George Monbiot writes a depressing article based on evidence that exposing opposed groups of people to scientific evidence that answers their disagreement is likely to polarise them even further. My paraphrase: “Yes, whatever you say, but that’s what does science know. Look at the snow in Spain”.
I wonder if religious people feel the same way about us atheists? In related news, it was good to hear the Methodist church weighing in on the theological issues around high levels of executive pay.
Thou canst not love both God and Mammon. It’s been around for a while. One of Michael Moore’s books charts the ratio of shop-floor pay to boardroom pay over the decades. I went from something like 1:9 in 1979 to 1:500 in 1999. Pretty clear direction of travel, well away from what God intended. See also details of the jubilee in Leviticus.
The CEO pay ratio has gone bonkers in the last decade.
I agree absolutely that wealth redistribution is too much in favour of those who have it. My many rants about our inability to discuss salaries in the UK form one of my thoughts about solutions to the problem.
I also liked the Rawls idea that you should define a society that was fair a priori. How? By not knowing where you would end up in the society (rich / poor, good job / bad job) but knowing you’d be happy with it and that you would be fairly treated regardless.
On the other point, theological arguments are fine, but if I don’t believe in God, they are pretty exclusive and slightly tricky to engage with. That said, to discuss the supporting ethical issues behind the argument (I don’t mind if they derive from religion or finger-waggling philosophers) and (e.g.) to bring in evidence of partnerships such as John Lewis is all well and good. But that feels a bit like rational debate, and so wouldn’t take place on the Today programme.