TED Talk on Wealth

I found this fascinating.

The Golden Rule and Fair Vs. Equal

So about a month ago, I was facilitating an off-site program at an elementary school, and in their gym, the teacher had hung a poster about fair vs. equal, explaining that although treatment may not always be "equal", students would always be treated "fairly", according to each students' individual needs.  (To avoid copyright infringement, I won't include a picture, but the poster can be found here).  This poster has led me down a roller coaster of reactions, as at first sight I disagreed with the idea.  To me, it didn't seem to be the best route of establishing a sense of fairness through subjective treatment - I mean, isn't the entire concept of "fair" without being "equal" open almost entirely to opinion?  And is that really the underlying message that we want to provide to developing minds, that people are inherently different, and so justice includes treating them differently.  Because I'm pretty sure that's the very idea many movements through the 1960's fought against...

However, if the teacher is an especially good at his job, designing creative and influential lesson plans, should he be paid the same as an inept teacher at the same school?  Equal would be paying them the same.  Fair would be to recognize the first teacher's abilities, wouldn't it?  Now, an aside would be to wonder which the "real world" most often abides by...  (Don't worry, I'm sure there will be a post on that as well before too much longer!)

So I'm still torn.  Adding to the issue is the "Golden Rule": Treat others the way you would like to treated.  A plea for equality as far as I can see.  And the premise is simple - if you personally would like to treated with respect, treat others with respect.  If you expect honesty, give honesty.  Simple, easy, straight-forward.

But let's delve a bit deeper, eh?  I really like listening to loud music while I study.  Should I therefore, in the spirit of treating others the way I would like to be treated, blare Green Day throughout the library?  Quite simply put, a sadist is just a masochist following the Golden Rule.  So perhaps equality across the board may be a bit too oversimplified.

There have been several figures who have instead offered up the "Platinum Rule" (coined by Dr. Tony Alessandra): Treat others the way they want to be treated.  As George Bernard Shaw surmised: Do not do unto others as you would that they should do onto you. Their tastes may not be the same" (Maxims for Revolutionists, 1903).  Karl Popper, Kant, Nietzsche, and Bertrand Russel have all suggested similar sentiments.

So here we have an argument for treating others fairly, though not necessarily equally, recognizing that even though something may be the right for us, it may not be the best option for others.  In a way, it's taking ego out of the equation.  Now, I also realize that many would argue that such a consideration is perhaps reading a bit too much into the semantics of the phrase, throwing out contrary examples for the sake of contrary examples, and to an extent I would agree with you (after all, the title of this blog is "Arguing With Myself" so obviously even I don't think I'm right enough to prove a point!).  I merely offer this up as an alternative suggestion.

So, should we be treated fairly, equally, or can we find common ground on which to tread between these two?  Can we find something both fair and equal?  I don't think that the Golden Rule and the Platinum Rule are mutually exclusive, rather, considering both may be the best route.  After all, if we're putting more thought into how we treat others, we're thinking less about ourselves and our ends.

If that's even possible.

[edit]

Do Selfish Means Justify Communally Beneficial Ends?

Interesting study a friend of mine posted on Facebook recently.  It's about the movement of Emperor Penguins as they try to stay warm in their harsh Antarctic climate (read it here).  In essence, the penguins mob together, packed so tightly that those in the middle can't even move but also aren't losing virtually any body heat.  Those on the outside, however, are constantly moving, as those in the wind navigate the outside of the cluster, around and to the sheltered side.  Of course, this leaves for a brand new crop of penguins stuck in the wind, who also, in turn, work their around to seek shelter.  Ipso facto, the penguins who first worked their way around will be huddled more and more into the middle as those on the outside work their way around, until, finally, those same penguins that first waddled their way away from the wind are right back there again.

Now, the original post talked about how we can learn from the teamwork of penguins, as they look out for themselves, they contribute to a communal victory.  Even further, commentors on this post talked about the trust these penguins must have in one another, having faith that their turn in the middle was nigh, even speculating that these birds recognized the need for collaboration and so never make the attempt to force their way into the middle.

I, however, don't quite see it that way.

As the article itself mentions, the mob was packed so tightly that the middle birds couldn't even move.  Arguing that those on the outside see the community benefit so don't use force to get what they want is pretty much shot down from here, as I can't recall a single instance of a person attempting to escape East Berlin by throwing themselves (successfully) at the wall.  At the same time, I also can't help but wonder if those on the outside stopped moving, would those penguins nice and cozy in the middle be community-conscious enough to offer their warm spot to one on the wind side?  "Excuse me...it's really warm in there.  I mean, I was pretty much sweating and you're out here freezing your ass off.  Seriously, how can you even stand it?  It's like 30 below!  Here, take my spot."  Definitely.  And at this point, I would like to ask all the idealists out there reading this and scoffing at my pragmatism, thinking to themselves that it would totally happen like that when the last time they traded spots with a homeless person on a winter night...

By I digress.  What I see is selfish action, to each his own, trying to make it through the harsh tundra, wantonly using those around him to survive.  But it is through these self-serving actions that the entire is able to survive, something that might not be possible without this phenomenon.  So selfishness saved all of them.

So the questions is, do the ends justify the means?  If I act selfishly and it benefits the larger group, is that okay?  A mantra of Wilderness First Responder is "Look out for #1 (yourself) so you don't become #2 (the victim)."  i.e. Don't put yourself in a position to become injured, leaving two victims to rescue.  Selfish?  Kind of.  Necessary?  You bet.

So I still ask, does it matter?

My Favorite Reality Show

It's that time again!  Every four years, my favorite reality show makes it's way around once again.  I'll admit, it is more of a guilty pleasure as there far-and-away characters, resembling in no way a normal life, argue and bicker back and forth.  I do believe that those are the best shows: those with "regular people"...just the best. I mean, you listen to the talk and just can't help but wonder who they think they're resonating with.  And isn't that perhaps one of the best things about reality TV?  We get to watch these people, these regular joes, televise their exploits, and the irony is that they somehow maintain the idea that they are just like everyone else, while those of us back here on earth watch and shake our heads.  With the exception of those that actually believe some of the things these characters are saying (there's always a few), the rest of us rush home from work, hastily drop our bags and coats, and hunker down in front of the TV to tune in, trying to not miss a single beat.

In the last episode, they characters traveled to Florida to hash out some differences, and what an episode that made for!  Such things as "facts" or "real numbers" somehow don't actually apply.  The back-and-forth "It's true" "No it's not" "It absolutely is", paired with subtle as well as not-so-tongue-in-cheek digs and insults hurled back and forth...  It's like children, going back and forth as the host of the show sits impotently by, like a downtrodden parent who's lost control of their kids.

I mean really.  Where do these people come from?  Where do they get their "facts"? With whom do they believe they're resonating?  And the best part is, I was watching reruns of episodes from 30 some-odd years ago, and their arguments were about the same things!  It's like 'Survivor': every week, every season, we tune in to see who's the backstabber, who's allying with whom, and who's getting voted off.  Every season is like a mild repeat of the very same issues that previously surfaced last season.  All that seems to change (and the same holds true for American Idol, Jersey Shore, and, admittedly, those are the only ones I can name...) is the faces of the competitors.  The only difference is that none of us can possibly imagine watching Jersey Shore intermittently for 30 years.  At some point, people should grow out of it.

One-time contestants, back in 1980, had a great episode wherein contestants went back and forth over jobs, unemployment, military spending, taxes...nice to see how far we've come, eh?  And in this day and age, the audience seems to be more polarized by the mantle their contestants has donned over what they're saying.  There is a "right" and a "wrong", a difference that appears to based more on truth than "fact". Alliances are a sure-fire way to lose ground.  "Compromise" is the latest four-letter word.  Everyone is against outsourcing and off-shoring, and no one (yet everyone) has contributed to both.  Both sides are cutting our access to healthcare, Medicaid, and Medicare, yet both sides are actively protecting them.  Neither side (yet both sides) are raising taxes.  Everyone is somehow both for and against women.  Everyone is both for and against job creation.  See where I'm going with this?

Welcome to the future.  Welcome to numbers and figures that only exist if we want them to.  Where data and facts are hotly debated and even open to interpretation.  There is no such thing as a number anymore.  Here's a list...choose your favorite and laud it as FACT.  Everyone else is WRONG.

Oh, and don't forget to vote today.  I hear it's the most important election of our lives.  But don't worry.  In four years, it will be the most important election once again.

Struggling to Get By

"I have guys who qualify for food stamps now," he said. "I have guys who don't know how they are going to pay their mortgage. There are kids working at ice cream stands earning more than their fathers, which is ridiculous."

This is pulled from an article in the Bradenton Herald regarding the latest government action to scrimp and save.  The story goes something like this: with no money in the bank, the mayor of Scranton, PA, cut public employee wages to minimum wage for the foreseeable future.  Politics aside (although the article, which can be found at the bottom of this post, makes a great point of the necessity for bipartisan cooperation), I think this issue brings to light an extreme issue plaguing millions of people: minimum wage is not enough to live on.  In the wealthiest nation in the world, a topic brought up in every election is what to do with welfare and social programs - do we fund them or cut them?  Well, long story short, as long as minimum wage is not enough to stay off of welfare programs.  At $7.25 an hour (as it is in PA and WI, at least), one can expect to make only $13,000 a year, which comes about $100 under the maximum monthly income to qualify someone for food stamps (http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm).

Now, if we were to look as this systemically, one may agrue that welfare and social services will always be an issue as long as people aren't making enough to stay off of them.  Seems pretty straightforward, right?  Apparently not.  All we talk about is the Band-Aid we put on the issue - welfare, food stamps, reduced-price lunch - without delving into the actual issue: people don't make enough NOT to use them.  I should think that this situation in Scranton, PA may be a wakeup call to policy makers.  But, alas, I won't get my hopes up.

Find the entire article here: http://www.bradenton.com/2012/07/10/4109205/pa-mayor-cuts-city-workers-pay.html

When People ARE Watching

When I started writing this blog, I did so telling myself that it could be used as a springboard, deceiving myself with dreams of grandeur after reading through some of the more widely read and influential blogs.  And yet, even as I began writing, designing the layout, adding gadgets and choosing fonts, I really hadn't expected anyone to actually read my words.  Of course, these thoughts only come to mind now that it has been noticed.  Now I'm faced with the question: how do you act when people ARE watching?  The dozen posts that came before this one had been written - I now realize - uninhibited by concern for anyone but myself.  That may very well not be the case anymore.  Of course, the insight to be gleaned here is the real-life applicability of what I've found to be a cornerstone off moral action: "Would you be comfortable if your actions were posted on the front page of the newspaper?"  The element of accountability is a significant thing.  If anything, I feel impelled to reread, reconsider, and THINK about what I post.

Now, I also realize that this may be a far-fetched idea: thinking MORE about potentially controversial issues or in thrusting my opinion onto the permanence of the internet.  Too often, the presence of an audience offers not accountability, but encouragement to move even farther away from true analysis and more toward creating the controversy so desired by many.

I think I'll stick to doing it my way.  I realize strong opinions enhances contention and boosts patronage, but I don't want to be read because I argue with people, or tell some people what they like to hear at the expense of telling others what they won't read anyway.  Exploiting that partisan way of thinking my boost ratings but inevitability only contributes to a further split.  Too often this divide is more important than the issue itself, and we focus on our disagreement.  But taking the less exciting path, it's my hope to remain readable regardless of the issue, for that's where I hope we can begin a dialogue to progress on the issues, rather than attempt to force one down the others throat.

Besides, I'm prone to the idiosyncrasy of seeing multiple sides to an issue.  Hence "Arguing With Myself" - give me long enough and I'll go back and clarify, rephrase, or down right disagree with myself.

So what about you?  How do you act when people ARE watching?  Would you be alright broadcasting your opinion at Christmas dinner?