It is a truth that we don't deserve anything we have, here in the upper class of the developed world. If we believe that in general believe have approximately the amount they deserve to have, then that would also mean that people who have nothing deserve nothing. For what fault of theirs? For being born somewhere poor, somewhere dirt poor. And if we don't deserve what we have, then we're obligated to help those who deserve to have more than they do.
The poor don't deserve to be poor. And they don't deserve to not be poor. The whole concept, applied at a global level, is nothing more than yet another example of our need to wrap everything we see in pretty stories.
I wish we had a more equal world, but I don't see why should I believe this to be anything more than a personal preference.
At the very least, it's a personal preference that generally accords with other people's personal preferences when actually implemented. Highly egalitarian, highly productive societies are effective at sustaining themselves, defending themselves, and keeping their citizens happy -- in fact, more so compared to highly inegalitarian societies. So why the hell not?
I agree with the point if not the article itself. The corollary to the dean's statement is the people who are starving in third world countries deserve it.
