Eugine_Nier comments on Factions, inequality, and social justice - Less Wrong

23 [deleted] 03 December 2012 07:37PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (171)

Comments (171)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 04 December 2012 04:59:50AM *  4 points [-]

What exactly is the difference?

I'm falsifying John's claim that most inter-factional conflict focusing on issues of inequality is a historical universal.

Giving the peasants what they wanted would have reduced inequality. I assume the peasants leaders were smart enough to notice that fact.

That fact only seems as salient as it does because we live in a culture that places high value on equality. For another perspective look at how Confucianism is able to combine a justification for peasant revolts under some circumstances with support for a strong social hierarchy.

Surely that isn't evidence that the slave population didn't express (or desire to express) complaints about inequality when they weren't engaged in armed uprisings.

The difference is that the slaves lived in a culture where "all men are created equal" was already an established meme.

Comment author: TimS 04 December 2012 05:10:14AM 1 point [-]

He claims it is a universal now - but I don't see the claim that it was a historical universal.

Also, your response does not explain the distinction I'm asking about - I mostly understood the general context of why you were attempting a distinction, but I'm still confused by the disconnect you seem to be drawing between object level expressions like "I'm poor, you caused it, grr" and abstract concern with inequality.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 04 December 2012 05:34:26AM 3 points [-]

He claims it is a universal now - but I don't see the claim that it was a historical universal.

He attempts to provide an ev-psych explanation, which makes no sense unless it's a historical universal or near universal.

Also, your response does not explain the distinction I'm asking about - I mostly understood the general context of why you were attempting a distinction, but I'm still confused by the disconnect you seem to be drawing between object level expressions like "I'm poor, you caused it, grr" and abstract concern with inequality.

It's not "I'm poor, you caused it, grr", it's "I don't have enough food/money/free time [to live the lifestyle I'm accustomed to], you're causing it, grr". The peasant doesn't have a problem with the lord having more and better food than he does any more than he has a problem with birds being able to fly and him not. The problem is that he's not getting the amount of food he feels he's entitled to.

Comment author: TimS 04 December 2012 05:45:24AM 1 point [-]

"accustomed to" and "entitled to" don't really have the same meaning when the existence of an anti-inequality motive is at issue.

But I agree that there is a disconnect between the ev-psych invocation and the lack of any other claim of universality.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 04 December 2012 05:50:28AM 4 points [-]

"accustomed to" and "entitled to" don't really have the same meaning when the existence of an anti-inequality motive is at issue.

My point is that this distinction is extremely modern.

Comment author: TimS 04 December 2012 05:54:14AM 2 points [-]

Do you have an accessible cite explaining this point?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit