Is equality an absurd notion?

[Dudemeister]

"Equality under the law" can never give people equal opportunities as long as the underlying economic system is a capitalist one and will just be a shallow phrase.

 

[Verbose]

We can't simultaneously be completely equal and completely free. The trick is to find as good a balance as possible. Perhaps check out Isiah Berlin?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berlin/

 

[JohnRM]

"Equality under the law" can never give people equal opportunities as long as the underlying economic system is a capitalist one and will just be a shallow phrase.

You don't understand what I am saying. What that is, is that the law is the only thing capable of being applied to all people, equally, and without discrimination. I am not saying that the law always applies to all people, equally, and without discrimination, or that a capitalist system does that.

However, I was wrong about one thing. It is not only equality under the law that is not absurd. Equality under the laws of science are also not absurd and, in fact, cannot be disproportionately applied. The laws of science can ONLY be applied equally.

 

[amadeus]

Not necessarily. Would you like to give an example?

Yes, any time something is taken from someone in order to be given to somebody else. This results in two separate, unequal groups: people getting stuff and people having stuff taken away.

 

[MeteorPunch]

Equality is impossible, but we should at least meet each others needs. It's completely possible with the resources and manpower of the world, but sadly our leadership blows.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

yeah, true equality would be bad cuz it's only right that an idiot lives worse than a genius.

still, each and every idiot on the planet should be entitled to a life worth living. so we gotta fight the most blatant and extreme inequalities and make sure that there's no superdupermillionaire while millions are starving. oh, and the west has got to stop exploiting poor countries, we suck.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

inequality is unfair, yet equality is more unfair

 

[Perfection]

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.

I disagree! Willingness to apply oneself is generally not sufficient if, for example, one has certain medical conditions, one doesn't have proper access to education, one lacks the natural talents in vogue, etc. etc. These are things that aren't generally addressed in equality under law


In my mind, everyone is equally deserving of the good life. However, that's not to advocate that everyone should get an equally good life, because giving certain people (those who help provide good lives to others) a better life than normal will result in everyone getting a better life. I think that's how things really should be, that any inequality in ability to live the good life should only be due to the fact that everyone is equally deserving of the good life.

 

[Kyriakos]

Only the aforementioned, however fallible, equality under the law should be the equality people can expect.
Otherwise it is of course entirely utopian to think that people are equal.

I wouldnt use the primates argument though, since to me it is very clear that humans are vastly superior to apes, nomatter if they share a common ancestor or not.

I do not consider myself equal to anyone. In fact for me i am the absolute center of the universe, and would have been so even if i had less positive qualities in my mind. In this sense anyone can be something in a way "equal", by being in good terms with theirselves, and thus having the energy to lead a full life.
But of course if one is superior intellectually and somatically, even economically, to someone else, then he is to be seen as superior in that sense, and not equal. To support anything else in my view is an argument of "Weakness", to use a Nietzschean term.

 

[Bad Player]

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.

The thing about equality of opportunity is that parents usually want what they perceive as a good start for their children. So richer and more educated parents try to provide better education and other mental stimulation for their children. However we then call for equality of opportunity...

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

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.

There is a problem there, however. Lets take me as an example. I have a bad back (among other problems) so Im not supposed to lift heavy boxes. Now suppose that I live in a town where the only job there is is lifting heavy boxes as there is only one factory in town. I can't exactly apply myself there without potentially causing permanent injury.

You could say "move to another town" but if I cannot get a job I cannot get the money to move to another town or go to college to learn more.

This is very simple fied. Obviously in a modern society there are welfare programs that help with those things.

 

[lovett]

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.

And why is that?

 

[Kyriakos]

I would say that in theory everyone can have "the good life", only that this good life is not identical in emotions (and obviously not in events) as the analogous one of the next person.
I think that most people, after adolescence, are quite happy. At least that has been my own experience. Now this was caused not by some likeness in mental or somatic attributes, but due to the common driving, healthy force that leads to the establishment of some form of happyness.

 

[civver_764]

Just because some people are smarter/stronger than others doesn't mean they deserve economic advantages, which is the entire point of communism.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

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...there is a sytem of dominance?

to make a comparison for the subject, perfect health is impossible...is it not worth striving for in your day to day life?

equality may be impossible, and i know i don't treat everyone equally that i run across, but i strive to do it my best, because there may be a lot of people on this planet, and a lot of differences, but you guys are still more akin to me than a rock, or a tree, or a badger. well, some of you are more like the badgers

 

[Perfection]

And why is that?

Because we all have similar desires and ability to appreciate the satisfaction of them, I suppose. Really though, it just strikes me as intuitively the right thing.

Is there any specific objection you have to it?

 

[Defiant47]

Obviously since people are not equal, then the top 5% of the population deserve nearly all the wealth, while the bottom 20% deserve to live in poverty.

Since people are not equal, any inequality and unequal distribution of wealth whatsoever is acceptable.

 

[Archbob]

so...there is a sytem of dominance?

to make a comparison for the subject, perfect health is impossible...is it not worth striving for in your day to day life?

Bad comparison. You can't take someone else's good health and redistribute it to yourself. You want good health, you have to work for it. And if you have certain conditions, then it is sometimes, not possible.

Systems of dominance have always existed. There's no question about that.

Just because some people are smarter/stronger than others doesn't mean they deserve economic advantages, which is the entire point of communism.

Which is why communism has failed every time its been tried. You can say they didn't implement it right or whatever. But the point is that denying people what their talents can afford them is not going to work. The really talented people are just going to move somewhere else that will allow them to profit from their talents. That, or they'll just stop trying and become lazy bums like everyone else.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Bad comparison. You can't take someone else's good health and redistribute it to yourself. You want good health, you have to work for it. And if you have certain conditions, then it is sometimes, not possible.

well you can't redistribute happiness or levels of content either, and that's pretty much the crux of it. some people confuse this with money, but money is an abstraction.

Systems of dominance have always existed. There's no question about that.

saying it's always been there doesn't defend it.

 

[lovett]

Because we all have similar desires and ability to appreciate the satisfaction of them, I suppose. Really though, it just strikes me as intuitively the right thing.

Is there any specific objection you have to it?

Broadly, I think reference to what people deserve without reference to their natural attributes (I.e personality, intelligence, curiosity et al) is fundamentally ungrounded. Statements like 'we all deserve X' must be grounded in some real similarities about the human condition, and I think there is no such similarities that are both universal and relevant enough to provide any justification for universal statements about humanity.

I think at the heart of the assertion that the human condition can be universally quantified (and thus justify statements of universal relevance) is a dualistic assumption; that there is something to the mind beyond its attributes. That we all posses some dualistic core, or soul, that is equal in everyone of us. I think you see this a lot in Rawlsian theory of justice, to which your opinions bear not insignificant resemblance. Of course, in this context it makes perfect sense to affirm some sort of human equality; in a very real sense everyone is the same. Unfortunately I doubt you would affirm a dualistic theory of mind, and for good reason; it's rubbish.

Consequently our only reference to what people deserve is based must be real information surrounding their condition. Their history and their attributes. It is quite congruent with that that everyone does not deserve a 'good life'; we rarely affirm the rights of murderers and rapists to a good life. Rather, without any real way to tether a claim to human equality we have trouble objecting to human inequality. There just doesn't seem to be a basis with which we could justify equality (in a certain sense) because it is contrary to the empirical reality of inequality.

Any statement of the kind 'everyone deserves X' cannot rely on mere self-evidence for truth because it clearly lacks self-evidence. It must rely on some other avenue of justification.

Here I'd claim that utilitarianism offers some redemption, and in a way similar to that which you oppose; appealing to desires and appreciation. But I think we far overstate the case if we say 'everyone has similar desires and ability to appreciate them'; people's desires are vastly different! Consider the multitude of lifestyles on the planet, from evangelist Christian to Buddhist monk to Amazonian tribesmen to hedonistic cosmopolitan. In what meaningful way do these people all have the same desires? One can use similar example to 'ability to appreciate'.

Rather, we might prefer to say that everyone has the ability to form and rank preferences, and the satisfaction of first-order preferences is tautologically seen as better than that of second-order preferences. Consequently any appeal to equality is rather stripped down; we can justify equality of opportunity as foundational here. We cannot justify equality of outcome (including in terms of receiving a 'good life') except in reference to it promoting utility.