Equality

[henry quirk]

"My residual interest would be in gleaning from anyone who actually is *afraid* to make your quite courageous and frank conclusion (and hence who continues to believe in equality) on what basis they continue to hold that belief."

Yeah, that's my interest as well.

Understand: I have no problem with folks holding onto hooey...if Joe wants to believe in the equality of all men and the inherency of human/natural rights, I say, more power to Joe.

Joe's belief only becomes a problem for me when Joe decides I should toe his line.

#

"courageous"

Not really: I just go where fact takes me.

#

"Biblical metaphor"

[Immanuel Can]

Nevertheless, Henry, I think it does take courage to stare into the implications of such a view. Good on you.

[KaydeeDID88]

Everyone is equal! Men and Women, White, Black, Hispanic, purple, red, not matter what religion, race we are ALL equal!

[henry quirk]

"we are ALL equal"

No, we're not.

Certainly, folks can pretend that equality is real...but it's not.

[Kayla]

surely it depends on what you mean by equal

all people are at least in theory equal in moral and political senses

but obviously people have different needs and capabilities - in that sense they are not equal and i do not think anyone disputes that

but for some reason these notions get confused and conflated

[henry quirk]

"surely it depends on what you mean by equal"

Yep.

If a community, as a function of itself, confers to all its members equal status, then good on them.

Fictions (like 'all men are created equal') can be useful.

The mistake is believing the useful fiction is reality.

[Immanuel Can]

all people are at least in theory equal in moral and political senses

How do we know this is a good "theory"?

You admit (as I think any rational person would) that people differ in "needs" and "capabilities." If people differ in every observable metric we could use, then on what basis (and in what sense) do we conclude they are "equal"? To say they're "equal" in a political sense, if it is to say more than that our particular political system favours that view, must be to say that they *ought* to be regarded as equal: but how do we establish that?

As for their "moral" equality, that isn't a self-evident fact either. According to any particular morality we happen to accept, some people behave well, and others behave badly. There are "good" and "bad" Nietzscheans, "good" and "bad" Christians and Jews, "good" and "bad" Hindus, and "good" and "bad" utilitarians. (In this case, "good" and "bad" refer only to their function as Nietzscheans or Hindus, or whatever, not to any universally-binding quality or value.)

So what sense does it make to speak of all humans as intrinsically "morally equal"? Are we saying "morally equal" because we've been taught that it's a "nice" thing to say and believe, or because we actually know why it's true? In what sense to we say they are "morally" equal, then?

While I would accept your statement for my own reasons, I don't see that you've yet shown rational grounds for your claim. However, please feel invited to explain.

[duszek]

In certain areas people are equal or should be.

In presidential elections or elections for the House of Commons: one person one vote, no matter how much wealth he has.

A state is not a corporation in which share holders vote in proportion to the stock they hold.

In other areas people are not equal and they are free to choose. Nobody has to eat the same amount of candy. Some people don´t like it at all.

[John K]

every man is equal. period end of discussion

Equal in what way? One man is in a ditch, while another is in a palace?

[Kayla]

How do we know this is a good "theory"?

is there strong, consistent empirical evidence for it?

if so it is a good theory

If people differ in every observable metric we could use

when it comes to basic needs we are all equal

regardless of intelligence, looks, physical shape, etc

[Immanuel Can]

Kayla:

Well, all the empirical evidence points to people *not* being equal, because as I said, they differ in any metric a person could choose; and it's not hard for any person to verify that. You don't need a lab.

But you seem to suggest "equal needs" grounds a claim of equality. But "need" indicates a lack or deficiency of something -- why should we think that renders us "equal" in any evaluative way? I am equal with tadpole in that we both require oxygen...does that mean tadpoles deserve the same rights as a human being?

I see nothing in your suggestion of "needs" that implies anything pertaining to valuation. And in fact, I don't even think it's true. People often "need" things I do not...some need wheelchairs, some need special education classes, some need social welfare assistance...and I need none of those things. So which "need" grounds your claim of "equality"

If someone "needs" something, why are we duty bound to supply it? From a Darwinian perspective, why shouldn't we simply let them do without?

[Kayla]

I am equal with tadpole in that we both require oxygen...does that mean tadpoles deserve the same rights as a human being?

i could just as easily ask why someone who is very similar to yourself deserves the same or very similar rights as you

if you want to start by denying ethics altogether you should start with a whole new thread

I see nothing in your suggestion of "needs" that implies anything pertaining to valuation. And in fact, I don't even think it's true. People often "need" things I do not...some need wheelchairs, some need special education classes, some need social welfare assistance...and I need none of those things. So which "need" grounds your claim of "equality"

everyone needs to be able to get around - some people can do it just fine on their own, others need wheelchairs

everyone needs to eat but some people need assistance in procuring food - e.g. social welfare assistance

and so forth

If someone "needs" something, why are we duty bound to supply it?

presumably because we are human beings who are not total douchebags?

From a Darwinian perspective, why shouldn't we simply let them do without?

you make biology teachers cry

what is this 'darwinian perspective'? there is nothing prescriptive in evolutionary theory. where are you getting the prescriptive stuff?

[reasonvemotion]

"The cycle of consumerism — and the larger political and economic forces in which consumerism operates — are perpetuated by these centers, Malls, places that crystalize many aspects of social tension; they house beautiful, luxury consumer items (often made by hyper-exploited workers), underpaid wage-workers, security guards, and salve-seeking consumers under one roof. Because in order to exist they must embody the contradictions of exploitation inherent in the economic structures of which they are an integral part, malls are natural areas of conflict — places where people might feel their individual sadness, loneliness, emptiness, hopelessness, or desperation most acutely, since these emotions are so deeply entwined with how capitalism and its carefully branded retail fronts operate.

Even though they promise to fulfill our desires, malls actually produce a sense of inequality, rage, and hopelessness."

Eric Van Hoose, Salon

[John K]

if you want to start by denying ethics altogether you should start with a whole new thread

Who's saying anything of the sort?

[Immanuel Can]

Kayla wrote:
if you want to start by denying ethics altogether you should start with a whole new thread

Who's saying anything of the sort?

Not me, that's for sure.

i could just as easily ask why someone who is very similar to yourself deserves the same or very similar rights as you

Quite right: and on any "needs" account, there would be no answer to that question. My point precisely.

Quote:
If someone "needs" something, why are we duty bound to supply it?


presumably because we are human beings who are not total douchebags?

There are plenty of folks who don't think that just because a person claims a "need" there is a universal obligation to fill it. If you walk past a street person who has his hand out, and wonder whether he has an alcohol issue and you shouldn't give him anything, then you're one of them. In fact, we don't even really have consensus on what a legitimate "need" is. But more to the point...

Quote:
From a Darwinian perspective, why shouldn't we simply let them do without?


you make biology teachers cry

what is this 'darwinian perspective'? there is nothing prescriptive in evolutionary theory. where are you getting the prescriptive stuff?

That's the point, Kayla...you've just conceded it. There's nothing prescriptive that follows from the Darwinian "survival of the fittest" -- not even so much as the claim that "survival" itself is morally prescribed.

But you've misplaced the burden of proof -- the responsibility is on the person who claims that humans are equally valuable on the basis of their needs; your skeptical detractors do not need to prove anything about that, since they might well believe that human beings are *not* equally valuable, and that morality itself is a figment of popular imagination.

*You* need to prove *your* case for a needs-based equality. I have not claimed to believe that Darwinism is capable of supporting any moral claims at all.

And there are probably biology teachers who could use a really good cry: especially if they've been naive enough to convince themselves that Materialism could support moral claims.