Why are Individuals Equal(?)

[TimeAsylums]

...Further explication provided in post 40

discuss

plz use reasons

because I'm bored and I just like to see what the public thinks (but also coz it's important)

The whole of modern life is predicated on the curious idea that no one person is any better in any way than another.

I imagine many of the users here will either explicate the rise of the individual via technology/industrialism or cooperation, but I'm interested in hearing all responses


So,


Why are Individuals Equal? (If they are)

 

[Architect]

Define equal.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Define equal.

Whatever the common/popular public deno/connotation is today

Whatever the public(majority) has determined

EDIT: what is used in court of law?

 

[Grayman]

I want to be everyone's equal, so I believe in the inherent value.

Otherwise, I am taking a large gamble of being lesser than at least someone.

 

[TimeAsylums]

1) Because I want to be everyone is equal,

2) I believe in the inherent value.

Is #2's reason #1? Now, "Why?"

EDIT: 3) Otherwise, I am taking a large gamble of being lesser than at least someone.

Is this your reason?

 

[Grayman]

Is #2's reason #1? Now, "Why?"


Is this your reason?

#3 is reason for #1 and #1 is reason for #2 and #3 is because I am built to be selfish.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Because it is practical to have some amount of social equality and security if you want to keep things under control and stop bad things and suffering from happening

 

[TimeAsylums]

Because it is practical to have some amount of social equality and security if you want to keep things under control and stop bad things and suffering from happening

So, pretty much cooperation(Utility)

reasonable

So, are individuals actually equal? Or is just giving that representation necessary for the practicality?

 

[Cherry Cola]

They are more or less equal in their capacity for suffering and joy, hence what they deserve is equal. But are they "equal" in terms of what they do to the world and themselves? In their capacity to think? Nah.

Equality on it's own is a pretty weird word, two things can't be equal unless they are equal in some particular sense. Like you can't lie or tell the truth unless you actually tell the truth or lie about something, if you do not abide by that law you get weird recursions like "I am lying right now".

I think that there is some kind of metaphysical overarching equality implied in the way the word is used to describe the value of human people democracies, and that's bull and so can be disregarded imo. And then were just left with equality on its own which doesn't mean anything. And if you're gonna start measuring equality in specific terms then you can't just arbitrarily choose to consider only that which is equal like capacity for suffering, the number of fingers on their hands, large parts of their genetic code etc. You also have to consider intelligence, education, moral nature, etc, and when you do that well.. people aren't equal anymore.

 

[nanook]

is it difficult to differentiate but also maintain both empathy for someones needs and practical appreciation of someones gifts? it is, when culture forces you to be either socialist or republican.

people have many needs in common.
some needs are specific to people.
the subjective neediness behind a specific need is usually roughly comparable from person to person. that's to say, if an ugly person, say the joker, is all alone and thus lonely and an attractive person, say catwoman, is all alone and thus lonely, there is no basis to assume that the loneliness of the attractive person is more severe and therefore more worthy of being addressed. difficult choice for batman.

government, society and culture have to take care of the needs of people, hence it's important to recognize that peoples needs are roughly equal, in importance, in principle. if people voice needs, the voices should be considered.

people have vastly different gifts.

governments, society and culture have to facilitate the gifts of the people, hence those have to be recognized. since we have little means of accurate diagnosis of gifts, we better assume too many gifts than too little. we rate the value of gifts relative to our current situational need of them, so our rating is inherently flawed. better not rate too much. think of overall giftedness in uneducated children as roughly equal. for example poor vs rich children deserve equal education.

 

[TimeAsylums]

They are more or less equal in their capacity for suffering and joy, hence what they deserve is equal.

I read your entire post, but I'm assuming this is your premise.

So...individuals are equal because of their capacity for suffering and joy? (The metaphysical reasons you mentioned as well)

 

[nanook]

>metaphysical overarching equality

equal meaning that their subjective sentience deserves equal attention. weird language, but not bull that can be disregarded. it's not metaphysical (spiritual) language, but it's a language that is meta to concrete operational thinking, which is only concerned with objects and their attributes. reason is meta to concrete operational thinking, it's concerned with thinking itself. the idea of equality is directly correlated with the age of reason. the age of reason liberates us from overt slave labor and the like.

 

[TimeAsylums]

is it difficult to differentiate

I don't see any premise in your post, just talking about people's different "giftedness."

So...people are equal because they all have different abilities? (I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just determine what you meant by all that)

 

[Cherry Cola]

Edit: oops sorry I misread you or something.

I dunno if it's my premise, but I wanted to start out by saying that so that it would be clear that I'm not some reincarnation of Adolf Hitler who thinks that those who are less equal (hehe) should be sent away to plow the fields and mine the depths til their bodies expire.

I agree with everything Nanook has written.

 

[TimeAsylums]

So far I've got

Why are individuals equal?

• Grayman - Because I don't want to be lesser
• CC and nanook - because they deserve to be equal [derived from metaphysical reasons]

 

[nanook]

do you have a problem getting away from thinking of people as objects that have only objective attributes? because you seem to ignore the important point: it's not people that are equal in objective traits or deserve to be considered equal in objective traits, it's their rights and their sentience (subjective attributes, if you will) that are subjectively equal, meaning rights and sentience is equally real, equally worthy of recognition. people are also subjects, who have subjective attributes.

 

[Analyzer]

Equality is not natural.

 

[TimeAsylums]

do you have a problem getting away from thinking of people as objects that have attributes?

Did I say I did? I'm simply asking you "Why?" to all of your reasons, I'm not criticizing them whatsoever.

their rights and their sentience that is subjectively equal, meaning it's equally real, worthy of recognition.

Why?

 

[TimeAsylums]

Equality is not natural.

Accepted.

However that does not answer the question

Why are individuals equal, Analyzer? Are they?

 

[nanook]

because if sentience and respective rights should not be considered of equal importance, how would you determine differences of their importance?

1) because i say so (batman is horny for catwoman) - this is a primitive argument (level 2 of psychological development, correlates with eternal warfare and violence within the tribe, can not sustain civilisation)

2) because we say so (we like women more than jokers) - this is a level 3 argument, correlates my mythic membership religion, traditionalism, group mentality, us vs them, is capable of sustaining primitive civilisation (see iran, irak, or similar) but not moder democracy and technology

3) you don't determine differences, following your primitive whims, it is not up to the observer's subjective needs to determine the reality of subjective needs of someone else, because there isn't even a rational connection between those needs. this is a level 4 argument, rationality, correlates with democracy and the scientific capabilities of modernity. innovation.

therefore the level 4 argument is in the constitution.

you can go up some levels and differentiate further. not all sentience is the same, a cow has a right to live, but a lesser right that a human, but it's not because we want to eat the cow, meaning not because of the observers subjective needs, but because the cow has less subjective self importance. likewise, terrorists who go to suicide missions have less subjective self importance, killing them is therefore less of a moral offense, compared to killing civilized innocent students of america who value a constructive lifestyle.

such ideas are not included in the constitutions, even though they are intuitively assumed by our culture. they do not need to be included in the constitution, because they are not foundational. by the time you include a level 4 argument, you have the foundation of democratic civilisation and technological innovation and we assume that this is all we need. it isn't really, we need some more differentiation, to keep us from overgrowing like a cancer. but we are not going backwards! this is sparta!

 

[TimeAsylums]

therefore the level 4 argument is in The Constitution.

by the time you include a level 4 argument, you have the foundation of democratic civilisation and technological innovation and we assume that this is all we need.

I hope you won't call this cherry picking, as "level 4" is the highest level you have presented, I will question it.

At the time of The Constitution we still had slaves, and there were no women's right as of yet, "All men are created equal."

How does that add?

 

[nanook]

read ken wilbers "a brief history of everything". it's a simple read. and foundational to understanding any topic. alternatively study spiral dynamics. you could also consult william wilberforce. there is a movie about him. development of a whole culture is not linear, it's a cooking boiler of witchcraft. there is quite a bit of level 5 in how we interpret the constitution and in our modern western culture. overt individualistic equality of women became big at level 5, pluralism, where men also became more liberated from performing like a technocrat, when we became hippies. however forced marriage, treating women like family cattle, was abandoned with level 3. rational women do make their own choices, are aware of respective "rights" and will democratically force culture to respect them, over time. perhaps it's due to the poorer education of women (at that time), that there was a bit of a delay.

 

[Cherry Cola]

So far I've got

Why are individuals equal?

• Grayman - Because I don't want to be lesser
• CC and nanook - because they deserve to be equal [derived from metaphysical reasons]

Hmm maybe I do differ from Nanook then? I don't think they deserve to be equal for metaphysical reasons, I discarded metaphysics earlier in the thread.

I think they deserve to be equal because they have more or less the same capacity for experiencing suffering and joy phenomenally. Hence why I don't think it'd be okay to treat an idiot evil motherfucker badly just because he is an idiot evil motherfucker. Even though I'd consider the motherfucker to be beneath those who aren't evil idiot motherfuckers.
Because the idiot evil mother fucker would not suffer any less from being treated badly than would a genius kindhearted stand up guy, even if the latter is a superior human being. Hence: equality: no; equal treatment as far as possible from a utilitarian point of view: yes.

It has nothing to do with metaphysics.

 

[nanook]

didn't i explain, that none of this is metaphyiscal? it's meta-rationality. is the difference unclear?

 

[Analyzer]

Accepted.

However that does not answer the question

Why are individuals equal, Analyzer? Are they?

They are equal in the sense that each individual has rights or control of his own proper body/life. Egalitarianism or social equality on the other hand is not compatible with this notion. An example is affirmative action. Why do certain races/ethnicity get advantages or privileges over others?

 

[nanook]

metaphysics is the assumtion that there are hidden laws that are higher than physical laws, it's like the concept of a holographic universe or intelligent design or god. none of this shit is involved here.

level 3: the subject is thinking, what it's aware of is not the activity of thinking but the objects of his thoughts. conformist, group mind, the "good" people, 3.

next level, the subject has evolved a bit, it is now aware of it's thinking, but doesn't understand how it's being aware of thinking. it cleans up it's thinking, discovers differentiations like this is logical or illogical. rational, stubborn schizoid robot, know it all 4.

next level, the subject has evolved even more and is now aware of how it is thinking about thinking. it can begin to give labels to whole styles of thinking and chose between them at will, not following a random whim or impulse, but with a conscious purpose, for instance it can choose cold pragmatism to solve a technical problem and philosophical thought to solve a human problem. pluralism, 5, sensitive cultural creative, care taker.

next level, it's becoming conscious of how it's bringing about the ideas of purpose that guide it's selection of ways of thinking, it sees the purpose in context (relative to other people, not relative to objective situations, as it were in level 5), rather than favoring some purposes over others for unclear reasons. 6, integral change agent, philosopher.

 

[TimeAsylums]

They are equal in the sense that each individual has rights or control of his own proper body/life.

I'm not sure whether you are referring to "rights" via The Constitution or humanitarian/equality "rights"

Either way...

Why does each individual have rights to control?

 

[TimeAsylums]

I think they deserve to be equal because they have more or less the same capacity for experiencing suffering and joy phenomenally.

Ok, now why?

didn't i explain, that none of this is metaphyiscal? it's meta-rationality. is the difference unclear?

You have explained different "levels of equality," that's it.

If I am missing your point (I don't think I am), please sum up for me of "Why are individuals equal?" (Which to my knowledge/perception, you have yet to do)

 

[Methodician]

Humans are born with "equal rights" in a sense. At least that "ought" to be the case. Few would disagree that there's an inherent irk in the idea that some people are born into opportunity and luxury while others are cast (i.e. cast system) as laborers and lowly wage earners, barely scraping by. It sucks, it does, and I think the world would be better off if society were truly egalitarian and all humans were birthed with equal rights to comfort, safety, happiness, and most important of all opportunity.


Why are individuals equal?

It's almost a troll question. Your question assumes a premise that nobody here will agree on.

Humans are not innately equal. Our potential varies. The outcome of our existence, though, is more situational than potential.

Humans have (roughly) equal capacity for suffering, for happiness, for fulfillment. We should be given the opportunity to pursue these things.

Individuals are unique, special, and most certainly not equal. We each have our strengths and weaknesses but the strength:weakness ratio varies widely.

 

[Cherry Cola]

metaphysics is the assumtion that there are hidden laws that are higher than physical laws, it's like the concept of a holographic universe or intelligent design or god. none of this shit is involved here.

level 3: the subject is thinking, what it's aware of is not the activity of thinking but the objects of his thoughts. conformist, group mind, the "good" people, 3.

next level, the subject has evolved a bit, it is now aware of it's thinking, but doesn't understand how it's being aware of thinking. it cleans up it's thinking, discovers differentiations like this is logical or illogical. rational, stubborn schizoid robot, know it all 4.

next level, the subject has evolved even more and is now aware of how it is thinking about thinking. it can begin to give labels to whole styles of thinking and chose between them at will, not following a random whim or impulse, but with a conscious purpose, for instance it can choose cold pragmatism to solve a technical problem and philosophical thought to solve a human problem. pluralism, 5, sensitive cultural creative, care taker.

next level, it's becoming conscious of how it's bringing about the ideas of purpose that guide it's selection of ways of thinking, it sees the purpose in context (relative to other people, not relative to objective situations, as it were in level 5), rather than favoring some purposes over others for unclear reasons. 6, integral change agent, philosopher.

Indeed, I scanned your posts for metaphysical assumptions and could not detect any. I detected sound reasoning though

 

[TimeAsylums]

Note:

I hope it is *very* fucking clear that I am not trolling in the tiniest of senses/whatsoever (no one has indicated that I am, I am just putting this out there)

The concern of "equality for all" is very important.

 

[nanook]

you are asking for objective reasons, because you are having a mind that is discarding anything that isn't strictly objective as "purely descriptive", as if those levels of subjective human intelligence were anything less but the reasons for why we do things. i gave you rational, pluralistic and integral reasons to respect the sentience of sentient beings.

we make choices because we are human. the more we evolve, the more our choices are distinct from the choices of something that is not human, such as a brick falling on your head. stones make "indifferent" choices, humans make empathic choices. because nature, because evolutions. our minds grow that way.

 

[TimeAsylums]

you are asking for objective reasons.

The question is "Why are Individuals Equal?" Not "Provide me with objective reasons of why individuals are equal" nor "why SHOULD individuals be equal?

I'm assuming you have come to that conclusion simply because I keep asking "why?"

 

[TimeAsylums]

Why are individuals equal?

It's almost a troll question. Your question assumes a premise that nobody here will agree on.

I hope it is clear I'm not trolling ->

The whole of modern life is predicated on the curious idea that no one person is any better in any way than another.

This statement is VERY true.



Also, I did not assume the premise, at the end of the OP there is "Why are individuals equal? (IF they are)

Why are Individuals Equal? (If they are)

It's right there if you'd scroll up.

 

[Cherry Cola]

"Why are Individuals Equal? (If they are)"

Sort of implies that it is okay to go beyond the original question. And besides people went beyond that question long ago, but okay.

If that is the question it follows from my earlier post that I don't think it can be answered due to:

Equality on it's own is a pretty weird word, two things can't be equal unless they are equal in some particular sense. Like you can't lie or tell the truth unless you actually tell the truth or lie about something, if you do not abide by that law you get weird recursions like "I am lying right now".

Since your question does not specify the sense in which people are equal, but does presume that they are. Thus I stand by Architect :P

 

[nanook]

i'm pretty sure you are discarding none objective reasons as being purely descriptive. i have edited #32

 

[TimeAsylums]

i'm pretty sure you are discarding none objective reasons. i have edited #32

I haven't "discarded" anything. I've been asking "why?"

I read post #32 again and you still haven't provided an answer.

i gave you rational, pluralistic and integral reasons to respect the sentience of sentient beings.

So, individuals aren't necessarily equal? They just *SHOULD* be equal?

 

[nanook]

I'm going to post this again, just to annoy you, then i am out. if you are not trolling, you just don't get it.

we make choices because we are human. the more we evolve, the more our choices are distinct from the choices of something that is not human, such as a brick falling on your head. stones make "indifferent" choices, humans make empathic choices. because nature, because evolution. our minds grow that way.

 

[TimeAsylums]

we make choices because we are human. the more we evolve, the more our choices are distinct from the choices of something that is not human, such as a brick falling on your head. stones make "indifferent" choices, humans make empathic choices. because nature, because evolution. our minds grow that way.

How is this an answer to "Why are individuals equal?"

 

[TimeAsylums]

Things that I intentionally left out of the OP, that I thought should be referenced:

"equality" is a brand new idea in modern times, there was no "equality" before the past 200 years (Is there even now?). Nepotism, ethnocentrism has dominated since...forever.

Claverhouse's sig sums it up in that our modern way of life/living/law/going about things is fundamentally based in that "Individuals are equal"

And the question to be asked is, "why?"



Some of you have already noted that it is simply utilitarian/pragmatic to benefit from cooperation, however all that means is that "it's a pro to have people as equals more than a con," however that does not mean that individuals ARE equal, just that it is a pro.

 

[nanook]

i have explained to you various meanings of the word equal, which of those meanings is the one in which we are considered equal and that this attribute of equality comes about in part because of a given sentience that we have discovered and in part because we choose to respect that sentience as we wish our own to be respected and i have explained why and when we chose to respect sentience like this, because it's who we are, once we are half way grown up, at this point in our evolution. thread solved.

 

[TimeAsylums]

because we choose to respect that sentience as we wish our own to be respected .

I have repeatedly taken THIS^ as your premise. So "Individuals are equal BECAUSE we CHOOSE to have them as equals?"

 

[nanook]

who else would ever chose that anything is anything, but human intelligence? you are a slave of the myth of the given (as if objectivity would exist outside of human intelligence, as if there could possibly be a different reason for anything we do or believe), i don't have the patience right now, to attempt to zap you out of this myth. the premise of every single thought that you have ever hold dear is YOU, and you are US, as a species.

 

[TimeAsylums]

who else would ever chose that anything is anything, but human intelligence? you are a slave of the myth of the given (as if objectivity would exist outside of human intelligence, as if there could possible a different reason for anything), i don't have the patience right now, to attempt to zap you out of this myth. the premise of every single thought that you have ever hold dear is YOU, and you are US, as a species.

I am assuming that is a round-a-bout way to say "Yes, we are equal because we have CHOSEN to be equal"

 

[nanook]

hardcore reductionist. entp i reckon

we have never CHOSEN ANYthing, because we are created by nature and free will is an illusion. we are choosing exactly what we are choosing at any time, not just anything

 

[Cherry Cola]

Okay, equality in the typical democratic sense of the word. Then one could say it is because it is practical. Though if you look at it historically there were plenty of specific inequalities abound when the the word started being used in that sense, so one might also say that people are "equal" because of specific inequalities in the past. Nowadays almost everyone believe that people are "equal", and those that don't are generally speaking either crazy neonazi scum or intellectuals. The intellectuals; however, see that there are pragmatic reasons for keeping people "equal", and the neo nazi scum don't have much power outside of places like Hungary so far so they don't get to decide. Hence people remain and are "equal".

 

[TimeAsylums]

Okay, equality in the typical democratic sense of the word. Then one could say it is because it is practical.

The intellectuals; however, can see that there are pragmatic reasons for keeping people "equal". Hence people remain and are "equal".

So, you're back to "people are equal because it is practical"

Which we discussed already. Again, "So, we CHOOSE to have people as equals because it is practical?"

 

[Cherry Cola]

No, it was not a matter of choice to begin with, but the practicality of equality is why pretty much why no one bothers or has bothered to question it very much. It isn't hard to see that the concept makes little sense, yet people get to remain equal because those who see that it makes no sense choose not to suggest that do away with it since it is practical.

 

[TimeAsylums]

we have never CHOSEN ANYthing, because we are created by nature and free will is an illusion. we are choosing exactly what we are choosing at any time, not just anything

so...individuals are equal because...?

 

[TimeAsylums]

No, it was not a matter of choice to begin with, but the practicality of equality is why pretty much why no one bothers or has bothered to question it very much. It isn't hard to see that the concept makes little sense, yet people get to remain equal because those who see that it makes no sense choose not to suggest that do away with it since it is practical.

so...again...simply "Individuals are equal because it is practical?"