Is equality an absurd notion?

[Archbob]

So with all these communism threads here lately. I want to dig a little deeper into the root of it all.

Is equality among members of Homo Sapiens an absurd notion?

Nature did not create individuals of our species to be equal. We are not genetic photocopies of each other. Some are just in a natural sense "superior" to other in terms of intelligence, physical prowess, or whatever.

Why should we even try to make everyone equal? To each according to their own ability.

Almost every primate(our closest relatives) has established systems of dominance in their societies. Why do people think we are different. Do they really think just because they have heightened intelligence, we have somehow gone outside of nature's and evolution's bounds for us? How absurd!

Bonobos are the only primate that I can think of that lack this system of dominance. Unlike every other type of primate, females dominate their society and not males.

So is trying to achieve equality among humans even the right thing to do?

 

[GenMarshall]

Equality is most certainly not an absurd notion. Why should I risk getting myself killed for something that I want?

 

[JohnRM]

The only form of equality that is not absurd is equality under the law.

 

[azzaman333]

You can't have equality and be an individual.

 

[Tee Kay]

The only form of equality that is not absurd is equality under the law.

Realistically, this is probably the best we can expect.

 

[History_Buff]

No, humanity as a whole will never be exactly equal. However, this doesn't mean we should look at every inequality and write it off as something that can't be fixed.

 

[Gigaz]

So with all these communism threads here lately. I want to dig a little deeper into the root of it all.

Is equality among members of Homo Sapiens an absurd notion?

No.

Nature did not create individuals of our species to be equal. We are not genetic photocopies of each other. Some are just in a natural sense "superior" to other in terms of intelligence, physical prowess, or whatever.

Thats not true. Speaking in natural terms, superiority can only be the superiority of spreading genes. Abilities and talents make us different, but they don't automatically create a hierarchic system.

Why should we even try to make everyone equal? To each according to their own ability.

First you said, nature supplied us with our abilities. "To each according to their own ability" is almost like "To each according to his nose size".
The main question here is whether man has a free will and the actual choice to become better then someone else if he just works hard enough. The opposite thesis is that man has no free will and everything he does and desires is determined by the genes and the environment. The truth is probably somewhere in between.
I think you will agree that we should give everyone an equal chance in live. That means at a certain point in the youth everyone should have a comparable education, wealth and health. As far as this is possible.

Almost every primate(our closest relatives) has established systems of dominance in their societies. Why do people think we are different. Do they really think just because they have heightened intelligence, we have somehow gone outside of nature's and evolution's bounds for us? How absurd!

Like they had a choice . We have a choice. We changed our systems of dominance every once in a while and the direction pointed always to a society with less dominance. If everyone considers the interest of the society, we might one day establish a system without dominance.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Why yes, it is.

Humans can never be fully equal unless you change their mentalities to all be the same, and change their physical/mental/emotional qualities to be the same. Only by eliminating individuality can pure equality be possible. This is why anarcho-communism is a pipe dream: it's a double whammy as it expects people to all be nice to eachother(thus making the need for a government null), and for everyone to work at full production, some more than others, with no expectation of increased compensation.

You can try equality under the law, and we're fairly there, if there needs to be a few tweaks. But economic equality is insane unless you want to go back to hunter-gatherer societies. To have an advanced economy, we must all specialise, and all have our own niche so that others can have theirs. So long as we specialise we cannot be equal due to our varying talents, ergo, true equality cannot exist alongside full economic development; some jobs are simply more important than others. You can argue the importance of the road-builder and farmer next to the industrialist, but can you argue the importance of the fast food person? Never mind there never are enough jobs for everybody, and therefore there can be no equality if the working class is supreme.

I say we should strive for two equalities: equality before and under the law, and equality of opportunity(a combination of negative and positive liberty). Equality of outcome is against individuality for reasons said above.

 

[Perfection]

The only form of equality that is not absurd is equality under the law.

Realistically, this is probably the best we can expect.

I disagree.

The true heart of equality is the notion that we're all (equally) deserving of the good life and we should work to achieve that for everyone.

Equality under law as generally done nowadays pins the ability to lead a good life to such things as circumstances of birth or marketability of talents, etc. and fails to deliver that good life to everyone.

 

[schlaufuchs]

I don't think total equality is at all feasible.

However, that doesn't mean that equality isn't a good idea. Therefore I believe it is the role of the government to, through law and regulation, get as close to equality as is feasible.

 

[JollyRoger]

I see nothing necessarily absurd with striving for something that is not perfectly obtainable.

 

[History_Buff]

I disagree.

The true heart of equality is the notion that we're all (equally) deserving of the good life and we should work to achieve that for everyone.

Equality under law as generally done nowadays pins the ability to lead a good life to such things as circumstances of birth or marketability of talents, etc. and fails to deliver that good life to everyone.

Well said Perfy.

 

[Archbob]

I see nothing necessarily absurd with striving for something that is not perfectly obtainable.

But is there a reason to strive for it? Striving for equality promotes mediocrity and not excellence.

The true heart of equality is the notion that we're all (equally) deserving of the good life and we should work to achieve that for everyone.

But see that goes against nature. In nature some are just better than others. The concept of "deserving" is nonexistent in nature. The natural mechanism is there for a reason. By promoting excellence instead of mediocrity, you get faster adaptations and advancements.

Like they had a choice . We have a choice. We changed our systems of dominance every once in a while and the direction pointed always to a society with less dominance. If everyone considers the interest of the society, we might one day establish a system without dominance.

I doubt it. Its intrinsic to humans. If you look at all our governments, organizations, clubs, etc. There is always a hierichal system. Even in most families there is a "man of the house". Its how we've evolved. Systems of dominance have changed over time, but they have not become less or seem to be going away anytime soon.

 

[amadeus]

The only form of equality that is not absurd is equality under the law.

Ideally, this. All other forms of "equality" come at the expense of making someone else less equal.

 

[Tee Kay]

Ideally, this. All other forms of "equality" come at the expense of making someone else less equal.

Not necessarily. Would you like to give an example?

 

[JollyRoger]

But is there a reason to strive for it? Striving for equality promotes mediocrity and not excellence.

I think that it is pretty absurd to think that excellence will be wiped out.

 

[Dudemeister]

It is if you're anal about it.
It's a bit of a misnomer and is meant to mean "equal rights".

 

[JohnRM]

I disagree.

The true heart of equality is the notion that we're all (equally) deserving of the good life and we should work to achieve that for everyone.

Equality under law as generally done nowadays pins the ability to lead a good life to such things as circumstances of birth or marketability of talents, etc. and fails to deliver that good life to everyone.

You may not like the fact that the world is that way, but the fact remains that you only have as much right to the good life as you are willing to apply yourself to whatever enterprise that may lead you there. Equality under the law provides everyone with the opportunity to apply themselves, as they see fit. Many choose not to. That is not a system defect. It is a people defect.

 

[Dudemeister]

Equal rights will not exist in a capitalist system.
Laws operating under the premise to protect this economic system will change nothing about this and certainly dont give people equal opportunities.

 

[JohnRM]

Equal rights will not exist in a capitalist system.
Laws operating under the premise to protect this economic system will change nothing about this and certainly dont give people equal opportunities.

Since when does 'equality under the law' = capitalism?