Equality

[Tyria]

Do you think that people are equal? Why or why not? What is equality exactly, and when are people considered equal? Feel free to put forth what you consider to be an appropriate definition of equality to answer these questions.

The purpose of this thread is to examine the concept of equality in our own personal experiences, and to examine how equality has evolved in our own respective societies. Please keep the discussion on topic, mature, and respectful. Thank you.

 

[flow]

Are we equal? No. No one is given the same life as anyone else. We are all born into different circumstances with different skill sets at our disposal. No two snowflakes are the same, no two lives are the same. There is no such thing as equality. Can we work towards equality? Yes. We can work to improve the chances of those born with little to nothing and give them opportunities to succeed. Will equality ever be achieved? No. Should we strive for it anyways? Probably.

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

This is immature:
http://iowntheworld.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/obamas20.jpg
But totally relevant.


So... um yeah. I think that everyone should be treated as an equal socially, and also treated as an equal by the government. (Maybe even be treated as an equal under God.) Obviously we can't force people to treat everyone equally socially (nor should we!) but it's just an ideal to try to achieve.

 

[Claverhouse]

Equality is the first recourse of feeble minds.



Claverhouse

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

Equality is the first recourse of feeble minds.

Typical moderator attitude.

 

[Cavallier]

Typical moderator attitude.

Ha! I was thinking, "Typical Dictator".

Umm...I think that a desire to reach total equality is impossible. I think that since everybody is born into differing situations and with different strengths and weaknesses equality is a crazy notion we've all created. There is no such thing as total equality or even relative equality.

I think that many people mistake respectfulness and politeness for equality. If we don't bias ourselves against others based on things that don't matter (like skin color and economic status) then the equality issues wouldn't come up.

So, no. We aren't equal, but that doesn't mean we have to mean to each other...

 

[Gorgoroth]

Are we equal? No. No one is given the same life as anyone else. We are all born into different circumstances with different skill sets at our disposal. No two snowflakes are the same, no two lives are the same. There is no such thing as equality. Can we work towards equality? Yes. We can work to improve the chances of those born with little to nothing and give them opportunities to succeed. Will equality ever be achieved? No. Should we strive for it anyways? Probably.

Ditto and elegantly put Mr. flow

 

[Madoness]

A far for equal rights... then it is possible, it has got almost nothing to to with how one is raised and what choices one makes, how wealthy or healthy one is.

It should not be seen like we should all have equal amounts of money and materialistic stuff similar to that just because one word between them is the same 'equal'. This 'equality' has got nothing to to with equality of a person.

If one cannot do what he/she wants (like traveling, seeing the world) because of high costs, but still has a freedom to do so (granted that he/she'd have access if he/she can later), there is no freedom taken, therefore there is equality in that case.
If some wealth is taken from one and given to another to have equal amounts of money, this is inequality, one's rights are being abused for another's personal gain.

 

[Melkor]

Gah....



Equality is a tricksy thing...

I think, that it is a lie to say that any two people are 'equals', but this is not due to who or what they are, it is due only to the weight and counter-weight we put on certain attributes and the amount value we give as a society to certain actions or flaws.

Most people are only better than me because society has stated that, as more beautiful and intelligent individuals, they have greater quality, and thus, are superior.

Hm...the question is, should we strive for equality by changing society and it's bias, or do we strive ourselves to be worthy of equality through our own means?

Or, should we just accept that some are born lesser and get on with life?

After all, it is clearly evident in nature that there are lessers and there and greaters, but this does not mean we have to take it as a negative thing.

The pack leader is accepted as being 'better' than it's fellow mates, but the group as a whole benefit from these qualities.

Is inequality truly a bad thing?

 

[Cogwulf]

I dislike equality, but the alternative to is to allow some people to choose how other people are treated and that's far worse.

Something I always say in discussions about equality is: if you believe everyone should be treated equally, you should make people in wheelchairs use the stairs.

 

[Madoness]

Something I always say in discussions about equality is: if you believe everyone should be treated equally, you should make people in wheelchairs use the stairs.

That is why we are building shops, some houses etc. specially for them being able to move just as you can. Did you not ask for people in wheelchairs to use the stairs? Physical disabilities and a lot other differences do not account in your comparison. Does he/she have an equal opportunity to climb the stairs? No. Question is flawed.

If it is not, then ask yourself. If, lets say, people being right handed are telling the only way it would be equal would be for us all to write with a right hand. For the left handed people there are given equal rights to write with a right hand. Therefore make them use right hand when writing, and only right.
Would it be treating people equally - for left handed people not being able to use their left hand but it is said to only write with a right hand - or would it be one side abusing another not giving the same rights for giving to equal opportunity to write?

 

[Linada]

The strive to make everyone equal seem to me to be a great source of discrimination. People get categorised according to some perceived slight: female, foreign, ill, poor, etc. The categories gives rise to stereotypes. And everyone in a category better follow the stereotype. It doesn't exactly raise peoples confidence, it doesn't correct inaccurate perceptions, and it misses an awful lot of people who don't get classed as disadvantaged, but still need help. For all it's worth, even falling in more than one category can make things near impossible.

Yes, everyone should have equal opportunities, but as everyone is unique, that's quite impossible. The only thing equality can mean to be practical is giving everyone a chance, and support, as an individual.
Much the opposite of what tends to be the case, and unfortunately much too time and money intensive to be done by governments.

 

[Agent Intellect]

People should be treated fairly.
People should not be treated 'equally'.

 

[Madoness]

People should be treated fairly.
People should not be treated 'equally'.

Fairly is a dangerous word in that matter...

 

[Cogwulf]

That is why we are building shops, some houses etc. specially for them being able to move just as you can. Did you not ask for people in wheelchairs to use the stairs? Physical disabilities and a lot other differences do not account in your comparison. Does he/she have an equal opportunity to climb the stairs? No. Question is flawed.

You missed the point, I was just illustrating the flaw in the concept of equality. In order for people with some sort of disadvantage to have equal chances and treatment as compared to other people, they have to be treated differently. We create ramps into buildings in order for people with disabilities to be able to live in the same way as other people, but the very act of building these ramps is treating them differently to the rest of the population.

Using the word equality makes no sense and creates a lot of misconceptions

 

[Madoness]

You missed the point, I was just illustrating the flaw in the concept of equality. In order for people with some sort of disadvantage to have equal chances and treatment as compared to other people, they have to be treated differently. We create ramps into buildings in order for people with disabilities to be able to live in the same way as other people, but the very act of building these ramps is treating them differently to the rest of the population.

Using the word equality makes no sense and creates a lot of misconceptions

Treated differently and treated equally are two separate things. Equal does not have to be the same in handling, equal has to do with having the opportunity given to achieve the same goals.
If people using wheelchairs are given the only opportunity to climb (crawl) stairs, it has got nothing to do with equality. The same opportunities are not given to them. Like a legless person doing a long jump, making him/her to try it, is not giving equality.
My only point was to bring up why this example was flawed, and only this. Otherwise I can quite understand your way.

 

[Ermine]

I dislike equality, but the alternative to is to allow some people to choose how other people are treated and that's far worse.

Something I always say in discussions about equality is: if you believe everyone should be treated equally, you should make people in wheelchairs use the stairs.

The example you used isn't really equality. Or at least it's a different kind of equality. On the other side of the coin, you could believe in equality in that both healthy and handicapped people should have an equal opportunity to access buildings.

 

[Kuu]

Well we're all insignificant meatbags. And mortal. (For the moment )

Or to put it in other words, we all share the inescapable pains and joys of the human condition...

Otherwise [insert random cynical darwinian argument masterfully discussing the concept of equality in unfavorable terms, and its negative impact on civilizations that necessitate inequality for their mere existance].

 

[Claverhouse]

Apart from any personal distaste; the entire concept of equality is rooted in the most basic drive of the human species, that pure quality of jealousy, Ressentiment, as foretold by the wise one and elaborated by Scheler. From this has sprung, as he said it would, feminism, the absurd doctrine of 'rights' --- easily disprovable by someone having a 'right' not to be executed, but... being so anyway --- and slavish moralities.

One should admire neither the rich or the poor --- and it cuts both ways since the rich are always far more jealous of the poor than are the poor of the rich --- neither aristocrats or demos, neither white nor black, neither jew nor nazi : whether as symbols of their being, or as privileged or downtrodden, or groups. People can only be valued as individuals, for their each character and integrity. And any of these, and any other persons, may have much or less authenticity and loyalty as they were born with and which they since developed or retarded.

To whittle down people to tiny blank slates at each's beginning with equal potentialities, and force everyone into the childish fantasy that everyone ought to have equal opportunities in any career --- grannies in jet fighters --- since to hinder this is to discriminate, is to miss what complexities of humanity we may take comfort in, to stamp out the richness of born diversity, and is the prerogative of ideologues and vain idealists who use it as a means to power and a means to endless control.



And I'm kinda a socialist in social/economic affairs... --- but not for the 'people' democratic streak in what is after all, merely a structure for rational living. And too often in the 20th century was turned into a rationale for slave-camps.



Claverhouse

 

[echoplex]

I think there are many different views of what equality means. It seems to be used as a political/control device often without an understanding of what it really means. In other words, when some people hear the word, they think of puppies and unicorns, which in turn makes it a good unicorn-inducing word. But I think if people look at equality literally they'll usually disagree with much of it, even if they wish for most of it.

There are other POVs beyond the social/political, though. One could say all life in the universe is essentially equal in the sense that no creature is more or less deserving of living a better/more important/more powerful existence than any other. After all, no one chooses their existence, per se (as far as we know, that is), so therefore we are who are due to what seems to be toally random and undeserved. So while there is no equality when skills, merit, character, experience, power, etc. are concerned, there seems to be an overall kind of equality that reminds us with a whisper You know, you're only such-and-such because you were born to be such-and-such. You could have just as easily been born a sniveling rodent, the target of a household's loathing. You are no more deserving.

And now I'm thinking about determinism. If we're not really "in control" then how does that affect the notion of equality?

since the rich are always far more jealous of the poor than are the poor of the rich

Are you sure about this? How come everyone I know keeps playing the lottery, paying out tickets that only give them a <.001% chance of becoming rich? hmmm, maybe they are deluded. It wouldn't be the first time.

Either way though, I tend to think that all people tend to be jealous of all other people. For many, there is nothing more interesting in life than the thought of being someone else. It's pure grass-is-greener-ism. *sigh*

 

[nemo]

As others said before, people are not equal. We're all different in some way, except for the fact that we're all living creatures on this Earth. So I guess that's the basis of our equality. We're the same, at the bottom of it all, even if we all have different looks, different opinions. Because of this base equality, I reckon everyone should have equal rights and opportunities. Whether we should all be treated equally is a different question.

Article 1 of the UN declaration of Human Rights:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Pfft, I say. But there's the equality I'm talking about. I think I contradicted myself quite a bit in this post...

 

[Logician]

well right under my name it says elitist, so i guess im found out on this matter, which by the way i need to change... it was more of a temporary thought than a lasting mind set. However id still like to comment.

we are not all snowflakes, perfectly individual and unique. If it must be said that we are snow at all, then let us be its entirety. the vast majority would make up a nearly single mass with little distinction unless you search far from the point of comparison, just lieing on the ground, shifting and forming as one entity. They are individual segments of snow, but they have melded together into one entity. most of the rest would make up shapeless, but individual, blobs of snow which are normally just hurtling down to the ground to meet with the entity anyway. very few of us are snowflakes, completely unique and completely individual, with a intricate shape and pattern.

of course all of the above is a metaphor for my thought... but i currently lack the will to articulate it into a multiple paragraph post to get my thought across directly.

 

[Claverhouse]

since the rich are always far more jealous of the poor than are the poor of the rich

Are you sure about this? How come everyone I know keeps playing the lottery, paying out tickets that only give them a <.001% chance of becoming rich? hmmm, maybe they are deluded. It wouldn't be the first time.

Quite sure, I certainly would not dispute that practically everyone wants/will not object to receiving 100 million dollars either through sudden chance or their own efforts, but that includes those who already have a 100 million dollars... It is a natural human need to want to improve one's wealth.

That is entirely different from envy, and the wealthy are so frightened of losing their money and status and so contemptuous of those who have little or none compared to themselves that they will denounce the poor and denounce any social progress* ( and attempt to revert it in the name of fairness ), and subvert anything given to the poor in order to take it for themselves**. Whereas one hears little bitter envy against the rich from the poor compared to previous centuries or even compared to socialist/communist agitation a century back.

To some extent this is due to the American propaganda that makes wealth meritorious, offers the belief that everyone can make it and sets individual against individual rather than class against class --- and the fact that in the American example, citizens as consumers, their necessary exploitation of the rest of the world and the initial huge resources America had available has provided to all except the lowest 20% a comfort-level exceeding most others.

However, it's not just due to traditional respect for one's betters --- which democracy has simply adapted into a new form of respect for acquisition, meritocracy, and for having striven --- or to the fall of communism or to present ( non-eternal ) comfort that the poor whine less than do the rich. I think it's partly due to good nature and scepticism of any system: both of which become rarer as one rises and has to protect one's possessions and bond closer to the protective system.



*Which is not to say that the rich are not extremely generous, often for a consideration. But that the rise of the New Left and it's positions on the world as working class, gender issues, multiculturalism, apart from fulfilling it's historic purpose to destroy traditional socialism/communism with their old nationalist and union labour biases, gave the perfect ( and perhaps preordained ) excuse for the Rich to concentrate on extraneous things for charity, such as Feeding Africa or holding banquets to stop global warming, rather than giving 10c more to local workers or improving local conditions on the slightest.



**Simple illustration: Grammar Schools and the great Public Schools [ eg: private schools ] in England were first set up to provide education for poor, but bright, boys. By the mid-20th century the first were subsumed into the state system, but before that had become the preserve of the middle middle class ( eg: bank employees, accountants etc. ); and the latter had become exclusive and necessary training-grounds for the upper classes and rich.



Claverhouse

 

[Zero]

It depends on how equality is defined and for what situation.

On a personal level, people are not equal. This is obvious, and it seems to be the general understanding here. People are different, therefore, cannot be literally equal. Are people equal in the sense that all MBTI personalities are equal in value. Yes, but that's also subjective. We can say that everyone is good at something, but logically that's untrue. Some people are good at many things and generally have more desirable traits. Some people are good at a few things, some people are not very good at anything.

But equality in a value sense also depends on what we place value in. Ultimately, no one is equal.

Are people equal to a government or on a cooperate level? Yes, from a consumer perspective. All people are equal, but they're also defined as a sort of mass. Anyone who wants to manipulate a mass of people will say they are equal and they are to that entity.

In a herd of cows, all the cows are equally cows.

Claver, you're not rich, are you?
Well, the argument is flawed otherwise. You assume all rich people have a certain personality that would make the prone to jealousy. When it's already obvious that people are different the "lump sums" start to look overly simplified.

What exactly is rich and who is rich and what do the rich do other than feel jealousy for those less wealthy?

Any merchant type of person who wants to have their fortune and use it too knows that money is like a demanding child. Of course they're preoccupied with money and they gamble it constantly. There's no room for jealousy in such a mind. Maybe worry, but envy is a stretch.

 

[Cogwulf]

**Simple illustration: Grammar Schools and the great Public Schools [ eg: private schools ] in England were first set up to provide education for poor, but bright, boys. By the mid-20th century the first were subsumed into the state system, but before that had become the preserve of the middle middle class ( eg: bank employees, accountants etc. ); and the latter had become exclusive and necessary training-grounds for the upper classes and rich.

Grammar schools in britain nowadays have an entrance test, which is a sort of IQ test with maths and language skills mixed in, but around about half of all children who get in didn't pass the test, but their parents made private donations to the school

 

[Gorgoroth]

Something I always say in discussions about equality is: if you believe everyone should be treated equally, you should make people in wheelchairs use the stairs.

OR make those who aren't disabled use wheelchairs OR make those who aren't disabled disabled....got keep an open mind

 

[Claverhouse]

Not really, because not being disabled is the norm: since it is the untarnished state. Whilst the normal should protect and aid the abnormal, it should not disable itself in a weak sympathy.


Of course, before christianity* mandated pity, the ancient Greeks and the Jewish scriptures both prohibited the 'disabled' from political and religious participation upon the grounds that being misformed physically, they were misformed spiritually.

Most savage or barbarian peoples took a less tolerant approach than that.



Claverhouse



*And buddhists of course; but these came from opposite directions. Christianity taught that suffering --- whether sickness or disability --- is undeserved, but that the sufferer should offer up their pain to God to acquire merit; whereas buddhism and it's parent hinduism taught that suffering is deserved because of the sufferers previous sins, but that others can help them in order for themselves to acquire merit.

And not to come back as a monkey.

 

[Claverhouse]

Missed this one.

Claver, you're not rich, are you?

Nope. Neither was Marx. Or Hitler. Or Nietzsche. But all three would understand that to idealise either the rich or the poor, or to respect any group as a group, is to succumb to the Idols of the Marketplace.

Well, the argument is flawed otherwise. You assume all rich people have a certain personality that would make the prone to jealousy. When it's already obvious that people are different the "lump sums" start to look overly simplified.

I assume that they are all very interested in remaining rich, and preventing the poor from taking any of their money away.

What exactly is rich and who is rich and what do the rich do other than feel jealousy for those less wealthy?

I cannot provide any useful definition of the rich, but let's suppose it's someone who has an income of 50 times the median average.

There's no room for jealousy in such a mind. Maybe worry, but envy is a stretch.

More convincing if they didn't incessantly whine about the detrimental effects of the minimum wage and seek constantly to influence politicians to reverse all social progressions since 1900.



Claverhouse

 

[Gorgoroth]

Of course, before christianity* mandated pity, the ancient Greeks and the Jewish scriptures both prohibited the 'disabled' from political and religious participation upon the grounds that being misformed physically, they were misformed spiritually.

Most savage or barbarian peoples took a less tolerant approach than that.

We should take up this ideology again and implement it modernly into daily competition between the disabled, maybe have them fight against a bunch of lions or the deadly manatees to determine who is the strongest. Darwinism at its best; There can only be one...

 

[Gorgoroth]

We should take up this ideology again...

For my incompetence, I should be first in line for the guillotine, lol.