I admit that I do not know how to say it more clearly than I have, and that what I have said is not enough to be convincing. The only thing I can say again is that the 50⁄50 split is a way of showing equal regard for myself and others in a system in which everyone is under the same obligation and is acting upon that obligation. I will probably rest my argument until I can articulate it more adequately.
You also said: If our needs are equally important to everyone else’s, then surely others have an equal moral claim on the resources that we use for our basic needs, right?
This part I don’t understand. How can anyone make a moral claim on the basic needs of another? I don’t see how this could be. I am only saying that every person has a right to meet their personal needs for food, shelter, etc. -- including myself, so my obligation to give begins after these modest needs are met, we give from what remains. Help me here.
How can anyone make a moral claim on the basic needs of another?
I said that people have an equal claim on resources. This implies that resources ought to be distributed on the basis of need. Sure, you can say that someone has a right to meet their own needs for food and shelter. But I don’t see how my own interests in unnecessary luxury spending should weigh equally against other people’s interests in getting their basic needs fulfilled. You can’t say that you’re treating people’s interests equally by splitting things half and half, when in reality you’ve already taken an advantage. If we’re at a party and I say that I’m going to eat as much of the cake as I need to no longer be hungry, and then I split it with the hungry people after I took what I needed while continuing to eat more, I’m not sharing it fairly. I should either take what I need and then give up the rest, or I should split it equally in the first place.
Thanks again.
I admit that I do not know how to say it more clearly than I have, and that what I have said is not enough to be convincing. The only thing I can say again is that the 50⁄50 split is a way of showing equal regard for myself and others in a system in which everyone is under the same obligation and is acting upon that obligation. I will probably rest my argument until I can articulate it more adequately.
You also said: If our needs are equally important to everyone else’s, then surely others have an equal moral claim on the resources that we use for our basic needs, right?
This part I don’t understand. How can anyone make a moral claim on the basic needs of another? I don’t see how this could be. I am only saying that every person has a right to meet their personal needs for food, shelter, etc. -- including myself, so my obligation to give begins after these modest needs are met, we give from what remains. Help me here.
I said that people have an equal claim on resources. This implies that resources ought to be distributed on the basis of need. Sure, you can say that someone has a right to meet their own needs for food and shelter. But I don’t see how my own interests in unnecessary luxury spending should weigh equally against other people’s interests in getting their basic needs fulfilled. You can’t say that you’re treating people’s interests equally by splitting things half and half, when in reality you’ve already taken an advantage. If we’re at a party and I say that I’m going to eat as much of the cake as I need to no longer be hungry, and then I split it with the hungry people after I took what I needed while continuing to eat more, I’m not sharing it fairly. I should either take what I need and then give up the rest, or I should split it equally in the first place.