Is equality an absurd notion?

[Perfection]

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.

I'm don't believe this notion is entirely correct. There certainly are conditions where one can "buy" a cure and I think we as a society should provide those to people who cannot afford it.

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.

Certainly we need to provide incentives for people to cultivate and use the talents to beneficial to society, but I think this is merely a pragmatic means to generate more good in everyone's lives, not the metric we should use to determine if someone should have a good life or not. Everyone should have a good life.

 

[Kyriakos]

To claim that a society can be made by people who are all willing to be working for the common good, is like claiming that a mother, no matter how good she is, will always be smiling and kind. It is just unrealistic. Human nature contains many more things than just angelic kindness, which is afterall the product of opression and pain, or chronic weakness.

However a society of learned adults can exist, in the very distant future, when the level of the entire population will have been very higher than the current one. Perhaps it will never happen though, and possibly it is not needed either.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Not necessarily. Would you like to give an example?

Well, you're posting from Melbourne so you might not be familiar with the effects of George Bush's education policy. But one insidious result was that a lot of districts were forced to drop gifted programs.

This is an excellent example because some people are smarter than others, some are more mature than others, some have a better work ethic than others, but No Child Left Behind was based on the premise that if a student fails it's the teacher's fault. And since teachers and principals are punished for the failures of students and parents, school districts had to divert resources away from programs for the best students to try to get dumb students to pass the standardized tests. They also had to change the curriculum to "teach to the test" thereby giving all students a substandard education.

But hey, at least it was "fair" in some warped sense because nobody gets ahead.
But

 

[Perfection]

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.

Distaste for pain, hunger, curiosity, desire for relations with others, etc. are all present in pretty much all humans. I think there's lots and lots of desires that are universal and the more important the desire the more universal it seems to be.

It is a fair point that people do have some different desires and the relative weights change a bit, and so I think there are some limits here. We get into comparing the utilities of two different people, which is tricky business.

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.

I don't see how dualism is important here. We only need to note the similarity in the brains. I think you're overestimating the variance in the human mind.


CRAP gotta go....... more later.

 

[kulade]

Equality is an important social goal; in an equal society, people are less prone to jealousy or to take advantage of each other, but equality is hardly an end in itself; a place where people are equally poor and powerless is obviously nowhere worth living. I would think of equality therefore as of more of a luxury.

 

[civver_764]

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.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Communism was working pretty well during Anarchist Catalonia btw, which funnily was when it was implemented properly unlike the state capitalist soviet union.

 

[lovett]

Distaste for pain, hunger, curiosity, desire for relations with others, etc. are all present in pretty much all humans. I think there's lots and lots of desires that are universal and the more important the desire the more universal it seems to be.

It is a fair point that people do have some different desires and the relative weights change a bit, and so I think there are some limits here. We get into comparing the utilities of two different people, which is tricky business.

I don't see how dualism is important here. We only need to note the similarity in the brains. I think you're overestimating the variance in the human mind.

CRAP gotta go....... more later.

How do similarities in structure imply similarities in another way?

Well, perhaps this can be analyzed as a logical relation:

'If A then B'. Where A refers to a particular person and O refers to their outcome (E.g in terms of wealth).

From that it does not follow 'If B then O' or 'If C then O'.

I think what we are trying to do in our discussion of equality is establish that every person (A, B and C), implies outcome O. That is, everyone implies the same outcome. So we couldn't justify inequalities.

To do this we must find some sort of identity function such that A=B=C. Thus B implies O. If being is not found in conjunction with O, something somewhere has gone wrong. In a dualistic conception of mind this identity is easy; Given that everyone has the same type of mind there is a very real identity between different people. A genuinely is identical to C.

The problem I see in a materialistic theory of mind is that people are more different than similar, and there is no reason to believe that their similarities should be taken as paramount when determining the relation of implicature between person and outcome.

That is, A and B and C do not equal eachother, they are all genuinely different. And different not just in the minutiae, but the broad strokes.

Thus again, the fact that 'if A then O' does not imply 'if B then O'. When we find inequalities there is no reason to believe something has gone wrong at all. Compared to our original presumption of total equality we are likely to find only marginal equality to be justified.

 

[Gary Childress]

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

If we indeed pay lipservice to the ideal of equality then yes it is the right thing to do. Humans are not monkeys. We have our own values and they may be different from other animals out there. This doesn't mean we should dump our (perhaps) innate values in favor of copying primates.

OTOH, yes everyone is different for the most part and yes as I have grown older I have given up on the notion that there can ever be "equality". Perhaps inequality is a genetic fact of our species or something. There doesn't seem to be a great deal that can be done about it.

 

[Archbob]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Communism was working pretty well during Anarchist Catalonia btw, which funnily was when it was implemented properly unlike the state capitalist soviet union.

You realize that last all of 3 years in a Tiny region of span right? Thats not really a good argument for anything.

The Communists party's redistribution of land in China also worked great for like 3 or 4 years before everything fell apart. The majority of the great successes of anarchists were in the beginning(late 1936 and early 1937). But the 1938 and 1939, it was already falling apart because of itself and outside forces.

Also the Anarchists were not communist:

During the Spanish Civil War, many anarchists outside of Spain criticized the CNT-FAI leadership for entering into government and compromising with communist elements on the Republican side.[citation needed] Indeed, during these years the anarchist movement in Spain gave up many of its basic principles; however, those in Spain felt that this was a temporary adjustment, and that once Franco was defeated, they would revert to their libertarian ways.

They actually felt that compromising with communist elements of the republican side of the civil war were betraying their principles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia

It was a libertarian collective and it lasted far too short and covered an area too small to show it to be sustainable on any sort of large scale.

They were also one of the parties (along with the USSR-backed communist party) that were ultimately responsible for the Barcelona May days.

Another problem is that there was no way that nation was going to survive as it simply did not have the resources without outside support either to fend off Franco or survive WWII that was coming.

Thats the problem, you only had a very small amount of people wanting this. The majority of people in Spain eventually did not want absolute equality. Thats the whole problem with this kind of system over time.

 

[Archbob]

If we indeed pay lipservice to the ideal of equality then yes it is the right thing to do. Humans are not monkeys. We have our own values and they may be different from other animals out there. This doesn't mean we should dump our (perhaps) innate values in favor of copying primates.

No see, this is where most people fail to understand a very basic point. WE ARE PRIMATES. We belong to the primate family. We evolved from primates(as least for people here that believe in evolution we did). Nature has given has many of the same intrinsic values. When we display tendencies like primates, those are our natural innate values.

See, I have a feeling that many people here want to view equality as the Norm and lack of inequality or social stratification as something that is forced upon us. This is blatantly false.

Equality is not the norm for humans. If it was, most of our societies would have developed into semi-utopian societies and not ones with major social stratification without the need of great philosophers and thinkers to come up with their theories.

The reason that most all societies have developed into a strict social stratifications is because out innate human nature demands that we do.

Equality is not the norm for members among our species, inequality is by and large the norm. Inequality does not have to be enforced to come about. It is equality among all members of our species that is abnormal and must be enforced for it to come about in any way.

 

[Gary Childress]

No see, this is where most people fail to understand a very basic point. WE ARE PRIMATES

Good grief man. Don't paint yourself into an existential corner.

[EDIT: Then why don't you go hang out at the zoo and sling poop at people]

 

[LightFang]

Equality is not the norm for members among our species, inequality is by and large the norm. Inequality does not have to be enforced to come about. It is equality among all members of our species that is abnormal and must be enforced for it to come about in any way.

Is this necessarily bad? Are abnormal things inherently bad? Or are you making an appeal to nature?

 

[bhsup]

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

Now see, this is a perfect example for that winning thread thread.

/thread - John wins.

 

[Archbob]

Good grief man. Don't paint yourself into an existential corner.

When we debate religion/evolution, you guys tend to point out that we are primates profusely. However, when we discuss human nature, scientists seem to want to throw biology and evolution entirely out the window.

Is this necessarily bad? Are abnormal things inherently bad? Or are you making an appeal to nature?

On a biological level, promoting equality upon all members of a same species is indeed bad. It prevents a species from advancing. Evolution, at its base, glorifies and exemplifies the best, strongest, and brightest of a species and as a rule, discards the weakest of a species(however you choose to define that). That is how all species evolve and advance into higher forms or more adaptable variations.

Homo Sapiens would have never evolved if it had not been this kind of natural selection that eventually gave us out large brains.

I know people want to think that humans somehow do not play by these rules of evolution, but that would be a mistaken notion.

Promotion mediocrity simply hinders advancement.

However, any type of incentive for people to rise up above average will make society unequal.

I personally think that striving for absolute equality is a very flawed notion. There needs to be some restrictions against hyper-inequality but ideas like a libertarian or communist utopia are not really things we should work towards.

 

[JollyRoger]

However, any type of incentive for people to rise up above average will make society unequal.

Society is unequal and will remain that way. Manipulating the incentives to make things more equal than they are is not necessarily a bad thing. Generally, as civilizations evolve, the equality gap becomes less severe.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

evolution does reward the strong and all of that, yes, but man can keep his hands out of that completely. we're better off treating each other as equals as much as possible and letting the things we can't control have their way. evolution isnt something we could turn off anyways, it would still be going on. maybe in ways that help us more than being the biggest macho man on the block.

 

[Archbob]

Generally, as civilizations evolve, the equality gap becomes less severe.

I wouldn't say that. The gap between the rich and the poor has been growing in recent decades, not shrinking. I don't think its the natural tendency of humans to bridge the inequality gap as the race advances. I think its more that things tend to stay status quo in terms of equality and in-equality.

I mean Bill Gates have 100,000x the money most of us have.

evolution does reward the strong and all of that, yes, but man can keep his hands out of that completely.

See, this here is the problem. Rewarding the strong and smart is the way things are supposed to be. It is the norm, not the exception. If we were to "keep our hands" out of such things, that what would happen. When we make laws and restrictions regarding equality, we are 'delving are hands into that'. Trying to make everyone as equal as possible is not leaving the system alone, its is intensely screwing with the system. Basically trying to institute equality is trying to control things that we can't control, which is why it fails.

 

[JollyRoger]

I mean Bill Gates have 100,000x the money most of us have.

And yet the gap in lifestyles isn't all that harsh, at least for most people living in Bill Gates' country. Plus, Gates' success demionstrates the good that can come from making a shot at success more equal than it has traditionally been in the past.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

i believe we should allow strengths and weaknesses, but when possible, help should be extended in any way to our fellow man.

if not, then let's go back to the age of social darwinism, since that's the natural order of things. i think what naturally followed too was people who thought like that being killed in the street.

people usually don't like being told they can't survive because others have said that they're too weak to survive in a world they didnt even choose to be born into anyways.

 

[Archbob]

And yet the gap in lifestyles isn't all that harsh, at least for most people living in Bill Gates' country. Plus, Gates' success demionstrates the good that can come from making a shot at success more equal than it has traditionally been in the past.

There's only so much you can buy/want to buy. The guy has a private airport. Thats a lot more than a middle-class person like me, has.

if not, then let's go back to the age of social darwinism, since that's the natural order of things. i think what naturally followed too was people who thought like that being killed in the street.

People may not like hearing it, but its still what predominantly goes on. The strongest and smartest thrive while the weakest flounder. The best atheletes and top-notch scientists make millions. Your average scientist and atheletes that play for minor teams? Not so much.

People do not want to admit it, but its how society works.