The Concept of ‘Equality’

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

Ever argued with someone in real life - I mean with a real stupid fuck - who seems incapable of understanding even the simplest thing?

The closer things come to being identical, the more equal they become; the more disparate, the more unequal. Equality is a balance: 1 + 1 = 2 because 1 + 1 is, unto itself, identical with 2 (this is purely formal though - if you add 1 litre of water with 1 litre of alcohol you don’t get 2 litres of diluted booze.)

With this in mind, can someone please tell me why equality is such a nice idea? To me, it’s the erasure of difference based on repression and the hypocrisy of civility and politeness.

When I was a kid, I used to play football at recess. So one day, at the command of a progressive school teacher, we played together with the girls. Now, of course, girls suck just as bad at football as they do at all other sports, so what do you think happened? The game went to shit; because all the good players were forced to tone it down, it basically turned into a social event.

Who are the people that mostly talk about equality? The suppressed: the negro and the woman and wimpy, pathetic white people. Why? Because the process of making things equal is precisely to bring down greatness and pull up inferiority in order to make a nice grey mediocrity. How? By finding the common ground between a big mass of disparate people, i.e. the most mundane things, and only allowing expression within certain boundaries.

2

People just want an equal chance. To say that currently, blacks have an equal chance at becoming doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc., is to ignore their circumstances.

I’m not saying it’s impossible, nor am I saying that it’s completely the white man’s fault, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s much more difficult for a variety of reasons for a black man to become anything that a white man can, just as it is much more difficult for the poor to become rich compared to those who are born into wealth.

3

I totally agree with you, talking about social equality. What we dislike is the bringing down of excellence so the couch potatoes won’t feel so bad about swilling beer and watching game shows and soap operas all day.

But…

There is a vital necessity for equality of legal rights based on an absolute, objective moral code. Said code being: Honoring the equal rights of all (humans) to their life, liberty and property from violation through force or fraud. This provides for equal opportunity for all rather than equal outcomes.

Life ain’t fair, and the minute you try to fiddle with things and legislate fairness, you screw things up even more. If we had merely legislated equal rights, and therefore equal opportunity, 50 years ago, our color-blind quotient would be exponentially higher and blacks in business would be valued on an equal scale with whites like they are in the NFL. Quotas only keep the resentment level up and questions coming about qualifications based on the double standard of affirmative action, instead of our judging a prospective hiree/promotee based on an absolute scale of talent, drive and attitude.

4

I agree completely, and I certainly am not a proponent of hiring a minority over a white man who is more qualified for the job, which I know is happening. I am also not a proponent of lowering our education standards so slow kids have a better chance of passing.

5

The principle of equality under the law is fundamental to the rule of law. It is a basis principle of enlightenment philosophy and underlies much of the founding documents of the USA such as the Declaration of Independence and the US Constituition. Bullies and tyrants, narcissists and sociopaths have a problem with the principle of equality because they think they are entitled to special privileges. When they act on their sense of entitlement they make problems for the rest of society.

6

Totally agree, inequality is great, the only problem is who measures it and according to what standards or what goals or what principles are some given more than others ? This is fine when the inequality is clear, a good doctor, dentist, or engineer or anything, if it can be seen and measured somewhat objectively than it is ok to give more to who deserve it, the problem arises when you have millions of average slobs that are unequal because of arbitrary measurements, pure chance, or because the guy is in an old boys network, etc.

Who judges, who measures ? the boss ? and is the bosses judgement right ?

7

You’re right. The white male in today’s world and in America as far as I know, is at a disadvantage when compared to non-white males, what with positive discrimination as it’s honestly called in other countries which favors all but white males even when they don’t have the same qualifications as a white male. Scholarships while in school. Being accepted to honorable schools. Getting a job. etc.

8

You’re thinking too low on the food chain. Sure, a minority might get a lower-level job than a white guy because he’s a minority, and they need to meet their quota, but what about the other 300 white guys who got the job because they were born under better circumstances? Maybe a minority would’ve been more qualified had they been given the same circumstances.

9

Sure, being born under good circumstances does impact one’s chances to succeed, and this does still mean that it’s white people who are born under these circumstances. But what I’m saying is that it’s not that the system is now designed to keep minorities down. The system is designed in such a manner that minorities are not only not discriminated because they’re a minority, but are favored because of it. Don’t you think so? There’s nothing system wise to stop a blackman from going to Harvard. In fact, the system make sit easier him than it does for a white male. No?

10

By the system, I’m assuming you mean the legal system, and that might be true.

Let’s go back to the 1950’s, where segregation is still running strong, and blacks are essentially forced to be poor. The next few decades are spent trying to equalize the system; however, the damage is done, and blacks are amongst the poorest and most uneducated in the nation.

But this is only the beginning of a vicious cycle, because the children of the poor are poor as well, and because they’ve never had the experience per se of rising above circumstance, they don’t. They flock to areas where rent is affordable on minimum wage, which of course are areas with higher crime rates and drug use, by both kids and parents alike. Not to mention, the schools aren’t exactly getting the funding to produce the highest level of education.

So now you have parents who are hooked on drugs or alcohol to run from their circumstances, or working two jobs to raise their kids. Their focus is on putting food on the table, just as their parents’, rather than getting their kids to college. Without a parent’s focus on education, the child’s focus goes elsewhere. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Without a family unit, gangs start becoming more popular. Dealing drugs, playing sports, becoming a musical prodigy, or being a gang member seemingly become the only option for boys and girls growing up in the hood. Rap music becomes a popular expression of this lifestyle, and soon, violence, gang membership, crime, etc., become idolized, making it even more difficult for a young black man in the slums to dream of becoming a doctor. What would his friends think? The social pressure must be enormous.

So I think the problem is a little bit more complicated than simply saying racism isn’t illegal, or now companies and colleges need to hit a certain quota of minorities.

11

Sure, just as long as we agree that legally speaking, minorities are not only not disadvantaged, but favored.

12

Yes, but the law is a superficial fix to the problem.

13

What do you want the law to do? Change the value systems of people? You want the law to mandate that black people not think that “being white” is a bad thing?

14

Whoa, easy cowboy. I’m not suggesting the law has to do anything. I’m just stating that it’s currently not a level playing field, despite the laws that have been enacted.

15

Yea, I agree. It’s not a level playing field, because people are not equal. And we’re not equal because as the OP nicely put it, we are not the same. People are the same only insofar as they are people. In terms of power, in terms of beauty, in terms of morals, in terms artistic capacity, in terms of all else we are different. Yeehaw.

16

What gets my goat is when so-called disadvantaged people are chosen ahead of those who may be more qualified. Although I cannot prove it, I am sure either women or foreign students are given first priority for scholarships. There seems to be an unusual amount of women and foreigners who have received scholarships.
There’s even an ‘equity’ section on the application form that one can fill out and claim for special preference. And surprise, surprise, it’s only for women, those from a non-English speaking background, and those from a low socio-economic background.

It takes a lot of willpower to restrain oneself from feeling resentful toward such idiocy.

17

Tell me about it. Those black-only college funds piss me off.

18

Blah blah balh - the same old whining bullshit.

19

I stand corrected, magsj, in lieu of your brilliant argument.

20

Why thank you, xzc :wink:

…we all get what we deserve, end of - what is there to debate? but ego-stroking and lies, and I do neither…