So today's crumbs are yesterday's loaf. Does that mean it's okay that most people live only on the scraps of the few? It seems to me that even if life is better - and in many ways maybe it's not? - that doesn't somehow mean that the current situation is hunky dory. So someone pointed out that wealth inequality is the same today as it was a century ago, and that this is a Bad Thing. But then this guy says, well actually, even if wealth inequality if just as bad, our lives are way better because we have cars and smartphones and HD televisions, which is a Good Thing. I feel like both of those things are true, but they don't negate each other anyway. I mean, this basically reads as a justification of said wealth inequality - I don't think a comparatively higher standard of living really does justify that.
Without reading the article, I can't argue for the author, but I want to mention that you're restating the fundamental difference between two moral systems. Consequentialism and deontology answer your question in opposite ways.So today's crumbs are yesterday's loaf. Does that mean it's okay that most people live only on the scraps of the few? It seems to me that even if life is better - and in many ways maybe it's not? - that doesn't somehow mean that the current situation is hunky dory.
Hi. Person who knows very little about either of these. Where to start? Wikipedia? Not Wikipedia?Consequentialism and deontology answer your question in opposite ways.
Don't overthink it. Consequentialism: "the ends justify the means." Deontology: "It's the principle of the thing." Consequentially: it's okay that "today's crumbs are yesterday's loaf" because a loaf is a loaf. Deontologically: It's not okay that "today's crumbs are yesterday's loaf" because crumbs are crumbs.
Or oversimply. Deontology is about rules. You've got your 10 commandments or your categorical imperative or your wiccan rede or... and if you do what your rules say to do you're doing the right thing. This can get silly. Consequentialism is about results, but isn't quite the same as utilitarianism; the Libertarian what's-good-for-me-is-good school of ethics is consequentialist as well. This gets silly too, but I'm not linking to trolly problems or Ayn Rand because I like you guys.Don't overthink it.