Who gets to judge who's smart and fit to hold our resources?
Intellectuals with equal IQs might disagree on what's best for everyone. They may not even care to use their intelligence to benefit the majority of humanity, since they'd still be humans and naturally greedy.
People are selfish and biased, so imo, egalitarian society is the best way the majority could ever live close to fairness and peace.
I have never said that the majority’s welfare is a value. And you contradict yourself when using disagreement as an argument for egalitarian society.
To be honest I didn’t care enough to write everything well
Okay, but the reason I thought you cared about the majority's welfare is because of this-- "...it’s more valuable for us to have large amounts of resources to be concentrated in the hands of evolutionally superior people."
I assumed the "us" there was society at large.
Idk about a contradiction. Your post made it seem like intellectuals are all just one class of people who could effectively manage resources alongside one another. I mentioned disagreement mainly to point out that there would still be inefficiencies with smart people at the helm.
I think disagreement is a decent reason for egalitarianism though. It encourages mutual respect between people with differences, which helps to avoid violence because everyone's opinion gets a fair shot. People tend to get indignant and start uprisings when they feel they're being oppressed and treated unfairly, after all.
Is it normal that I utterly despise modern society?
← View full post
Who gets to judge who's smart and fit to hold our resources?
Intellectuals with equal IQs might disagree on what's best for everyone. They may not even care to use their intelligence to benefit the majority of humanity, since they'd still be humans and naturally greedy.
People are selfish and biased, so imo, egalitarian society is the best way the majority could ever live close to fairness and peace.
--
Postmodernist1337
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I have never said that the majority’s welfare is a value. And you contradict yourself when using disagreement as an argument for egalitarian society.
To be honest I didn’t care enough to write everything well
--
justdippinginthecesspool
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Okay, but the reason I thought you cared about the majority's welfare is because of this-- "...it’s more valuable for us to have large amounts of resources to be concentrated in the hands of evolutionally superior people."
I assumed the "us" there was society at large.
Idk about a contradiction. Your post made it seem like intellectuals are all just one class of people who could effectively manage resources alongside one another. I mentioned disagreement mainly to point out that there would still be inefficiencies with smart people at the helm.
I think disagreement is a decent reason for egalitarianism though. It encourages mutual respect between people with differences, which helps to avoid violence because everyone's opinion gets a fair shot. People tend to get indignant and start uprisings when they feel they're being oppressed and treated unfairly, after all.