How would the world look like all the primary necessities according to living environment and necessities would be fairly divided on every living creature on earth?

A very good question, with which you immediately show your involvement with the quality of life on Earth.I have thought about this myself all my life, and finally came to the following concerns *:

  • For me, a fair distribution would also be a division that takes into account the circumstances and needs of every man, plant and animal.
  • This is hard to realise, because how are you going to map this lens, distribute it fairly, and stop abuses?
  • Suppose we can achieve a fair distribution, this is only a temporary situation.

It is not true that a fair distribution ensures that people are not again poor, sick, unemployed or in any other way disadvantaged or help themselves in the abashment. E.g. People who are on expensive medications will automatically re-arm. People who are not being withheld from personal discrimination (difficult to prove) for a job cannot build up a stable income.

  • My conclusion: a fair distribution is absolutely worth noting, but then we need to think and act beyond our current frameworks.
  • We can ask ourselves what role e.g. Money, political decision-making and typical human misconduct (aggression, envy, Egoism, power urge,…) play in preserving injustice. As long as the decision-makers benefit from maintaining themselves and a limited elite to the detriment of a fair distribution, we can better adapt the underlying systems first.

    * I use the human perspective because we now have the greatest influence on all life on Earth.

    Want more food for thought?Below I work out the above points more extensively, with more examples.

    • Whoever says: “Everyone is right before the law”, usually means: everyone is entitled to the exact same level of benefits.

    In This reasoning, you do not take into account that some people are more disadvantaged than others by their health, income, nature, opportunities, and many other factors. Whoever is such an injured party, soon realizes that this is not fair/fair. A humane system will never have to disadvantage those who have already had difficulties with those who have it easier.

  • One of the ideals of the French Revolution was equality (in addition to freedom and solidarity).
  • But no one is right, after all, we are all unique. So equivalence is a better concept: in a just world everyone has the same value. No one is more or less than another. Everyone hears and contributes his own little bit. Even those disabled people who seemingly only laugh at the David can make them merry and give courage.

  • The beautiful idea of equal rights and obligations should not ensure that someone with more opportunities has to do less than he can, and someone with fewer possibilities more than he can.
  • E.g. Someone who is healthy or someone who works may not be seen as more valuable to society as someone who is sick or unemployed for a long time.

  • In addition, you may also wonder if anyone who bears more responsibility (e.g.
  • Politician or manager) would be more valuable than another? Maybe someone with more responsibility does not necessarily have to earn more, or gain more power. Everyone contributes to society preferably according to their own interests and talents, and further to best ability. By e.g. A business leader with seemingly more responsibility to pay more, you do as if that job is more important than e.g. The garbage man. Take a look at cities where garbage has not been collected for months. A city becomes a dump, everything is raffedert. Then still prefer a company without CEO, that continues to run so too though. And there remains more money to invest in the work and quality of life of the employees.

  • Everyone has the same responsibility for me, namely to live your own life as best as possible, contributing to your environment and society within your abilities and constraints.
  • The disadvantage of taking into account various living conditions and needs is that this is subjective. The advisors, committees and legislators who decide who has the right to do so, strive for generally applicable schemes.
  • It is quite complex to calculate this to an individual level. And who will pay the auditors to determine whether there is too much abuse of the benefits? At this moment we are in the world with strong political tendencies towards ‘ everyone equal before the law ‘. Those who have more needs (poor, sick, unemployed, elders…) are depicted without much shame as troublesome, unhelpful or even profiteers. In this way one wants to reduce their ‘ benefits ‘, because they would be too costly for society. These are not advantages, however, because the measures taken by e.g. Social Security (benefits, often low) only serves to raise the balance of injured parties slightly more, making them less disadvantaged in the best case.

  • Politicians must, according to the law, divide and manage their budgets as a good family father.
  • Would a good house father have to favor the child who walks on his slippers through the education and to his child who has to work hard for school, has already 2 times gebist, but still boldly continues to say that it must give up his study, because it Does it cost too much compared to what it yields? Is it a good family father who promises his partner and children the heavens and then does the complete opposite?

  • A fair distribution starts with the election system.
  • And so I can go on for a while, but I better write a book.
  • 🙂

    Leave a Reply