Alt Text
Show parent replies
The post below is a reply to another user
the summary of my view is that equality is:
1: not philosophically generative, and is at worst incoherent
2: not necessary or useful for “progressive” political goals
3: actively harmful, misleading, and counterproductive when thinking about the social world
basically i think people like to have abstract moral commitments like equality to simplify things and feel like they have some bedrock to stand on. but, as sara’s bruenig article discussed, there is the looming question of “equality of what” as desirable.
and by the time one can specify “what” in anything resembling a convincing way, they will have had to pack in a whole bunch of contextually specified criteria.
however, this kind of undermines one of those primary appeals of equality, in the sense that it can no longer be some freestanding moral bedrock. i’m saying we’d be better off ditching the concept altogether, rather than trying to add bells and whistles to keep it afloat.