Can inequalities be justified if they do not benefit the worst off

Philosophy

Inequalities

This report aims to provide a philosophical argument for the question -- can inequalities be justified if they are not in the interest of those who are (otherwise) worst off? From a philosophical perspective, this effort could look for statistics and then decipher an answer. Consider that "the Urban League recently unveiled its first "Equality Index," a statistical measure designed to gauge the disparities that exist between whites and blacks in a variety of socioeconomic categories. The results are an alarming reminder of America's persistent equity gaps. The report found that, "despite substantial progress, the status of African-Americans is.73, or 73%, when compared to their white counterparts. (Center for American Progress, 2004) I think that inequalities here can not be justified. With that being said, this report could have searched a plethora of sources, studies and documented research from the ample supply of information such as the internet to find similar studies. This approach would certainly help one understand inequality as it pertains to the question of statistics. Another approach however, could be to avoid the simple yin and yang, black and white, male and female connections. There could be other discrepancies of inequality to consider if we break down the original question. Do we understand each and every word? This report attempts to utilize a more philosophical approach where we can look at just one word -- Inequality. What does it mean?

Inequality true philosopher would no doubt address the real issue here - what is meant by the word inequality? Does inequality really mean that "the unemployment rate for African-Americans has been over 10% for 15 consecutive months (versus 7.3% in March 1999). African-American teenage unemployment was an astounding 33% in 2003. Minorities are less likely to be offered any sort of retirement savings plan at work than are white Americans: 49% of Hispanics and 58% of African-Americans have this option, while 73% of white Americans do?" (Center for American Progress, 2004)

or, is this question referring to other social inequality, mathematical inequality or economic inequality? Is the answer the same for all of these word play scenarios? The word inequality has many meanings because it is an interpretive word. "Second, people often define "inequality" the way the Supreme Court defines pornography -- as Justice Potter Stewart wrote in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964), "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it." (Carden, 2003) One has to make an assumption about the meaning and the use of the word inequality to answer this question.

Assumption 1

It is a fact that, "forty-one percent of Hispanic adults are uninsured, compared to 20% of African-Americans and 12% of whites. Minorities are also less likely to get health care than are whites: 27% of Hispanics did not visit a health care provider in the last year, compared to 15% of whites. Twenty-nine percent of Hispanic women and 20% of African-American women report that they are in fair or poor health, compared to 3% of white women." (Center for American Progress, 2004)

With those sad statistics and the assumption that we are referring to an economic or social pointer for the word inequality, of course no justification can be made for those who are socially worse off. Consider that poor Americans, who are usually minorities, are just as likely, if not more so, to get sick when compared to richer Americans, who are usually white. Based on the ability to provide medical relief for those illnesses there is a definite distinction and one group is definitely worse off than the other. The ability to utilize health insurance demonstrates that the inequality of not being capable of paying ever increasing of healthcare costs is not justifiable. Those who are better off can provide that little plastic card to let the healthcare administrator know treatment can proceed. In this case, being worse off is bad.

Second Assumption

Is it ever better to be the one who is worse off? "According to the AARP, older African-Americans receive more than 44% of their total income from Social Security. The program is the only source of income for one-third of African-Americans over the age of 65. The numbers for Medicaid are similar. Recent proposals to privatize Social Security and cut Medicaid funding would thus exacerbate the equity gaps that already exist." (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 physical, temporal, and spatial characteristics. 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.