" (Center for American Progress, 2004) When a young black man is accepted into a university-based wholly on quota requirements even though he may have had less success in High School compared to a young white man, then we must again redefine our word - inequality. Who is worse off in this case? Consider that in this scenario, it may in fact be an advantage for a person to be young and black but as the scale tips with age, that same advantage becomes a liability. The answer to our question then, at least for this example, is maybe.

Third Assumption

Economic independence may be the outcome when wage work is an option. but, there are many scenarios where wage work puts people into an even worse economic setting. Consider that minorities such as black or Mexican women are not often given executive level posts and more than likely they end up as minimum wage employees. Thus, wage work actually puts these women already discriminated against in a situation that may do more harm than good. So is it good to be poor? Can we justify the inequality?

There is a saying -- the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. "In a recent essay, MIT Professor Paul Krugman lamented these increases in inequality and the presumed resultant gulf between the have-a-littles and the have-a-whole-lot-mores. Income inequality is invariably a hot-button political issue; in fact, a group calling themselves "Billionaires for Bush (or Gore)" lampooned the major party candidates for their supposed toadyism to the moneyed elite with the slogan "inequality is not growing fast enough!" during the 2000 elections." (Carden, 2003)

From a philosophical perspective, compared to a thousand years ago, the poor of today can and do live better than the kings and pharos of the past. "Nowhere is this convergence more apparent than at the grocery store and in restaurants. For virtually every high-end item, be it a fine cut of meat, specialty spaghetti sauce, whole-grain bread, fresh-ground coffee, or fine liquor, there is invariably a cheaper substitute with almost identical...

The list of high-end goods for which we can find cheaper substitutes of virtually identical quality is endless; and the common man of today enjoys fineries of which the most powerful kings of yesteryear couldn't dream." (Carden, 2003) Compared to our history, being poor today or worse off can assume that there is an advantage to this inequality so they can in fact justify it.
Conclusion

In conclusion, this report focused on the question; can inequalities be justified if they are not in the interest of those who are (otherwise) worst off? The answer is -- it depends. The approach here was to analyze the question from a perspective that was based on the word inequality. We could just as easily have chosen the word justification, interests or the phrase 'worse off'. but, this report shows that if we look closely at the heart of the question, many different answers can come of it. Inequality has many meanings. Sure, as we analyze the question using modern statistics, those who are worse off are just that, worse off. And those who are better off would say that those who are worse off are really better off - ah, okay. When we play with the words like an ancient philosopher, the answers can fluctuate and therefore there is no cut and dry answer. We can justify inequality in some case but not justify it in others. The real point of course is always about our understanding of each and every word and what preconceptions we use when hearing or reading them. Heck, I think I have even heard that many slave owners before the Civil War actually believed that the slaves were better off as slaves than as free Africans. You see, true philosophers can justify anything