Are everybody equal? Born equal? Why?

[cgannon64]

Everyone is not born equal, but we should assume they are - not force them to be.

 

[WickedSmurf]

Of course not, I am superior.

 

[betazed]

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?

That is not a stupid question. I know a few people in whom I find no redeeming qualities, nor are they capable of doing anything fruitful and productive. But, I am of the opinion (although I cannot prove it) that each of these individuals are what they are because they have not received proper training. A part of me refuses to admit that a new born child (who is at least physically healthy) is completely worthless intrinsically in the sense that no amount of training will make him/her useful and productive.

So we can argue that in the case of people that we see around us who we can deem as completely unproductive are either (a) not really unproductive or (b) because he/she has not got the right oppurtunity.

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?

I did not follow this part. Please elaborate.

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?

You are making two tacit assumptions here.

You assume that all lawyers and judges currently are so because that is what they do best. This is obviously not true. In a scheme where everyone is given the oppurtinity to enhance what they do best then some people who are not lawyers will become lawyers and some current lawyers would have become something else. So how do we know that there will be a glut of lawyers

Second, you assume that if someone is good at understanding laws then he has to become a lawyer. I have never said that. I have only said that he should be given the oppurtunity to become a lawyer. If there is a glut of lawyers then market forces will reduce the earnings of lawyers and increase the earnings of others. In that case some people will choose to become something else even if they feel that their best abilities lie in law. Those people will probably take up something apart from law in which they are good at.

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 know you asked this of Gothmog but I will provide my 2 cents too.

We are equally deserving respect because we have arbitrarily laid down a law that all human life has equal right to stay alive. We respect that right. So yes, that part of respect is solely on the basis that we exist.

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?

Probably nothing. But because we have to respect his right to live he too stays alive.

 

[Elgalad]

It is fair to attempt to ensure equality of opportunity, but it is tyrannical to attempt to ensure equality of outcome.


-Elgalad

 

[morses1]

The first word on the subject:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 1, verse 26-28 (KJV)

And the last:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ...

Declaration of Independence

 

[Cheetah]

Of course not, I am superior.

What? How can you think that? You're swedish!

I did not follow this part. Please elaborate.

If someone is born with an ability that is needed by the society, we would help him enhance that ability. But another person is born with an ability that is not needed by society, and

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.

In other words, a skill that we do not need is lesser worth than a skill that we need. Is it not unfair for the person with the unneeded skill that his skill is not enhanced, while the other one's is?

You are making two tacit assumptions here.

You assume that all lawyers and judges currently are so because that is what they do best. This is obviously not true. In a scheme where everyone is given the oppurtinity to enhance what they do best then some people who are not lawyers will become lawyers and some current lawyers would have become something else. So how do we know that there will be a glut of lawyers

We don't know, but it was a hypotetical question.
But if they are going to make use of one of their lesser skills, what if there are enough people in that job as well? Should they move to their lesser skills as well, or should those with law-skills move to yet a lesser skill?

We are equally deserving respect because we have arbitrarily laid down a law that all human life has equal right to stay alive. We respect that right. So yes, that part of respect is solely on the basis that we exist.

Could I expand the thread a bit more in this direction? Why do we have this law? What is the basis for making and upholding it?

It is fair to attempt to ensure equality of opportunity, but it is tyrannical to attempt to ensure equality of outcome.

How far should one attempt to ensure equality? I see you think it is tyrannical to ensure equaliy of outcome, but is that the line for you, or do you draw the line earlier?

The first word on the subject:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 1, verse 26-28 (KJV)

And the last:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ...

Declaration of Independence

I doubt those are either the first nor the last words on this subject.
About the first one: It doesn't say anything about the relation between people or how equal or unequal they are, AFAIK.
The Declaration of Independence is interesting. Even though it said so on the paper, slaves were still slaves, women had less rights and priveleges than men, etc.
But if we just look at the spirit it was written it, still, what is the reason that they hold those thruths to be self-evident?


As a final note in this post I would just appologice if I don't make to good arguments right now. I'm not really sure where I stand in this question myself.

 

[Shadylookin]

is everyone equal-No
born equal-No(some have better genetics)
why- because that's the way the universe works. The only place where everyone is equal is the grave. Of course you can treat people equally without making them equal.

 

[Gothmog]

Terrapin wrote:

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.

Yeah, OK, first of all – what makes you think you know anything about what I may have ‘heard’? or what I may know about demographics and wealth? I find your statement and its implications insulting, and your analysis infantile.

You paint the rich with a wide brush, I would argue that there is a huge difference between the professionals (people who use specialized knowledge in a trade) and the truly rich (CEO type’s and those with family wealth). People who make money from money and do not have a ‘salary’ as such. The overwhelming majority of professionals are not rich, by my metric. I would call them ‘upper-middle class’. Small business owners, and those with 8+ figure incomes based on a trade are the intermediate case, then the specific details become important.

Now I admit that I was not very detailed as to what I meant by ‘benefits gained from society’. I am not trying to argue that salaries should be equalized or anything of that sort. I meant public works type stuff, access to roads and the justice system, etc. In brief - the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit happiness. I think all education should be included because the benefits to society (i.e. all of us) far outweigh the costs.

I would also argue that people who make more money, professionals as well as the truly rich, benefit much more from society than anyone else. In fact the benefits gained from living in a society are in more than direct proportion to the wealth extracted. A ‘life cycle’ type analysis will show this very clearly. This is one reason why progressive income taxes make a lot of sense. It helps to equalize the benefits and the gains. IMHO it doesn’t currently go far enough, primarily because of the unequal ability of the rich to dissect and work ‘the system’, and thus avoid paying much of their due. Taking tax breaks for throwing huge charity balls where 90% is spent on the party, and 10% donated to the cause (of which 95% goes back to salaries), for example.

So when I said ‘benefits’ I meant those things that are governed by the state, not those things governed by the free market… in spite of whatever you may have heard or thought you read.

Cheetah wrote

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.

As I said: we are all born equally deserving of respect for our humanity. I do not respect wealth a priori, I respect knowledge, honesty, passion, compassion, dedication, etc. and yes, these characteristics are earned – not born. People who cultivate these characteristics will earn additional respect in my eyes. Other people respect other characteristics, but we must recognize our shared humanity for the good of society.

I believe I expounded on the benefits and abilities issue above. Part of all of us being deserving of respect is attempting to maximize the potential of all. You cannot judge a priori how someone will affect society. The needs of today may not be the needs of tomorrow.

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?

I cannot remove all notions of human value in and of itself, sorry. That does seem cold-hearted to me, and counter productive. As I said I respect compassion. I believe that a society full of compassionate people is stronger and better able to survive than a society bereft of them. We are strongest when we work together. The future is uncertain.

But let me also say that society needs stability, and social stability is built on the stability of individuals. A mentally handicapped person is part of society, he/she would have a family and hopefully friends. He/she could be loved, could inspire others, and certainly seeing him/her starving to death in the street could affect the compassion of those around him/her. I could have a mentally handicapped child, my father could become mentally handicapped in an accident or due to old age. This would affect me, and all of my social web. Like insurance, it makes sense for society at large to bear some of the burden for ensuring a basic dignity be retained in the individual and his family/social web.

 

[Marla_Singer]

"Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good."

So say the Declaration of the Human Rights of the August, 26th 1789. Please do not distort this. It says it all and there's absolutely nothing to add.

 

[morses1]

I doubt those are either the first nor the last words on this subject.
About the first one: It doesn't say anything about the relation between people or how equal or unequal they are, AFAIK.
The Declaration of Independence is interesting. Even though it said so on the paper, slaves were still slaves, women had less rights and priveleges than men, etc.
But if we just look at the spirit it was written it, still, what is the reason that they hold those thruths to be self-evident?

I had intended for those quotes to stand on their own, but I will expand and clarify:

1. We are all Human beings, endowed with "Humanity" (to the secularist); what believers call an immortal soul (Created in the image of God.) Therefore, since no one is "more human" or "less human", we are equal with respect to the essential quality that makes us human. While we may be inequal in other respects, those are only superficial.
2. Our Humanity is a product of (choose one): a) God or b) Nature. To deny my freedoms or rights on the basis that I am not your equal is therefore by definition not in keeping with Natural Law. (In Jeffersonian terms, "self evident" meant obvious to any man of Reason.)

Hope I've been able to bolster my argument ...