The "Sin" of Inequality
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. So the saying goes... Even if that popular saying were true, is it really a bad thing?
Is inequality inherently evil?
Let me throw a scenario at you:
Let's say I make $50 an hour and you make $10 an hour. For whatever reason, we both receive raises that double our respective incomes. Now I earn $100 an hour and you earn $20 an hour.
We're both earning twice as much as we did before, so we're both poised to become twice as rich as we previously had the potential to become. However, inequality has grown tremendously. While before there was a $40 difference in our hourly rates, now there's an $80 disparity. Our pay has doubled, but so has inequality.
Is this immoral?
I don't believe anyone can give any logical reason why the above scenario is immoral. Through no foul play, both workers are earning more than they did before.
Let me throw another scenario at you:
Let's say I make $50 an hour and you make $10 an hour. For whatever reason, I receive a raise that doubles my income to $100 an hour, but you are laid off. Before there was a $40 difference in our hourly rates, now the difference is $100.
This is a sad situation, no doubt. It's never good for a person to be left without a job, but...
Is it immoral?
I didn't give the details of your termination. The details don't matter. I'm asking if the scenario above is inherently immoral, not whether its immoral under specific circumstances.
Maybe your company can no longer afford to pay so many employees, so they had to let someone go. Maybe you're a bad worker. I don't know. There are many possible reasons why a person may lose a job. It's an event that increases inequality, but there is no logical reason to claim that it's immoral.
Inequality is merely a statement of comparison. It can't possibly have moral weight any more than a description of the colours in a photograph.
I'd like to close with a few questions:
If inequality is immoral...
- ...who specifically is committing the immoral action?
- ...if I earn the same amount as you but take a side job in my spare time to get extra cash, am I sinning by creating inequality?
- ...is it only sinful to have more than someone else, or is it also sinful to have less? Why? Both states of being create inequality.
Now I want to hear from you.
Let me know what you think in the comments. If you take my "no logical reason" statements as a challenge, feel free to take me on and give me a logical reason why inequality is immoral.
~Seth
- Watch Steemit Explained! Episode 1 in Spanish.
- I'm celebrating One Year on Steemit!
- Check out the Fantasy Map I Made for my D&D campagin.
Earning more than someone else is not a sin. It would be immoral if it pay was determined based on sex or gender. If it is purely based on skill and experience, I don't think it's wrong at all.
Agreed!
Liked the post, it made me think! Thanks for that ;)
I think the people that are going to have issues here are of idealistic nature... an attitude we could all benefit from. (Idealists have high standards and expectations) While it is fair to argue there is no moral dilemma here, I think we can all agree that the world would benefit from a shift in perspective to one of idealistic nature. We are all in this journey together...
It's true. While inequality may not necessarily be immoral or even caused by immorality, that doesn't mean it's ideal.
But I don't think equality is necessarily the right goal. I would love to see the poor raised up. But I see no need to bring the rich down. To have everyone freed from poverty would be wonderful, but I don't need to see equality to believe that good has been done.
In my friendship circle back home I have lots of friends who vary in terms of income. You don't want it to matter and I believe that the friends who are on smaller incomes are happy for the friends that have the larger incomes but i do see sometimes it causes a rift between people. For example, if you get invited on a night out with taxis, dinner, cocktails etc, some can't go because of finances. It's horrible when it happens but peoples finances can cause rifts over time. I always try and be mindful of that when we plan things as a group but I can see where bad feeling can set in on both sides. Also, I wouldn't say that my friends with more money were nessesarily happier than the ones with less, which I think is also worth mentioning. Like the post :)
Thank you for your comment and sorry it's taken me so long to reply.
You're definitely right. My post was a simply exercise in ethics, but it doesn't really deal with the real world issues that inequality can create. Even issues as small as what you wrote above can hurt and strain relationships.
Wouldn't both workers, earning different salaries, be in unequal circumstances from the beginning? Anything they did to earn a double salary payment increase would create a greater disparity between them, meaning they weren't equal from the beginning? Also you could argue that the person that got laid off, although unfortunate for that person, also creates an opportunity for someone else-- possibly giving more equality to their hypothetical employment markets. I think everyone can agree that life is tough, sometimes unfair, and we should try to focus on working hard, and being the best we can be in our professional and personal lives.
True, in both of my scenarios there was inequality from the beginning. But I could have created a scenario where you and I both earn $10, then I get a raise to $20 and you get a raise to $15. We both have more than we did before, but now there's inequality where once there was none.
Life is tough and sometimes unfair like you said. But I don't believe there's anything "immoral", so to speak, about things not being totally equal.
Yep, I agree
The scenarios above are amoral, as far as I can tell as a non-professional Ethicist.
However, what about situations like CEO's in the US making something on the order of 300x the rate of their average employee? That to me IS immoral, because honestly the CEO is doing very little that warrants that kind of pay.
What does the CEO provide?
The people who make the goods or services that are provided by the company should enjoy equally in the profits because the CEO would have nothing to do if not for them.
And if the CEO is only essential in larger organizations, maybe we should just go back to smaller businesses competing in a more fair and open market.
I intentionally gave amoral examples because I want to show that there is nothing inherently immoral about inequality. But without speaking to the exact example you gave, I will say that there certainly can by immoral causes of inequality.
Indeed. That is fair. I think there are both Natural and Designed inequality (or at least outcomes designed to exploit that inequality for the benefit of people whom have a high probability of being Psychopaths.) I would never argue that natural "inequality" can or should be avoided. It's something that seems to exist for balance, and as a consequence of many variables between individuals. My argument is when you design systems with the sole purpose of exploiting the gap and even widening it, THAT is immoral.
I believe business(es) can use natural inequality to the benefit of everyone within the organization, while providing a fair compensation to all involved. It to be the main reason people get organized. To smooth out the inequality that would otherwise exist. 300x the average pay of the people who, without which there would be no business, in my mind is grossly immoral.
Really great and thoughtful comment. I have nothing to add.
Who is immoral in your example: the CEO who took the job or the board of directors who determined his salary? What about the shareholders voting in the board of directors?
What is the immoral act? Being too generous?
The immoral perpetrators are both the CEO and the board of directors. The immoral act is circle jerking the "uppercrust" while everyone underneath, the people who ACTUALLY produce what ever is being offered, are left getting more and more poor so that the CEO and the shareholders have ever greater profits.
It's hardly different from modern slavery, save for the "Paycheck" that covers all my basic necessities for life (which the "Master" would have had to purchase anyways), is also picked over by the Thief in a government costume declaring it "tax".
How is it moral to watch people suffer around you and do nothing to help? I would remind you, these are the same people who MADE YOUR FORTUNE. Corporations couldn't have amassed the billions of dollars they have without engaging in near slave labor, which is immoral.
No, in my opinion inequality is not immoral. We are not equal, so we shouldn't be treated the same or earn the same. Sure you can argue that maybe you or I, or anyone else might deserve better or worse, but that differs from individual to individual. However, I do think some checks and balances should exists for power to not get to an unmanageble level. Because as the saying goes "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".
Individual liberties implies individual responsibilities. If you want the first, you'll need to accept the second.
Nice ! I followed you and now its your turn ;)
It is not the amount you earn that is immoral. It is how you earn it. Take unearned income and earned income as examples. One of them you aquire by holding a monopoly. Limiting access to a piece of land. You are reducing freedom for others on this earth. And you are not producing anything. You are collecting land rent for land that existed before you and your family were born.
And the other is earned by working, by providing goods and services for others. Others benefit from your work and you are remunerated accordingly.
The problem with inequality is that it is created because of unearned income, because of land rent. Also known as economic rent.
https://medium.com/the-ferenstein-wire/a-26-year-old-mit-graduate-is-turning-heads-over-his-theory-that-income-inequality-is-actually-2a3b423e0c