Are we all equal?

Why do people deserve to be equal?

Because everyone deserves a chance regardless of race, faith, sexuality, gender, sex, medical issues etc

Where would all the great scientists, doctors and and other people who have made great discoveries be if they never got a chance to be what they wanted? Others deserve a chance to do great things, for the betterment of people's lives and society.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 21

DiddyDec01

3

Original post by Jammy Duel

I would say, depending on how you define equal, this to be trivially false. For example, is somebody who is born with a mental illness (or other illness, changing words from now on as necessary) which limits their brain function to the level that we would legally define them as retarded and who is condemned to die by the age of 10 even with the help of medical professionals really equal to a hypothetical "perfect" person with a correctly operating, high functional mind, with a "perfect" physical form?

They should have equal rights and freedoms afforded to them. As long as they adhere to a basic set of principals.

Reply 22

Jammy Duel

21

Original post by DiddyDec

They should have equal rights and freedoms afforded to them. As long as they adhere to a basic set of principals.

They should have equal right and freedoms, and you could argue that, at least on the rights front, they do, but that doesn't mean that they are equal.

Reply 23

DiddyDec01

3

Original post by Jammy Duel

They should have equal right and freedoms, and you could argue that, at least on the rights front, they do, but that doesn't mean that they are equal.

The life of one human is worth one human.

Reply 24

Nicck

6

It all comes to the definition. No sane person would treat the word "equal" in that context as the word "similar". Its obvious that people vary in million different ways. What most people tend to implicitly say when they use arguments for equality, is the concept of equality before the law. That means that no matter your arbitrary characteristics (race, religion, sex, gender, sexual preferences) the law shouldn't discriminate against you.

If you think about it most cases of institutional racism in history occurred, when that simple principle has been violated.

It has to be noted that the word equality can have different meanings too. Some people claim equality of opportunities, although I think it's impossible to fully achieve that, without embracing totalitarianism.Since perfect equality of opportunities would require the abolition of family, and other extreme measures (such as a form of pills that would reduce the talent of more gifted people). It has to be noted that accessible good quality education and healthcare to everyone is a great step towards equality of opportunities and is something that I personally support.

Finally some people tend to mean, equality of outcome.This usually implies the abolition of private property and is associated with the marxist tradition. Since incentives (wage differentials/market prices) won't exist, for an economy like that to function ,a form of central planning is required. Thus by definition it's not feasible to achieve equality of outcome, since there is a huge difference of power (and historically wealth too) between the planners and the rest of the population.

Reply 25

BaeBlade

6

It's a very dangerous path to take when we assign human lives with a qualitative value. From birth we are all equal.

Reply 26

Jemner01

8

Original post by HigherMinion

Alright, sod the feminism threads, let's get down to brass tacks.

Are all people equal? This no doubt came from Christian universalism, which is why it's typically Europeans who get that sense of "white guilt" when their circumstances appear disproportionately greater than a minority in another country, or even the same one.

In the eyes of God, the soul of each human being is equal in value, but this has been stretched by many to believe we're equal in all ways. This was a clear rejection of Judaism's favouritist approach, where non-Jews were merely slaves and subhuman. Obviously, we were right to reject this.

However, we're not physically equal, nor mentally, nor do we all experience the same or solve problems the same. So when people claim to demand "equality"- what are they asking for? Whenever we adjust our society to become more "free", people continue to claim that the only reason certain groups struggle more than others is due to oppression and institutional racism. So, what is it?

There's a good response to this that i'm paraphrasing- I think it was Bill Whittle that said it first- and expanding onto:

There are two types of equality: equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.
Equality of opportunity is where everyone has the opportunity to better themselves, do well, be successfull and follow their dreams. Whether or not people take the opportunites given to them is down to each individual- how each individual used these opportunities shouldn't be violated or infringed unless the individual is violating or infringing someone else's opportunites (i.e. you always have the opportunity to harm someone but harming someone has the consequence of being imprisoned, which itself is an infringement of your opportunity to live freely).
Equality of outcome is where everyone should be equal in terms of the output of the opportunities. It's not fair that some have billions when most are living paycheck to paycheck. It's not fair that some are educated to a high standard, and some are not educated at all. It's not fair that some people acheive their goals despite never working hard, and some never acheive their goals despite working very hard. Each person is entitled to not only the opportunity, but the best result of that opportunity.

Imagine it like a race: equality of opportunity is where everybody starts in the same place. Some people will finish before others despite starting in the same place. The ones finishing the furthest ahead get the best rewards, those furthest behind get the worst rewards or, indeed, no reward. Equality of outcome is the opposite: everybody can start in different places, but everybody should finish in the same place. The rewards should be placed in order of need, not order of place in the race.

Now, life can't be simplified to a linear race with "winners" and "losers"- each individual has different needs, wants, hopes and goals. But in terms of political ideals, it's an apt analogy (although Bill Whittle is a Republican conservative, so the demonizing of the "equality of outcome" thinkers is to be expected).

Equal at what?

Original post by Jemner01

Equality of opportunity is where everyone has the opportunity to better themselves, do well, be successfull and follow their dreams. Whether or not people take the opportunites given to them is down to each individual- how each individual used these opportunities shouldn't be violated or infringed unless the individual is violating or infringing someone else's opportunites (i.e. you always have the opportunity to harm someone but harming someone has the consequence of being imprisoned, which itself is an infringement of your opportunity to live freely).

You are confusing equality before the law with equality of opportunities. Equality of opportunities by definition means that everyone has equal opportunities. Its something that cannot fully achieved and we are still long way from even approaching it. Think about the british society. In most respects it fits your above criterias of equality of opportunities. But that doesn't imply that everyone has equal opportunities. Think about the average graduate of Eton and the average graduate of a small state school, it not an overstatement to say that their opportunities are vastly different .

Reply 29

Jemner01

8

Original post by Nicck

You are confusing equality before the law with equality of opportunities. Equality of opportunities by definition means that everyone has equal opportunities. Its something that cannot fully achieved and we are still long way from even approaching it. Think about the british society. In most respects it fits your above criterias of equality of opportunities. But that doesn't imply that everyone has equal opportunities. Think about the average graduate of Eton and the average graduate of a small state school, it not an overstatement to say that their opportunities are vastly different .

Yes, but both an eaton grad and an "average" grad both had the opportunity to learn, and both have the opportunity to use what they learned to acheive their goals. Where the two-types analysis falls down is where we find out acheivement and success is not some sort of tangible, objective standard that everyone can be held to. The Eaton grad and the non-Eaton grad will aklmost certainly have different goals in life and different ways to acheive those goals, and indeed different ways of viewing their success in acheiving those goals. Where they graduate may not be vital , or even relevant, in achieving those goals.

Reply 30

HigherMinion

OP

5

Original post by Jemner01

Imagine it like a race: equality of opportunity is where everybody starts in the same place.

No. This is the problem: you have to enforce some pretty brutal laws and remove family rights if you want everybody to start in the same place. Families who work together, have built the land they live on and generated wealth to pass down to their children are hindered by the folly of parents who don't care about their children enough to bother to labour.

You've hit a cognitive dissonance where you know in your head that equality of outcome is bad and equality of opportunity is good, but not quite how to explain it. What you explained as opportunity is outcome. A meritocracy in which the previous generation has no say in how well you perform. This is just as bad.

A true meritocracy would be about familiar conflict and proper competition among the population without a leg-up from the state. No inheritance tax to hinder the successful, no welfare state to pick up the weak. Just pure success based on merit.

Reply 31

HigherMinion

OP

5

Original post by DiddyDec

They should have equal rights and freedoms afforded to them. As long as they adhere to a basic set of principals.

Being treated without malice in your community=/= demanding equality.

Reply 32

Lularose83

14

I think we should all be equal, but are unfortunately not.

Reply 33

william walker

3

I am a Loyalist Reactionary High Tory of the Church of England. My view of equality is equality under the law. This basically means equality of enforcement, prosecution and punishment. I don't believe in equality of opportunity, equality of ends or equality within the law. I support Protestant preeminence within the law. This was the case in Britain 1690-1830 about 140 years. It has taken the Progressive Liberals, Classical Liberals and Socialists this long to weaken and erode the British governmental system, it just shows how strong it was and how good it was.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 34

username1214455

21

Equality does not mean the same. We are all equal, not the same.

3 + 4 = 9 - 2

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 35

Jemner01

8

Original post by HigherMinion

No. This is the problem: you have to enforce some pretty brutal laws and remove family rights if you want everybody to start in the same place. Families who work together, have built the land they live on and generated wealth to pass down to their children are hindered by the folly of parents who don't care about their children enough to bother to labour.

You've hit a cognitive dissonance where you know in your head that equality of outcome is bad and equality of opportunity is good, but not quite how to explain it. What you explained as opportunity is outcome. A meritocracy in which the previous generation has no say in how well you perform. This is just as bad.

A true meritocracy would be about familiar conflict and proper competition among the population without a leg-up from the state. No inheritance tax to hinder the successful, no welfare state to pick up the weak. Just pure success based on merit.

That's made me think.

Reply 36

HigherMinion

OP

5

Original post by william walker

This basically means equality of enforcement, prosecution and punishment.

Ironic really that we don't even have equality of enforcement now. Oh how corrupt our crime and justice system is these days. The EDL really highlighted the two-tier anarcho-tyranny we're faced with right now.

It should be easy to enforce British law indiscriminately (after all, we are taught to hate discrimination), but why is there no demand for justice anymore?

Reply 37

Smash Bandicoot

5

In case you thought I was trolling before: equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

Meritocracy.

Reply 38

Smash Bandicoot

5

Original post by HigherMinion

No. This is the problem: you have to enforce some pretty brutal laws and remove family rights if you want everybody to start in the same place. Families who work together, have built the land they live on and generated wealth to pass down to their children are hindered by the folly of parents who don't care about their children enough to bother to labour.

You've hit a cognitive dissonance where you know in your head that equality of outcome is bad and equality of opportunity is good, but not quite how to explain it. What you explained as opportunity is outcome. A meritocracy in which the previous generation has no say in how well you perform. This is just as bad.

A true meritocracy would be about familiar conflict and proper competition among the population without a leg-up from the state. No inheritance tax to hinder the successful, no welfare state to pick up the weak. Just pure success based on merit.