Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    On Inequality
    On Inequality
    On Inequality
    Ebook63 pages1 hour

    On Inequality

    By Harry G. Frankfurt

    3.5/5

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    From the author of the #1 New York Times bestseller On Bullshit, the case for worrying less about the rich and more about the poor

    Economic inequality is one of the most divisive issues of our time. Yet few would argue that inequality is a greater evil than poverty. The poor suffer because they don't have enough, not because others have more, and some have far too much. So why do many people appear to be more distressed by the rich than by the poor?

    In this provocative book, the #1 New York Times bestselling author of On Bullshit presents a compelling and unsettling response to those who believe that the goal of social justice should be economic equality or less inequality. Harry Frankfurt, one of the most influential moral philosophers in the world, argues that we are morally obligated to eliminate poverty—not achieve equality or reduce inequality. Our focus should be on making sure everyone has a sufficient amount to live a decent life. To focus instead on inequality is distracting and alienating.

    At the same time, Frankfurt argues that the conjunction of vast wealth and poverty is offensive. If we dedicate ourselves to making sure everyone has enough, we may reduce inequality as a side effect. But it’s essential to see that the ultimate goal of justice is to end poverty, not inequality.

    A serious challenge to cherished beliefs on both the political left and right, On Inequality promises to have a profound impact on one of the great debates of our time.

    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherPrinceton University Press
    Release dateSep 29, 2015
    ISBN9781400873272
    On Inequality

    Read more from Harry G. Frankfurt

    Related to On Inequality

    Related ebooks

    Philosophy For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    Related categories

    Reviews for On Inequality

    3.5/5

    23 ratings4 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

    • 4/5
      Interesting thesis, and possibly a subtle distinction that some might dismiss as important. Frankfurt's main point is that equality itself is not a moral imperative, but rather respect and impartiality. In a practical sense this might be a useful distinction, since it is easier to legislate certain kinds of equality, such as racial equality, for example. Unfortunately. Legislating equality does not insure the basic respect that all humans are morally entitled. Recognising this distinction might make it clearer what societal goals should be to redress the root of many inequities.
    • 4/5
      Short book by my favorite philosopher, what's not to like?
    • 2/5
      The newsworthy topic must have led the publisher to go for a cash grab by re-publishing two old 1987 and 1997 (revised or just reprinted?) essays of Harry Frankfurt. The title is incorrect, the author only speaks about economic inequality and unfortunately not very knowledgeably. As a long time professor at Princeton that used to educate the Southern plantation owners before they returned to whipping their slaves and which serves today as a tax shield for its hedge fund (Princeton pays its hedge fund managers more in fees and salaries than it spends on education), Frankfurt would have been in a prime location to notice inequality.Unfortunately, he uses the few pages of these essays to knock down straw men (and probably thinks that his reasonings are original). If Frankfurt had done any research, he would have noticed that economists have known for more than a century that a simple utility calculus and comparison does not work.Frankfurt then discovers that one should optimize towards sufficiency - without, again, noticing that Communists of old have long fought for "to each according to his wants". Ignorance is strength and vapid professorial thoughts are profound, especially if neatly bound by Princeton University Press!By the way, almost nobody is championing for complete equality. Most just want a level playing field (e.g. no legacy admissions) and public decisions based on one person, one vote. Perhaps his Princeton colleagues Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page can enlighten Frankfurt how inequality destroys American democracy. Avoid.
    • 4/5
      It is the moral importance of respect, and hence of impartiality, rather than of any supposedly prior or preemptive moral importance of equality, that constrains us to treat people the same when we know nothing that provides us with a special reason for treating them differently.Rationality entails respect, which entails fair treatment. Frankfurt is careful not to imply that the fact that equality is not inherently moral precludes the idea that equality is often preferable. He shifts the moral imperative from egalitarianism to impartiality and respect. I'm not exactly sure if this message would resonate in today's political climate, but it may help to clarify the conversation.

    Book preview

    On Inequality - Harry G. Frankfurt

    93

    preface

    There has recently been quite a bit of discussion—stimulated in part by the publication of the French economist Thomas Piketty’s research¹—concerning the growth in our society of economic inequality. The size of the gap between the economic resources of those who have more money and those who have less has been increasing rapidly. This development is regarded by many people as deplorable.

    It is certainly true that those with greater wealth enjoy significant, and often objectionable, competitive advantages over those with less wealth. This is most conspicuous, of course, with regard to consumption. It is also conspicuous, far more importantly, with regard to social and political influence. The richer are in a position to throw around quite a bit more weight than are the poorer, in affecting the character of our social mores and conduct, and in determining the quality and the trajectory of our political life.

    Insofar as economic inequality is undesirable, however, this is not because it is as such morally objectionable. As such, it is not morally objectionable. To the extent that it truly is undesirable, it is on account of its almost irresistible tendency to generate unacceptable inequalities of other kinds. These unacceptable inequalities, which may sometimes go almost so far as to undermine the integrity of our commitment to democracy, must naturally be controlled or avoided in the light of appropriate legislative, regulatory, judicial, and executive monitoring.

    It is, I believe, of some considerable importance to get clear about these matters. Appreciating the inherent moral innocence of economic inequality leads to an understanding that it is misguided to endorse economic egalitarianism as an authentic moral ideal. Further, it facilitates recognition of why it may actually be harmful to regard economic equality as being, in itself, a morally important goal.

    The first part of this book is devoted to a critique of economic egalitarianism. Its conclusion is that, from a moral point of view, economic equality does not really matter very much, and our moral and political concepts may be better focused on ensuring that people have enough. In the second part of the book I will recover one way in which economic equality may indeed be of some moral significance.

    one

    economic equality as a moral ideal

    First man: How are your children?

    Second man: Compared to what?

    I

    1. In a recent State of the Union address, President Barack Obama declared that income inequality is the defining challenge of our time. It seems to me, however, that our most fundamental challenge is not the fact that the incomes of Americans are widely unequal. It is, rather, the fact that too many of our people are poor.

    Inequality of incomes might be decisively eliminated, after all, just by arranging that all incomes be equally below the poverty line. Needless to say, that way of achieving equality of incomes—by making everyone equally poor—has very little to be said for it. Accordingly, to eliminate income inequality cannot be, as such, our most fundamental goal.

    2. In addition to the incidence of poverty, another part of our current economic disorder is that while many of our people have too little, quite a number of others have too much. The very rich have, indisputably, a great deal more than they need in order to live active, productive, and comfortable lives. In extracting from the economic wealth of the nation much more than they require in order to live well, those who are excessively affluent are guilty of a kind of economic gluttony. This resembles the gluttony of those who gobble down considerably more food than they need for either their nutritional well-being or a satisfying level of gastronomic enjoyment.

    Apart from harmful psychological and moral effects upon the lives of the gluttons themselves, economic gluttony presents a ridiculous and disgusting spectacle. Taken together with the adjacent spectacle of a sizable class of people who endure significant economic deprivation, and who are as a consequence more or less impotent, the general impression given by our economic arrangements is both ugly and morally offensive.¹

    3. To focus on inequality, which is not in itself objectionable, is to misconstrue the challenge we actually face. Our basic focus should be on reducing both poverty and excessive affluence. That may very well entail, of course, a reduction of inequality. But the reduction of inequality cannot itself be our most essential ambition. Economic equality is not a morally compelling ideal. The primary goal of our

    Enjoying the preview?
    Page 1 of 1