What makes us equal? - What's the basis of human equality?

Depends what is meant by equality. I say, we're all equal because we're all humans?

There is no reason why it shouldn't be (by equality I'm more getting at quality of life and political rights and opportunity to hold high station) so we shouldn't just impose inequality when there is no moral reason to do so. I disagree with the way the question is asked, what it should be is:"Why aren't people equal?" answer "It's down to the way we gear up our society, in general the child benefits from the good fortune of the parent" lending on from that "So if this inequality is merely a by product of the way we live our lives is there any good reason for it to continue existing?" to which I'd answer, "No".

People often say that we are all equal. What's the basis on this equality?

This.

The fact that it is so hard for some people to understand this, makes me want to punch a wall.

I see your point but I don't see how it matters if people are different as result of their choice or as result of forces they cannot control. Anyway, the topic of this thread has a more ethical undertone.

I could visit another country, for example Thailand, and see a Thai child find a particularly tasty fruit, eat it, and smile, and I would understand how that child felt, the fact that you don't come across fruit that is as tasty as that one most of the time, or that 'nice tastes' are desirable and can make a bad day better, and then, I can wake up from my dream and realise that I was in fact the Thai child, who had seen a foreigner standing there and had imagined what it would be like to be a foreigner, staring at myself. 1.We all have the capability to feel, and we also know that this is actually down to our genetics and biology. 2.We are equal because we all have this same capability to feel, as long as we can be sure we are all human.

People often say that we are all equal. What's the basis on this equality?

[Defining "A is equal to B" to mean "if I would take an action with regard to A, I would attempt to take that same action for the same reason with regard to B", with the caveat that if the action would be detrimental when performed with regard to B, I would not take it, but would try to find an action with an equivalent effect on B as the original would on A]

Morally, 1.we should all be equal because we're of roughly the same level of sentience. 2.Anything that is demonstrably sentient, or that we have good reason to believe may be sentient, should be equal. 3.This includes dolphins and great apes.
It remains, of course, to define sentience, and to cope with 4.the "lesser sentience" which appears to be demonstrated by eg. walruses (and, indeed, the apparent fact that sentience comes on a continuum), but that's too thorny for me at the moment - I'm meant to be working :P

People often say that we are all equal. What's the basis on this equality?

Well, equality is not the natural state of affairs. Do you see equality in the animal kingdom? Nope. Inequality is the natural state of affairs. Just like not all mountains are equal nor all lions are equal neither humans are equal a priori. Equality is a human construct. It is this construct which I am q uestioning.

1. Define sentience
2. Define sentience.
3. If dolphins and great apes are equal to us, then they should have the same legal status as us.
4. Again, you can't quantify something you have not previously defined.

People often say that we are all equal. What's the basis on this equality?

Right, okay then. We'll take it from the top. Beginning from Nihilism, there is literally no reason to go any further without making some basic assumptions. So1. lets assume that happiness is good, and valuable, and that pain and suffering are bad and should be avoided. Therein lies the beginning of ethics. 2.We should act in ways which maximise happiness, and avoid suffering in conscious creatures which can experience them. 3.Humans, by virtue of their intelligence, sentience, and consciousness, experience both happiness and suffering in a richer and more potent sense than other animals, and so lie at the top of our considerations. 4.Whilst an animal can feel pain and fear, humans can also fall prey to a deep sense of loss of opportunity, worry about the people they will leave behind, and undergo a degree of trauma that requires a developed brain and nervous system to experience.

However, beyond this, 5.there is no reason why we should care more about happiness of one person than another, assuming that the lenses of their consciousnesses function in largely the same way. A gay person experiences pain and happiness just like a straight person, and the same goes for most other dividing lines you can draw.

6.By following this line of reasoning you can develop more complex conclusions about other ethical dilemmas such as vegetarianism, abortion, and euthanasia, but that's the gist of it, basically.


Posted from TSR Mobile

if you take two people who live on the same street in London, it doesn't mater who they are, they would not be equal(in the sense of being the same), they would be very different, in their profession, physical attributes, educational level etc.

but they are equal in the sense that, they receive(or atleast should) the same opportunities in health care, education, they should have the same rights, they should pay same tax etc they should not be treated better or worse because of their profession, physical attributes, educational level etc.

but I think the OP is looking for a race debate so no point wasting any time going deeper.

To say "we're all equal because we're all humans" is to say "we're all equal because we belong to group X". You defined Group X as "human species" but others would define Group X as "race Y", some would define Group X as "mammals", some would define Group X as "those with certain intellectual/physical traits". Why should we define Group X as "humans" and not "race Y" or "mammals" or whatever else we want?

The thing is, in many ways we aren't equal. Clearly some people are more attractive, more intelligent, more courageous. But to have a reasonable and functional society, you do have to exhibit some solidarity with your fellow creatures. You need to treat people equally, even if you don't see them that way.

An interesting fact that informs my view; the DNA in just one human cell, if uncoiled, is 1.8 meters long. If you uncoiled all the DNA in the human body and layed it end to end, it would stretch from the sun to Pluto and a quarter of the way back.

In a sense, we're like these cosmic (not supernatural) creatures, made up of the stuff that used to constitute stars... keeping these things in mind, I find it really hard to understand how people can be so cruel to their fellow humans.

It's for those reasons that I strongly believe in treating everyone equally. Every human being is miraculous, despite our flaws.

Ha! Your problem is you fail to see that1. there are fairly large parallels between the way animals interact with animals and the way humans interact with humans. 2.Just because they are of a different species to us doesn't make the relationships that they form anymore natural. Note on the mountains, as 3.they can't experience the quality their experiences are equal, so by definition all mountains are equal.

Being equal means not to judge someone by his race or religion but judge hims for his character,his behaviour to you and the others and if he has dignity or not.

Unfortunately even now in the 21st century there is a lot of discrimination against people.And the society should abandon and even punish such fools

1. Elaborate
2. Elaborate
3. It does not follow. You need to elaborate.