Question on happiness

[Carl Remick]

>Jacob Segal wrote:
>
>>Forwarded article from Robert Samuelson in this week's Newsweek. ...
>
>>  No one wants a society starkly split into "haves" and
>>"have-nots." The obsession with "rising inequality" plays to these fears
>>without addressing them. It is mostly a moral self-indulgence: a way of
>>demonstrating superior "caring."
>
>I hope there's a special circle of hell for people who make arguments
>this spurious.
>
>>  It implies that the rich are somehow
>>responsible for the plight of the poor
>
>Heavens! Not that!!
>
>Doug

I can't figure out where disingenuousness leaves off and moral obtuseness 
begins in arguments like Samuelson makes.  It seems to me so clear that 
gross inequality of wealth means gross inequality in the distribution of 
social power and security of every kind, material and spiritual -- and that 
this in itself coarsens the sensibilities of all and helps cultivate 
cultural decay -- that I am at a loss as to how to make those points still 
more self-evident.  As trite and even priggish as it may sound, demands of 
basic justice and simple decency can't be written off as mere "moral 
self-indulgence."

Carl

Carl
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com