Are everybody equal? Born equal? Why?

[Cheetah]

A lot of people say that everyone is equal or that we are at least born equal. But is this correct?

Equality and unequality has been used as an argument in discussions concerning democracy, one man one vote, communism, capitalism, taxation and a host of liberties, rights, priveleges and duties.

I can draw some examples from some of the latest communism/capitalism threads, and Betazeds "Should we change democracy"-thread:

- It seems to be the consensus that most people think that everyone should have the same chance, or a fair chance, to success in life.
- People are arguing that rich people have a better chance of succeeding that poor people, and that rich people get better education than poor people.
- Communists and socialists often like to mention this and say that everyone should have access to the same education and get the same opportunities.
- Capitalist then like to argue that parents have the right to help their offspring any way they can etc.
- And then someone mentions that a lot of people in the third world never chose to be born there, that for everyone to have the same oppotunities everyone should be raised by the society so that parents won't have an influence on their children, that said argument is inhumane, and so on and so on.

Now, my point is this: Is everyone really equal, and should everyone get the same chance at success? Viewing this from a 'moral' point of view most people would answer yes to those questions I suppose.

But there are a few points:
- We are NOT born equal. Our personalities are decided not only by our upbringing, but also by our genes! Some grow to be taller than others, some are smarter than others. Some are very good runners, others very good to sing or play an instrument. Some are more curious than others.
- "Everybody is uniqe, and that is great." Turning this around we get that some are more suited for some tasks than others. Or put another way: Some will have better chances of success than others.
- If we do not raise our children collectively, parent will have to raise their children. Some parents care more for their children than others, some parents think education is more important than other parents, some parents are very interested and involved in various sports or ideologies, which might lead their kids to be more interested and involved in football, socialism, diving. Some parents might ideolise the military, leading their kids to a career in the armed forces.
- We live different places. Someone who lives in tropical climates will be more exposed to certain diseases that people who live in temperate climates does. Someone living in a city has bigger chances of getting hit by a car than someone living on the country. Someone will hear stories about evil communists in foreign countries when they grow up, and some will hear stories about evil capitalists.

I could go on. How can one argue that everyone should have the same chance at something when this is not possible? Is it enough to make sure that everyone gets the same education? Should we work more to make things equal, even though we ARE born unequal. Should we simply accept that everyone is different and let it be with that?

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

"Remember, you are all unique"

"I'm not!"

Monty Python has all the answers.

 

[betazed]

How can one argue that everyone should have the same chance at something when this is not possible? Is it enough to make sure that everyone gets the same education? Should we work more to make things equal, even though we ARE born unequal. Should we simply accept that everyone is different and let it be with that?

When I argue that everyone should get the same oppurtunity I typically do not think that everyone should get the same education or same money to grow up etc. That is obviously incorrect. A child with a knack of wondering why apples fall should ideally get educated in physics while a child playing with test tubes should get educated in chemistry etc.

However what I mean is that everyone should get equal oppurtunity to enhance their abilities and attain their maximum potential.

Lastly, this is not a moral argument. This is an economic and quantitative argument. typically I find moral arguments flaky.

 

[Cheetah]

So everyone with a certain ability should get one type of oppurtunity, while everyone with another ability should get another type of oppurtunity?

And does this work with all kinds of abilities? What about a child who is extremely addept in first-person shooters? Should we try to maximise this potential? Or should we find another ability of the child which it could enhance? What if the child only wants to enhance its FPS abilities? Or what about a child who is extremely good in football? I would say those two abilities does little to help the society.

And what happens when there are more people who are very good in one ability than what is needed. What will those children do, who has a great ability to calculate numbers, when there are enough mathmaticans and engineers in a society?

 

[King Alexander]

A lot of people say that everyone is equal or that we are at least born equal. But is this correct?

No, because the huge majority of the people are hypocrits.

Equality and unequality has been used as an argument in discussions concerning democracy, one man one vote, communism, capitalism, taxation and a host of liberties, rights, priveleges and duties.

These discussions are not worth, because most people are somewhat "blind" and they don't use their brain to think if and how we can "merge" different political systems, that are not enemies to each other but enemies inside the people's minds.

Now, my point is this: Is everyone really equal, and should everyone get the same chance at success?

"Success" is the key word here.
One could be happy and consider himself "successful" if he had an X income(small income is also included) and he could spent his free time fishing or take care of his growing tomatoes.
It isn't "weird" if someone doesn't percieve "success" as the need to buy/consume more.

"Equal" is a word that has to do with the basic human rights, nothing more.
If everyone's has been given the same "opportunities", that's another issue that depend partially ourself and the society/parents.

- We are NOT born equal. Our personalities are decided not only by our upbringing, but also by our genes! Some grow to be taller than others, some are smarter than others. Some are very good runners, others very good to sing or play an instrument. Some are more curious than others.
- "Everybody is uniqe, and that is great." Turning this around we get that some are more suited for some tasks than others. Or put another way: Some will have better chances of success than others.
- If we do not raise our children collectively, parent will have to raise their children. Some parents care more for their children than others, some parents think education is more important than other parents, some parents are very interested and involved in various sports or ideologies, which might lead their kids to be more interested and involved in football, socialism, diving. Some parents might ideolise the military, leading their kids to a career in the armed forces.
- We live different places. Someone who lives in tropical climates will be more exposed to certain diseases that people who live in temperate climates does. Someone living in a city has bigger chances of getting hit by a car than someone living on the country. Someone will hear stories about evil communists in foreign countries when they grow up, and some will hear stories about evil capitalists.

All true.

I could go on. How can one argue that everyone should have the same chance at something when this is not possible?

Actually, it is possible to give everyone the same chance, but for reasons that most people haven't consciously* understood, even if they knew/heard of them, there're "technical" problems

* "side effects" by "limiting/restricting/imprisoning" their wonderful brain and by be "afraid" of the brain's "output"(human nature plays a big role into this).

Is it enough to make sure that everyone gets the same education?

"Enough" from someone's part: it's depending on the person itself if and when he starts using the "information" he recieved.

Should we work more to make things equal, even though we ARE born unequal.

Do you mean that we should stop trying, because someone could never reach the "level" of a great philosopher/mathematician/athlete/composer?

Everyone is capable to do great things in the field that suits him most, things that would also benefit all the others, without the rest of the people see him as "inferior" due his work/advance.

Should we simply accept that everyone is different and let it be with that?

"YES" and "NO"

 

[BorgeoisBuffoon]

So everyone with a certain ability should get one type of oppurtunity, while everyone with another ability should get another type of oppurtunity?

And does this work with all kinds of abilities? What about a child who is extremely addept in first-person shooters? Should we try to maximise this potential? Or should we find another ability of the child which it could enhance? What if the child only wants to enhance its FPS abilities? Or what about a child who is extremely good in football? I would say those two abilities does little to help the society.

And what happens when there are more people who are very good in one ability than what is needed. What will those children do, who has a great ability to calculate numbers, when there are enough mathmaticans and engineers in a society?

Then by all means adapt the children or teach 'em something new. We all surely don't have one albility we're good at and nothing more. The first-person shooter has good hand-eye coordination, adapt him to something that's useful for society-even football, while not useful in a material sense, provides entertainment to masses of people. Furthermore, the child may enjoy his new occupation or albility or whatnot.

This goes as an answer to the latter part of your post. You can always learn and enjoy something new.

 

[betazed]

So everyone with a certain ability should get one type of oppurtunity, while everyone with another ability should get another type of oppurtunity?

You have to read carefully. I will quote

... get equal oppurtunity to enhance their abilities and attain their maximum potential.

that plural makes all the difference.

And does this work with all kinds of abilities?

Why not? as long as the ability is of benefit to society.

What about a child who is extremely addept in first-person shooters? Should we try to maximise this potential? Or should we find another ability of the child which it could enhance? What if the child only wants to enhance its FPS abilities? Or what about a child who is extremely good in football? I would say those two abilities does little to help the society.

if they do not help the society then an argument can be made that resources should not be spent on providing oppurtunity to enhance those skills.

And what happens when there are more people who are very good in one ability than what is needed. What will those children do, who has a great ability to calculate numbers, when there are enough mathmaticans and engineers in a society?

Personally, I do not think that we can have enough mathematicians. But your point is intriguing. However, With our population levels and demand in so many fields I doubt we can have a glut of skilled people in any field. Typically, I see a glut because people are not educated/skilled enough. Never because people are more educated/more skilled.

 

[boogaboo]

Are everybody equal? Born equal? Why?

To be blunt.. respectively..
No. No. Evolution.
or..
Some are smarter some are dumb, some are rich some are poor, capitalism + human nature + evolution

Capitalism mixing with human nature also does it's own.
We find in the short term future genetic engeneering and nanotechnology.
We will create life smarter than our own and continue evolution.
At some point, a creature created by some bio-nano-neuron-XXX technology will create an "alien" to face human beings as inferior.
PERHAPS they will be more kind than we are to our inferiors...

Then, it's in alien hands. Probably alien spiecies producing other, "better", alien spiecies..
Mankind just gets the points for some kind of "first inteligent being that began to collect information and increase knowledge".

Is everyone really equal, and should everyone get the same chance at success?

irrelevant!
Please, do not reproduce! - you are reproducing suffering itself.

 

[Gothmog]

Everyone is not born equal, we are not equal in ability or opportunity.

However, everyone is born equally deserving of respect for their humanity.

This respect demands that the benefits gained from society are equallized as much as possible.

It seems obvious to me that society gains when people are allowed to maximize their potential, people from all walks of life. Humanity is the ultimate resourse.

 

[Mauer]

My quick two cents. Everybody is created equal, but not everybody ends up equal from a human standpoint. I believe everybody should have equal opportunities, not special privelages. Just to clarify little Johnny that was born into the wealthy, million dollar, rich family does not classify him as having special privelages. Special privelages are when the govt itself, not an organization or individual, goes beyond equality and grants extra rights and so on. The point should be self advancement. If you get rich doing it, then maybe you should help somebody else, which does happen but not often at all.

 

[Rhymes]

I think everybody is equal, its not the money you have or your life-expectancy that makes your life better than someone else's. The suicide Level is the highest in the countries that have the best life-conditions. I've made a trip to Tibet 2 years ago, and I've seen the most happy and fulfilled people living in small huts and eating only twice a day. On the other hand, I have a very rich uncle that just got divorced, who, since I've known him, is the most pitifull man I know. He's got no self-esteem and no ambitions in life anymore.

Of course its not avery Tibetans that are happy and fulfilled and its not avery rich man who are suicidal, but in the end, I've realised that its not your social condition that will make your life an intersting one.

From that point of view, I believe most human are born equal, with few exceptions like raped childs, or babies born with AIDS, you get the picture.

 

[Terrapin]

Gothmog said:
However, everyone is born equally deserving of respect for their humanity.

Could not agree more...

Then Gothmog said:
This respect demands that the benefits gained from society are equallized as much as possible.

Nonsense! Why should benefits from society be equalized when contributions to society most certainly are not. In spite of what you may have heard, the overwhelming majority of rich Americans are professionals (doctors, lawyers, engineers and the like), small business owners and corporate executives. These three groups of people have two important things in common: They made substantial investments in themselves, either by becoming educated in a specialized field or by starting their business. Secondly, all three groups of people work very long, hard hours.

 

[Yaniv]

No, In my opinion, not everybody is born equal. Some are born rich, some are born poor. Some are born healthy, some are born sick. Some are born to a life of freedom, while others are born into a life of war. Some are born into happy, loving families, while others are born into angry or divorced families.
The list goes on and on.
Clearly, people are not born equal. The better off you are born, the better chance of success you have.

 

[classical_hero]

To quote Animal Farm. "All animals are equal, some are just more equal than others."

My quick two cents. Everybody is created equal, but not everybody ends up equal from a human standpoint. I believe everybody should have equal opportunities, not special privelages. Just to clarify little Johnny that was born into the wealthy, million dollar, rich family does not classify him as having special privelages. Special privelages are when the govt itself, not an organization or individual, goes beyond equality and grants extra rights and so on. The point should be self advancement. If you get rich doing it, then maybe you should help somebody else, which does happen but not often at all.

I could not agree any more. We are born equal but once we are born, there are things that can change the balance of equality. If you commit crimes, you cannot be considered equal to someone who has not. Having more makes thing unequal in the eyes of man, but not in those of God.

 

[sebanaj]

everybody's equal for the law.

 

[Cheetah]

Actually, it is possible to give everyone the same chance, but for reasons that most people haven't consciously* understood, even if they knew/heard of them, there're "technical" problems

* "side effects" by "limiting/restricting/imprisoning" their wonderful brain and by be "afraid" of the brain's "output"(human nature plays a big role into this).

I'm afraid I don't fully understand your points on the side effects of consciusness. Could you elaborate?

Do you mean that we should stop trying, because someone could never reach the "level" of a great philosopher/mathematician/athlete/composer?

I will have to think a bit over that part, as I am unsure of what I think about it. Will hopefully reply to it in another post.

Everyone is capable to do great things in the field that suits him most, things that would also benefit all the others, without the rest of the people see him as "inferior" due his work/advance.

Isn't this allready happening? Doesn't people look down upon people in low-payment jobs and other low-status jobs like garbagecollectors, cleaners, McDonalds-workers, etc? And at the same time people look up to persons working in high-status and high-payment jobs.

Then by all means adapt the children or teach 'em something new. We all surely don't have one albility we're good at and nothing more. The first-person shooter has good hand-eye coordination, adapt him to something that's useful for society-even football, while not useful in a material sense, provides entertainment to masses of people. Furthermore, the child may enjoy his new occupation or albility or whatnot.

This goes as an answer to the latter part of your post. You can always learn and enjoy something new.

You have to read carefully. I will quote

Originally Posted by betazed
... get equal oppurtunity to enhance their abilities and attain their maximum potential.

that plural makes all the difference.

Why not? as long as the ability is of benefit to society.

What if we could not find any usefull abilities in a person? Or is that a stupid question? Is it impossible that there exists persons without any usefull abilities?

if they do not help the society then an argument can be made that resources should not be spent on providing oppurtunity to enhance those skills.

But those were the abilities and characteristics a person was made with. Is it not unfair that his abilities will not be enhanced while others abilities will?

Personally, I do not think that we can have enough mathematicians. But your point is intriguing. However, With our population levels and demand in so many fields I doubt we can have a glut of skilled people in any field. Typically, I see a glut because people are not educated/skilled enough. Never because people are more educated/more skilled.

Let me try an another example. Say there are some people who are extremely good at reading and understanding laws and other judicial mathers, so that they would do very well as lawyers and judges. Assuming that those who hold such professions now also has those abilities, do you feel that there should be even more lawyers in the USA than there is now?

Everyone is not born equal, we are not equal in ability or opportunity.

However, everyone is born equally deserving of respect for their humanity.

Maybe I am moving my own thread a little bit off-topic, but if we are not equal in ability, opportunity or characteristics, why are we equally deserving respect? Is it a respect solely on the basis that we exists? I would also like to mention that there are lots of persons who are being respected more as humans than others.

This respect demands that the benefits gained from society are equallized as much as possible.

Benefits gained from society? Idealy spliting the result of the whole society's production equaly between everyone? Or did I misunderstand? Should those who have those abilities who contribute more to society not reap more of the rewards? If we are unequal by birth, unequal through our upbringing, why take from those with greater abilities and give to those with lesser abilities?

It seems obvious to me that society gains when people are allowed to maximize their potential, people from all walks of life. Humanity is the ultimate resourse.

Not wanting to seem to cold-hearted here, but, removing all notions of human value in and of itself, could you tell me what use the society can have from, for instance, a severly mentaly handicapped person? Or even tell me what potential such a person has?

My quick two cents. Everybody is created equal, but not everybody ends up equal from a human standpoint.

We are not born with the same genes, some of us a better to run, some are smarter, some have better eyesight, some just grows taller than others or can easier build muscles.
We are not equal as far as I can see. Not at birth, an the difference is widened during our upbringing.

I believe everybody should have equal opportunities, not special privelages. Just to clarify little Johnny that was born into the wealthy, million dollar, rich family does not classify him as having special privelages. Special privelages are when the govt itself, not an organization or individual, goes beyond equality and grants extra rights and so on. The point should be self advancement. If you get rich doing it, then maybe you should help somebody else, which does happen but not often at all.

Those who have made themselves rich, or allready are rich, can choose to help their close family and their offspring. I would certanly say the little Johnny is priveliges. He has a wealthy family behind him who, assuming they are not terribly neglecting parents, can easily get him better education than poorer kids, they can help him explore different aspects of the world and let him try different hobbies and so on. And there are good chances he gets a good job because of contacts the family has. Those are extra priveliges that poorer people don't have.
A number of people will probably feel that this is not fair, but is it not just an extension of the fact that we are born unequal and into different enviroments?

I think everybody is equal, its not the money you have or your life-expectancy that makes your life better than someone else's. The suicide Level is the highest in the countries that have the best life-conditions. I've made a trip to Tibet 2 years ago, and I've seen the most happy and fulfilled people living in small huts and eating only twice a day. On the other hand, I have a very rich uncle that just got divorced, who, since I've known him, is the most pitifull man I know. He's got no self-esteem and no ambitions in life anymore.

The discussion of what the good life is is certanly an interesting one, but I would say that the more resources you have access to the greater are the opportunities to chose how you want to live. It is easier for a priveliged person to discard of his priveliges and live as a poor person, but not as easy to gain those priveliges when you lack them in the first place.

Of course its not avery Tibetans that are happy and fulfilled and its not avery rich man who are suicidal, but in the end, I've realised that its not your social condition that will make your life an intersting one.

I can agree to that, but you surely have more options when you have access to more resources.

From that point of view, I believe most human are born equal, with few exceptions like raped childs, or babies born with AIDS, you get the picture.

As I posted in response to Mauer: We are not equal at birth. Our genes who will decide many of our abilities are allready in place, and through our upbringing we become even more unequal, as parents try to care for their children as good as they can, meaning children of resourcefull parents gets more opportunities that others.

No, In my opinion, not everybody is born equal. Some are born rich, some are born poor. Some are born healthy, some are born sick. Some are born to a life of freedom, while others are born into a life of war. Some are born into happy, loving families, while others are born into angry or divorced families.
The list goes on and on.
Clearly, people are not born equal. The better off you are born, the better chance of success you have.

That is the crust of my thoughts. Is this not truly how things are, and should we try to ammend for this, and how much? Without making the entire world an absolute collective, some will always start of with better opportunities than others.

To quote Animal Farm. "All animals are equal, some are just more equal than others."

And it's a great book.
Though I'm not sure how well it fits into this, as I argue that all persons are unequal...

I could not agree any more. We are born equal but once we are born, there are things that can change the balance of equality. If you commit crimes, you cannot be considered equal to someone who has not.

Why can someone who has commited a crime not be seen as equal to others anymore? Did the abilities or the characteristics of the person change when the crime was commited? And are there different crimes involved as well? Do you see a person who murdered someone as unequal to someone who did not? Do you see a person who drove while drunk as unequal to someone who did not?
As law and rights are defined by society, it will only be a crime against the society, and the opportunities for the rest of the persons life might be changed, but neither his birth, his abilities or his upbringing has changed.

Having more makes thing unequal in the eyes of man, but not in those of God.

I will not say much about this, since as soon as we bring God and higher powers into this, it will not only be about human abillities and opportunities, but also about higher goals and so on. Though I guess that those who feel like it can, and will, always have that in the back of their heads.

everybody's equal for the law.

That changes from one law to another. It is simply in the western world that we started to make it a law that everyone is equal for the law.
And people can be as equal to the law as they want. A rich person, born into a rich family by good parents will have more opportunities than a poor person born into a poor family by bad parents.

 

[King Alexander]

I'm afraid I don't fully understand your points on the side effects of consciusness. Could you elaborate?

That's what happens when I can't resist of explaining my various complicated thesis in English!

Well, I never implied that consciusness has side effects: we consciusly use our logic to make conclusions, right?
When we're consciusly don't use our logic for things that we hear/live and, therefore, don't make any conclusions, I consider it as one of the biggest "crimes" one can do to himself.

* "side effects" by "limiting/restricting/imprisoning" their wonderful brain and by be "afraid" of the brain's "output"(human nature plays a big role into this).

Anyway, as I said, maybe I should stop posting complicated ideas/ very long phrases.

 

[sourboy]

Everyone is born with all in which they need. Their environment, in all regards, can heavily influence their direction in life, but that only leads to what they want.

We are equal, but we choose not to be.

 

[WS78]

The phrase itself is unequal in it's conception. To think otherwise is a Freemason's POV.
By this I mean, that no man is born equal but every man CAN be granted equal rights.
This is however a very illogical mode of thaught.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Everyone born has different abilities, different ancestry,..., there are no humans 100% alike (not even twins).
The vital question is how you determine the value of a human being.
You can say that ancestry makes some humans more worth than others - you create aristocracy
Other examples would be
race (rasism and fascism)
religion
posession
intelligence
physical strenght

The moment you value the worth of a human being you enable the justification that the "superior" human beings rule the inferior ones and that they can do whatever they want with them.

Since noone can logically say which one of the infinite characteristics determines your value or how the characteristics are weighted against, humans are regarded equal in value by birth (in modern societies). Humans are therefore regarded equal by law, I think every western constitution has this article in it.
However, humanism further deduces that this equality obligates society to enable a life in dignity for every member. (It´s in the human rights charta)

Additionally society profits if it enables every member to develop his abilities and to let him find his place where he is working on his full potential. These are the reasons for public schools, public healthcare, welfare,... A genius like Einstein not able to get a proper education due to poverty for instance is a huge loss for society.
Societies where one characteristic determines superiority/ inferiority can therefore not compete with an open society where humans are regarded equal (in value) by birth since these elitist societies hinder/ prevent those "inferior" people to develop and work at their full potential.

Short put (read this on a T-shirt) All different, all equal.