Are we, as human beings, equal?

[Elizabeth]

This is a philosophical question, not physical. We know that certain people are stronger, faster, smarter, taller, funnier, prettier and a whole host of other things that make us different and perhaps, unequal in some people's eyes.

This question is, as Human Beings, our fundamental right to exist, as living beings, are we equal? Or are others really superior? Do Kings deserve to be worshiped? Do we put others above everyone, like "The Pope"? Is this justified? Are these people really better? Should we really serve them as inferiors? Obey their laws? Comply with their morality?

Do people have the right to have control over themselves and their destiny, or does society, having adopted the opinion of the majority or the person with the power, have the right to impose their beliefs on others, because they are better in some way?

Thanks in advance.

Love always,
Elizabeth

[Hazumu]

If we were 'equal', we would all have identical abilities, likes, dislikes, etc.  1=1, 2=2, etc.

We do have different abilities, strengths and weaknesses.  Some have a combination of 'settings' and 'developments' that pre-dispose them for success in certain endeavours, while handicapping them in other activities.  Some have more strengths than disabilities, others, the opposite is true.

There are those who say that we should run society not on equality, but on the concept of 'equity' -- those who lucked out at God's poker game and have a strong hand should - naturally - get more stuff from life, while those who have lousy hands are stuck with them and have to play them out as best they can.  For there to be winners, there must necessarily be losers.

The question should not be, "Are we equal", but should be "Shall we all be treated equally?"  The losers in life's poker game contributed something to the pot for the winners to take.  That contribution is greatly underacknowledged in the society that has been shaping up over the last fifteen or more years.  We have many successful people who, being born on third base, believe they hit a triple.  Many successful people will not acknowledge the contributions the Common Wealth of society -- roads, the internet, banking regulation, the courts system, not to mention direct government subsidies and outright giveaway tax 'breaks', -- has contributed to their so-called 'self-made' wealth.

This is not equal, let alone any sort of pure equity.

There is also the equality of treatment, or lack thereof.  I'll mention two instances that illuminate this unequalness of treatment -- the virtual pardon of I. Lewis Libby, compared to the punishment served by perpetrators of lesser crimes -- and present society's condemnation and outlawing of marriage for same-sex couples.  Special treatment and exclusionary behaviour is inherently unequal.

As every set of fingerprints is unique from all the others, and every iris has a unique pattern, every human being is different from every other human being.  The closest humans naturally come to equality are so-called 'identical' twins arising from only one fertilized egg and possessing identical genetic material.  Even then, there are subtle differences between the two 'clones'.  They are not 'equal'

Humankind should embrace all the differentness, and embrace and live the concept of equality.  It will be difficult.  But it is the world I prefer to live in.

Karen

[J.T.]

Nothing can ever be equal, there will always be a minority in any situation.  It is nature's way.

[Elizabeth]

You know, it's strange how people can go and vote against gay marriage, knowing that the law they are voting for will never effect them. How can that be any kind of equity? The question is not only of equality, but of course equity. A realization that the weak, the small, the less intelligent, the ugly, all have just as much right to be here as anyone else. It seems there will be no such realization.

And I really like the point about "self made men". Did they really make the money themselves? Or did they take advantage of a system that allowed them to pay others less then their work was worth, only to sell it at a profit. If things were equitable, wouldn't each factory worker make an equal share of the profit the product made? And doesn't the market belong to all of us? If someone becomes wealthy by selling in this great market place, that really everyone creates, shouldn't everyone be entitled to benefit from it?

It is those who control the means to make money, that have the power. One need not even own it, as the managers of communist run businesses found out. Just have control or who gets a job and who don't. How much a product will cost.

And of course we not only allow, but promote the passing on of wealth, ensuring there will always be an elite class that never have to labor. Get the best education. Eat the best food and have all their needs and wishes met. All because they just happen to be born to the right person. Instantly, they are treated better than others. By absolutely no effort of their own. And you know it's funny, but everyone treats them like they are better too. Why is that? Are rich people really better than poor people? Are they really deserving of living a better life because of who they were born to?

It's interesting that the majority continue to be dominated by a few. To subject themselves to the rule of the elite class, which pardons each other for their transgressions, while harshly punishing the peasant class for the smallest infractions of morality. A morality, incidentally, that they ignore themselves.

Anyway, it's not about what are the individual talents of any one person. It's not about hard work, or earning things, or laziness, or desire or any of those things. It's about this. Does any person really have the right to tell any other person, how they should live their life? And if so, why? How did they get this right, if in fact it exists?

Love always,
Elizabeth

[Nero]

Kings, the pope, and other government officials are actually there to serve the people. Without government systems, there'd be nothing but chaos, and naturally someone has to run things. Someone has to keep order.
I don't really think in this case it's a question of superiority or not.

This question is, as Human Beings, our fundamental right to exist, as living beings, are we equal?

No.

Or are others really superior?

Some are superior for reasons other than wealth, class, position, etc. Some are superior who have none of these things.

[Lori]

No, the majority will always rule. Its a simple matter of numbers. There are more of them that think they are normal and above those that are "unique". If I try to include myself in the normal crowd, I am quickly reminded how I am different.

It is politically incorrect to make fun of mentally handi capped but not Transgendered, gay, or lesbian. Maybe we should have a TS olympics?

[Elizabeth]

If we are not equal, which seems to be the concensus? How can we tell who is superior? What is the criteria? Is it the smartest? The tallest? The strongest? The best pool player?The most attractive? The funniest? If this disparity exists, what is the measure? How do we rank humans? How do we know who is better than who? Are smart people better than strong people or are strong people better because ultimately they can beat up or kill the smart person? Is it only a matter of survival?

If any one category that we might measure by was superior, then wouldn't that trait have dominated and other traits eliminated by natural selection? I mean, doesn't that fact that there are people with all these traits, tell us that each must be superior in different situations. That they must each have their own advantage, or those traits would have long ago become extinct, just as Neanderthal did?

So again, how do we rank humans? If we are not equal, what is the pecking order? Oh yeah, and who decides?

Love always,
Elizabeth

[Aeyra]

I think the real question here is are we as human beings free? I think freedom is more important versus being equal. We are all 'equal' theoretically in America....are we free? Far from it. Transgender people actually are equal to everyone else in most regards in the USA...but we are in the same system as everyone else. The minor differences we have are legal techincalities.  Are some people better than others overall? Probably. Are some cultures better than others? Certainly.

[cindianna_jones]

We are not equal. We never have been nor shall we ever be equal.

It's a survival of the fittest sort of thing which brings leaders to the top, makes people powerful, or brings a society down.

However, we are thinking animals and we have decided that although we may not be equal, we should be equally treated. 

Cindi

[Sandi]

We are all created equal as our US Declaration of Independence proudly proclaims, and we are given equal opportunity under the bill of rights. And that is about as far as it goes. Total equality can only happen when everyone is reduced to the lowest common denominator, like socialism or something similar.

Liberty, or freedom, and equality, are opposites. Liberty, by definition, means individuality, diversity, difference, inequality. Equality means sameness, uniformity, conformity. Free men and women are not equal, and equal men and women are not free.

Nor is liberty possible without property, which is the material form of individuality. How can you have, e.g., the right to privacy in your own home unless you have the right to own, and to defend, your own home? Property, including property in the means of self-defense, is what enables all the other freedoms. ~Steven Malcolm Anderson~

[Nero]

If we are not equal, which seems to be the concensus? How can we tell who is superior? What is the criteria? Is it the smartest? The tallest? The strongest? The best pool player?The most attractive? The funniest? If this disparity exists, what is the measure? How do we rank humans? How do we know who is better than who? Are smart people better than strong people or are strong people better because ultimately they can beat up or kill the smart person? Is it only a matter of survival?

If any one category that we might measure by was superior, then wouldn't that trait have dominated and other traits eliminated by natural selection? I mean, doesn't that fact that there are people with all these traits, tell us that each must be superior in different situations. That they must each have their own advantage, or those traits would have long ago become extinct, just as Neanderthal did?

So again, how do we rank humans? If we are not equal, what is the pecking order? Oh yeah, and who decides?

Love always,
Elizabeth

I believe some individuals are innately more superior, more special, more beautiful (not in a physical way) than everyone else. Not for what they've done, not for who they were born to, not for what they have, not for their looks, not for their education (in fact most in this category are almost completely self-taught).
A certain caliber of very rare individuals.
If handed a photo of a person, I can tell almost instantly whether they belong to the superior group or not (how very psychic-esque lol ).
If they are a superior being, I'll feel a glow envelop me, a warmth run through me, and know this person is special. If I don't feel the glow, the person is merely an everyday run of the mill human being.

Well, you did ask, Elizabeth. And, this is the philosophy section.
Superiority, like many things, is in the eye of the beholder.

Only half in jest,
Nero

[Pica Pica]

I think we are all equal...but equally without rights.

Being born (I think) does not transfer inaliable rights on a person. There is no right to free speech in my view, also means there is no right to suppress speech. I think this makes us more equal.

[Yvonne]

No. Equality is a silly concept. Nature favors the 'fringe', where changes are constantly made.  Equality is only a benefit if you intend to run something through a processing machine, such as a Public School or a potato digger.  Diversity is what allows a species to adapt over the long term. Conformity and ritual is Death.

[Pica Pica]

Equality does not equal Conformity though. Being equal in no way means being the same.

[The Middle Way]

This is a philosophical question, not physical. We know that certain people are stronger, faster, smarter, taller, funnier, prettier and a whole host of other things that make us different and perhaps, unequal in some people's eyes.

This question is, as Human Beings, our fundamental right to exist, as living beings, are we equal? Or are others really superior? Do Kings deserve to be worshiped? Do we put others above everyone, like "The Pope"? Is this justified? Are these people really better? Should we really serve them as inferiors? Obey their laws? Comply with their morality?

Do people have the right to have control over themselves and their destiny, or does society, having adopted the opinion of the majority or the person with the power, have the right to impose their beliefs on others, because they are better in some way?

Thanks in advance.

Love always,
Elizabeth

Well, you probably know where I am coming from already on this...

my thought is that once you say this person's death or suffering is important, and this one's (for whatever reason, they sinned, they are a bum, You-Name-It): 'not so much', we are all screwed.

We are stardust, we are golden
We are million year-old carbon
and we've got to get ourselves
back to the garden

carbon life forms united -
or not, it's a choice, innit

Posted on: July 10, 2007, 02:40:21 PM
I don't know what 'equal' means in this discussion, it's a can of worms, and my superior-seeming ass gets contentious.

MAYBE a better word is 'equivalent'.

You get this thought in the purer forms of all your religions and metaphysical enquiries, EG: we are equivalent in the eyes of our God.

Imagine replacing 'God' (that smug superior a-hole) with 'our better natures'...

NOTA

[Jeannette]

Our premise that all men were created equal, is in the creation, the rest depends on the society we are born into , some are rich and others poor, some have a better education, and other do not have any, what we do with what we have is what makes us different.

[asiangurliee]

This is a philosophical question, not physical. We know that certain people are stronger, faster, smarter, taller, funnier, prettier and a whole host of other things that make us different and perhaps, unequal in some people's eyes.

This question is, as Human Beings, our fundamental right to exist, as living beings, are we equal? Or are others really superior? Do Kings deserve to be worshiped? Do we put others above everyone, like "The Pope"? Is this justified? Are these people really better? Should we really serve them as inferiors? Obey their laws? Comply with their morality?

Do people have the right to have control over themselves and their destiny, or does society, having adopted the opinion of the majority or the person with the power, have the right to impose their beliefs on others, because they are better in some way?

Thanks in advance.

Love always,
Elizabeth

It seems that a lot of people, no matter how marginalized they are, believe in a hierarchy. In terms of equality, I will say this, I think we are all unique, and we all have something to contribute to the world and people should not use difference as a way to distinguish one's place on a hierarchy.

People like George Bush is on the top of the hierarchy because of the family he is born into. I think that equality should be about the equal opportunity and that does not necessarily mean equal treatment for all because people are not born equal.


Equality means nothing when dignity , social responsibility and fairness are not considered.

Posted on: July 11, 2007, 01:57:20 AM

No, the majority will always rule. Its a simple matter of numbers. There are more of them that think they are normal and above those that are "unique". If I try to include myself in the normal crowd, I am quickly reminded how I am different.

It is politically incorrect to make fun of mentally handi capped but not Transgendered, gay, or lesbian. Maybe we should have a TS olympics?

Would you say a poor gay person of color is necessarily better off than a white privileged transsexual? I do not think that is necessarily the case. Being a ts is just one layer of marginalization, many other factors contribute to one's social position, like race, educational background, economic background and all that jazz.

The majority do not rule. The privileged minority class has always ruled over the masses and they still are doing that through controlling of the media , economy and the discourse of the dominant culture. 


Oppressed people oppress others. Being a transsexual is disruptive of the social discourse of the mainstream society.   The people at the top do not generally like disruption, they like to keep things the way they are so they can continue to benefited from the system and the mass will do what they can to survive.

This is quite a Marxist view, I am sure society is more complex than that, but this is the general idea I have about the world we live in.

[Elizabeth]

This is kinda fun. There have been some really good posts and some really good thoughts on this subject. Let me see if I can further it by asking yet another question. Let's say that all of us, those contributing to this thread, are all put together. We don't know anything about each other. We are given identical clothing and not allowed to identify ourselves in any way. We are not allowed to discuss our own lives in any way. Nothing about our past. Nothing about our family or loved ones. Just who we are, on those merits alone.

We are given a choice that we may pick one person to die, or we will all be killed. How do we decide who if anyone should die? First, what if we don't all agree that we should pick someone. What if some of us think that if one of us has to die, that we all should. And just to make it interesting, no one may volunteer to be the one who dies, if that turns out to be the case.

Do we use a simple majority to decide if someone should be forced to give their life to save the rest? And if so, do we again use a majority to select who will die? Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one, in this case?

Love always,
Elizabeth

[Lisbeth]

This question is, as Human Beings, our fundamental right to exist, as living beings, are we equal? Or are others really superior?

Heck, no!  Dogs are far superior to humans.

"If I have any beliefs about immortality, it is that certain dogs I have known will go to heaven, and very, very few persons."
- James Thurber

"Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in."
- Mark Twain

"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man."
- Mark Twain

"The average dog is a nicer person than the average person."
- Andrew A. Rooney

"To err is human:To forgive, canine."
- Anonymous

[The Middle Way]

We are given a choice that we may pick one person to die, or we will all be killed. How do we decide who if anyone should die? First, what if we don't all agree that we should pick someone. What if some of us think that if one of us has to die, that we all should. And just to make it interesting, no one may volunteer to be the one who dies, if that turns out to be the case.

Do we use a simple majority to decide if someone should be forced to give their life to save the rest? And if so, do we again use a majority to select who will die? Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one, in this case?

Love always,
Elizabeth

This reminds me of Sartre's No Exit, in a way (a sort of opposite way). Or some Twilite Zone episode I can't put my finger on.
Oh, there was an early Hitchcock picture, set in a lifeboat, can't recall that title either.

I might say that if one must die, all must, given this scenario.

Who gets to be the great savior? It would be ideal if that Christ-esque personality stepped forward and volunteered, but that tends to be a 'good luck with that' sort of deal...

Good point/great question.



Posted on: July 13, 2007, 11:06:08 AM
I sawr a film yesterday, oh boy...

Was called Apocalypse, I think on the Christian Channel, like channel 290 or some deal..

John the Apostle, who was the living connection to the Christ, was in a Roman prison
(NB: after the book 'Romans', The Bible, got quoted hereabouts in support of The Death Penalty, I *asked to know* what that passage actually means, In Context. A couple days later I encountered this film 'by accident' off the cable. I think I might understand it, now...)

Now there was an Ultimatum (with a time limit) from The Emperor that all Christians will renounce their God and claim The Emperor as their New God, or die. Some nearby followers of Christ came to rescue John, as they believed he was the Word of God's ear, or was the clear receiver of that message.
John (who was operating under a pseudonym inside for various reasons, primarily to stay alive to serve as a model there of Christian behavior...) said to his rescuers, 'No, I am not going, if these are to die, then I must die as well'.

The idea in all of this, I think, is that the path to salvation/enlightenment goes astray when one is too distracted by contending WITH ROME. (Which is what I have intuititively felt was what was going on in the Book known as Romans.)

There are always those who <side with Rome> who will use these passages as an apologia for the ends (and means to these ends) that Rome wants to achieve.

N