作者Scheffler博士是一位哲学教授，他认为，经济不平等确实是个问题，但其中缘由并不那么简单，今天小编就来说说关于纽约时报备忘录?下面更多详细答案一起来看看吧!
纽约时报备忘录
作者Scheffler博士是一位哲学教授，他认为，经济不平等确实是个问题，但其中缘由并不那么简单。
Is Economic Inequality Really a Problem?
By Samuel Scheffler
July 1, 2020, 5:12 a.m. ET
It is impossible to ignore the great disparities of income and wealth in this country, and a great many of us are troubled by this state of affairs.
美国收入及财富的巨大不平等是显而易见的，经济不平等，众多美国人深受其苦。
But is economic inequality really what bothers us? An influential essay published in 1987 by the philosopher Harry Frankfurt suggests that we have misidentified the problem. Professor Frankfurt argued that it does not matter whether some people have less than others. What matters is that some people do not have enough. They lack adequate income, have little or no wealth and do not enjoy decent housing, health care or education. If even the worst-off people had enough resources to lead good and fulfilling lives, then the fact that others had still greater resources would not be troubling.
但我们面临的问题真的是经济不平吗？1987年哲学家Harry Frankfurt发表了一篇极具影响力的文章，他认为人们日子不好过并不是因为经济不平等。此文中，Harry Frankfurt教授指出，有的人相较另外的人要穷一些本身并不是这些人日子不好过的根源，根源是有的人实在太穷，穷得过不下去。他们收入不足、财富极少或者根本没有财富、没有体面的住房、没有良好的医疗保险或教育。如果这些最穷的人有足够的财富过上让他们比较舒坦的日子，那么哪怕另外一部分人财富比较多也没什么大不了。
When some people don’t have enough and others have vastly more than they need, it is easy to conclude that the problem is one of inequality. But this, according to Professor Frankfurt, is a mistake. The problem isn’t inequality as such. It’s the poverty suffered by those who have least.
如果一些人财富不足，但另外的人财富远远超过了自身所需，我们会很容易地认为，这就是不平等。但在Harry Frankfurt教授看来，这是不对的。问题不在于财富有差异，问题在于这些财富最少的人实在太穷。
And Professor Frankfurt, it seems, has a point. Those in the top 10 percent of America’s economic distribution are in a very comfortable position. Those in the top 1 percent are in an even more comfortable position than those in the other 9 percent. But few people find this kind of inequality troubling. Inequality bothers us most, it seems, only when some are very rich and others are very poor.
Harry Frankfurt教授说的似乎有道理。美国最富有的10%日子过得很舒坦，这10%的富人中，最富有的1%相较另外9%过得更舒坦。即便这两群人间存在财富差异，但几乎没有人觉得这种不平等有问题。我们似乎只有在一部分人很富有，另一部分人很穷的情况下，才会认为不平等有问题。
Even when the worst-off people are very poor, moreover, it wouldn’t be an improvement to reduce everyone else to their level. Equality would then prevail, but equal misery is hardly an ideal worth striving for.
即便财富最少的那群人非常穷，如果将其余所有人的财富也减少到跟这些穷人一样的水平，也不能算是一种进步。假如真这么做了的话，大家确实是平等了，但所有人过苦日子绝不是我们所追求的理想生活。
So perhaps we shouldn’t object to economic inequality as such. Instead, we should just try to improve the position of those who have least. We should work to eliminate poverty, hunger, bad schools, substandard housing and inadequate medical care. But we shouldn’t make the elimination of inequality our aim.
所以或许我们不应该如此反感不同人群的财富差距问题。我们要做的是帮助那些最穷的人。我们应当努力消除贫困、饥饿，改善教育、住房及医疗服务。但消除财富差异绝不是我们的目标。
Is this the correct conclusion? I think not. Economic inequality matters a great deal whether or not it matters “as such.”
因此经济不平等并不是啥问题，这个结论到底对吗？我认为这是不对的。不论不同人群之间存在财富差距本身是不是有问题，但经济不平等确实事关重大。
Start by considering two points that Professor Frankfurt himself would accept. First, to succeed in eliminating poverty and securing decent conditions of life for all Americans would require raising taxes on the rich significantly. Although the ultimate purpose would not be to reduce inequality, the indirect effect would be to do just that. So even if inequality as such is not the problem, reducing inequality is almost certainly part of the solution.
我们来思考一下Harry Frankfurt教授所认同的2点内容。首先，要消除贫困，让所有美国人过上体面的生活就需要显著提高针对富人的税收。尽管此举的最终目的不是为了消除经济不平等，但提高富人的税收接济穷人会间接减少经济不平等。所以即便不同人群的财富差距本身不是问题，减少这一财富差距确实是消除贫困的一大途径。
Second, even if economic inequality is not a problem in and of itself, it can still have bad effects. Great differences of income and wealth, of the kind we see in the United States today, can have damaging effects even when nobody is badly off in absolute terms. For example, the wealthiest may be able to exert a disproportionate share of political influence and to shape society in agreement with their interests. They may be able to make the law work for them rather than for everyone, and so undermine the rule of law. Enough economic inequality can transform a democracy into a plutocracy（财阀当政）, a society ruled by the rich.
其次，即便财富差距本身不是什么问题，经济不平等对社会有负面影响。即便从绝对值来看，没有真正的穷人，但美国社会当下财富和收入的极大不平等破坏性是极大的。比如，最富有的人会施加过多的政治影响，使得社会政策符合自己的利益。他们可能能够让法律为自己而不是每一个美国人服务，从而践踏法制。经济不平等会使得一个民主国家变成一个财阀当政的国家，将民主社会变成富人统治的社会。
,
