It's the natural order of things, DArt. Man does not want genuine equality. Our basic instincts are self-centered and greedy.
Might as well bemoan water being wet.
Not sure what you mean by that.It has nothing to do with what we want, it has to do with what we know.
Not sure what you mean by that.
If you're wanting people to admit to their baser instincts (knowing that they don't want equality), I think you're going to be disappointed. That level of critical introspection isn't exactly common, doesn't play well in public, and generally gets shut down almost in self-defense.
That means that lower classes will have less appealing conditions under which to function in society - effectively exploiting them.
The problem with any attempt to change social/economic class distinctions and the such is that you will never find consensus to the question of 'what is exploitation'?
As an example, we have an admin at my firm. I doubt she makes 1/3 of what I make in base pay and she probably doesn't get much of anything in bonus. Both of our job functions are critical to our firm no doubt, but her skillset is not that rare, while mine is. Her skillset doesn't even require a college degree, but mine took nearly a decade of school.
So is she being exploited? I would say no, she's being fairly compensated (her compensation is probably in the top quarter for her job function) based on what the market requires. Others would say she is being exploited.
You are flying high man.Once you remove pay from the equation - you arrive at problem-solved station.
"Suffer" is certainly a relative and subjective term which makes argument nearly pointless. That said, I'm comfy with a generality that people have an inborn instinct to want "more".People have no inborn instinct dictating that others should suffer - that's bullshit.
"Suffer" is certainly a relative and subjective term which makes argument nearly pointless. That said, I'm comfy with a generality that people have an inborn instinct to want "more".
The key is that it doesn't really matter what the form of "more" really takes. It's free to be whatever is appropriate for the group being examined. So, in our current cannibal-capitalism paradigm, "more" largely takes the form of a bigger pile of consumer goods and the money used to attain them. If we look at "a simpler world" where money isn't even in the picture, "more" could take the form of an extra apple or a cave to live in that doesn't fill with water every time it rains. Taken to a strictly biological scale, "more" could be multiple or more desirable mates.
Regardless of the chosen context for "more", it entails by definition an inequality and humans want it.
If it were learned behavior, you wouldn't see it in animals. They don't get socially indoctrinated. But some animals are social, right? If it were cognitive social behavior, you wouldn't see it in "dumb" animals like insects. Yet, we do. Instinct.No, I don't agree that we want more based on instinct.
Again, we want more based on what we know. If we understood that more doesn't actually mean more - it wouldn't be desirable.
Problem is that we think more is more.
Now, now. DArt's vision is actually very coherent, as long as you agree to certain assumptions. That's why the appropriate argument with him involves the validity of his assumptions, rather than the structure he's built. Thus, rather than arguing about a world without monetary drivers being impractical, the better argument revolves around the "why".DArtagnan is starting to sound like that ChienAboyeur fellow.