The Morality of Equality

Socialism was an economic system designed to be more fair and morally right. Some would even call it a Christian denomination. It was also expected to cure the ills of the market system. Since its collapse many have recognized the unique efficiency of the market system, but stop short of endorsing it as morally preferable. If the implementation of Socialism was not moral, still many strive for some system without markets that would reverse the fall of man as it solves the world’s ills. Markets are seen as aggravating the immoral nature of humanity, not assuaging it. So what is the bottom line, when it comes to the morality of markets? Why are they considered immoral?

According to their opponents and those who simply wish markets to be tempered by the morality of democracy by way of regulation and redistribution rather than destroyed: inequality. It is simply wrong that when two women go to look for houses in which to raise their new child, that one should look among mansions with many bedrooms and baths and big windows and then complains of imperfect tiling on the kitchen floor, while the other drags sore feet around a polluted and stinky neighborhood looking at cramped apartments with no amenities at all.

But is this unfair? Should our shared moral philosophy include complete equality of lifestyle – where does that come from? If we lived in caves and made homes for our families wherever we could, would it be morally wrong for the strongest man to kill and save a larger beast and the nimblest woman to gather the most berries and horde them in order to feed more children of her own? Or would that simply be evolutionarily wise? What if one man invented a refrigeration system, digging and protecting his food underground? Should this be banned? Should he be forced to share his space or his food if others refuse to dig their own? If our society’s morals contradict survival of our species, what does that indicate?

This isn’t to say that we should live like beasts in cave, with “might makes right” as the rule and no one helping another. Morally, we do love our family most, then others that we have met and like and finally the broader society and species. This is an evolutionary tactic, and we should care for and help others in the society – but should our society force us to do it on terms decided by the majority? Is a society not moral if it does not manage to redistribute all the production of the more successful to the less successful, until each member can expect to retire equally lavishly? Must it at least protect the weaker members? What if the stronger members are able and willing to share on their own – is the society immoral if it does not force them to do so?

What if the weakest members can find help, handouts, bushes full of more berries than ever were imagined in previous societies, just waiting to be picked – must the society still ensure that as a society the collective pot awaits any hand which requires it, rather than letting each weak member take advantage of the opportunities that others offer on their own?

When did our collective moral philosophy begin to define morality in such terms: that a society where government does not provide the pot, where it is done privately and where it is so prosperous that nearly every one can avoid accepting charity, is therefore immoral?