Should all Humans be Equal?

Use this forum to discuss the December 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, A Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir by Dr.Ghoulem Berrah
GE Morton
Posts: 3988
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Should all Humans be Equal?

Post by GE Morton »

The_architect wrote: December 19th, 2021, 1:45 pm No human is equal from another except the construction of our physical body (which can be deformed to include the brain organ--an automatic individuality). Humans are individualistic. It is the only species that does not have sub-species. Humans are more linked by a long, lateral chain than the pyramids and branches of other species. No two humans are alike.
Actually, we do. Or would, if biologists applied the same criteria to homo sapiens for distinguishing sub-species as they do to other animals.
Should we be equal, then, is asking if we should all have the same qualities/quantities of life. We should all be equal in the foundation of human needs, Pavlov's Hierarchy of Human Needs. It begins with meeting our physiological needs (food, water, breathing, sex, physical health and excretion); second, safety; third, love/belonging; fourth, esteem; last, self-actualization. Humans don't even come near to the first foundational step, much less the rest.
As Nozick observed, "While there is no shortage of presumptions in favor of [material] equality, there is a surprising dearth of arguments supporting that presumption."
It is literally impossible to have equal human beings. Genetics are solo and the biggest difference is the circumstance we are born into which is completely out of our control.
That fact doesn't deter ideological (or philosophical) egalitarians.
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 1149
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Should all Humans be Equal?

Post by Sushan »

GE Morton wrote: December 8th, 2021, 2:13 pm
LuckyR wrote: December 8th, 2021, 1:55 pm
Opportunities are rarely given, but they are commonly taken away or limited.

You seem to be unfamiliar with the common practice of giving jobs to inferior family members. As well as "red lining" in the real estate market.
Oh, I agree. But removing those impediments will get you nowhere close to equalizing opportunity. Since the factors I mentioned cannot be equalized, the opportunities which ensue from them can't either.
People are inherently different, yes, I agree. So they present different skills and are given different opportunities. But the criteria that are used to asses people have to be changed. If a fish is assesed for it's ability in climbing trees it will definitely fail (I think this was said by Einstein). I think this is what happens in the society. Many people do not get opportunities not because they lack of skills, but are assesed unfairly. Today we do not name people as 'disabled', but as 'differently abled' for the same reason.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 1149
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Should all Humans be Equal?

Post by Sushan »

GE Morton wrote: December 9th, 2021, 12:59 am
Sushan wrote: December 8th, 2021, 10:32 pm
Mao's concepts were good, though there were many issues and people faced hardhships when they were practically applied.
Hardships? Yes, such as those suffered by the 76,000,000 murdered by his regime.

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
But I am not fully agreeing with the concept of open economy. A country has to produce what they can, and only import what they cannot produce but necessary.
Well, first, "countries" don't produce anything. People within the country do, and whether they import something or not depends only on the price. If a foreign producer produces X cheaper than domestic producers, the buyer will choose the import. Similarly, they will sell their products wherever they can get the best price.

[quoteI do not think China fully opened their country to a free market. They still keep a good control over the imported goods. Otherwise many will just import things since it is relatively easy, but it will ultimately downgrade the economy, which has not happened in China.
Oh, China certainly is not a free economy. But it has repudiated the Marxist dogma of state ownership of "the means of production" and allowed private entrepreneurs to flourish and make a profit. And while it imposes a number of restrictions and controls on business, the regulatory and tax burdens there are less costly than in the US.
[/quote]

Different countries can have different practices regarding economical growth. India has a large population and the labour cost is pretty low there. So, many producers go there for their productions to make the production cost less. But China has not allowed foreign companies to freely get into their country and business. Yes, they have allowed private entrepreneurs to flourish, but these entrepreneurs are not foreigners but their own people. So collectively many of their own people are the ones who support the growth of their economy. Marxist dogma can be too much. But, in my opinion, the control that China keeps on what comes into their country and what goes out from it is quite necessary to keep a stable economy.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 1149
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Should all Humans be Equal?

Post by Sushan »

GE Morton wrote: December 9th, 2021, 1:06 am
Sushan wrote: December 9th, 2021, 12:18 am But when the employees are chosen that will depend on the qualities that you mentioned. But if the 'big goal person' decided to do all the tasks by himself, there won't be any job opportunities.
Of course there will, because doing it all oneself is inefficient, and your "big goal person" would quickly be out-competed by larger firms taking advantage of economies of scale.
Involving more and more people is always good in growth. A single person can do much less than what a group can do. But at the same time it is not easy to manage a set of people. It is always easy to work alone than work as a group because people are different. Different people think differently and act differently, and most importantly agree to different things. So there will be many issues. Efficiency can be increased as well as decreased when many heads are involved. Too many cooks can spoil the soup.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 1149
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Should all Humans be Equal?

Post by Sushan »

LuckyR wrote: December 9th, 2021, 1:50 am
GE Morton wrote: December 8th, 2021, 2:13 pm
LuckyR wrote: December 8th, 2021, 1:55 pm
Opportunities are rarely given, but they are commonly taken away or limited.

You seem to be unfamiliar with the common practice of giving jobs to inferior family members. As well as "red lining" in the real estate market.
Oh, I agree. But removing those impediments will get you nowhere close to equalizing opportunity. Since the factors I mentioned cannot be equalized, the opportunities which ensue from them can't either.
You are correct because you are addressing reality (true equality/fairness in opportunity cannot exist), whereas most are addressing the desirable goal that opportunity should be equal.

By the same token, let's see if you would apply the same "so what?" attitude on discrimination when it comes to "reverse discrimination".
I agree. People remain calm and silent until they are not the victims of discrimination. But when it comes to their doorstep they do all sorts of things to fight against it. But the sad reality is many who defend themselves against discrimination successfully tend to forget what they experienced when someone else becomes the victim. Once again the privileged one remains calm and quite letting the other to suffer. But at the same time there are people and organizations who try to help such discriminated souls expecting no gain in return. All these kinds of people exit on earth. Humans are so difficult to understand.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
GE Morton
Posts: 3988
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Should all Humans be Equal?

Post by GE Morton »

Sushan wrote: December 25th, 2021, 10:19 pm
People are inherently different, yes, I agree. So they present different skills and are given different opportunities. But the criteria that are used to asses people have to be changed. If a fish is assesed for it's ability in climbing trees it will definitely fail (I think this was said by Einstein). I think this is what happens in the society. Many people do not get opportunities not because they lack of skills, but are assesed unfairly.
Well, no. Your analogy is inapt. Being labeled "disabled" doesn't mean "unable to do things of which no humans are capable," as per your fish. It means, "Unable to do things of which most people are easily capable." The criteria are possessing the ability to do some particular thing, and it doesn't need to be changed. A person is not assessed "unfairly" if he is not hired because he is unable, for any reason, to do a job someone is seeking to fill. That is a paradigm of a "fair" criterion.
Today we do not name people as 'disabled', but as 'differently abled' for the same reason.
Only if we've bought into "politically correct" silliness and indulge in its abuse of language. The prefix "dis-" denotes negation, like "un-". It means lacking, or "non-". To say someone is disabled is to say he lacks some ability most people possess; not that he has "different" abilities than they do. He does not.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 5005
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Should all Humans be Equal?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

GE Morton wrote: December 26th, 2021, 1:00 am To say someone is disabled is to say he lacks some ability most people possess; not that he has "different" abilities than they do. He does not.
I am autistic, which is commonly described as a 'disability'. But I do have one or two abilities that most neurotypical people don't, just as I don't have one or two abilities that NTs do.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
GE Morton
Posts: 3988
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Should all Humans be Equal?

Post by GE Morton »

Pattern-chaser wrote: December 27th, 2021, 12:28 pm
I am autistic, which is commonly described as a 'disability'. But I do have one or two abilities that most neurotypical people don't . . .
That's interesting. What would those be?
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 1149
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Should all Humans be Equal?

Post by Sushan »

Pattern-chaser wrote: December 9th, 2021, 6:37 am
Sushan wrote: December 8th, 2021, 10:15 pm Resources are finite, I agree. But the question is "are they adequate for everyone?". Seemingly it is not so. Population is rising each day, but the amount of resources go in the opposite direction. So if the resources have to be divided equally, day by day the amount that each person gets will be reduced, which is not acceptable.
Oh, dear me. Whatever shall we do? Reality is "unacceptable". 😮🙄


Sushan wrote: December 8th, 2021, 10:15 pm Will anyone just stay calm and quite when his/her comforts are taken away? If a company announce that they have to reduce the salary of the employs because they employed some more, will the workers just accept it and stay calm?
Well, they have so far. When the billionaire wage-slave owners need another ocean-going yacht, they just sack their workers, and re-hire them at a lower wage. It seems to work, if empirical observation is, er, "acceptable"? Let's remember that (much) less than 100 individuals 'own' and control more than half of all the wealth that exists. It's certainly not "equality", in the words of the topic title, but it is reality.

So where do we go from here?
People fight against capitalism because what you mentioned are direct results of capitalist economy. A socialistic economy will ensure a central control over what people have and it will avoid only a few being rich while the majority remain poor. But the reality which is difficult to understand is people not tolerating socialistic economy for a long period. Seemingly people crave for equality when they are poor, but when they have something, then they yearn for more and socialism becomes disgusting to them.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 1149
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Should all Humans be Equal?

Post by Sushan »

Sculptor1 wrote: December 9th, 2021, 6:38 am Discussions on this topic always decend into the same confusion.
Those that say yes are talking about equality under the law, equality of opportunity, equality across gender and ethnicity for consideration for jobs and wages.
Those that detract, rather predictably insist that we are no born equal in that we vary in size, capacity, strength, gender, race, and a whole host of other ways. And so equality is impossible.
I submit that the detractors argument is hopeless and empty. headed.

The yea sayers to the proposition often miss the changing of the goal posts, and fail to call out the nay sayers objections.

"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal". Do the nay sayers think that the people that signed that statement were idiots? That they had not noticed that people are different?
I submit that the highest aims and motives to provide all persons with an equal chance at life were formulated on the day of the signing, and that this initial aim, a basis to the creation of an entire nation has never seriously been implimented.

And those that harp on about America's greatness are those most likely to line up to reject that statement.
The richest country in the world is the one whose disparity of wealth and privalege; whose inequality of opportunity, is most marked.
Seemingly that declaration has not been fully accepted or implemented from the very beginning. Many who were pioneered in making that declaration and those who signed owned slaves. This so called equality was never implemented on slaves. So the motives of its creators are unclear. And they have included the word 'men' rather than using the term 'humans'. Seemingly they have excluded women also from their equality. Maybe that was just a set of words to give some beauty and value to the declaration. Many who speak about equality have many other intentions rather than achieving true equality.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 5005
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Should all Humans be Equal?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: December 27th, 2021, 12:28 pm
I am autistic, which is commonly described as a 'disability'. But I do have one or two abilities that most neurotypical people don't . . .
GE Morton wrote: December 27th, 2021, 12:33 pm That's interesting. What would those be?
🙃

I don't have super-powers, even though we autists sometimes refer to our different abilities, in fun, as our 'super-powers'. I am not aware of being able to do anything that neurotypical people can't do ... but there are some things that I do in a different way, perhaps a more, er, efficient (?), way. These things are difficult to talk about, as there are no words for them. Just as there are no words for some of the sensations I feel due to MS, from nerves that are damaged, but still passing some sort of signal. The part-corrupted nerve-messages give rise to some ... interesting sensations. There are no words because only a tiny proportion of us have any need for them.

Nevertheless, it is the case that I can do a few things that most neurotypical people don't seem to do. It balances (?) the things that you can all do, that I can't, I suppose? Not all aspects of 'disability' are negative ... only most of them. 😉
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 5005
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Should all Humans be Equal?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Sushan wrote: December 28th, 2021, 5:20 am People fight against capitalism because what you mentioned are direct results of capitalist economy. A socialistic economy will ensure a central control over what people have and it will avoid only a few being rich while the majority remain poor. But the reality which is difficult to understand is people not tolerating socialistic economy for a long period. Seemingly people crave for equality when they are poor, but when they have something, then they yearn for more and socialism becomes disgusting to them.
The problem with what you describe is one of extremes. On the one hand, we have the extreme Capitalist consequence of too few owning too much. But the opposite, where all individuality is suppressed in favour of a tyrannical 'collective' - "central control" - is equally bad. The solution, if it can ever be achieved in practice, is a middle way, where neither the individual nor the community is able to dominate or suppress the other. Being in the middle, of itself, confers no obvious benefit; its benefit is that both extremes are avoided, which is a fundamental and far-reaching benefit.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 5293
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Should all Humans be Equal?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Sushan wrote: December 28th, 2021, 5:32 am
Sculptor1 wrote: December 9th, 2021, 6:38 am Discussions on this topic always decend into the same confusion.
Those that say yes are talking about equality under the law, equality of opportunity, equality across gender and ethnicity for consideration for jobs and wages.
Those that detract, rather predictably insist that we are no born equal in that we vary in size, capacity, strength, gender, race, and a whole host of other ways. And so equality is impossible.
I submit that the detractors argument is hopeless and empty. headed.

The yea sayers to the proposition often miss the changing of the goal posts, and fail to call out the nay sayers objections.

"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal". Do the nay sayers think that the people that signed that statement were idiots? That they had not noticed that people are different?
I submit that the highest aims and motives to provide all persons with an equal chance at life were formulated on the day of the signing, and that this initial aim, a basis to the creation of an entire nation has never seriously been implimented.

And those that harp on about America's greatness are those most likely to line up to reject that statement.
The richest country in the world is the one whose disparity of wealth and privalege; whose inequality of opportunity, is most marked.
Seemingly that declaration has not been fully accepted or implemented from the very beginning. Many who were pioneered in making that declaration and those who signed owned slaves. This so called equality was never implemented on slaves. So the motives of its creators are unclear. And they have included the word 'men' rather than using the term 'humans'. Seemingly they have excluded women also from their equality. Maybe that was just a set of words to give some beauty and value to the declaration. Many who speak about equality have many other intentions rather than achieving true equality.
Indeed.
The best intentions have only been bestowed upon the men with the wealth and power to mobilise thier resources suckered from those without.
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 1149
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Should all Humans be Equal?

Post by Sushan »

GE Morton wrote: December 9th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: December 9th, 2021, 6:38 am
Those that detract, rather predictably insist that we are no born equal in that we vary in size, capacity, strength, gender, race, and a whole host of other ways. And so equality is impossible.

I submit that the detractors argument is hopeless and empty. headed.
But is it false? You don't refute it with pejoratives and name-calling.
"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal". Do the nay sayers think that the people that signed that statement were idiots? That they had not noticed that people are different?
I submit that the highest aims and motives to provide all persons with an equal chance at life were formulated on the day of the signing, and that this initial aim, a basis to the creation of an entire nation has never seriously been implimented.
Well, your "submission" there is quite mistaken. Jefferson's statement had nothing whatever to do with "providing all persons with an equal chance at life," in the sense of equal opportunities to prosper. Jefferson, and every other classical liberal philosopher of that era, were far too smart to have entertained such an absurd notion. The statement merely means that all persons have equal status as moral agents, and equally entitled to live their lives as they choose; i.e., to pursue happiness as they conceive it, without interference from other people. He amplified upon that in his First Inaugural Address:

" . . . with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens -- a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jefinau1.asp

Which shall restrain men from injuring one another. NOT to "provide everyone with equal chances at life."
Seemingly Mao and Jefferson had different views on equality. And Jefferson's one is more practical. But whatever came out from his mouth or written down in the declaration were either mere words, or the Black ppeople were not considered as humans. Maybe that is why they kept slaves for themselves while expressing such high attitudes towards humanity and their own people. And, did the government prevent men from harming others? I don't think so. If someone says otherwise, then the slaves should have been some other kind of species.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 12782
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Should all Humans be Equal?

Post by Sy Borg »

Sushan wrote: December 28th, 2021, 10:41 pm
GE Morton wrote: December 9th, 2021, 11:27 pm He amplified upon that in his First Inaugural Address:

" . . . with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens -- a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jefinau1.asp

Which shall restrain men from injuring one another. NOT to "provide everyone with equal chances at life."
Seemingly Mao and Jefferson had different views on equality. And Jefferson's one is more practical. But whatever came out from his mouth or written down in the declaration were either mere words, or the Black people were not considered as humans. Maybe that is why they kept slaves for themselves while expressing such high attitudes towards humanity and their own people. And, did the government prevent men from harming others? I don't think so. If someone says otherwise, then the slaves should have been some other kind of species.
The word "United" was put into the USA's name by the winners of the Civil War to hammer home that the war was over and they had decided that the confederate states would come under their administration. The confederate states were defeated but still harboured the resentment that those who suffer losses in war so often do. In Afghanistan, the Taliban did not go away while American troops dominated but waited their time. So too, it seems, have the confederate states.

Plenty of US administrations have encouraged egalitarianism, but the ideas have only interested about half the population, and not cleanly across blue and red lines. With mass communication, "tribal" affiliations form based on ideology rather geography. Also thanks to the manipulation of mass/social media, ever more poor people are voting for the parties that are most antithetical towards them, making election forecasts ever more difficult.

As populations grow, voters (if permitted to do so) will increasingly be forced to choose between a society based on security, order and control or one based on risk, chaos and freedom. The two poles are, to some extent, illustrated in the historically different approaches to overpopulation by China and India respectively, although the latter is leaning more towards authoritarianism in recent years under Modi.
Post Reply

Return to “A Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir by Dr.Ghoulem Berrah”

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021