It is hard to make sense of this claim. (Bret calls it an "argument," but no argument is actually given.) Why the use of "inherently"? What does "even if it worked" mean? What does it say about Bret's philosophy that a robust form of equality is tagged as "undesirable"?
https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1363629190600265731
This isn't pedantry. If he's going to substantiate his claim, he should grapple with it a bit more. There are elements in it that require support.
Take the subclaim that "equality of outcome is inherently unjust."
Take the subclaim that "equality of outcome is inherently unjust."
If equality of outcome is "inherently" unjust, then it's impossible for there to be a just instance of it. EOO would necessarily be unjust.
But we can easily imagine a world (a) whose beings enjoy equality of outcome and (b) is just. This would mean EOO isn't *inherently* unjust
But we can easily imagine a world (a) whose beings enjoy equality of outcome and (b) is just. This would mean EOO isn't *inherently* unjust
The "even if it worked" clause is also really muddle-headed. What does it mean? On one conceptualization of "success," the EOO would be broadly accepted by society and satisfaction levels would be high. But then that pushes against his claim that it would be "undesirable."
I understand—and have taught—the political-philosophical debate over the notion of equality. My point in this thread wasn't to invite that debate here. My point was to highlight the subtle ways in which Bret's articulation of one side of this debate is clumsy and careless.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
