Now that you mention it, you do sound Australian. Thinking about the country from this perspective, Australia does look like a decent nation, compared to most of the world. Important to me is access to education and I like how the university loans work here, where I'm not going to be paying them back unless I have a good job. Which I likely will (studying CS) but if it doesn't work out, then I won't be worse off than before I entered uni, unlike a certain country yonder the sea. But I hear Germany does this better still, I spoke with an international student who was hired by a company alongside his uni enrolment.
You should do videos on analyzing economic, politicial and sociological aspects of society from a philosophical point of view, particularly inequality, exploitation, individualsim vs collectivism, preservation, tradition, etc. Do you think any level of economic inequality is ethical and moral? If we posit that economic inequality at high levels is bad and undesirable then what about a society that maintains a "low" level of inequality?
@@Betweoxwitegan certainly that’s something I’d be interested in covering. As to your question of if low level inequality is ethical, I’m torn. Intuitively I think that a small degree of inequality is warranted as a ratio of effort to reward whereby some people will work harder than others and should be rewarded for that. Perhaps there is some threshold of inequality that can be justified, but then, I’m not sure what that threshold would be or how it would be quantified. I think I’d need to consider it further to have a more concrete argument.
@@ethanbenson That would assume people work harder through some sort of superior characteristic, if person A works harder than person B (whatever working harder actually constitutes) then we have to ask ourselves why? Can we as a society assume that some people are just superior in a respect or can we say that they work harder because that's how they've been taught through their unique personal experience, not to mention that "working hard" increases the burnout rate and in the long run you may be less productive than person B. The concept of hard work is quite unique to capitalism, it acts as a rationale for inequality. Perhaps hard work doesn't actually exist, "to ones ability" does an increased productive capacity of an individual entitled them to more of the share of output? Like if someone is more productive than another due to a generic advantage or socio-economic advantage then should they be rewarded from privilege to privilege? My instinctual reaction is no, productive capacity should not determine one's value of labour or worth, this extenuates inequality and induces inefficiency in my view. In my opinion right wing economics is about the self, one's ability to procreate private capital whereas as left wing economics is about the group of humanity, one's ability to perpetuate human experience. It's an interesting topic
@@Betweoxwitegan I'd say working harder than others also includes education or risk (e.g. starting a business). Dentists especially have a lengthy education into a highly stressful job, I have no qualms with this position receiving a higher wage. I'm struggling to think of a more ethical means than supply and demand to ensure that there are dentists in the world.
@@PROtoss987 So the profession one chooses based largely on abilities which are determined by chance facilitate inequality? Who determines a fair and reasonable excess compensation based on work difficulty? It's pretty difficult to measure the difficulty of work accurately, one could argue that a system which eliminates class inequality is better at compensating the quality and difficulty of work on average. We also must ask why people choose certain professions of perceived difficulty and whether or not their ability to perform such jobs should dictate a higher salary, the likelihood of qualification is determined by privilege (i.e. going to a good school, etc) and the access to the job is also determined by privilege (Ability to afford it, etc). We suck at compensating workers effectively and reasonably so imo it's better to eliminate inequality because it's more efficient.
@@hackinggamerxd it didn’t seem to be awfully popular the first time around, but I’m definitely keen to have a chat with you. I’m just quite busy at the moment with the uni semester about to start back up and with work. So I doubt it’ll be in the next week. But I appreciate the fact you’ve followed up and are keen as well
Thanks for watching! Make sure to leave your thoughts in the comments, like if you found the video useful, and subscribe for more philosophy videos!
Good video!
Thank you!
Now that you mention it, you do sound Australian.
Thinking about the country from this perspective, Australia does look like a decent nation, compared to most of the world. Important to me is access to education and I like how the university loans work here, where I'm not going to be paying them back unless I have a good job. Which I likely will (studying CS) but if it doesn't work out, then I won't be worse off than before I entered uni, unlike a certain country yonder the sea.
But I hear Germany does this better still, I spoke with an international student who was hired by a company alongside his uni enrolment.
Yeah, we’re in a good place relative to the US, although it seems a lot of countries in Europe are a step better still
You should do videos on analyzing economic, politicial and sociological aspects of society from a philosophical point of view, particularly inequality, exploitation, individualsim vs collectivism, preservation, tradition, etc.
Do you think any level of economic inequality is ethical and moral? If we posit that economic inequality at high levels is bad and undesirable then what about a society that maintains a "low" level of inequality?
@@Betweoxwitegan certainly that’s something I’d be interested in covering.
As to your question of if low level inequality is ethical, I’m torn. Intuitively I think that a small degree of inequality is warranted as a ratio of effort to reward whereby some people will work harder than others and should be rewarded for that. Perhaps there is some threshold of inequality that can be justified, but then, I’m not sure what that threshold would be or how it would be quantified. I think I’d need to consider it further to have a more concrete argument.
@@ethanbenson That would assume people work harder through some sort of superior characteristic, if person A works harder than person B (whatever working harder actually constitutes) then we have to ask ourselves why? Can we as a society assume that some people are just superior in a respect or can we say that they work harder because that's how they've been taught through their unique personal experience, not to mention that "working hard" increases the burnout rate and in the long run you may be less productive than person B. The concept of hard work is quite unique to capitalism, it acts as a rationale for inequality.
Perhaps hard work doesn't actually exist, "to ones ability" does an increased productive capacity of an individual entitled them to more of the share of output? Like if someone is more productive than another due to a generic advantage or socio-economic advantage then should they be rewarded from privilege to privilege? My instinctual reaction is no, productive capacity should not determine one's value of labour or worth, this extenuates inequality and induces inefficiency in my view.
In my opinion right wing economics is about the self, one's ability to procreate private capital whereas as left wing economics is about the group of humanity, one's ability to perpetuate human experience.
It's an interesting topic
@@Betweoxwitegan I'd say working harder than others also includes education or risk (e.g. starting a business).
Dentists especially have a lengthy education into a highly stressful job, I have no qualms with this position receiving a higher wage. I'm struggling to think of a more ethical means than supply and demand to ensure that there are dentists in the world.
@@PROtoss987 So the profession one chooses based largely on abilities which are determined by chance facilitate inequality?
Who determines a fair and reasonable excess compensation based on work difficulty? It's pretty difficult to measure the difficulty of work accurately, one could argue that a system which eliminates class inequality is better at compensating the quality and difficulty of work on average.
We also must ask why people choose certain professions of perceived difficulty and whether or not their ability to perform such jobs should dictate a higher salary, the likelihood of qualification is determined by privilege (i.e. going to a good school, etc) and the access to the job is also determined by privilege (Ability to afford it, etc).
We suck at compensating workers effectively and reasonably so imo it's better to eliminate inequality because it's more efficient.
Do another call in show
@@hackinggamerxd it didn’t seem to be awfully popular the first time around, but I’m definitely keen to have a chat with you. I’m just quite busy at the moment with the uni semester about to start back up and with work. So I doubt it’ll be in the next week. But I appreciate the fact you’ve followed up and are keen as well