I've actually put some thought into this and really this is the conclusion I've came to.
An individual isn't equal to themselves on different days, let alone different individuals at any time. How can one say that Timothy McVeigh is equal to the likes of Alexander Fleming? Beyond their capability for actions, how can one say that your random nameless thug or chav is equal to the likes of Edward Jenner or Ben Carson?
I think in reality what has happened is that the definition of equality has been hijacked to mean equality of outcome when reality and nature work in opposition of this new definition of equality.
I want to be clear that this is not exactly about race and gender either. While it's unlikely a man from European decent is going to be winning the Olympic gold for 100m dash anytime soon, or a woman holding world records in weight lifting over men.
Finally, I believe most of the social unrest we have now comes from undefined social caste and forced attempts at equality that really are pushes for personal power based on identity politics.
I don't know much about this stuff, but I've always felt that, ideally, equality would come from having an equally advantaged upbringing. It'll never happen, but it seems wrong not to recognise privilege in successes (and in less desirable social behaviour).
It also depends on how one defines 'equal'. If it's in their potential to do physical things like lift weights then it's unlikely women will ever 'beat' men (in the same sense I'm not sure any man will be able to build a baby inside them).
Like, financially I'll never be equal to Donald Trump, and I don't think I'll ever equal his level of twittiness!
I think this is a pretty obvious statement dressed up as being deeply philosophical, unless I am misunderstanding your point. Of course we are not equal in terms of strength, IQ, knack for eating the most hot dogs in the shortest period of time. Where it can be measured quantitatively, there can be no doubt that some people will be more skilled than others in specific areas.
Even when it comes to other areas, such as writing style, sense of humour, artistic skills, these are subjective and some will be considered superior by some people while others will be thought of as awful.
If your idea "equality" comes from individual aptitude, we cannot say that people are equal. That is fairly obvious.
If your definition of "equality" relies on deciding whether or not people are deserving of different benefits, adjustments, considerations etc., then the definition is much more complex and subjective.
Forget your perfect offering
There's a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in
Leonard Cohen
If your definition of "equality" relies on deciding whether or not people are deserving of different benefits, adjustments, considerations etc., then the definition is much more complex and subjective.
This is kinda the root of the issue I was getting at. How should benefits be divided up? What should the measure be? An interesting point I've seen made is summed up simply in this picture http://www.rerolled.org/attachment.p...8&d=1465166879
Now, its message is pretty straight forward, but I happen to look at it a different way, If the resources in this case (i.e. the crates) are funneled to the most capable (i.e. tall figure) then the the tall figure can harvest literally the whole tree for the lot of them rather than having to settle for the low hanging fruit.
The same could be said for the needs of someone who is extremely disabled vs the needs of someone who isn't, or perhaps even above average on standard aptitudes. In a situation with limited resources, should resources even be spent on those who offer no return on those resources?
Resources are indeed finite, and no system devised to date has been able to cater for all of the needs of all people at all times, however most systems somewhat try to cater for some needs of some people at most times.
I think it boils down to what one regards as a return on a resource, and whether also whether we value each other as fellow human beings or as livestock. As things stand, with tax incentives and suchlike, there already are financial benefits to the financially strongest, and slim pickings for the financially weakest.
A UK Department of Health and Social Security backroom specialist advisor whom I will not name, explained to me that even in purely financial terms, it is cheaper to pay benefits to the most financially vulnerable in society, than it would be to deal with the civil unrest were all of those benefits to be axed.
Axed all at once sure, but like steering a oil tanker, it can be done albeit slowly. Really starting to get into Eugenics here, though again, not in the way most people think of it. We don't need a world filled with smart people, because no one wants Einsteins having to work as sanitation workers. We need the slightly below average to form the foundation of civilization. However, to prevent that segue, I'll simply say my own personal definition of return on investment is contributing to either the maintenance or advancement of society and/or civilization. The people who do nothing but live off government benefits and pop out little **** kid after little **** kid have virtually nothing to offer and are below virtually everyone in society.
I don't think equality is based on the outcome and relates more to people not been given a chance to prove themselves based on a perceived outcome.
I work in science which is an industry which has a heavy gender bias and I have experienced gender discrimination in the work place as have many of my colleagues. We get stereotyped on a daily basis as not being able cope with the demands of critical research because our minds are clearly filled with shoes, cats and babies. I notice in your examples of great people there wasn't one female name brought up - What about the great work of Marie Curie, Rosalind Franklin, Dorothy Hodgkin??
I don't think equality is based on the outcome and relates more to people not been given a chance to prove themselves based on a perceived outcome.
I work in science which is an industry which has a heavy gender bias and I have experienced gender discrimination in the work place as have many of my colleagues. We get stereotyped on a daily basis as not being able cope with the demands of critical research because our minds are clearly filled with shoes, cats and babies. I notice in your examples of great people there wasn't one female name brought up - What about the great work of Marie Curie, Rosalind Franklin, Dorothy Hodgkin??
Because I'm a rampant sexist who hates women obviously. At the risk of another ban, I'm going to paint with a wide brush here and say that it's been my experiences that when a woman goes into a male dominated field and starts complaining about discrimination it's almost always not actual discrimination and usually boils down to a failure to understand men.
For example, I worked as a security guard for a construction company for a while. Now, when a newbie comes in, regardless of gender, race, ect. they are hazed by the rest of the folks there, eventually the newbie lightens up and starts blowing **** back at them and they all get along. We actually had a female get one of the regular construction laborer jobs so of course, the guys do to her exactly what they did to every other newbie and hazed her, much lighter I might add than any other newbie, but even that was too much and she raised a big fuss about discrimination and blah blah blah.
Bottom line was that she wanted to still be treated like a woman while asking to be treated like an equal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epic
Anyhow, back on topic. Equality is not to say that we are all equal. We patently are not. Equality is not to say that we give everyone an equal standing. That is impossible and contrary to what we know of the way all living things operate.
Equality simply means that we do our best to stop pressing each other down, and that we do our best to help each other up, not because it is nice to do so, but because too few of us can survive let alone thrive in splendid isolation.
Then the question is are we actually doing that? How do you measure that? If we know that not everyone is going to reach the same metaphorical heights, then how do we know someone is not being pressed down so to speak? Beyond that, who says I have to help anyone up? No one helped me up, I went through hell on my own to get to where I am. Also, what does helping others have to do with equality? That again, sounds like my original point of the definition of equality being twisted to mean something totally different than intended.
Always depends what kind of "hazing" it is for me. A bit of a joke and a laugh is fine but some of the stuff I've seen borders on assault and every site I've worked at recently has put a stop to all of it. Maybe the odd cowboy builder will still throw the apprentice in the skip but every proper company I've worked at has seen a few guys get the sack for similar.
More on the equality thing. Women in the USA have to sign up for the draft now just like men and the complaining and butt hurt coming from feminist groups about it is absolutely delicious.
"Equality" aside, a big problem has been people thinking that "everyone is special" when obviously they aren't. The follow-up mistake to thinking everyone is special is "looking for the good in people". That's very dangerous.
Seeking the good in people can definitely be dangerous on various levels and so can seeking the bad.
Whilst there are many people who are very toxic for whatever reason, and who are dangerous to be around, we all have the capacity to do heinous things given the circumstances. I think that if we label a person "bad" it allows us to divorce from the potential we have in ourselves and thus to neglect to curb it.
True all that. I just watch things and see what shows up. There's a difference between judging and discerning. I can discern someone doing something good or bad without judging them (and judging someone good is still judgement - people forget that aspect). Many people,who seem bad were set-up to be (rebellion under pressure) and are actually good. Many "good" people are just afraid to make a mistake and only seem good. Alas many good people are hard to like because they know how to say "no" and aren't overly "nice" while trying to get something. In the end time can tell. People will show their hand if you dont move too fast
