True Equality - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

06-14-2005, 09:15 PM

Are all men and woman equal? Are we all simply beings transversing space and time.

I can say that sometimes I do feel better then other people, my judgements are righteous and stem only from what I feel is important or reasonable. How I feel validates my judgement. People are unique and some people can be defined as acheiveing more and some people acheiving less, history remembers the men and woman who had significant impacts on their environment. I was robbed by two addicts, the experience did change me. It would be easy to boast that of course I am the better of two addicts who resort to armed robbery to afford their fix but, we all live and die. They're both people making there way in the world, same as me. I have heard the theory that by giveing up my judgemental concepts of selfworth I could experience the world without any warped perceptions. I don't think I can disregard all my predisposed physiological and cultural behavoir.

hannukah harry · 06-14-2005, 09:29 PM

men and women are equal, as well as all people.

and then they're not.

it depends on what context your talking about.

chickentribs · 06-15-2005, 12:48 AM

NotMVH - Such an empathetic, yet honest question. I think that the important question is "value to whom?" Physically, we are equal. Religion tells us that souls are individual and equal, left to salvation or damnation. To our government, we are a Social Security number and tax deduction. Individually, we have all led lives with good intention and selfishness to different degrees.

Should we feel guilty to feel superior to others? Does our income, religion, morality, ancestory make us more or less a person? If the addict who robbed you finds redemption and gives themselves to only charitable deeds a year from now, do they become more worthwhile? Oppenheimer contributed greatly to mankind through his scientific research, but also sowed misery through use of his findings.

Ultimately, I think value cannot be measured in terms of others, you are comparing apples and oranges. You can only honestly measure the value you feel for yourself, based on yesterday and your hopes for tommorow. Anything else is ultimately irrelevant.

Martian · 06-15-2005, 03:28 AM

In terms of gender equality, I had an interesting discussion the other day on whether or not equality precludes chivalry. I'm a bit old fashioned in my mannerisms and will often hold doors for women (and occasionally men), as well as certain other gestures, such as waiting for my host to seat him or herself before I do when a guest at another's dinner table. I view it all as a bit anachronistic, but it's mostly harmless and too deeply ingrained in my character for me to worry especially about changing it. Most people seem to feel the way I do, although I have occasionally met with somewhat vocal and negative reactions.

In terms of the concept of 'all men created equal', it's a high minded ideal and thus only true in a high-minded and abstract sense. It's my personal belief that each individual is equal in potential , but that individual's true worth sprouts from how they pursue and utilize that potential.

Just my thoughts.

asaris · 06-15-2005, 06:36 AM

I've long been of the opinion that comparing two people is indeed like comparing apples and oranges, so the statement "All people are equal" (or "Men and women are equal") is meaningless.

roachboy · 06-15-2005, 06:56 AM

equality is a formal attrubute. a particular subset of human beings (citizens), insofar as they are legal subjects, are formally equal before the law.
under the present socio-economic order, there is obviously little if any correlation between this formal attribute (a feature that defines the legal subject) and substantive attributes.
you could imagine maybe a direct democratic regime, which would bring the two into closer contact.
but even then, there would remain a distinction between levels.

formal equality and substantive inequality seems to be a direct mapping of christian assumptions: equality refers to the soul, inequality to everything else. that folk can accomodiate this contradiction without problems is among the legacies of christianity.

pan6467 · 06-15-2005, 07:17 AM

All people are equal.... however until society truly becomes colorblind, gender blind, class blind, handicap blind, personal choices blind (homosexuality, religion, cultures) and so on, then society will always have issues.

I fear, though, if we ever do achieve "true equality and these blindnesses" we will lose individuality.

In other words, perhaps prejudices (whether conscious or sub) drives us to be individuals and allows us to believe (however wrong we know it is) better than others.

Ustwo · 06-15-2005, 07:25 AM

People are by no means equal by any measure.

If they were, just think how damn boring it would be.

roachboy · 06-15-2005, 10:06 AM

ustwo:

you are confusing notions of equality.

equality in a legal sense is not equal to equality in the mathematical sense.
the implication of social equality is not that everyone is identical.
it is not 1=1=1---rather social equality would be a question of hierarchy and relation to it--equality before the law is the idea that everyone has the same rights, and the same obligations before the law regardless of economic situation (for example)...

Ustwo · 06-15-2005, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

ustwo:

you are confusing notions of equality.

equality in a legal sense is not equal to equality in the mathematical sense.
the implication of social equality is not that everyone is identical.
it is not 1=1=1---rather social equality would be a question of hierarchy and relation to it--equality before the law is the idea that everyone has the same rights, and the same obligations before the law regardless of economic situation (for example)...

Who says this thread is about legal or social equality?

I am speaking from the absolute.

06-15-2005, 10:35 AM

Is it possible to value one snowflake over another?
Does the first leaf of spring rank over the last one in fall?

roachboy · 06-15-2005, 10:37 AM

Quote:

I am speaking from the absolute.

really? how did you get there?
do you remember the transition?
what color is the sky in that world?
were you probed?

by the way, i got the idea that the thread was about legal and/or social equality from the initial post. the first question. thereis no other way to think about it: are all men and women equal?

your translation of the question would be: are all men and women identical? (1=1=1) which would in fact be boring. fortunately, that prspect of infinite boredom is a function of a semantic problem.

Lebell · 06-15-2005, 11:06 AM

I do not get from the first post that he was presuposing this was about equality in a legal sense.

If anything, it seemed rather open ended.

As I understand the question, it is meaningless without a context.

roachboy · 06-15-2005, 12:55 PM

ok so if you are talking about men and women, you are talking about social beings. so the question of equality as understood in mathematics cannot be simply applied to social situations. there are significant philosophical reasons for this distinction--i could go into them if you'd like.

Ustwo · 06-15-2005, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

ok so if you are talking about men and women, you are talking about social beings. so the question of equality as understood in mathematics cannot be simply applied to social situations. there are significant philosophical reasons for this distinction--i could go into them if you'd like.

Mathematics can be applied to everything. The only question is what all of the variables are. There are no intangibles only unknown variables.

MageB420666 · 06-15-2005, 01:05 PM

Equality cannot be reached in a democratic society, one person's ideals, values, and morals will always be held over anothers. It is inherent in a social system that allows free thought. The majority rules and the minorities are either ignored, repressed, or fight to become the majority.

Example: Racism. By holding to the ideal view of equality, you are repressing one group of people. You are saying that the ideals and beliefs held by a group of people (KKK, Black Panthers, Nazis, etc.) are less valid than your own, a.k.a. unequal.

It is impossible for an equal society to occur, because whether people want to face it or not, people are DIFFERENT, not EQUAL, there are the rich and the poor, those who are smart and those who are stupid, those with charisma and those without, those with ambition and those who don't care, and people who will fall in everywhere between. Is one persons life less valuable than anothers? In my opinion no, except for two circumstances will I consider one person's life less valuable than anothers, if they commit rape and/or murder.

There is not even legal equality in the United States. For the laws are a representation of the rules in which society wishes to live, not just the majority, but the minorities as well. So if there was equality then all social groups would have the laws they want, but as you can guess, many of these laws would be mutually exclusive. So some of the groups have their ideas and values repressed in the name of satisfying the majority of the people.

Zeraph · 06-15-2005, 01:56 PM

"Are all people equal?" is not a real question (assuming that the definition of a question is that a question must have an answer). Equality is totally subjective (just something we happen to normally agree with) so the only way one can answer that is for themselves.

06-15-2005, 02:01 PM

I don't see equality as holding any ideals. It would be to forgo all judgement, to let go of everything. Is it possible to accept the worst murdering butcher to the highest preist as equal? are they not both simply living mortals, identical in value?

To say one is better then the other is to compare them moraly or rationaly or emotionaly. It is to define what is right and what is wrong. I can't and don't want to let go of the values and ideals that are ingrained in me from both a biological and cultural influences. By being able to define what I feel is right and what I feel is wrong, I can justify my actions. Is it honest? only to myself.

Chickentribs, you stated that you base value based on the past and what people aspire for in the future. What about the present? Should it not be the most valueable of all moments?

Martian, I can understand and agree with what you say but doesn't each person have the right to their choice or what reaching their potential means. It could be a very subjective concept and can't span past one individuals point of veiw.

Asaris, if you don't belive you can compare or judge people, isn't that to accept that everyone is just being or equal?

roachboy, I am speaking in the substantive sense. I have thought about forgiveness as being a form of acceptance, to be able to take things at an absolute face value. Where I think Christians defer is that they may be able to forgive they do so under the pretense that it is God who will have the final judgement and avenge there cause.

Ustwo, If I could throw away everything that I hold dear I could feel that we are all identitical. All our diffrences would be subjective or open to interpretation. The only truth would be grounded in reality and we are and nothing more.

Lebell, defing the context is part of the question. What is important? what if nothing were important. Is it possible to truely accept meaninglessness? I can't remeber the philosophers name but it has been suggested the most important question is simply "Is life worth living?"

roachboy · 06-15-2005, 02:59 PM

ah ok...this is bascially a religious question. are human beings substantively equal because they have souls, etc.
there is alot you have to accept to engage with that kind of question.
and i don't....so i'll doff my hat and take my leave.
thanks however for an interesting thread.

cellophanedeity · 06-15-2005, 04:35 PM

I don't think that there is any sort of "true equality." The term is far too abstract to define. It is in the same boat as "true good" and "true love."

Has anyone read or seen Harrison Bergeron by Vonnegut?
Anyone want to? http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

RCAlyra2004 · 06-15-2005, 05:09 PM

Well here is my stab at this.

Feel free to disagree.

Firstly let me say that we should not confuse equality with:
1.Efficiency of the person.
2.Intelligence.
3.The ability to earn an income.
4.The ability to make other "purposeful" accomplishments in life.
5.The ability to attract others to you by whatever means.
6.The beleif system the person holds to.
7.The species you come from.

We are all equal because of the fact that we are human, but we are not the same. Even those humans that would kill us because we don't adhere to their dogmatic beleifs are equal to us.

Equality is a Value that I hold for you.

Here are some examples of how I apply that value of equality in my life:

A. I won't assume my time is worth more/less than yours even though you earn more/less than me.
B. I won't think of your life as expendable, any more than mine is.
C. I won't look down on you (I struggle not to be arrogant) because you are different than me.
D. You deserve to be loved as much as I do.

there's more... but I think you get the point I am making... though some of you have turned this into a religious debate. I think this cuts through the "dogma".

RCALYRA

Lebell · 06-15-2005, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotMVH

Lebell, defing the context is part of the question. What is important? what if nothing were important. Is it possible to truely accept meaninglessness? I can't remeber the philosophers name but it has been suggested the most important question is simply "Is life worth living?"

So to answer your question with this additional data, the answer is, "it depends".

It depends on who you are, what your belief system is and what is important to you.

Well, for myself, men and women are equal in the only eyes that matter; God's.

They are equally capable of accepting God's love or rejecting it, this being the only decision that (to me) really matters, as all other decisions flow from it.

Axiom_e · 06-16-2005, 08:33 AM

I have taken up the subjective stance that no-one is my equal.
No one person is worth my life because my life is the only one I am intimately aware of.
Now please don't take this as me being a horrible person. I love to help people and even make sacrifices of myself for them.

From this nugget of truth for myself I built up a holey moral structure, but it works for me, but to get back to the coversation.

We are all made of matter so we are equal in the sense that we are created from the same stuff. After this I give every person (even my enemy) a level of my love. I then color that love with my past experiences with that person. Or at least I think that is how my perceptions work.

So everyone is equal because I say so. heh

Seeker · 06-16-2005, 04:16 PM

I believe everyone to be equal. Though I am not equating equal to 'value'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

People are by no means equal by any measure.

If they were, just think how damn boring it would be.

I have a slightly different take on this, although I think I can see what you mean here Ustwo.

Rather than us not being equal, and the result boring, I see it that this perceived difference (not being equal) is more like everyone having their certain 'function' within the world and it's experiences. Much like a production of a play, we all have our parts to make it work, although I am not saying that this has anything to do with fate either.

When I look at it in this light this is why it is not boring, yet I still see everyone as equal.

asaris · 06-17-2005, 08:20 AM

Seeker, you (and others) say that "I believe everyone to be equal." What do you mean by that? I agree with Roachboy that we are all (at least in theory) equal before the law. I still maintain that any sense of equality other than that is either meaningless or false. Consider the notion that we are all equal in value. If we take this to mean that, properly weighted, we all have the same about of ability/talent as everyone else, just spread around differently, I think this is false. But that's just my suspicion. More than that, I think it's unverifiable. You write that we all have our parts to play in the great drama of life. This is perhaps true (though, again, unverifiable). But even given that, who's to say that some of us aren't Hamlets, some Poloniuses (Polonii?

) and some of us "Guard #2"?

pennywise121 · 06-17-2005, 10:31 AM

something that mage said has struck my interest. he said that

Quote:

It is impossible for an equal society to occur, because whether people want to face it or not, people are DIFFERENT, not EQUAL, there are the rich and the poor, those who are smart and those who are stupid, those with charisma and those without, those with ambition and those who don't care, and people who will fall in everywhere between

to me, this is mixing the cause for the effect. the societal issues that arise from having an unequal distribution of any resource (be it power, money, land, etc.) must not be confused with the idea that these inequalities CAUSE the societal issues. in other words, the poor do not MAKE the rich have more money than them; insofar as this is true on a macro level (and not the old "but-they-buy-alcohol-and-give-their-money-to-the-rich" defense), it is rather the systemic inequalities that cause one person to be more or less "equal" (in terms of allocation of the same resources: money, power, etc).

now, with that having been said, the question of "equality" is multiplistic, and we provide our own context and interpretation for each. we can wax philosophic about hypothetical equality and inequality, but ultimately we must realize the futility of such endeavors. i am not as equal as stephen hawkings at astrophysics, but i am more equal to him in that matter than my 15 year old sister (at least, i certainly HOPE i am

we are equal only in one respect. as it was so eloquently put, we are equal only insofar as we are all individual conciousnesses existing in the same place. in other words we are equal only because 1=1=1=1..... ad nauseum.

just my thoughts on the matter..............

streak_56 · 06-17-2005, 10:47 PM

Personally I think that equality can never be achieved in the near future. Maybe in hundreds of years from now, I hope that we could all be equal but I cannot see into future (just to state the obvious).

Gender equality as of right now could be put into two groups: Physical and Societal.

Physically women and men would never be equals. Childbirth specifically is built for women, not men. As the saying goes 'Men has penis' and Women have Vaginas.' For those obvious differences.

Societally I believe that men and women could be considered equals. We basically can do all the same things within a society. There should be no obvious disadvantages among us. Hence another Quote "Women are from Venus and Men are from Mars."

I think both of these along with traditional values are open for an interpretation among the sexes. Though I see no differences among us, other people might and do. But hey.... being different is what makes everything so fun right?

Seeker · 06-18-2005, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asaris

Seeker, you (and others) say that "I believe everyone to be equal." What do you mean by that?... (snip) ...You write that we all have our parts to play in the great drama of life. This is perhaps true (though, again, unverifiable). But even given that, who's to say that some of us aren't Hamlets, some Poloniuses (Polonii?

) and some of us "Guard #2"?

asaris, I don't really understand what you mean by Hamlets, Poloniuses (Polynices - as in Greek Mythology?) and "Guard #2". (It's times like these I feel like I have lived in a bubble

)

I can expand that I was referring to our existance on the planet. Just as an ant or insect can be as important in the cycle of life as a bird, lion, or shark is.

I think to place value on others as equals would be too subjective to even approach. Possibly what you were referring to as meaningless? I don't get the false though

I'd agree it is not verifiable.

Perhaps it wasn't expressed well, but that is why I stated that 'equal' did not mean 'value'. Does this help?

asaris · 06-18-2005, 09:23 AM

The reference was to various characters in the Shakespearean play, "Hamlet". I'm not sure there's actually a "guard #2", but I take it you get the point. Hamlet is the most important character in the play, Polonius is an important character, but definitely not the most important, and guard #2 isn't very important at all.

I'm just trying to get at what you mean by 'equal' if you don't mean it in terms of value. You said that we're equal in that we all have our parts to play, but how is it equality if we're all playing different parts?

A number of people here have mentioned societal equality as being a worthy goal. I'm not sure I agree. I certainly think that justice is a higher goal than equality, and since justice is everybody getting what they deserve, equality of outcome is not necessarily going to be the most just outcome (though some distribution of goods which is Pareto efficient probably is going to be -- cf. Theory of Justice). In theory, equality of opportunity is, I think, a good thing, but given the fact that we have limited resources, I wonder if it is even possible to provide this.

Seeker · 06-18-2005, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asaris

I'm just trying to get at what you mean by 'equal' if you don't mean it in terms of value. You said that we're equal in that we all have our parts to play, but how is it equality if we're all playing different parts?

The parts may not be equal, a street-sweeper may not have the capacity of a lawyer, however, that to me does not imply that one is more important that the other. If we didn't have street-sweepers what would occur? Somebody has to play the part.

I suppose I am placing 'value' in that scenario, within the context of 'value v's importance'... rather than 'value v's capacity' as RCAlyra2004 has expressed above, we are not the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by asaris

A number of people here have mentioned societal equality as being a worthy goal. I'm not sure I agree.

Would this be more to the point of placing a "ranking of importance" to each and every person? Or is this giving everybody the utilities to become equal in capacity? I don't believe everybody can become 'equal in capacity'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by asaris

I certainly think that justice is a higher goal than equality, and since justice is everybody getting what they deserve, equality of outcome is not necessarily going to be the most just outcome (though some distribution of goods which is Pareto efficient probably is going to be -- cf. Theory of Justice). In theory, equality of opportunity is, I think, a good thing, but given the fact that we have limited resources, I wonder if it is even possible to provide this.

I agree with your views on justice. I also see equality of opportunity as a good thing, it may be something that is possible to provide, however I don't see that every individual will take, or make the most of, any opportunities presented. This would follow on from the theory that we are not all the same, I don't think everybody will strive for the same aspirations.

asaris · 06-20-2005, 12:37 PM

Then, I think, we more or less agree. I think that philosophy is important, but I've always reminded myself that, if all the philosophers died tomorrow, few would notice, but if all the car mechanics died tomorrow, we'd have real problems

Borgs · 06-20-2005, 08:18 PM

All people are created equal, but society does not make them equal.

CandleInTheDark · 06-21-2005, 11:32 AM

I think it's the reverse actually; society makes people equal.

RusCrimson · 07-06-2005, 06:36 PM

When we're talking about equality, I think we're really asking questions of justice. Thus the issue can be resolved with a bit of Aristotle. In his model, there's (Ethic. v, 2) commutative and distributive justice. The first deals with interactions between individuals, and the second deals with the relationship between and individual and society. It is wrong to treat people unequally in the distributive sense (i.e., society should not favor certain individuals just because of who they are). In the commutative sense, it is wrong to give some kind of injury (e.g., Fred shouldn't kill Bob). But we do not say that people "should be equal" in this latter sense. And indeed, it is possible (and in some cases preferable) that they not be equal.

John Henry · 07-15-2005, 03:28 PM

Which is more boogly, Bingle or Bongle?

Perhaps I'm being a bit autistic here, but as far as I understand it, the concept of equality is meaningless without some measurable quantities. If you mean are all humans of equal worth or value, then again, without context the question is meaningless. Are they of equal value as what? Stepladders? No. A food source? No.

If you mean should some people be given more breaks and less grief by society than others, then yes, if that society wants to survive? In that respect people are 'unequal'. However, so far as I can discern, there is no iinherent, underlying, measurable, absolute quantity which could be used to determine such 'inequality'.

In the context of your question, people are neither equal nor unequal. Equality is simply a quality which cannot be meaningfully ascribed to people.

The answer is mu.

Johnny Rotten · 07-17-2005, 04:57 PM

All absolute statements should be approached with caution.

Suave · 07-17-2005, 05:37 PM

Everyone is inequal in terms of legality, morality, physiology, and mental capacity (though mental capacity is not dictated by gender or ethnicity to my belief). Physiology allows us a set range of physical abilities, and each gender has its own strengths and weaknesses, as do most people within those genders. Legal and moral inequality are both dictated by society, and neither is particularly relevant unless being referenced to some related part of society.

Suave · 07-17-2005, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Rotten

All absolute statements should be approached with caution.

Except that one.

fuzzybottom · 07-17-2005, 11:17 PM

interpreting this as a question of whether one person is as ultimately good as another, in spite of the actions that they carried out throughout their life, i would weigh motive and circumstance against morality in each case. however, that morality is my own though i would like to think it consists of principles basic enough that all good people would accept it, but then there's a sort of catch 22, that my idea of a good person would accept the criteria for what it means to be a good person.

anyway, i see a difference between someone who kills for profection, for fun, out of passion, for drugs, or for money, but i see similarities between them all, apart from the obvious killing part and less easily explained. and i would consider some of them better than others depending on the reason they did it, regardless of whether or not i agreed with the outcome.

truly though, even though id consider some people morally superior or inferior to others, i think fundamentally theyre operating on what theyve got. but given the task to select half of the population of the world to keep while the other half was strangely removed, i would find it hard to do it randomly, but i would feel that was right.

d*d · 07-18-2005, 05:02 AM

Are all men and woman equal; no, we never have been. We strive to create a society where we have the same rights as citizens but then this is not true of the world as a whole.
In terms of the universe then we are equal in the fact that we are sentient and as vunerable as each other to it's forces. Where differences exist true equality (equality on all levels) cannot be achieved so our attempts to force it onto society are pointless differences should be accepted and work from there.

06-14-2005, 09:15 PM	#1 (permalink)
NotMVH Guest	True Equality Are all men and woman equal? Are we all simply beings transversing space and time. I can say that sometimes I do feel better then other people, my judgements are righteous and stem only from what I feel is important or reasonable. How I feel validates my judgement. People are unique and some people can be defined as acheiveing more and some people acheiving less, history remembers the men and woman who had significant impacts on their environment. I was robbed by two addicts, the experience did change me. It would be easy to boast that of course I am the better of two addicts who resort to armed robbery to afford their fix but, we all live and die. They're both people making there way in the world, same as me. I have heard the theory that by giveing up my judgemental concepts of selfworth I could experience the world without any warped perceptions. I don't think I can disregard all my predisposed physiological and cultural behavoir.

06-14-2005, 09:29 PM	#2 (permalink)
hannukah harry Junkie	men and women are equal, as well as all people. and then they're not. it depends on what context your talking about. __________________ shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

06-15-2005, 12:48 AM	#3 (permalink)
chickentribs Addict Location: Mansion by day/Secret Lair by night	NotMVH - Such an empathetic, yet honest question. I think that the important question is "value to whom?" Physically, we are equal. Religion tells us that souls are individual and equal, left to salvation or damnation. To our government, we are a Social Security number and tax deduction. Individually, we have all led lives with good intention and selfishness to different degrees. Should we feel guilty to feel superior to others? Does our income, religion, morality, ancestory make us more or less a person? If the addict who robbed you finds redemption and gives themselves to only charitable deeds a year from now, do they become more worthwhile? Oppenheimer contributed greatly to mankind through his scientific research, but also sowed misery through use of his findings. Ultimately, I think value cannot be measured in terms of others, you are comparing apples and oranges. You can only honestly measure the value you feel for yourself, based on yesterday and your hopes for tommorow. Anything else is ultimately irrelevant. __________________ Oft expectation fails... and most oft there Where most it promises - Shakespeare, W.

06-15-2005, 06:36 AM	#5 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	I've long been of the opinion that comparing two people is indeed like comparing apples and oranges, so the statement "All people are equal" (or "Men and women are equal") is meaningless. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

06-15-2005, 06:56 AM	#6 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	equality is a formal attrubute. a particular subset of human beings (citizens), insofar as they are legal subjects, are formally equal before the law. under the present socio-economic order, there is obviously little if any correlation between this formal attribute (a feature that defines the legal subject) and substantive attributes. you could imagine maybe a direct democratic regime, which would bring the two into closer contact. but even then, there would remain a distinction between levels. formal equality and substantive inequality seems to be a direct mapping of christian assumptions: equality refers to the soul, inequality to everything else. that folk can accomodiate this contradiction without problems is among the legacies of christianity. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-15-2005, 03:28 AM	#4 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	In terms of gender equality, I had an interesting discussion the other day on whether or not equality precludes chivalry. I'm a bit old fashioned in my mannerisms and will often hold doors for women (and occasionally men), as well as certain other gestures, such as waiting for my host to seat him or herself before I do when a guest at another's dinner table. I view it all as a bit anachronistic, but it's mostly harmless and too deeply ingrained in my character for me to worry especially about changing it. Most people seem to feel the way I do, although I have occasionally met with somewhat vocal and negative reactions. In terms of the concept of 'all men created equal', it's a high minded ideal and thus only true in a high-minded and abstract sense. It's my personal belief that each individual is equal in potential , but that individual's true worth sprouts from how they pursue and utilize that potential. Just my thoughts.

06-15-2005, 07:17 AM	#7 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	All people are equal.... however until society truly becomes colorblind, gender blind, class blind, handicap blind, personal choices blind (homosexuality, religion, cultures) and so on, then society will always have issues. I fear, though, if we ever do achieve "true equality and these blindnesses" we will lose individuality. In other words, perhaps prejudices (whether conscious or sub) drives us to be individuals and allows us to believe (however wrong we know it is) better than others. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

06-15-2005, 07:25 AM	#8 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	People are by no means equal by any measure. If they were, just think how damn boring it would be. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

06-15-2005, 10:06 AM	#9 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ustwo: you are confusing notions of equality. equality in a legal sense is not equal to equality in the mathematical sense. the implication of social equality is not that everyone is identical. it is not 1=1=1---rather social equality would be a question of hierarchy and relation to it--equality before the law is the idea that everyone has the same rights, and the same obligations before the law regardless of economic situation (for example)... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-15-2005, 10:35 AM	#11 (permalink)
zen_tom Guest	Is it possible to value one snowflake over another? Does the first leaf of spring rank over the last one in fall?

06-15-2005, 11:06 AM	#13 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I do not get from the first post that he was presuposing this was about equality in a legal sense. If anything, it seemed rather open ended. As I understand the question, it is meaningless without a context. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

06-15-2005, 12:55 PM	#14 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ok so if you are talking about men and women, you are talking about social beings. so the question of equality as understood in mathematics cannot be simply applied to social situations. there are significant philosophical reasons for this distinction--i could go into them if you'd like. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-15-2005, 01:05 PM	#16 (permalink)
MageB420666 <Insert wise statement here> Location: Hell if I know	Equality cannot be reached in a democratic society, one person's ideals, values, and morals will always be held over anothers. It is inherent in a social system that allows free thought. The majority rules and the minorities are either ignored, repressed, or fight to become the majority. Example: Racism. By holding to the ideal view of equality, you are repressing one group of people. You are saying that the ideals and beliefs held by a group of people (KKK, Black Panthers, Nazis, etc.) are less valid than your own, a.k.a. unequal. It is impossible for an equal society to occur, because whether people want to face it or not, people are DIFFERENT, not EQUAL, there are the rich and the poor, those who are smart and those who are stupid, those with charisma and those without, those with ambition and those who don't care, and people who will fall in everywhere between. Is one persons life less valuable than anothers? In my opinion no, except for two circumstances will I consider one person's life less valuable than anothers, if they commit rape and/or murder. There is not even legal equality in the United States. For the laws are a representation of the rules in which society wishes to live, not just the majority, but the minorities as well. So if there was equality then all social groups would have the laws they want, but as you can guess, many of these laws would be mutually exclusive. So some of the groups have their ideas and values repressed in the name of satisfying the majority of the people. __________________ Apathy: The best outlook this side of I don't give a damn.

06-15-2005, 01:56 PM	#17 (permalink)
Zeraph Banned Location: The Cosmos	"Are all people equal?" is not a real question (assuming that the definition of a question is that a question must have an answer). Equality is totally subjective (just something we happen to normally agree with) so the only way one can answer that is for themselves. Last edited by Zeraph; 06-15-2005 at 01:58 PM..

06-15-2005, 02:01 PM	#18 (permalink)
NotMVH Guest	I don't see equality as holding any ideals. It would be to forgo all judgement, to let go of everything. Is it possible to accept the worst murdering butcher to the highest preist as equal? are they not both simply living mortals, identical in value? To say one is better then the other is to compare them moraly or rationaly or emotionaly. It is to define what is right and what is wrong. I can't and don't want to let go of the values and ideals that are ingrained in me from both a biological and cultural influences. By being able to define what I feel is right and what I feel is wrong, I can justify my actions. Is it honest? only to myself. Chickentribs, you stated that you base value based on the past and what people aspire for in the future. What about the present? Should it not be the most valueable of all moments? Martian, I can understand and agree with what you say but doesn't each person have the right to their choice or what reaching their potential means. It could be a very subjective concept and can't span past one individuals point of veiw. Asaris, if you don't belive you can compare or judge people, isn't that to accept that everyone is just being or equal? roachboy, I am speaking in the substantive sense. I have thought about forgiveness as being a form of acceptance, to be able to take things at an absolute face value. Where I think Christians defer is that they may be able to forgive they do so under the pretense that it is God who will have the final judgement and avenge there cause. Ustwo, If I could throw away everything that I hold dear I could feel that we are all identitical. All our diffrences would be subjective or open to interpretation. The only truth would be grounded in reality and we are and nothing more. Lebell, defing the context is part of the question. What is important? what if nothing were important. Is it possible to truely accept meaninglessness? I can't remeber the philosophers name but it has been suggested the most important question is simply "Is life worth living?"

06-15-2005, 02:59 PM	#19 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ah ok...this is bascially a religious question. are human beings substantively equal because they have souls, etc. there is alot you have to accept to engage with that kind of question. and i don't....so i'll doff my hat and take my leave. thanks however for an interesting thread. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-15-2005, 04:35 PM	#20 (permalink)
cellophanedeity Heliotrope Location: A warm room	I don't think that there is any sort of "true equality." The term is far too abstract to define. It is in the same boat as "true good" and "true love." Has anyone read or seen Harrison Bergeron by Vonnegut? Anyone want to? http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

06-15-2005, 05:09 PM	#21 (permalink)
RCAlyra2004 Crazy Location: North of the 50th Parallel	Well here is my stab at this. Feel free to disagree. Firstly let me say that we should not confuse equality with: 1.Efficiency of the person. 2.Intelligence. 3.The ability to earn an income. 4.The ability to make other "purposeful" accomplishments in life. 5.The ability to attract others to you by whatever means. 6.The beleif system the person holds to. 7.The species you come from. We are all equal because of the fact that we are human, but we are not the same. Even those humans that would kill us because we don't adhere to their dogmatic beleifs are equal to us. Equality is a Value that I hold for you. Here are some examples of how I apply that value of equality in my life: A. I won't assume my time is worth more/less than yours even though you earn more/less than me. B. I won't think of your life as expendable, any more than mine is. C. I won't look down on you (I struggle not to be arrogant) because you are different than me. D. You deserve to be loved as much as I do. there's more... but I think you get the point I am making... though some of you have turned this into a religious debate. I think this cuts through the "dogma". RCALYRA __________________ Living on the edge of sanity

06-16-2005, 08:33 AM	#23 (permalink)
Axiom_e Tilted Location: United States, East Coast, New Jersey	I have taken up the subjective stance that no-one is my equal. No one person is worth my life because my life is the only one I am intimately aware of. Now please don't take this as me being a horrible person. I love to help people and even make sacrifices of myself for them. From this nugget of truth for myself I built up a holey moral structure, but it works for me, but to get back to the coversation. We are all made of matter so we are equal in the sense that we are created from the same stuff. After this I give every person (even my enemy) a level of my love. I then color that love with my past experiences with that person. Or at least I think that is how my perceptions work. So everyone is equal because I say so. heh __________________ Life is meaningless. How awesome is that? Rock On! Now I can do whatever the hell I want and give my own life meaning to myself.

06-17-2005, 08:20 AM	#25 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	Seeker, you (and others) say that "I believe everyone to be equal." What do you mean by that? I agree with Roachboy that we are all (at least in theory) equal before the law. I still maintain that any sense of equality other than that is either meaningless or false. Consider the notion that we are all equal in value. If we take this to mean that, properly weighted, we all have the same about of ability/talent as everyone else, just spread around differently, I think this is false. But that's just my suspicion. More than that, I think it's unverifiable. You write that we all have our parts to play in the great drama of life. This is perhaps true (though, again, unverifiable). But even given that, who's to say that some of us aren't Hamlets, some Poloniuses (Polonii? ) and some of us "Guard #2"? __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

06-17-2005, 10:47 PM	#27 (permalink)
streak_56 who ever said streaking was a bad thing? Location: Calgary	Personally I think that equality can never be achieved in the near future. Maybe in hundreds of years from now, I hope that we could all be equal but I cannot see into future (just to state the obvious). Gender equality as of right now could be put into two groups: Physical and Societal. Physically women and men would never be equals. Childbirth specifically is built for women, not men. As the saying goes 'Men has penis' and Women have Vaginas.' For those obvious differences. Societally I believe that men and women could be considered equals. We basically can do all the same things within a society. There should be no obvious disadvantages among us. Hence another Quote "Women are from Venus and Men are from Mars." I think both of these along with traditional values are open for an interpretation among the sexes. Though I see no differences among us, other people might and do. But hey.... being different is what makes everything so fun right?

06-18-2005, 09:23 AM	#29 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	The reference was to various characters in the Shakespearean play, "Hamlet". I'm not sure there's actually a "guard #2", but I take it you get the point. Hamlet is the most important character in the play, Polonius is an important character, but definitely not the most important, and guard #2 isn't very important at all. I'm just trying to get at what you mean by 'equal' if you don't mean it in terms of value. You said that we're equal in that we all have our parts to play, but how is it equality if we're all playing different parts? A number of people here have mentioned societal equality as being a worthy goal. I'm not sure I agree. I certainly think that justice is a higher goal than equality, and since justice is everybody getting what they deserve, equality of outcome is not necessarily going to be the most just outcome (though some distribution of goods which is Pareto efficient probably is going to be -- cf. Theory of Justice). In theory, equality of opportunity is, I think, a good thing, but given the fact that we have limited resources, I wonder if it is even possible to provide this. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

06-20-2005, 12:37 PM	#31 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	Then, I think, we more or less agree. I think that philosophy is important, but I've always reminded myself that, if all the philosophers died tomorrow, few would notice, but if all the car mechanics died tomorrow, we'd have real problems __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

06-20-2005, 08:18 PM	#32 (permalink)
Borgs Tilted	All people are created equal, but society does not make them equal.

06-21-2005, 11:32 AM	#33 (permalink)
CandleInTheDark Addict Location: Where the music's loudest	I think it's the reverse actually; society makes people equal. __________________ Where there is doubt there is freedom.

07-06-2005, 06:36 PM	#34 (permalink)
RusCrimson Tilted Location: Massachusetts	When we're talking about equality, I think we're really asking questions of justice. Thus the issue can be resolved with a bit of Aristotle. In his model, there's (Ethic. v, 2) commutative and distributive justice. The first deals with interactions between individuals, and the second deals with the relationship between and individual and society. It is wrong to treat people unequally in the distributive sense (i.e., society should not favor certain individuals just because of who they are). In the commutative sense, it is wrong to give some kind of injury (e.g., Fred shouldn't kill Bob). But we do not say that people "should be equal" in this latter sense. And indeed, it is possible (and in some cases preferable) that they not be equal.

07-15-2005, 03:28 PM	#35 (permalink)
John Henry Addict Location: Grey Britain	Which is more boogly, Bingle or Bongle? Perhaps I'm being a bit autistic here, but as far as I understand it, the concept of equality is meaningless without some measurable quantities. If you mean are all humans of equal worth or value, then again, without context the question is meaningless. Are they of equal value as what? Stepladders? No. A food source? No. If you mean should some people be given more breaks and less grief by society than others, then yes, if that society wants to survive? In that respect people are 'unequal'. However, so far as I can discern, there is no iinherent, underlying, measurable, absolute quantity which could be used to determine such 'inequality'. In the context of your question, people are neither equal nor unequal. Equality is simply a quality which cannot be meaningfully ascribed to people. The answer is mu. __________________ "No one was behaving from very Buddhist motives. Then, thought Pigsy, he was hardly a Buddha, nor was he a monkey. Presently, he was a pig spirit changed into a little girl pretending to be a little boy to be offered to a water monster. It was all very simple to a pig spirit."

07-17-2005, 04:57 PM	#36 (permalink)
Johnny Rotten lost and found Location: Berkeley	All absolute statements should be approached with caution. __________________ "The idea that money doesn't buy you happiness is a lie put about by the rich, to stop the poor from killing them." -- Michael Caine

07-17-2005, 05:37 PM	#37 (permalink)
Suave Twitterpated Location: My own little world (also Canada)	Everyone is inequal in terms of legality, morality, physiology, and mental capacity (though mental capacity is not dictated by gender or ethnicity to my belief). Physiology allows us a set range of physical abilities, and each gender has its own strengths and weaknesses, as do most people within those genders. Legal and moral inequality are both dictated by society, and neither is particularly relevant unless being referenced to some related part of society. __________________ "Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

07-17-2005, 11:17 PM	#39 (permalink)
fuzzybottom Upright	interpreting this as a question of whether one person is as ultimately good as another, in spite of the actions that they carried out throughout their life, i would weigh motive and circumstance against morality in each case. however, that morality is my own though i would like to think it consists of principles basic enough that all good people would accept it, but then there's a sort of catch 22, that my idea of a good person would accept the criteria for what it means to be a good person. anyway, i see a difference between someone who kills for profection, for fun, out of passion, for drugs, or for money, but i see similarities between them all, apart from the obvious killing part and less easily explained. and i would consider some of them better than others depending on the reason they did it, regardless of whether or not i agreed with the outcome. truly though, even though id consider some people morally superior or inferior to others, i think fundamentally theyre operating on what theyve got. but given the task to select half of the population of the world to keep while the other half was strangely removed, i would find it hard to do it randomly, but i would feel that was right.

07-18-2005, 05:02 AM	#40 (permalink)
d*d Addict	Are all men and woman equal; no, we never have been. We strive to create a society where we have the same rights as citizens but then this is not true of the world as a whole. In terms of the universe then we are equal in the fact that we are sentient and as vunerable as each other to it's forces. Where differences exist true equality (equality on all levels) cannot be achieved so our attempts to force it onto society are pointless differences should be accepted and work from there.