Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Should everyone be equal all the time? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should everyone be equal all the time?
    Yes, everyone should be equal regardless
    14.81%
    No, people should be treated on how they act
    62.96%
    No, people should be treated on how they were born
    0
    0%
    No, people should be treated on how they act and how they were born
    22.22%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by socially inept)
    I think it's clear that people should be treated according to their actions.
    But what if someone is born with born with one leg, should we treat them equally to someone with two legs? Is that even possible? Is it ethically right to hold them by the same standards as an able-bodied person?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zargabaath)
    But what if someone is born with born with one leg, should we treat them equally to someone with two legs? Is that even possible? Is it ethically right to hold them by the same standards as an able-bodied person?
    I mean, you'd really have to provide some context or plausible argument here for that to even be valid. If a person with one leg raped someone, they should be treated the same as a person with two legs.

    Don't make this complicated.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)

    Look at it this way, it that picture had a male saying "you can't hit me, I'm a man" they would probably be ridiculed for such an attitude, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they're called sexist and misogynistic and a supporter of the patriarchy and all sorts of other **** by some.

    Only because the logic behind saying it would be ridiculous!

    'You can't hit me. I'm a man' would sound like some, in modern eyes, hilarious assertion of the specialness of being a particular kind of manly man- or a 'gentleman'.

    It's not that either of those 2 groups should be hit in general. But that I can't imagine any man who wasn't in some way psychologically extremely unsure (or psychologically somewhere in his rocking chair in the 1930s) saying 'You can't hit me. I'm a man'.

    As I say, the feritility issue is the big reason why 'You can't hit me. I'm a girl' doesn't sound wrong.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nogoodsorgods)
    Only because the logic behind saying it would be ridiculous!

    'You can't hit me. I'm a man' would sound like some, in modern eyes, hilarious assertion of the specialness of being a particular kind of manly man- or a 'gentleman'.

    It's not that either of those 2 groups should be hit in general. But that I can't imagine any man who wasn't in some way psychologically extremely unsure (or psychologically somewhere in his rocking chair in the 1930s) saying 'You can't hit me. I'm a man'.

    As I say, the feritility issue is the big reason why 'You can't hit me. I'm a girl' doesn't sound wrong.
    Yes, I'm sure if I slap a woman round the face they're more likely to become infertile than if I do the same to a man(!) And how slight are the differences?
    And the logic behind a woman saying it is, at least 99.999[insert arbitrary number of 9s]% going to be just as ridiculous.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by socially inept)
    I mean, you'd really have to provide some context or plausible argument here for that to even be valid. If a person with one leg raped someone, they should be treated the same as a person with two legs.

    Don't make this complicated.
    Imagine I'm really ugly and I ask someone out on a date who finds me repulsive. Should they give me the same treatment and opportunities as they would to someone they find attractive, or should they be able to discriminate on this?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Everybody has preferences in who they hang around with, who they go out with, who they have children with, and it is simply a fact that where people were born forms part of most people's preferences, whether they choose it to or not. Clearly if you are attracted to people who's first language is English more than those who's first language is, say, Arabic, then you are more likely to become friends with Australians than Moroccans.

    Of course, how people act should determine what rights they have access to. Somebody convicted of first degree murder should have very few rights at all, in my and many others' opinions. I don't think a police officer who kills somebody while trying to arrest them for grave crimes should be treated as guilty of a crime of his own. Neither do I think criminals who pose a threat to the public deserve freedom (hardly anybody does, in fact, which is why we have prisons).

    However, everybody deserves equal treatment in a court of law (apart from in circumstances of war where this is not entirely possible). All people are innocent until proven guilty, and I would only justify breaking this principle in extraordinary situations.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nogoodsorgods)
    Only because the logic behind saying it would be ridiculous!

    'You can't hit me. I'm a man' would sound like some, in modern eyes, hilarious assertion of the specialness of being a particular kind of manly man- or a 'gentleman'.

    It's not that either of those 2 groups should be hit in general. But that I can't imagine any man who wasn't in some way psychologically extremely unsure (or psychologically somewhere in his rocking chair in the 1930s) saying 'You can't hit me. I'm a man'.

    As I say, the feritility issue is the big reason why 'You can't hit me. I'm a girl' doesn't sound wrong.
    If you were to punch a homosexual man you would be treated more harshly by the law than if it were a normal man, since your action would be deemed "hatred" of a "protected characteristic" unless you could prove otherwise. Your very mind goes on trial thanks to the so-called Equality Act.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zargabaath)
    Imagine I'm really ugly and I ask someone out on a date who finds me repulsive. Should they give me the same treatment and opportunities as they would to someone they find attractive, or should they be able to discriminate on this?
    They should be allowed to discriminate. It's only natural - no one finds everyone attractive? I can't quote any research on attractiveness but I think the country you grew up in and people you were exposed to highlights that e.g. A is attractive and B is not.

    From that, people derive their own personal preferences too. No one should force themselves to date someone if there isn't a physical connection. People who say that they only take personality into account are just FAKE, there is no way someone is going to date someone they're not physically attracted to.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    I don't think a police officer who kills somebody while trying to arrest them for grave crimes should be treated as guilty of a crime of his own.
    I completely disagree, a police officer should be held accountable for his/her actions as much as a normal citizen. They don't always successfully protect the general public anyway & do sometimes use an unreasonable amount of force whilst arresting a criminal (even for petty crimes) - when they do use unreasonable force, it's obviously going to be overlooked which doesn't seem fair to me at all.

    I guess, it'd depend on the crime of the criminal though.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by socially inept)
    They should be allowed to discriminate. It's only natural - no one finds everyone attractive? I can't quote any research on attractiveness but I think the country you grew up in and people you were exposed to highlights that e.g. A is attractive and B is not.

    From that, people derive their own personal preferences too. No one should force themselves to date someone if there isn't a physical connection. People who say that they only take personality into account are just FAKE, there is no way someone is going to date someone they're not physically attracted to.
    I agree with you, so then we're not treating them based on their actions, but in this case on the way they were born. Assuming I inherited 'bad' genes and that's why I'm ugly.

    It's not just about discriminating though, I also think that people who are born with certain disabilities (for example muscular dystrophy - which causes your muscles to degenerate over time) should be given financial and social support that your average person wouldn't get as there'll be a point were it will become impossible for them to support themselves.

    It's both our genes and our environment that makes us who we are, so we should be treated accordingly.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    People are not equal so why should we pretend that they are?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by socially inept)
    I completely disagree, a police officer should be held accountable for his/her actions as much as a normal citizen. They don't always successfully protect the general public anyway & do sometimes use an unreasonable amount of force whilst arresting a criminal (even for petty crimes) - when they do use unreasonable force, it's obviously going to be overlooked which doesn't seem fair to me at all.

    I guess, it'd depend on the crime of the criminal though.
    Notice that I was talking about people who had committed "grave crimes", not petty crimes.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gott)
    People are not equal so why should we pretend that they are?
    Because unless you have access to everyone's mind in such a way that you can know their skills, accomplishments and potential, you'd be basing it on what they do in public or the fortune of where they are in the world / in life.

    What, for instance, do you regard that you are better than others at?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nogoodsorgods)
    Because unless you have access to everyone's mind in such a way that you can know their skills, accomplishments and potential, you'd be basing it on what they do in public or the fortune of where they are in the world / in life.

    What, for instance, do you regard that you are better than others at?
    The point is that you do not use 'equality' as an excuse to rank someone of higher capability the same as someone of lesser ability, that is not to say that there should not be equal opportunities for classes for instance but evidence of non-capability should not be discounted for such a vague principle as equality.
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.