Why should equality pervade?

Watch
Three Mile Sprint
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
As the title states, why should the de-facto position of society be to attribute equality to people, especially when people upon even the most cursory inspection are seen to be unequal?

Society insists on fair treatment of men and women for example, when often women are severely unsuited to a wide range of work that is better left to men, and vice versa?

I constantly here inane statements such as "You should respect that persons beliefs/opinions everyone has the right to there own"
But why should I respect or accept your right to a stupid opinion or a ridiculous belief?
Why should I respect an individual, when they have yet to do anything to earn my respect?
I of course understand the concept that basic rules of civility and decent interaction should be maintained in order to promote a functioning society and the likes, but I do not believe this should extend to the point of undue pandering.

Is this ridiculous notion of sacrosanct equality and fairness founded upon the ignorance of the actual state of the world?
1
reply
NinjaSheep
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
(Original post by Three Mile Sprint)
As the title states, why should the de-facto position of society be to attribute equality to people, especially when people upon even the most cursory inspection are seen to be unequal?

Society insists on fair treatment of men and women for example, when often women are severely unsuited to a wide range of work that is better left to men, and vice versa?

I constantly here inane statements such as "You should respect that persons beliefs/opinions everyone has the right to there own"
But why should I respect or accept your right to a stupid opinion or a ridiculous belief?
Why should I respect an individual, when they have yet to do anything to earn my respect?
I of course understand the concept that basic rules of civility and decent interaction should be maintained in order to promote a functioning society and the likes, but I do not believe this should extend to the point of undue pandering.

Is this ridiculous notion of sacrosanct equality and fairness founded upon the ignorance of the actual state of the world?
I'll show you why with your own argument.

You argue that we do not need to treat everyone equally. That we should not respect people to have views we deem wrong or stupid.

But by your own admission, you constantly here statements about how we should. In your idea of not respecting equality, the collective whole, who as you point out believe this is definitely right, would deem your idea and argument to be stupid and wrong, and do not respect your views nor allow you to voice it.

If society did not 'pander' to people by respecting views that are clearly wrong, in this case your views would be ignored and shot down as stupid, and you would be punished for holding them - rather than what will most likely happen on here, where people debate but take no real action against you.


The world does not have right and wrong set in stone. This is the problem - while you may believe wholeheartedly in something, it may not in fact be right. Equally, you may hold the right view, but be the minority - and be treated as an inferior citizen because of that.

In answer to your first point, equality does not say everyone has to do the same thing. It does not say you need to have the same number of male/female midwives or lumberjacks, but that everyone should get the same opportunity, and should be treated fairly and given an equal shot.


Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
Three Mile Sprint
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#3
(Original post by NinjaSheep)
I'll show you why with your own argument.

You argue that we do not need to treat everyone equally. That we should not respect people to have views we deem wrong or stupid.

But by your own admission, you constantly here statements about how we should. In your idea of not respecting equality, the collective whole, who as you point out believe this is definitely right, would deem your idea and argument to be stupid and wrong, and do not respect your views nor allow you to voice it.

If society did not 'pander' to people by respecting views that are clearly wrong, in this case your views would be ignored and shot down as stupid, and you would be punished for holding them - rather than what will most likely happen on here, where people debate but take no real action against you.
Except in the real world, if you do hold certain views you are shot down, shut down and sidelined.

However if not accepting equality as the norm...was the norm.
Then my statements wouldn't be shot down, they would be widely accepted.


The world does not have right and wrong set in stone. This is the problem - while you may believe wholeheartedly in something, it may not in fact be right. Equally, you may hold the right view, but be the minority - and be treated as an inferior citizen because of that.
Agreed and to my knowledge I never argued differently.
0
reply
Le Nombre
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4
Report 7 years ago
#4
(Original post by Three Mile Sprint)
As the title states, why should the de-facto position of society be to attribute equality to people, especially when people upon even the most cursory inspection are seen to be unequal?

Society insists on fair treatment of men and women for example, when often women are severely unsuited to a wide range of work that is better left to men, and vice versa?

I constantly here inane statements such as "You should respect that persons beliefs/opinions everyone has the right to there own"
But why should I respect or accept your right to a stupid opinion or a ridiculous belief?
Why should I respect an individual, when they have yet to do anything to earn my respect?
I of course understand the concept that basic rules of civility and decent interaction should be maintained in order to promote a functioning society and the likes, but I do not believe this should extend to the point of undue pandering.

Is this ridiculous notion of sacrosanct equality and fairness founded upon the ignorance of the actual state of the world?
I think there's a difference between equality and equality of opportunity.

So, for example if you said 'I will not consider any female/male applicants for X job as on average men/women are better at it' that would be discrimnatory. However, if you said 'I will consider all candidates equally but expect it is more likely I end with a man/woman as men/women are better at this job on average' that is not. Obviously there are circumstances where it would be more dubious, so I would doubt whether the statement 'I am likely to give this job to a white person as white people are on average better at this job' could be justified.

Equality is treating everyone as an individual.
2
reply
NinjaSheep
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report 7 years ago
#5
(Original post by Three Mile Sprint)
Except in the real world, if you do hold certain views you are shot down, shut down and sidelined.

However if not accepting equality as the norm...was the norm.
Then my statements wouldn't be shot down, they would be widely accepted.



Agreed and to my knowledge I never argued differently.
I was arguing based on your statements position as a view contrary to the widely accepted one, rather than it's content. You would not be able to make views like that.

And to believe that 'in the real world' you are not treated equally for having those views just isn't right. If the world was as you described, you would get no respect for having those views. You may be discriminated against for not having views that conform to the majority - in a society that did not hold equality to be important, someone holding minority views could be treated as an inferior citizen. As it is, people tend to argue ideas, but not do anything about it. I may argue religious views with people who believe I am fundamentally wrong and they may be quite irate in shooting me down - but they cannot treat me differently because they disagree with my views. That is equality.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Three Mile Sprint
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#6
(Original post by NinjaSheep)
I was arguing based on your statements position as a view contrary to the widely accepted one, rather than it's content. You would not be able to make views like that.

And to believe that 'in the real world' you are not treated equally for having those views just isn't right. If the world was as you described, you would get no respect for having those views. You may be discriminated against for not having views that conform to the majority - in a society that did not hold equality to be important, someone holding minority views could be treated as an inferior citizen. As it is, people tend to argue ideas, but not do anything about it. I may argue religious views with people who believe I am fundamentally wrong and they may be quite irate in shooting me down - but they cannot treat me differently because they disagree with my views. That is equality.


Posted from TSR Mobile
So you are saying, that for being an open supporter of Nazism/Fascism, racial and gender superiority I "don't" loose respect in the real world and would not be treated differently?

*laughs*
0
reply
Le Nombre
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#7
Report 7 years ago
#7
(Original post by Three Mile Sprint)
So you are saying, that for being an open supporter of Nazism/Fascism, racial and gender superiority I "don't" loose respect in the real world and would not be treated differently?

*laughs*
There's a difference between not respecting the view, and you if it is considered something which defines you (racism/Nazism probably would fall into that cateogry), and denying your right to hold it.

For example if someone is ardently religious and that belief is so integral that it is a signficant part of what defines them as a person I would lose a lot of respect for them, as I think blind faith is daft, but I still respect their right to hold that view.

In terms of beleiving one gender or race is superior in some circumstances I would have to show a lack of repsect for that view due to the law and my personal view on how it may affect your decision making. So I would not for example let you run an assesment day for me, as I would have reason to beleive you will dismiss out of hand candidates who I myself would find to be very strong for reasons I believe are totally spurious, plus if that were found to be the reason my employer would be getting sued into next week.
0
reply
Three Mile Sprint
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#8
(Original post by Le Nombre)
There's a difference between not respecting the view, and you if it is considered something which defines you (racism/Nazism probably would fall into that cateogry), and denying your right to hold it.

For example if someone is ardently religious and that belief is so integral that it is a signficant part of what defines them as a person I would lose a lot of respect for them, as I think blind faith is daft, but I still respect their right to hold that view.

In terms of beleiving one gender or race is superior in some circumstances I would have to show a lack of repsect for that view due to the law and my personal view on how it may affect your decision making. So I would not for example let you run an assesment day for me, as I would have reason to beleive you will dismiss out of hand candidates who I myself would find to be very strong for reasons I believe are totally spurious, plus if that were found to be the reason my employer would be getting sued into next week.
There you go then, equality flys out the window when certain views are espoused.
0
reply
Le Nombre
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#9
Report 7 years ago
#9
(Original post by Three Mile Sprint)
There you go then, equality flys out the window when certain views are espoused.
I don't think anyone would suggest equality for views or opinions, if so you would not be able to turn down a socialist for a role with the Henry Jackson Society or an atheist for a job with the CofE. Equality is the right not to be judged for those things over which you have no control (race, gender, who your parents were, what school you attended etc.), once you yourself make a choice to hold a a particular view or act in a certain way then absolutely people have the right to judge you for that.

So, if for example someone didn't want to recruit people who were left wing then I'd accept them not employing me. If however they said they weren't employing anyone who wasn't a Pauline, then I'd have issues with being discriminated against.
0
reply
Three Mile Sprint
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#10
(Original post by Le Nombre)
I don't think anyone would suggest equality for views or opinions, if so you would not be able to turn down a socialist for a role with the Henry Jackson Society or an atheist for a job with the CofE. Equality is the right not to be judged for those things over which you have no control (race, gender, who your parents were, what school you attended etc.), once you yourself make a choice to hold a a particular view or act in a certain way then absolutely people have the right to judge you for that.

So, if for example someone didn't want to recruit people who were left wing then I'd accept them not employing me. If however they said they weren't employing anyone who wasn't a Pauline, then I'd have issues with being discriminated against.
And in my OP I specifically made the statement regarding beliefs and equality.

So at least we are partially agreeing.
0
reply
NinjaSheep
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#11
Report 7 years ago
#11
(Original post by Three Mile Sprint)
There you go then, equality flys out the window when certain views are espoused.
But the thing is, everyone is given a fair opportunity to display their views. Sure nazism is not a view that will be respected, but equality to that degree would by necessity be anarchism. The difference is, everyone is given an opportunity to express there views and hold them, but in some cases equality is best served by disallowing it. You can't say that someone should be permitted to discriminate based on their views of racial superiority, yet all races are equal - it contradicts itself.

Instead, every person is treated equally. Everyone is entitled to hold views, but not to discriminate against others. In that way, equality is best served, and it is fair to everyone. It means you can hold your view that some people are inferior, but you can't discriminate against those people - rather than a society where we could discriminate against someone merely because of the views they hold.

I think we've also lost track of the argument. You originally stated that you don't think everyone should be perceived as equal, despite the fact everyone else seemingly does. But now your arguing that people are not treated equally. What's your point?


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Le Nombre
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#12
Report 7 years ago
#12
(Original post by Three Mile Sprint)
And in my OP I specifically made the statement regarding beliefs and equality.

So at least we are partially agreeing.
Well, like you say that's an inane statement which suggests people are such babies they're not able to handle having their beliefs criticised or mocked.

There's a massive difference between respecting the opinion and respting the right to hold it.
0
reply
The Angry Stoic
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#13
Report 7 years ago
#13
(Original post by Three Mile Sprint)
As the title states, why should the de-facto position of society be to attribute equality to people, especially when people upon even the most cursory inspection are seen to be unequal?

Society insists on fair treatment of men and women for example, when often women are severely unsuited to a wide range of work that is better left to men, and vice versa?

I constantly here inane statements such as "You should respect that persons beliefs/opinions everyone has the right to there own"
But why should I respect or accept your right to a stupid opinion or a ridiculous belief?
Why should I respect an individual, when they have yet to do anything to earn my respect?
I of course understand the concept that basic rules of civility and decent interaction should be maintained in order to promote a functioning society and the likes, but I do not believe this should extend to the point of undue pandering.

Is this ridiculous notion of sacrosanct equality and fairness founded upon the ignorance of the actual state of the world?
People should have equal opportunities. That doesn't mean they are equal or should be made equal.
1
reply
Three Mile Sprint
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#14
(Original post by NinjaSheep)
But the thing is, everyone is given a fair opportunity to display their views. Sure nazism is not a view that will be respected, but equality to that degree would by necessity be anarchism. The difference is, everyone is given an opportunity to express there views and hold them, but in some cases equality is best served by disallowing it. You can't say that someone should be permitted to discriminate based on their views of racial superiority, yet all races are equal - it contradicts itself.

Instead, every person is treated equally. Everyone is entitled to hold views, but not to discriminate against others. In that way, equality is best served, and it is fair to everyone. It means you can hold your view that some people are inferior, but you can't discriminate against those people - rather than a society where we could discriminate against someone merely because of the views they hold.
But why shouldn't we be allowed to Discriminate against a person if his view is harmful or demonstrably false?

I think we've also lost track of the argument. You originally stated that you don't think everyone should be perceived as equal, despite the fact everyone else seemingly does. But now your arguing that people are not treated equally. What's your point?
That the theory and the reality differ and that the "Party line" so to speak needs to be ammended.
0
reply
username952210
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#15
Report 7 years ago
#15
Everyone's not equal. End of story
0
reply
Three Mile Sprint
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#16
(Original post by The Angry Stoic)
People should have equal opportunities. That doesn't mean they are equal or should be made equal.
That I can respect.
0
reply
Plainview
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#17
Report 7 years ago
#17
There are at least two meanings of 'respect'. The pertinent ones are 1) admire (someone or something) deeply, as a result of their abilities, qualities, or achievements; and 2) have due regard for (someone's feelings, wishes, or rights). We should all be careful not to conflate the two.

Outside of that, I agree with what you're saying. It's partly why I agree with grammar schools, for example: if there's a technical job that requires great skill and experience, then I want someone who is suited to that job to get it, not a random lottery of people just so everyone gets a chance. We should try to make it a level playing-field at birth (although to do so completely is impractical and even immoral), but after that different people quite clearly require different influences and resources.

(Original post by Three Mile Sprint)
But why shouldn't we be allowed to Discriminate against a person if his view is harmful or demonstrably false?
Also with you on this. As Karl Popper says: "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them ... We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
0
reply
cant_think_of_name
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#18
Report 7 years ago
#18
I always believed that equality was the idea that everyone should be born equal to everyone else, and should have the same opportunities as everyone else. It's a difficult one.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (11)
23.91%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (4)
8.7%
No I am happy with my choice (28)
60.87%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (3)
6.52%

Watched Threads

View All