Is inequality in society a good thing or a bad thing?

Question

Liberals state that inequality is natural and desirable as it allows the cream to rise to the top and promotes aspirations in society.

Socialists state that inequality is caused not just by individual failure but also by inequality in society and that this is harmful and inequality should be reduced wherever possible.

So which camp are you in, and why? :-)

Answer 1

It is a necessary evil. I'd say that I am in the liberal camp. To me it seems you are referring to classic liberalism. Modern liberals are like the socialists.

Answer 2

Social mobility is negligible so the cream does not rise to the top. On the other hand equality for all creates a system where there is no reward for hard work or punishment for laziness. The ideal is somewhere in between.

Answer 3

If we were all equal , the same, it would be a very dull world. If less intelligent people did not exist, how would we perceive what is intelligent? If we had no `evil` how would we know what `good` is? Would it mean the re-classification of work and jobs? If everyone was capable of doing the `best` jobs, who would do the not so  good jobs? Society would require completely new structures and rules to live by.

Answer 4

To a certain degree it it is a good thing. Who doesn't want to live in a Utopia where everyone is equal but unfortunately the fight for power always ends up with someone being trodden on. It's inevitable

Answer 5

Definitely the liberal camp.  Inequality is inevitable because people are not equally endowed with intelligence, ability, qualities of leadership etc etc.

You can make the playing field as level as possible by giving everyone an education and the right to enter the professions etc, but you cannot make life perfectly equal for everyone because life isn't that way.

But life should be as tolerable as possible for those who are not the leaders, the succeeders, the powerful ones etc so i am totally in favour of free education, medical care etc.  I wouldn't want to see the safety net of the welfare state removed.

Answer 6

Socialist to the end.

Elitism and hierarchy corrupt both the ruler and the ruled.

Freedom, egalitarianism, and anhierarchism allow more people to rise to their potential. When someone else accomplishes more, that makes it easier for me to accomplish more too.

Now people are confusing *inequality,* that is hierarchy, that is privilege for one person and barriers for all other people, with *difference.*

Answer 7

The first.

Peoplel benefit from oppression, are you from the UK? British Empire was built on the oppression of others.

Answer 8

SOME inequality is inevitable, and cannot be resolved without serious government intervention. I don't think society can function properly without some limited economic disparity.

Answer 9

Both, sorta.  

Like the first group, I believe it is important that we have a society in which the "cream may rise to the top".  What's the point of being brilliant if you get the same rewards for your brilliance as the guy next door gets for washing dishes at a cheap diner?  

However, like the second group, I recognize that inequality often causes more inequality.  A brilliant child born to a dirt-poor family in a dangerous neighborhood may never reach their full potential because of their background.  Likewise, an average child born to a wealthy and conscientious family may grow up to be an outstanding and successful person, whereas a child who is just as average as the aforementioned rich child may grow up in a disadvantaged family and end up being a criminal.  

I think that inequality *at an early age* needs to be eliminated as much as possible.  Obviously we cannot change a child's home life...but we can work hard to ensure that bad schools and bad neighborhoods are improved.  We can level the playing field, so to speak.  I do not believe in enforcing equal outcomes, but I DO believe in equal opportunity.  

Basically, I believe that we should tweak our society so that everyone has access to the same opportunities and is not significantly denied of any opportunities based on their race, gender, or social class.  Then, once the playing field has been leveled, the excellent people will (and SHOULD) naturally rise to the top and the people with little to offer will end up near the bottom.  This is how things ought to be...your place in society should be based upon your innate abilities, not upon how much money your parents had or what school you went to when you were a child.

Answer 10

As usual, I don't fit exactly in either one!

I think society not only assigns more worth to certain lifestyles or professions, but to the people involved in them, and I think that's wrong. The attitudes within society can lead to some people being given less rights than others, and I think inequalities in opportunity should be reduced.

But I also don't think that making everyone the same in regards to class or income is desirable. Some people will choose not to take the opportunites they have, and not everyone has the same drive or ambition. I don't think we should try to reduce individual differences.

Answer 11

Packing my tent and finding a spot away from both "camps"....

Answer 12

It is an inevitable thing. It exists because human beings have fundamental flaws within them.

What camp is that, oh wise and powerful Norm?? ;-)

Answer 13

I'm on neither side really, I believe inequality is unfair, but inevitable. There will never be an exact balance of power, as animals it is our instinct to be the alpha male/superior/position of power, etc.

It's just our nature & there's nothing we can do to change it.

However, I commend those who fight for change and to give equal rights to those who dont have it. It's one aspect of humans that make us special, that we will still try to help others selflessly.

Answer 14

if you are raised by billionaires, sent to public school, and have access to private tutoring, you are more likely to succeed than a child who goes to state school, and has little to go on but what their parents all ready know. success is not down to the individual, but down to the circumstances in which that individual exists. how can that be fair? inequality is not good, nor is it fair. it should not be inevitable if the society you live in declares itself to be civilised, it should be minimised or stamped out all together.

Answer 15

I do not claim to be liberal.  I am conservative, and certainly not socialist.

Inequality is natural, and inevitable.  Any social construct that purports to remove inequality will pull down the high acheivers and use their skills to uplift the poor acheivers.

All the people who yearn for an equal society are delusional.  People have choices, and many of us make the 'wrong' choices, and our inequality is thus internalised (in terms of responsibility).  This cannot be mandated against, legislated against, redeemed without huge cost, or totally prevented.

Other people make the 'right choices' and thus excel.  They should not be fettered by some sort of societal jealousy.  If *I* am wealthy by means of chance, inhertiance or legal capitalist means, then why should I be curtailed by those who are not in my position?  Why apend a greater social responsibility to me where I have no say in how my wealth is distributed?  Corollary to that, if *I* am at the opposite end of the scale, why should I expect to be elevated through lack of effort, poor decision making and so on?  I have no issue with supporting those who cannot support themselves.  I also believe in a basic welfare state.  I do not condone the right of some to choose not to work yet expect support.

My tuppence worth.

Answer 16

I advocate a benign meritocracy, but nobody ever listens to me!

Answer 17

I'm in the middle:-) though I lean more towards the liberals.  Too much inequality is bad -- it discourages people from trying if they don't think they have a chance of improving their lot, and it's bad if some people start of way ahead or behind of everybody else.  However, some degree of inequality, especially fluid inequality, is good because it encourages people to innovate, which leads to a higher standard of living for everybody.

Answer 18

Not earning as much money as a man in the same field of work just because your a women is not a good thing.

Answer 19

Inequality is a good thing. It makes you strive for more, it challenges you to reach your full potential. Equality blurs distinctions providing us with a sense of pseudo happiness that leaves us prey to totalitarianism.

Inequality opens our eyes to knowledge, it puts us back into perspective to show us where we stand.

Answer 20

..inequality in a society is a normal thing.. and i believe normal things are good. (if it's abnormal  -there's probably something wrong with it, hence it's bad, right?)

Answer 21

'Creating'' equality in society ends up bringing the strong down to the weakest level - never the other way around.  

So, therefore, I am of the camp that believes in Darwinian theory - and parents should start teaching it to their children at a very young age...instead of patting them on the heads and telling them that someone will always take care of them...