Even something like rich with an incurable disease (or maybe your spouse/child has one) that’s going to take you out in a few months than poor? Having lived a bit in both worlds I’m not really sure it’s so simple as you’re making it out to be. I’d agree that generally of course it’s better to be rich than poor, I’m just saying every individual person can’t be judged solely on that basis.
>Even something like rich with an incurable disease
The contest is between being rich and poor with "all other things being equal". Anything else doesn't make sense, might as well ask: do you prefer being rich facing the firing squad, or poor having drinks with friends?
So, compared to being poor with an incurable disease? Yes, 100 times over.
>Having lived a bit in both worlds I’m not really sure it’s so simple as you’re making it out to be.
Rather it's so simple a choice that you had to add the "incurable disease" to the rich side to tip the balance.
My point was just that all things aren’t equal when judging individuals - life is hard for people in unexpected ways you may not immediately see from their socioeconomic status. My original comment at the top of this thread was about how treating individuals as individuals has served me well, and was explicitly not to set up a contest between whether it is always better to be rich than poor. So if I failed to do so to your satisfaction, I suppose that’s why.
>My point was just that all things aren’t equal when judging individuals
They're not, but for comparing one should only account for things that are different because of being rich vs poor. Having an incurrable disease is not that, as it can perfectly well happen to both rich and poor (and the rich would get better treatment for it anyway, and it wont cost them their house or savings).
Okay, thanks. What is your takeaway in the end, in contrast to my suggestion about empathising with people individually instead of judging them as part of a group based on their socioeconomic status or other outward indicators?
