Equality

[Flannel Jesus]

well, naive and sloppy theories of value aren't doing your case any favors. you keep making the same mistakes, and you're still wrong for the same reasons.

if you want to know why a candy bar costs 1.12 in a store instead of, say, 1.14:

the answer is not that the candy bar is worth 1.12. the answer is usually that the people selling it think they'll make more selling it at 1.12. that's a function of supply and demand, NOT a function of context-less "value." some people value the candy bar more than 1.12. some value the 1.12 more than the candy bar. the value is a fact about the people who are or are not buying it, not a fact about the candy bar itself. the only fact you can say about the candy bar is that it's sold at the price of 1.12. not that it's worth 1.12. it's an important distinction to make if you want to have any clarity talking about value in relation to price and trade.

[uglypeoplefucking]

well, naive and sloppy theories of value aren't doing your case any favors. you keep making the same mistakes, and you're still wrong for the same reasons.

if you want to know why a candy bar costs 1.12 in a store instead of, say, 1.14:

the answer is not that the candy bar is worth 1.12. the answer is usually that the people selling it think they'll make more selling it at 1.12. that's a function of supply and demand, NOT a function of context-less "value." some people value the candy bar more than 1.12. some value the 1.12 more than the candy bar. the value is a fact about the people who are or are not buying it, not a fact about the candy bar itself. the only fact you can say about the candy bar is that it's sold at the price of 1.12. not that it's worth 1.12. it's an important distinction to make if you want to have any clarity talking about value in relation to price and trade.

that has little or nothing to do with what i'm saying. you throw out supply and demand as though i had asserted anything that contradicted it, which i didn't. and i'm not even coming close to talking about 2 cent differences in the price of candy bars. are you seriously suggesting that i am wrong when i assert that things (including retail merchandise) can have a value independent of what they are worth to me as an individual?

and i never said value was context-less, nor does anything i DID say require value to be context-less. in fact, i'm discussing value in very specific context - the social one - you keep bringing it back to the individual, as if there were only one person doing in the world doing the valuing.

[Flannel Jesus]

are you seriously suggesting that i am wrong when i assert that things (including retail merchandise) can have a value independent of what they are worth to me as an individual?

no, YOU'RE suggesting that, every time you reject the idea that value is objective or inherent. if it's not objective, and it's not subjective, then what the hell do you mean when you say "things have value." they have them? the thing has the value? your language suggests intrinsic value, but you don't accept that things have intrinsic value, so I'm reasonably confused. if they have value, in what sense do they have value? it's clearly not intrinsic or objective, and it's clearly not subjective, so what is it?

[uglypeoplefucking]

however, i don't think the assertion that people are equal requires value to be intrinsic.

On the contrary, it's because value isn't intrinsic that people are equal. There is no way to establish value objectively; therefore we are all equal in that way.

i agree. in at least that way, and probably many others.

[Uccisore]

I don't see a lot of coherence in talk about human worth without a discussion of who's doing the valuing and to what ends. You've got equality of opportunity, equality of outcome, equality of moral worth, all kinds of different ways to look at it, which may or may not apply to a given situation. Because of politics, it's just hard to pull much use out of these kinds of generalities.

I'd like to say "Everybody is equal" when confronted with a genocidal tyrant. But I know that if I say it, somebody is going to twist it around into an argument for why the Government should pay for everybody's groceries, or open borders, or some other crap that's only tangentially related. Rights are the same way. I ran into somebody who argued that a video game requiring an internet log-on to verify the person had a unique copy was a violation of their 'basic human liberties'. What the hell is talk of basic human liberties even good for if it's acceptable to use it in such a way?

If there's any confusion about human equality, and people getting exasperated enough to deny it, it's because nobody is clear what such proclamations really justify anymore. Quick- does 'every human has equal rights' justify abortion or condemn it?

[uglypeoplefucking]

are you seriously suggesting that i am wrong when i assert that things (including retail merchandise) can have a value independent of what they are worth to me as an individual?

no, YOU'RE suggesting that, every time you reject the idea that value is objective or inherent. if it's not objective, and it's not subjective, then what the hell do you mean when you say "things have value." they have them? the thing has the value? your language suggests intrinsic value, but you don't accept that things have intrinsic value, so I'm reasonably confused. if they have value, in what sense do they have value? it's clearly not intrinsic or objective, and it's clearly not subjective, so what is it?

i thought you might be objecting to the idea that things have value, but i wasn't sure. we could get into the semantics of the word "have" but . . . i really don't want to. when i say something HAS value all i'm saying is it has the value people give to it. that's not intrinsic value, it's assigned. by people. lots and lots of people. in tandem. in fact, SO many people that how much you as an individual might value an item like a candy bar usually has a nearly negligable effect on what that item is worth. and when i talk about "worth" i mean the value something "has" (re: the going market rate or whathaveyou), as distinct from how much you or i may value it.

[Flannel Jesus]

so, let's try to be more clear: the value something "has" is the average value that all the people give it?

you know what, nevermind, this thread is so convoluted and nonsensical, I'm backing out. by using value in that way, you're pretty much certainly guilty of equivocation in the rest of your thoughts on this issue. i don't like wading through this muck.

and also, I'm pretty certain that if the above post is your standard for what value things have, people will not all have the same value. if you were trying to find the market price of each person if you were somehow able to sell them, I can pretty much guarantee that some will sell at a much higher price than others. so, if this is the direction you want to take...well, it's inconsistent with your assertion of equal value of all people.

OH and Ucc made a pretty good post up there, woot woot

[Moreno]

Instead of value, rights, perhaps.

[uglypeoplefucking]

so, let's try to be more clear: the value something "has" is the average value that all the people give it?

it's not math, so it's not an "average", but yeah, people basically attribute value to things by agreeing upon what they're worth. the result is that, as a manner of speaking, we say things "have" value. i don't understand your shock and revulsion at this. or how it is inconsistent with anything else i have said. or wtf your problem with it is other than you don't like the notion that people should be treated as equals.

you know what, nevermind, this thread is so convoluted and nonsensical, I'm backing out. by using value in that way, you're pretty much certainly guilty of equivocation in the rest of your thoughts on this issue. i don't like wading through this muck.

well forgive me for wasting what is obviously your precious time, and perhaps smearing the ink of the black and white, dichotomatic world you seem to find more suited to your own ideas.

i wonder what way you would suggest i use value, so as not to be guilty of equivocation?

and also, I'm pretty certain that if the above post is your standard for what value things have, people will not all have the same value. if you were trying to find the market price of each person if you were somehow able to sell them, I can pretty much guarantee that some will sell at a much higher price than others. so, if this is the direction you want to take...well, it's inconsistent with your assertion of equal value of all people.

the market analogy is just to explain how a thing can have value independent of its value to a particular person. the point being that there are many people attributing values to things, so we can say that a thing "has" value even if you or i don't personally value it.

is that equivocating? cause it's pretty simple and it's not the first time i've said it . . .

[fuse]

people are of equal value (notice the "are" there -- the equal value is a property of the people themselves, as opposed to "people are of equal value to me." hence the intrinsic application)
-- BUT they're not of equal value to me (he said this later)
-- AND the value isn't intrinsic or objective (he also said this)

so then the question still remains -- people are of equal value? Not to me, not to you, not objectively, not intrinsically -- if it's not true subjectively and it's not true objectively, then it what sense is it true?

I like that we are both very keen about language and clarity.
There is toying with semantics and there is serious semantic analysis, but most people don't seem to be able to tell the difference and take all semantics to be obscurantist word games.

[fuse]

Intersubjectivity is an interesting but tricky word that has all the same potential for over-saturation that its infamous siblings objectivity and subjectivity already enjoy. I am actually really interested in the idea of intersubjectivity, but it is because I value the concept that I wish to scrutinize its application and preserve the acute scope of its meaning.

the fact remains we live in a system where things have value independent of what any one particular individual happens to place importance on. because value can be determined collectively

When people agree to a transaction, there are trade-offs and compromises and non-intersubjective subjective reasons for the trade. It's not as if the agreeing parties see 100% eye to eye the same value in the things being traded. The actual value people see in things is not given by what they end up paying for them. Value might be thought of as a collective phenomenon, and such a view has merit, but I will take a strong stand that valuation is primarily an individual phenomenon, and a collective phenomenon second. Even if many people have remarkably close ideas about a thing's value, and - I'll go further - even if a person's valuations develop in intimate relation to his culture and social environment, interpretations of intersubjective value are still generalized conclusions of original and constituent valuations.

The assertion that people are of equal value is a default position, a practical one, as Anon is pointing out, and as i have tried to point out several times - it does not require that we as individuals value everyone equally, anymore than the fact that an item in the store is worth $50 demands that i personally value it enough to actually pay the $50 that it is worth.

Okay, awesome, so you're not claiming people are in fact of equal value (though that is what you have almost verbatim written in previous posts), you're arguing for equal value as a conditional credit people should extend to one another for the purpose of social cohesion. A much weaker and less provocative position.

Perhaps a helpful distinction to draw would be between a thing's value to you personally, and it's predetermined, intersubjective value, as reflected, for example, in the average prices of various types of merchandise

Yes. It is an important distinction to keep in mind.

Look, I tend to agree with Hamlet about these matters: There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.
In certain respects, thinking people to be equal is probably good, but in other respects it's either not true or not practical to think of people as equal. I'm sure we can agree on this. If you wish to push a more specific claim about the respect in which people should think of each other as equal, by all means, do so.

[anon]

...things have value independent of what any one particular individual happens to place importance on.

Things like value don't have to be either wholly subjective or wholly objective in order to exist.

Well put.

I think I'd even say that everyone and everything has intrinsic value. And if someone said "to who?", I'd say no, you've got the wrong end of the stick. And if that's nonsense to them, I'm sure there's probably nothing more I can say. Maybe they'll discover something like it for themselves one day.

I've always liked the Taoist parable of the useless tree. A version and some commentary can be found here. (The website seems kind of cheesy to me, but the content is fine.)

[uglypeoplefucking]

When people agree to a transaction, there are trade-offs and compromises and non-intersubjective subjective reasons for the trade. It's not as if the agreeing parties see 100% eye to eye the same value in the things being traded. The actual value people see in things is not given by what they end up paying for them. Value might be thought of as a collective phenomenon, and such a view has merit, but I will take a strong stand that valuation is primarily an individual phenomenon, and a collective phenomenon second. Even if many people have remarkably close ideas about a thing's value, and - I'll go further - even if a person's valuations develop in intimate relation to his culture and social environment, interpretations of intersubjective value are still generalized conclusions of original and constituent valuations.

That's true, but it's just a different way of framing it. At least as i see it, its the culture and social environment that is responsible for producing all the original, constituent variations.

The assertion that people are of equal value is a default position, a practical one, as Anon is pointing out, and as i have tried to point out several times - it does not require that we as individuals value everyone equally, anymore than the fact that an item in the store is worth $50 demands that i personally value it enough to actually pay the $50 that it is worth.

Okay, awesome, so you're not claiming people are in fact of equal value (though that is what you have almost verbatim written in previous posts), you're arguing for equal value as a conditional credit people should extend to one another for the purpose of social cohesion. A much weaker and less provocative position.

It's all the same thing to my mind - if it works for social cohesion to treat people as equal, then they are equal (at least for social purposes), it's not as if there is anyone other than the society itself that does the valuing in this context - unless you want to say that God is judging, which i don't.

Look, I tend to agree with Hamlet about these matters: There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.
In certain respects, thinking people to be equal is probably good, but in other respects it's either not true or not practical to think of people as equal. I'm sure we can agree on this. If you wish to push a more specific claim about the respect in which people should think of each other as equal, by all means, do so.

Sure i can agree to that. If you're trying to put together an all star sports team, you're not going to get anywhere viewing everybody as equal. But, as i said to Tab, when we start determining what rights everyone does and doesn't have, and who should be subject to what laws, and so forth, i would argue (and you're right that it's not a very provocative position, though that doesn't prevent people from challenging it) that society functions a lot better for everyone if people are considered equals.

[Tab]

Anon's useless tree.

A carpenter called Shih was on his way to the state of Chi accompanied by an apprentice. When they arrived at Chu Yuan, they rested under a huge tree that overshadowed the village shrine. The tree spread a wide canopy of branches and towered as high as a hill. The apprentice was impressed.

"Master," he exclaimed, "never since I took up my axe and followed you, have I set eyes on more tempting timber. Why don't you even look at it?"

"Shut up!", Shih replied. "This tree is useless. The branches are gnarled and twisted; they won't do for beams or rafters. The trunk is curved and knotted; it can't be used for coffins. Look at its wood: it's all worthless timber. A boat made of it would sink, a coffin would rot, a tool would split, a door would ooze sap and a beam would have woodworm. That's why it has been left alone, because it's useless."

That night the sacred tree appeared to Shih in a dream. "Why are you belittling me?", it cried. "Are you comparing me to so called useful trees? Have you never noticed what happens to them? Apple, pear, orange and other fruit trees are stripped bare at harvest. They are pruned or cut down when they don't produce; all because they are 'useful'. And what about catalpa, cypress and mulberry trees? As soon as they reach maturity, they are sawn into planks, beams and boards. You see, if you're useful you attract attention. I've been trying for a long time to be useless. Once or twice an axe was laid to me, but being useless saved me. Could I ever have grown so large, if I had been useful?"

When the carpenter remained speechless, the gnarled tree continued with even greater scorn. "You and I are both things. How can one thing presume to judge another thing? What does a fallible and useless man like you know about a useless tree?"

Shih woke up and began to reflect on the meaning of his dream. When he narrated the dream to his apprentice, the latter said: "If the tree really wants to be useless, why does it overshadow the shrine?"

"Good gracious! You are right", Shih exclaimed. "It's only pretending to be useless. No one will dare to cut it down because it is a sacred tree. That's how it protects itself. We must look at it from a different point of view.'' (Chuang Tzu, 4.11)

The story deliberately baffles us. A giant tree proves to be useless. We then realize how useful this uselessness is. Finally we discover it has some use, after all. The point is not only to make us discover that everything is relative; that much depends on the angle from which we view things. The Chinese master wants us to feel the "swing" from one extreme to the other; as from usefulness to uselessness, and vice versa.

For life is an endless chain of such "swings". The one undeniable observation we cannot miss is that everything we know changes: from life to death, and from death to life; from fame to disrepute, and from disrepute to fame; from weakness to power, and from power to weakness. An insignificant seed grows to be a strong tree, then succumbs to the axe. A promising sapling is struck by lightning but turns out to outlive all other trees in its patch of forest.

Public service.

And if someone said "to who?" [speaking of intrinsic value], I'd say no, you've got the wrong end of the stick.

To who..?

[Tab]

trying to make blanket statements about equality is, I dunno, a waste of time..?

it depends. if you're trying to determine who's a better basketball player, then yeah, but if you're trying to determine what rights everyone should have, then i think it's something that has to be considered.

Okay, sorry for not being constructive UPF.

It's just the whole idea of equal rights kills me.

Let's take "freedom of expression" for example. Imagine I walk out on an open plain. Before me is a row of people.

One of them's just like me. To his left, there's woman with no mouth to speak with. To her left, is a man with no arms, no fingers to write with. To his left, there's a man with no face to emote with. To his left, there's a retarded man, with no concept of language. Ad infinitum. I say to them: "You all have the right of freedom of expression." Who cheers loudest..?

A Right is to some extent, an advantage, an empowerment. But it is useless unless you have the ability to exercise it.

How many homeless people have the right to own their own homes..? All of them, but what difference does that make..?

Quick- does 'every human has equal rights' justify abortion or condemn it?

Lol. The answer doesn't matter. But which of the two people involved - the mother and the fetus - has the capability to exercise those 'equal' rights..?

[Arcturus Descending]

So why this philosophical/ideological resistance to the idea that people ought be treated as equal?

Maybe because most of us have tunnel vision. We are just not capable of seeing outside the parameters of appearance or what we see/perceive as value. We do not take in the entire picture, which if we had the intelligence and consciousness to realize, would be an impossibility - which includes possibilities, future opportunities, if given, historical backgrounds, the whole psychological and emotional journey, etc. of that person. Perhaps our brain matter and consciousness hasn't evolved enough. We judge by appearances alone and we value only what we see before us on the surface. We are not capable of digging deeply enough into that other human and of seeing him/her as another self, relating to him/her on the same level - out of conscious or subconscious fear that we may become the subjective less that we see in them. We place a judgment of inequality on them because our own self-esteem, or rather lack of it, ego, arrogance, is far too weak and our fear too strong, to see that that Man or Woman might have been us or might become us or rather than we might become them.

We can't even see far enough past our own noses - we need to look away or to run away - to realize the hidden value, meaning, self-awareness and consciousness that that life we're looking at might bring to us about our own selves and life. We see ugliness where perhaps there are gifts being bestowed on us if we would just take the time to recognize a human being as ourselves.

[anon]

Public service.

Thanks, Tab.

And if someone said "to who?" [speaking of intrinsic value], I'd say no, you've got the wrong end of the stick.

To who..?

Yes, it's a dog eat dog world. But it's also a world where if we assume that each dog has intrinsic value, we relate to the world differently. We might even flourish a bit. This doesn't mean we have to have to be communists or even the janitor has to have his turn to speak up at the board meeting, or whatever everyone is so afraid of. It just doesn't mean that. That's not what's being discussed. Shih's apprentice could have cut down the tree, assuming he had the power to do so.

[uglypeoplefucking]

Quick- does 'every human has equal rights' justify abortion or condemn it?

the notion of equal rights is not intended to resolve every moral dilemma people might face. that there is no correct answer to your question really isn't a strike against the idea of equal rights. it's just a testament to the many ethical ambiguities surrounding the issue of abortion.

[anon]

So why this philosophical/ideological resistance to the idea that people ought be treated as equal?

Maybe because most of us have tunnel vision. We are just not capable of seeing outside the parameters of appearance or what we see/perceive as value. We do not take in the entire picture, which if we had the intelligence and consciousness to realize, would be an impossibility - which includes possibilities, future opportunities, if given, historical backgrounds, the whole psychological and emotional journey, etc. of that person. Perhaps our brain matter and consciousness hasn't evolved enough. We judge by appearances alone and we value only what we see before us on the surface. We are not capable of digging deeply enough into that other human and of seeing him/her as another self, relating to him/her on the same level - out of conscious or subconscious fear that we may become the subjective less that we see in them. We place a judgment of inequality on them because our own self-esteem, or rather lack of it, ego, arrogance, is far too weak and our fear too strong, to see that that Man or Woman might have been us or might become us or rather than we might become them.

We can't even see far enough past our own noses - we need to look away or to run away - to realize the hidden value, meaning, self-awareness and consciousness that that life we're looking at might bring to us about our own selves and life. We see ugliness where perhaps there are gifts being bestowed on us if we would just take the time to recognize a human being as ourselves.

Well said, Arc.

[uglypeoplefucking]

Instead of value, rights, perhaps.

well that's the next logical extension, certainly. but i don't think any "insteads" are necessarry.

[uglypeoplefucking]

Okay, sorry for not being constructive UPF.

whatever, funny is constructive in its own way. i'm more equalitarian - i liked that.

It's just the whole idea of equal rights kills me.

Let's take "freedom of expression" for example. Imagine I walk out on an open plain. Before me is a row of people.

One of them's just like me. To his left, there's woman with no mouth to speak with. To her left, is a man with no arms, no fingers to write with. To his left, there's a man with no face to emote with. To his left, there's a retarded man, with no concept of language. Ad infinitum. I say to them: "You all have the right of freedom of expression." Who cheers loudest..?

A Right is to some extent, an advantage, an empowerment. But it is useless unless you have the ability to exercise it.

How many homeless people have the right to own their own homes..? All of them, but what difference does that make..?

sure, that's the thing about rights, they don't solve all life's problems, or remove all the obstacles, or even equally benefit everyone - but they're still good to have.

[Tab]

Hey UPF - here's a list of universal human rights:

Article 1 Right to Equality
Article 2 Freedom from Discrimination
Article 3 Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security
Article 4 Freedom from Slavery
Article 5 Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment
Article 6 Right to Recognition as a Person before the Law
Article 7 Right to Equality before the Law
Article 8 Right to Remedy by Competent Tribunal
Article 9 Freedom from Arbitrary Arrest and Exile
Article 10 Right to Fair Public Hearing
Article 11 Right to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty
Article 12 Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
Article 13 Right to Free Movement in and out of the Country
Article 14 Right to Asylum in other Countries from Persecution
Article 15 Right to a Nationality and the Freedom to Change It
Article 16 Right to Marriage and Family
Article 17 Right to Own Property
Article 18 Freedom of Belief and Religion
Article 19 Freedom of Opinion and Information
Article 20 Right of Peaceful Assembly and Association
Article 21 Right to Participate in Government and in Free Elections
Article 22 Right to Social Security
Article 23 Right to Desirable Work and to Join Trade Unions
Article 24 Right to Rest and Leisure
Article 25 Right to Adequate Living Standard
Article 26 Right to Education
Article 27 Right to Participate in the Cultural Life of Community
Article 28 Right to a Social Order that Articulates this Document
Article 29 Community Duties Essential to Free and Full Development
Article 30 Freedom from State or Personal Interference in the above Rights

I bolded a few I think have problems. What do you think..?

[uglypeoplefucking]

hmm . . . i guess as a denizen of philosophy messageboards, my first response is "define this term", or "define that term" . . . a lot seem pretty vague and/or ambiguous taken outside of any specific context

and, sure, i can imagine various practical problems inovolved with instituting and enforcing a lot of those

but i'm not entirely certain what you are getting at or why you highlighted the ones you did . . . ?

let's take one of the more basic ones you bolded:

Right to equality before the law

seems to me, this is at the core of good governance - i suppose the basic spirit of the right is that the law ought not be designed in such a way that it actively favors one group of people over another - sure laws will not benefit everyone equally - there will always be differences in outcome when people face different circumstances, but it shouldn't be the business of law to promote the interests well-being of some people under that law over, or at the expense of, other people under that law.

now, obviously the right to equality before the law is not a magic bullet that, if agreed to, will make every system of laws perfectly fair and even-handed, but to my mind it's a reasonable and even necessarry legislative principle for societies that aspire to be free(ish)

[Uccisore]

We can't even see far enough past our own noses - we need to look away or to run away - to realize the hidden value, meaning, self-awareness and consciousness that that life we're looking at might bring to us about our own selves and life. We see ugliness where perhaps there are gifts being bestowed on us if we would just take the time to recognize a human being as ourselves.

But YOU can see past your own nose, YOU've managed to realize these things- or else you wouldn't have been able to think of the above. So when you say 'the human race is like this', what you really mean is, "The human race, with the exception of a me and a few other super exceptional people, is like this".

It's just base elitism. Why don't you say what you think, instead of saying what you think with the grandstanding about how sad it is that most people in the world aren't sophisticated enough to agree with you?

I realize you didn't MEAN what you said in an elitist, condescending sense, but that IS exactly what you did. In a thread about equality, irony of ironies.

[anon]

We can't even see far enough past our own noses - we need to look away or to run away - to realize the hidden value, meaning, self-awareness and consciousness that that life we're looking at might bring to us about our own selves and life. We see ugliness where perhaps there are gifts being bestowed on us if we would just take the time to recognize a human being as ourselves.

But YOU can see past your own nose, YOU've managed to realize these things- or else you wouldn't have been able to think of the above. So when you say 'the human race is like this', what you really mean is, "The human race, with the exception of a me and a few other super exceptional people, is like this".

It's just base elitism. Why don't you say what you think, instead of saying what you think with the grandstanding about how sad it is that most people in the world aren't sophisticated enough to agree with you?

I realize you didn't MEAN what you said in an elitist, condescending sense, but that IS exactly what you did. In a thread about equality, irony of ironies.

Last I knew, "we" still meant "we".

Wow...