[extropy-chat] extreme inequality *and* wealth-sharing as downregulators

Hal Finney hal at finney.org
Sun Oct 31 21:20:34 UTC 2004


One of the principles that I find useful in considering issues like
inequality and wealth sharing is to focus on the personal aspect.
Instead of deciding the issue of how other people should be forced to
behave, I first tackle the harder problem of how I ought to behave.

The reason I say this is harder is because it is often difficult to assess
my own life honestly, applying the same principles which I may use rather
freely to criticize others.  And yet, if I can't come up with convincing
answers to questions of my own personal morality, what right do I have
to prescribe morality for others, and in fact to force it on them?

In the case of inequality, all of us reading this today are in a somewhat
uncomfortable position.  It is easy to look at those above us on the
economic ladder and say that their wealth is unfair, and that it would
cost them little to share some of that wealth and make many poor people's
lives easier.  In many cases, we ourselves would be beneficiaries of such
a plan, and even though we convince ourselves that that is not part of
our motivation, it is hard to know that we are being honest.

But the truth is that all of us live lives of tremendous wealth and
comfort by the standards of the poor people of the world.  If we focus
our attention on them, on the poor villagers of Africa, India, China
and other regions, suddenly we are the ones who are wealthy by comparsion.

What is the right thing to do, given this reality?  How much wealth do
we deserve?  How much should we feel obligated to give to help the poor?
This is the question of wealth and redistribution, applied at the
personal level, and it's a hard question indeed.

Some might argue that we should give all of our wealth until we are
at the same level of the poor we have donated to.  In this way, one
life is made more difficult, while many others are greatly improved.
The net happiness in the world would almost certainly be increased if
each of us adopted this policy.

How can we turn away from this logic?  How can we allow people to suffer
when we each have it in our power to ease their suffering?  The cost
of an internet account can provide many meals to hungry people in poor
countries.  Does our loss of access to entertainment and an addictive
flow of information count, compared to their physical pain and suffering?

I don't have answers to these questions.  I don't find them at all easy
to face in an honest manner.  Until I am able to do so, I am reluctant
to force other people, whether richer or poorer than I am, to follow
particular policies in this matter.

Hal



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list