[In the two previous posts, I argued on moral grounds for the necessity of an economy that strives for equality. The Orthodox Heretic’s sister, who is getting a PhD on these sorts of issues, commented, and I wanted to post her comments and then respond to them.]
Anna says: “There is sociological literature regarding the benefits that socioeconomic equality bring to both governments and local and global societies. This literature argues that it is in governments' and societies' best interest to ensure productivity of the market SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH socioeconomic equality within the polity (and sustainability of the environment, too!). Oversimplified, the argument suggests that inequality and insecurity (inadequate food, water, disease, etc.) is directly related to conflict and war, the effects of which extend beyond national boundaries. As such, these interrelated components of poverty are a universal concern and require international attention.
Moreover, conflict and war threaten the stability of governments, societies, and consequently capitalist institutions. Therefore, it is not only right and just to ensure socioeconomic equality, it is also rational and self-interested! This argument, then, appeals to the religious and secular alike.”
The Orthodox Heretic says: “Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I happen to agree with every word of your response. Like you, I also believe that that there is often a happy coincidence between doing what’s right in the moral sense and doing what’s right in the business sense. However, I think we should be careful to keep the moral argument and prudential argument separate. I have always been a little uncomfortable with the “and besides” argument. For instance, people sometimes argue that torture is wrong in the moral sense because it causes harm to a defenseless person, and then quickly add something like, “and besides, the intelligence you get from torture is unreliable.” Those arguments need to be carefully pulled apart and evaluated separately, the first being a moral argument (it’s not right), the second being a prudential argument (it’s not smart).
We must recognize that there has always been and will always be controversy about whether it makes more economic sense to stimulate the economy by stimulating the lower class or by cutting taxes on the upper class. The world needs people like you and your colleagues who are able consistently to present us with compelling arguments that favor the democratic philosophy of economics on prudential grounds. But unfortunately, for every argument you present, there will always be an intelligent, well-worded, and persuasive argument from the other side (actually, there will probably be two, since those folks are better-funded).
As a professional philosopher, I happen to know that you can convince yourself and others of just about any position if you’re clever enough. I don’t mean to say that there are no right answers, but only that we have every reason to expect that this debate will go on until the end of society itself. So while this argument is busy going on forever, Christians need to stand up and remind ourselves and the world that equality is a moral issue of the most serious kind, whether you believe it to be a prudential issue or not, and that therefore economic equality needs to be on the front-burner for those of us who consider ourselves followers of Christ. I’m not willing to believe that I am wrong about that, although I’m willing to believe that I might be wrong about how the economy works (especially because people who are much smarter than I am can’t agree). But what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and yet forfeit his soul?
