All I know is if the markets are up, unemployment is low, and inflation is still not under control, that's a greenlight for the Fed to keep raising rates.

>I think we need to either redefine what equality means or replace the word altogether

I don't necessarily disagree. What do you propose? Maybe just an acknowledgement that people don't all have exactly the same needs but we should still try to meet as many peoples' needs as possible?

That being said, our needs are not necessarily that different. We may not all have exactly the same dietary needs, but we all have dietary needs. We may not all have the same medical needs, but we all have medical needs. We may not all need the same kind of shelter, but we all need shelter, etc.

Plus, there are things that are intrinsically shared, like culture, language, belief systems, etc. Those are things human beings need to live a good life, and those things are social in nature.

Totally equality would mean everyone is literally the same person. That's not desirable or even possible. Too much inequality, however, and people have a hard time relating to one another, which inhibits social cohesion.

What is "universal morality?"

>Peter Singer argues that individuals should do more to alleviate the world’s poverty

The reason these kinds of statements are empty platitudes is because people like Singer aren't saying individuals should be required to alleviate the world's poverty, through enforceable laws or policies, but rather they should choose to alleviate the world's poverty, freely, which of course many won't do. In the subtext of normative statements like these from liberal, utilitarian thinkers is the absence of enforcement. Enforcement of social norms and moral values (like, one should not hoard wealth and resources at the expense of others) throughout a society or culture is illiberal, as it necessarily means the limiting of individual freedoms and rights, like the right to property and wealth accumulation.