Benefiting inequalities are one thing, but useless ones are an other. I see that this statement was meant to be normative, but it appears to me that it resumes itself best in optimizing utility: if there is a better arrangement, we should pursue it and, as such, inequalities being justified is a conditional statement and ever more least of a thoughtful position if you apply it to, say, the case of athletes: can you really suppose we wouldn't benefit better of something else?
To promote Rawls with the voice and image of a convicted pedophile seems like the most painful contradictions since the NSDAP was promoting its morbid policy with the philosophy of Nietzsche.
Benefiting inequalities are one thing, but useless ones are an other. I see that this statement was meant to be normative, but it appears to me that it resumes itself best in optimizing utility: if there is a better arrangement, we should pursue it and, as such, inequalities being justified is a conditional statement and ever more least of a thoughtful position if you apply it to, say, the case of athletes: can you really suppose we wouldn't benefit better of something else?
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
The problem isn't dichotomous and it would be a fallacy to pretend it.
KrugmanTheKing 2 months ago
To promote Rawls with the voice and image of a convicted pedophile seems like the most painful contradictions since the NSDAP was promoting its morbid policy with the philosophy of Nietzsche.
eneduelikefake 3 months ago