Clergyman

New Zealand Listener, Volume 14, Issue 360, 17 May 1946, Page 7

Clergyman

"| ALWAYS suspect an abstract formula of this kind," said the Rev. P. Gladstone Hughes. "It reminds me of Herbert Spencer’s definition of evolution ‘a change from an indefinite incoherent homogeneity to a definite coherent heterogeneity’ which says nothing at all. A formula like this is similar. In the abstract it looks well enough, but as soon as you come to put it into concrete terms, enormous difficulties arise. I would favour the removal of all legal discrimination between the sexes, but to express equality in economic terms is quite another matter..What’s to be the standard of measurement? The amount of goods produced, the time consumed, or the energy? Even these would give you no real guide, because they would leave out the social value of services. You can’t express social values precisely in economic terms, although they must be recognised economically. Different services have different social values, and although I say we must recognise them, I don’t believe we can attempt to attain absolute economic justice. Equal pay for equal work, applied in its bald form, would create what I call ‘social atomism’-cut off the individual from the concept of social duties, and treat him as having an absolute right, without acknowledging, for instance, his duties as head of a family. The atoms would all be deemed to have equal rights, and the duty towards children would be disregarded. As for family allowances-I think unmarried people. of either sex who have no rfesponsibilities should be taxed so as to contribute to the upkeep of children through family allowances. In the case of women, I would remove their obligations as their age increased and the possibility of marriage decreased. But I think complete economic equality would be unworkable and unjust."