good or bad for all.

Apply it as a maxim "Everybody always has the same." play the concept out to it's bitter end and then answer.

I'm completely capably of admitting if something is right or wrong based in it becoming a maxim yet insisting that it be done on smaller scale.

Changing the question so that you can justify wrong doing doesn't negate the outcome of original question.

If we're only dealing with absolutes of anything, it seems as though, Vater, in this vein of thinking that no matter what the maxim, it will always end in the death of humans.

Not true. The maxim "All humans prevent themselves from depriving others of their liberty." always ends in a utopia.

Here is another one that doesn't end in the death of all humans.

Is it evil to commit suicide because of extreme suffering?

MAXIM: All humans kill themselves when they can stand living anymore.

Answer: NO.

Reasoning: Not all humans will achieve that level of suffering.

Of course I apply that maxim without me being included in it because as we all know, if I kill myself then you all stop existing and that would be mass murder suicide. *weg*

[~Tszura~]

Not true. The maxim "All humans prevent themselves from depriving others of their liberty." always ends in a utopia.

I see how you came to the end, but I do not agree due to the very nature of what it is to be human. I know I'm not supposed to add anything within this thought experiment, but I must to explain what I'm thinking. Using only the maxim which includes nothing else isn't going to end in a truthful conclusion. It may work on paper, but not in reality. For this to actually work, no one could take on a culture, or express a philosophy, or really express any thoughts whatsoever for fear of depriving another of their liberty. Liberty and choice go together, so the picture I get from the above maxim is one of all humans standing naked and alone, possibly afraid of moving or even breathing for fear of infringing on the life of a fellow human being which would lead to taking away their choice/liberty. With no one eating, moving, breathing, etc., we all die. Another way to look at it is to take away the need for sustenance, along with the other things needed to actually live, and what we would become would be something nonhuman. This, in turn, would maim the original maxim because the human variable is taken out.

Last thought on this.....To be human is to be flawed. We could not handle a utopia.

[Vater Araignee]

I see how you came to the end, but I do not agree due to the very nature of what it is to be human. I know I'm not supposed to add anything within this thought experiment, but I must to explain what I'm thinking. Using only the maxim which includes nothing else isn't going to end in a truthful conclusion. It may work on paper, but not in reality. For this to actually work, no one could take on a culture, or express a philosophy, or really express any thoughts whatsoever for fear of depriving another of their liberty. Liberty and choice go together, so the picture I get from the above maxim is one of all humans standing naked and alone, possibly afraid of moving or even breathing for fear of infringing on the life of a fellow human being which would lead to taking away their choice/liberty. With no one eating, moving, breathing, etc., we all die. Another way to look at it is to take away the need for sustenance, along with the other things needed to actually live, and what we would become would be something nonhuman. This, in turn, would maim the original maxim because the human variable is taken out.

Last thought on this.....To be human is to be flawed. We could not handle a utopia.

I must whole hardheartedly disagree. It isn't until one is forcing another to listen that they are infringing. You can always choose to not listen, go away, never associate with that person.

In this maxim you have the liberty to say anything you wish that wouldn't violate the maxim but you don't have the right to be heard by those that don't want to listen.

It wouldn't remove hording, but it would remove hording beyond need.

It wouldn't stop starvation but it would stop starvation prevention for profit.

The maxim would not stop death but it would stop the for profit prevention of death.

Welders would weld because they like welding, not because they are trapped into keep a well paying job they hate.

Doctors would be doctors because they want to help people, not because it was expected of them or looked like a path to riches.

Farmers would farm because they like feeding others, not because someone has to do it.

[Nightgaunt]

Is "Equal Distribution of Wealth" moral.

Yes or no.

Why?

In order to answer the question in the manner you want it to be answered, the term "moral" must be defined, even assuming:

1.) Everyone starts out with varying degrees of wealth (assuming "wealth" is defined as money and natural resources, and not intangibles like knowledge)

2.) The past is not taken into account

3.) Likely or potential future factors are not taken into account (e.g., technological advances, environmental factors, political upheavals, etc.)

If you are assuming the traditional, Western (or more accurately, American) mindset that "morality" includes concepts like "Captialism" and "a free market", then the answer is "No". The concept of "equal distribution of wealth" is completely at odds with this view of morality. Most religions, or rather, the religio-moral frameworks that most religious people in the world follow have some proscription on theft. The answer is, again, "No" within this moral framework. If we are to assume that everyone above the baseline economic status on the planet agree, then it would not be theft and the answer would be "Yes" within the religious millieu.

I really can't see any way around having to have "moral" defined.