A Dialectical Dialogue on Wealth and Equality

by | Nov 7, 2023 | philosophy

 

You have been asked to write a conversation between two interlocutors, one of whom begins the conversation by asserting and defending a view expressed in the quote provided. The other of whom questions challenge the views and arguments made by the first.

You will choose a claim associated with the following topics:

Liberty and Freedom: “Conflicts over liberty and freedom are simple to resolve: A person should be free to do or say anything they choose as long as it does no harm to others.”
Abortion: “Every person has a right to self-determination, and that includes the right to determine for oneself whether to have an abortion.”
Death Penalty: “Murder in all its forms is morally wrong, and the death penalty is simply a form of murder, and thus morally wrong.”
Equality and Difference: “The successful defeat of racism and sexism requires that we come to view differences in race and sex as irrelevant as differences in eye color.”
Wealth and Equality: “It is not an ethical problem if someone has a yacht while another person is food or health insecure, as long as the difference in wealth was arrived at fairly.”
In asking you to write a DIALECTICAL DIALOGUE, I am asking you to write a conversation between two interlocuters, one of whom begins the conversation by asserting and defending the view expressed in the quote, and the other of whom questions and challenges the views and arguments made by the first. The conversation that you write up, to be properly dialectical, should do the following:

Explain or interpret the view (more than one interpretation may be possible).
Consider reasons for thinking the view is true.
Consider reasons for thinking it is false.
Consider the strengths and weaknesses of the reasons offered both in defending and in criticizing the view (2 and 3 above).
Explore the topic beyond the original quote in whatever way the conversation takes it.

Sample Answer

Sample Answer

 

 

A Dialectical Dialogue on Wealth and Equality

Interlocutor 1: It is not an ethical problem if someone has a yacht while another person is food or health insecure, as long as the difference in wealth was arrived at fairly.

Interlocutor 2: I understand your point, but I have some reservations. First, how do we define “fairly” in the context of wealth accumulation? And secondly, even if wealth is acquired fairly, should there not be a moral obligation to address the disparities that result in food and health insecurity?

Interlocutor 1: Fairness, in the context of wealth accumulation, means that individuals have obtained their wealth through legal means without exploitation or unfair advantage. If someone has worked hard, made wise investments, and followed the rules of the economic system, they should be entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labor, including luxuries like yachts.

Interlocutor 2: While I agree that lawful acquisition is important, we must recognize that individuals’ access to resources and opportunities is not always equal. Some people are born into disadvantaged circumstances or face systemic barriers that limit their chances of accumulating wealth. Isn’t it our moral duty to address such inequalities and ensure everyone has basic necessities like food and healthcare?

Interlocutor 1: I understand your concern, but individuals should be responsible for their own well-being. Charitable acts and social programs can help those in need, but it should not be mandated or viewed as an ethical problem if some individuals have more than others. In a free society, people should have the right to use their wealth as they see fit.

Interlocutor 2: But doesn’t extreme wealth inequality perpetuate social divisions and undermine societal cohesion? Moreover, research shows that when there is widespread poverty and insecurity, it affects everyone’s well-being, including the wealthy. Shouldn’t we strive for a more equitable distribution of resources to ensure a stable and harmonious society?

Interlocutor 1: While it is true that extreme inequality can lead to social unrest, it is the role of the government to maintain law and order. Additionally, trying to achieve absolute equality may stifle innovation and discourage individuals from working hard. It is through economic freedom and competition that we can achieve progress and prosperity for all.

Interlocutor 2: I agree that innovation and hard work should be encouraged, but there must be a balance. We can strive for a society where everyone has access to basic needs while still allowing for individual success and achievement. Progressive taxation, social safety nets, and investment in education and healthcare can help bridge the gap between the wealthy and the less fortunate.

Interlocutor 1: I see your point. Perhaps it is not an either-or situation. We can acknowledge the right to accumulate wealth but also recognize the responsibility to address societal inequalities through policies that promote a fairer distribution of resources.

Interlocutor 2: Exactly. By striking a balance between individual freedom and collective well-being, we can create a society that values both personal success and social justice.

In this dialectical dialogue on wealth and equality, both interlocutors examine the ethical implications of wealth disparities. While one argues for the freedom to accumulate wealth as long as it is done fairly, the other challenges the notion by highlighting the moral duty to address societal inequalities. Through their discussion, they explore the complexities of wealth distribution and recognize the importance of finding a balance between individual liberty and social justice.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer