Altruism does not have so much to do with the phenomenon of economic inequality but with an evolution of moral sensitivity through the use of new symbolic cognitive instruments throughout the civilizational process. It is not inequality that becomes morally intolerable, but empathic sensitization that makes the suffering of others emotionally intolerable.
Economic inequality has often been called “systemic violence” and that is the dimension in which altruism has to be addressed: as an element of development of the control of aggression, which is in reality the authentic human problem par excellence.
The framing of inequality as ‘systemic violence’ and altruism as ‘control of aggression’ assumes rather than demonstrates that wealth differences primarily reflect exploitation. This fails to address the central question I posed: whether and when inequality reflects productive allocation versus extractive behavior.
While moral sensitization may affect how we feel about others’ suffering, this doesn’t help us understand the causes of that suffering. Defining inequality as violence or aggression is effectively a stance in favor of violence, because it makes it impossible to discuss alternatives.
Defining inequality as violence or aggression is effectively a stance in favor of violence, because it makes it impossible to discuss alternatives.
The answer to violence does not have to be violent. On the contrary, an understanding of the phenomenon of violence (including the phenomenon of economic inequality as systemically exploitative) must lead us to establish non-violent cultural alternatives. This implies that those who are singled out as exploiters are not so from the point of view of distributive justice, but as defenders of a different cultural model that assumes a certain degree of aggression as inevitable. It is not about class struggle or about legislating economic equality, but about promoting altruistic cultural development in the sense of developing empathy, benevolence and mutual care also on an economic way. On the other hand, those who defend equality in the sense of a rational allocation of resources according to the needs of individuals will have to demonstrate that their cultural model is also capable of generating economic efficiency. Something that the supporters of class struggle have demonstrably failed to do.
Altruism does not have so much to do with the phenomenon of economic inequality but with an evolution of moral sensitivity through the use of new symbolic cognitive instruments throughout the civilizational process. It is not inequality that becomes morally intolerable, but empathic sensitization that makes the suffering of others emotionally intolerable. Economic inequality has often been called “systemic violence” and that is the dimension in which altruism has to be addressed: as an element of development of the control of aggression, which is in reality the authentic human problem par excellence.
The framing of inequality as ‘systemic violence’ and altruism as ‘control of aggression’ assumes rather than demonstrates that wealth differences primarily reflect exploitation. This fails to address the central question I posed: whether and when inequality reflects productive allocation versus extractive behavior.
While moral sensitization may affect how we feel about others’ suffering, this doesn’t help us understand the causes of that suffering. Defining inequality as violence or aggression is effectively a stance in favor of violence, because it makes it impossible to discuss alternatives.
The answer to violence does not have to be violent. On the contrary, an understanding of the phenomenon of violence (including the phenomenon of economic inequality as systemically exploitative) must lead us to establish non-violent cultural alternatives. This implies that those who are singled out as exploiters are not so from the point of view of distributive justice, but as defenders of a different cultural model that assumes a certain degree of aggression as inevitable. It is not about class struggle or about legislating economic equality, but about promoting altruistic cultural development in the sense of developing empathy, benevolence and mutual care also on an economic way.
On the other hand, those who defend equality in the sense of a rational allocation of resources according to the needs of individuals will have to demonstrate that their cultural model is also capable of generating economic efficiency. Something that the supporters of class struggle have demonstrably failed to do.