First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
Is Equality Evil?
4052 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 2/20/15
Equality isn't evil but I feel some people push it too far. Everyone really isn't equal but I don't just mean in terms of status or ability. Men and women are different. Japanese and Americans are different. People have different values, standards, and habits.

Yes if you try to point out these differences or treat people even a little differently some people actually get into an uproar about it. That doesn't mean mistreating someone because they are different is okay. But expecting completely equal treatment across all groups is absurd.

Note I am only talking about some extreme people who take the idea of equality too far.
Sogno- 
45742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/20/15

AridDxD wrote:

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”


pullin out ole george are we

1651 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Mor Dhona
Offline
Posted 2/20/15

seekerperson7 wrote:

But why does contribution change one's "equality status"? Why does ability determine someone's worth? What is it about being able to "do more" that makes someone better? And who determines which abilities are better? Is an average engineer better than the world's best artist? Is an athlete better than a good hospital receptionist? Why does one's capabilities determine whether or not they are equal to others?

And you can't even really base it just on capabilities. For all we know, a homeless man on the street might have the capability to become a renowned physicist if his lot in life at birth was different. Then it becomes not an argument of capabilities, but actions. Those who "do more" are better than those who don't? What about a surgeon or a violinist who injure their dominant hand? I think tying equality to capability at all is too thorny - which is why I opt for the "different kinds of equality" route.


Let's break it down, shall we?

Another harsh truth of reality is that people, and the world at large, don't give a damn about your intentions. What's important is what you create (or destroy); what you can create (or destroy) is dependent on what you can do.

That said.

"Why does contribution change one's "equality status?" Why does ability determine someone's worth?"

Some things are more important than others, depending on the circumstance. Let's just use a zombie apocalypse for examples. You have a sadistic choice: you have a soldier and a guitarist, but you can only save one (no idealistic "save both" option). Given the soldier is trained to handle situations (kind of) like this, at that moment would you sacrifice him and save the guitarist (who isn't at all)? Would you earnestly value a guy who makes noise by drumming strings over a guy (sort of) trained to deal with the crisis at hand?

... while this is an extreme situation and example, the principle applies elsewhere.

"What is it about being able to "do more" that makes someone better?"

Adaptability and versatility are probably some of the greatest strengths to have. If you can do more, you can do more for more people, making them more inclined to favor you in situations where that comes up. The more you can do the more people need you - being needed is practically the definition of worth. Well, from a practical standpoint, at least.

Again, a sadistic choice: a foot soldier or a soldier also trained to keep vehicles and engines running?

"[And] Who determines which abilities are better? [...] Why does one's capabilities determine whether or not they are equal to others?"

Society determines which abilities are better. The "better," or more valuable, your capabilities are, the more likely you are to be affluent (keyword: likely. Nothing is a guarantee). People really like watching football, so football players get paid a boatload of cash to do it; the better they are the more they get paid, even though football contributes nothing of real value to society.

Capability determines equality because, truth be told, all people are not created equal. It's nice to believe so and give opportunities to try to balance things, but inequality is simply a fundamental truth. The problem is not that inequality exists, but that the better-off constantly try to maintain the status quo and keep things good for them at the expense of those that are worse off...


And you can't even really base it just on capabilities. For all we know, a homeless man on the street might have the capability to become a renowned physicist if his lot in life at birth was different. Then it becomes not an argument of capabilities, but actions. Those who "do more" are better than those who don't? What about a surgeon or a violinist who injure their dominant hand? I think tying equality to capability at all is too thorny - which is why I opt for the "different kinds of equality" route.


A homeless man may have become a renowned physicist if he were born into a more affluent family, but most people in the real world don't have the time or energy to care about possibilities.

Are those who do more better than those who do less? That depends on what they do.

Is an injured artist or surgeon worth less than an uninjured one? From a practical standpoint, assuming they can't do anything else... yes.
27250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 2/20/15 , edited 2/20/15
I disagree with Charles. Just because inequality is not evil doesn't mean equality is. After all, it is simply an idea and not something that can directly affect people just because someone is thinking about it. There must be an actual act for something to happen in the physical world. Neither one is evil or good.

It's sort of like a stone or a tree or a lake or a hurricane. They aren't evil, they sort of just ARE. Rain is not good or evil. Space is not good or evil. Thinking is not good or evil. Rain just is. Space just is. Thinking just is.



Of course, undertaking actions to further either equality or inequality may be arguably good or evil.

Fighting for equality can be seen by some as fighting to further the ignorant notion that people are equal when, in fact, they aren't. It can be viewed like how we view PETA when they fight for animal rights and neglect their fellow people in the process.

Conversely, fighting for inequality can be viewed as evil since it destroys the hopes of the unfortunate and encourages the strong to be selfish and grow stronger.

And there are ways to view both sides in a good light. I don't consider the ideas themselves or the states of being themselves to be innately evil or good, just the actions that are taken to further the ideas.
20192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / The Heroes Associ...
Offline
Posted 2/20/15 , edited 2/20/15


Enslavement, no. Euthanize them? depending on the crime yes.

Repeated rape offenders, euthenize them, they are an excuse of a human being, why should I treat you like a human when you dont treat others like a human.

Murderers, fuck em. They already ended someone elses life, why should they be allowed to live theirs when they have taken away another persons.

I'm so sick off this "oh, lets pity the criminals". They made their choice, let them deal with the consequences.

Petty crimes, such as theft and drug use is something that can be solved with rehabilitation and imprisonment. However, crimes against humanity like rape (Which is often worse than murder as it has long lasting mental and emotional effects) and murder deserve to be punished severely.

I dont give a fuck about the rights of a monster, because they clearly dont care about anyone else's rights.

I live in a country with alot of gang violence and rape. These people get out of prison and go about doing exactly what put them their in the first place. When we had the death penalty, we had MUCH less crime. Now we have a crime rate comparable to the middle east with almost 4% of the population they do.
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 2/20/15
When a society is more equal more people there is proof of this in history when different cultures strove for a more balanced society and everyone does better. While there was still inequality in the 50s and 60s everyone as a whole did better because the society in this country was more balanced if we applied that same level of balance now and strove for more equality our society as a whole will do better and the people in the society will have better outcomes. History has shown this as true time and time again. Society sets the rules by which everyone lives and enforces those rules the more equal those rules and the more level the playing field the better everyone does.

Breaking every-thing down to the individual is a bad argument when dealing with issue at a society level while while it shows that one person may have more worth over another it is a false argument since the goal is to have a balanced society where every one has an equal chance at success. Greater chance of success means more people actually succeed in their endeavors. Again history shows this,

Again as I stated anime is a moral play design wholly to teach kids that greed is bad and that not working together to improve yourself and your society is a failing of the individual. This isn't a hard concept to grasp unless you have a group of people teach the exact opposite point of view at which can cause confusion. This has been the main problems in this country the last 40 years nearly 50 actually at this point there is a group of people teach the world view that the individual is greater than the group and they never need to provide to the group. The flaw with this logic that no matter how strong the individual is IE creates or destroys the group will always be stronger since they have the advantage of numbers.

So yeah not all people are equal but everyone should have access to an equal chance in a society it is than up to the person to decide if they strive for their goals. Oh it is also up to the society to met out punishment for crimes this is part of the role of society. It is up to the society to detriment the correct response to a crime.

Oh just so folks know studies and there have been several over the years about the death penalty does not markable reduce crime. If you want to reduce crime make your society more equal this has actually been shown to reduce crime specially in minority groups. Oh another point on this you can not control all social outliers such as sociopaths and psychopaths they are aberrant after all. The direct history of this happening is the Irish ghettos in this country as the Irish became more equal to everyone else the crime rate went down. Same with the Italian. Yes the Irish and Italians had ghettos this is why our history needs to include stuff like this.
Posted 2/20/15

Genbu89 wrote:


I'm going to save the guitarist/soldier scenario for last since that's a bit more nuanced.

First, let me say that I think we're arguing about different things at this point. I'm not really interested in inequality of utility or circumstance. That's an undeniable fact. Obviously a doctor is more useful than a bum - that's not really a concern of mine.

My concern is the notion that the doctor and the bum are not treated as the same class of being. They're both human, and thus, they're both equal - independent of their usefulness. My various references to different professions was mean to highlight this fact - like "Look! One's clearly more useful, but they're both equally valuable as human beings".


Adaptability and versatility are probably some of the greatest strengths to have. If you can do more, you can do more for more people, making them more inclined to favor you in situations where that comes up. The more you can do the more people need you - being needed is practically the definition of worth. Well, from a practical standpoint, at least.

Again, a sadistic choice: a foot soldier or a soldier also trained to keep vehicles and engines running?


But worth and usefulness is different from the type of equality i'm arguing for. Consider a smartphone and an old flip-phone. The smartphone can do many more things and is a much more useful phone, but if we define a phone as "something that calls", the extra accessories of the smartphone are meaningless. The flip phone does less, but it is not less of a "phone" than the smartphone. You can not claim that it's better as a phone, just more useful as a phone, since they both fit the requirements of a phone. They are equal as phones, yet unequal in capabilities.

How does this apply to humans? Again, i'm not arguing that humans are equal in usefulness - just that they have equal value as humans. They fulfill the basic requirements to stand on the same plane as everyone else just by being human - utility is just an extra accessory.

Again, i'll be addressing your analogies later.


Some things are more important than others, depending on the circumstance. Let's just use a zombie apocalypse for examples. You have a sadistic choice: you have a soldier and a guitarist, but you can only save one (no idealistic "save both" option). Given the soldier is trained to handle situations (kind of) like this, at that moment would you sacrifice him and save the guitarist (who isn't at all)? Would you earnestly value a guy who makes noise by drumming strings over a guy (sort of) trained to deal with the crisis at hand?

... while this is an extreme situation and example, the principle applies elsewhere.


I understand your reasoning, but i'm arguing that humans have equal value independent of their usefulness. Obviously the soldier is more useful, but that doesn't make him a better person. In this highly hypothetical scenario, of course I would save the soldier. In that scenario, one must live and one must die, and the two people are defined entirely by their occupations. Because it's 1 to 1 and because it's live or die, the question of their value doesn't really come into play from the angle i'm trying to argue from. Let me give two analogies myself to try and explain what I mean, but i'm not very good at it apparently lol

Say it's the same zombie apocalypse, and I have a choice: Save one soldier or save two guitarists, I would choose to save the guitarists. Their occupations don't change my view of the value of their lives, even if, let's say, the two of them put together weren't half as useful as the soldier.

Or consider this scenario: Same zombie apocalypse, but you weren't certain of the chances of saving the soldier or the guitarist. Say the soldier had a 25% chance of being saved, and the guitarist a 75% chance . Or heck, let's just go for broke and make it 49% - 51%. In that scenario, the 1 to 1 aspect is broken, equal value comes into play and I would try to save the guitarist independent of his usefulness. I would not view the soldier as an inherently better human than the guitarist in that scenario and save him at the guitarists expense. Ironically, I picked the soldier in your scenario because they were equal in value, but the equal chances made the question of their value somewhat moot. If I truly thought the soldier was a better human, then i would probably try to save him at the guitarists expense irrelevant of the likelihood of actually saving him.

But I suspect we just have fundamentally different views of reality. If you can actually do the math and think that "Person A's life is worth X of Person B's life" Where X is any integer not equal to 1, then I just have to disagree. I don't think usefulness extends to human life in that fashion, and I guess I'll just have to agree to disagree.
35037 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 2/20/15 , edited 2/20/15
Let's separate his speech into its main chunks and address them one by one.


"All men…are NOT created equal! Some are born smarter, or more beautiful, or with parents of greater status. Some, by contrast, are born weak of body or mind, or with few, if any, talents. All men are different! Yes, the very existence of man is discriminatory! That's why there is war, violence and unrest. Inequality is not evil. Equality is!


The notion that an absolute monarchy with a well-heeled noble caste (that is, Britannia in Code Geass) is a meritocracy is a delusional fantasy. It's either Charles is an idiot for thinking Britannia is a meritocracy or he thinks we're idiots who will just nod and accept that a society in which one's political and economic station is a function of one's birth constitutes a meritocracy. Given the sneering drivel he's spouting about humans' inherent inequality I expect it's the latter.


What became of the EU, who claimed that all are equal? It is in constant conflict because its tenets go against human nature! The Middle Eastern Federation, which harbors similar sentiments, is constantly mired with sloths!


You heard it here, folks. Ethnic tension? Not the problem in Europe. Religious strife? Nope. Soviet/Russian nationalism? No way. Countries struggling to build up effective market economies and governments free of corruption after spending decades in a command economy headed by corrupt bureaucrats? Nah. It's all the pesky liberal democracy and social spending that's causing Europe's woes. I know. An ultranationalist monarchist born with a silver spoon in his mouth who looks positively dashing in a powdered wig and tailcoat told me so. And what incentive would such a chap have to lie about this sort of thing, anyway? I mean, it's not like he's out to be the king or anythi---oh. Ohh. Ohhhhhhh.


But our Britannia is not like them! We put an end to wars and evolve with every conquest! Britannia alone looks forward and moves forward to a better future! The death of my son Clovis is yet more proof that our empire is evolving. Fight! For the future rests in the hands of its ruler! ALL HAIL BRITANNIA!!!!!"


Edit: Going to be a bit more careful with my terms even though it's just a joke.

This concludes another chapter of "Authoritarianism for Dummies". Until next time, as we always say:

OBEY.

Posted 2/20/15 , edited 2/20/15

AzazelOfNexium wrote:



As long as you're consistent, then I can understand that. Though I don't understand the aversion to slavery if they're less than humans. Perhaps you don't think they'd make good slaves? I'm sure they'd be of use in some factory out there with enough prodding.

Though I'll leave well enough alone since you're consistent, I will note that i'm not arguing for pity. I simply don't think that humans are capable of being demoted to cattle no matter what they do. I think it's the easy way out to just say "They're not human! They're monsters!" It makes humanity look so much better when you take out all the bad apples.

But if you're for the "eye for an eye" mentality, then I can't really argue against it. I held that view myself for quite a while. I like to think that some people can change though (perhaps that's just because I know some people who once did unsavory things and since turned away).
Posted 2/20/15
Those are politicians' favorite words and centers their unevolving ploys, equality et inequality.
20904 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 2/20/15 , edited 2/20/15
"Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality" -Adam Smith
Thou even Laissez-faire Capital?
Founding father are right. Now is up to one what to become
85265 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Louisville, KY
Offline
Posted 2/20/15 , edited 2/20/15
I do believe not everyone is born equal. For example: If everyone trained as hard as the next there will always be that one person who just beats everyone with less effort. To incorporate kakashi2k7's comment I do believe everyone has the capabilities to be good at anything they choose, but it doesn't mean they will be the best. For example: I am 5' 5" tall so even if I were to practice every hour of every day I will never be better than someone who is just born with genes to be taller and faster than me. That doesn't mean I can't get good, I just won't get anywhere as good as someone born with better genes in a specific area in life. It could apply to being smart vs being able to remember every single thing you read word by word. You can't get that by effort, it's something you're born with. I believe the same thing applies to leaders. Anyone can be a leader, but there are those who are born with more charisma than you and will always be a better leader than you.
2462 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Minnesota, USA
Offline
Posted 2/20/15
Equality will never happen because humans are not equal. As stated above some are stronger, some are prettier, some are smarter. Therefore when in respect to what one is better at they will always look down on those that aren't. Treating everyone with equal kindness is a different story. That is a little more achievable but the way society is now I doubt it will happen.

17380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 2/20/15
You know what happens when you try and enforce "equality"?
People stop trying to be better.
Why bother, if when you try you'll be murdered, stolen from, or otherwise suffer immediate and horrible consequences?
And that's ignoring the inherent inequality between the people enforcing and being enforced on.
Inequality is not evil, equality is not evil. They both exist.
All people are fundamentally equal. Before you were born, you could've been a rich hyper-athletic genius.
And then you were born, and all those random chances ceased to be random.
Focusing on how other people are better and how unfair life is isn't productive.
Doing something is productive. If you want to be better, you're better off bettering yourself than trying to drag down other people.
Posted 2/20/15
Equality is bringing everyone down to the same level so no one can complain about inequality.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.