Egalitariamism is false, Philosophy, College Term Papers.com


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - Philosophy

Egalitariamism is false

Egalitariamism is false To agree or not to agree with Paul Viminitz? That is the question. Paul Viminitz talks about 6 moral intuitions that “have muddled our thinking about distributive justice”(Artificial Prudence, p13). Viminitz talks about moral intuitions and political arrangements share a similarity of game theory and that “distributive justice is arguably the largest part of morality and politics” (A.P., p13). Egalitarianism is the moral intuition that I will talk about. Egalitarianism says that every person should have the same level of material goods and services. This principle is justified on the grounds that people are owed equal respect and that equality in material goods and services is the best way to give effect to this ideal of equal respect. But a few problems are created from this, one of the problems is how to measure these materials and specify them. A way of solving this could be, giving everyone the same of everything in the same amounts (1 car, 2 televisions, 5 kiwis, 1 watermelon, etc) but here we go again another problem is made by this solution because there are many other services and material goods that will make other people better off and at the same time won’t make anybody worse off. I will be happier if I got 6 watermelons because I don’t like kiwis that much while others may prefer 6 kiwis instead of the 1 watermelon. So everybody will for sure want to trade something off in order to get something back they will be better off with. So by distributing the same material goods in equal amounts will make people worse off instead of making them better off materially. So trying to solve this is very problematic. Another problem that arises from this is that when will these material goods be given. Will there be a time frame when these materials are given out but even then this will cause a problem because not everyone thinks a like. Some people may not like to spend as much money as others some don’t need many material goods to be happy, so for sure money will be saved and this will make some people wealthier than others. Who is going to want to go to school for 8 years to become a doctor when they will get paid the same amount if they are mail deliverers. This will create laziness because how much will each person be entitled to of the cooperative dividend, obviously the same amount for everyone regardless of how much work one person. Lets say a bridge is to be built by 20 people by mutual cooperation and everyone has to work equal amount of hours but the problem is that person A, B, C and D are not working as hard as the rest of the people. So when the bridge is complete do all the workers get the same rights on the use of the bridge or do those 4 workers get to use the bridge only at certain times because they did not do the same amount of work or do they get equal use of the bridge because they live in an egalitarian world? I for sure would not allow those four people use it the same as me because if worked my ass off and those four people decided not to work as hard as me they can swim across the river for all I care, during certain times if they have to cross the bridge. So Vimintiz talks about an equality of condition between two people going into a certain negotiation, so an equal amount of distribution will come out from the final cooperative dividend. This would obviously would solve that problem of the bridge, but then Viminitz goes on top ask “is there a ‘condition’ that could satisfy”(A.P. p15) this premise. But suppose there are conditions for this premise, which Viminitz states but then says, “Any pre-commitment strategy available to one party will likewise be available to her co-player. But these conditions are never satisfied by the real human condition”( A.P. p16). So would it be in my self-interest to cooperate with people in order to get a greater cooperative dividend? Well why bother because if I can chop down 5 coconuts from a tree the other guy only 3 and together we get 10 and then we are to split the coconuts by having 5 each what was the point of cooperating with this person when I alone already can get 5 coconuts. And since humans are not born equally physically and don’t think the same way Egalitarianism is false. Bibliography: References: 1. Viminitz, Paul. Philosophy of Game Theory, 1st Installment, Artificial Prudence. University of Lethbridge. January, 2001. 2. Nielsen, Kai, ‘Radical Egalitarian Justice: Justice as Equality’ Social Theory and Practice, 1979, 209-226.

Word Count: 767