Yeah. You have to have at least 2 to have a double standard.
Equality is a form of relationship, and it may seem like a power play, but then life is wasted, and the point is missed. Equality is a fact, and not some political fiction. If we were not equal we could hardly be considered human, but of humans we no longer consider human, it is by their own action that they are excluded. By nature we must share in our survival, and our only hope is in efficient cooperation. Though we are taught that we are individuals clearly the fact differ. We all drive the same roads, and suffer our lives together in the same silence. And what does it matter if, as Shakespeare noted, when two ride a horse one must sit in front? What does it matter if all goals are the same? Slaves must exist with masters, and that master is a fool who will not give his man his head to keep his own. Equality is an essential to life. It is a situation each grants to others in life, and that each demands from others for the common good. It is a form of relationship, and the same form whether one has it and does not recognize it, or does not have it and forever seeks it.
I’m sorry, but that last line is rubbish. Ya know, I think the philosophical community could have been alot better off if Nietzsche wasn’t a loner and had actually had a family…
However, other than that I vaguely agree. Every human value is radically contingent, it is nothing but a phantom, but, like morality or justice, that does not mean it doesn’t exist, it doesn’t have power, it can’t have good consequences or be useful…
Eventually nihilism will go the way of Philosophical scepticism when people realise the questions raised by it are meaningless in one way, and that we are all nihilists in another.
It’s not a pleasant thought, but it holds true. The true nature of human beings and ourselves is hidden from everyone else and even to a large extent hidden from ourselves. In all our insecurities even if there is no dissenting thoughts amongst 2 individuals, one woud necessarily think more highly of the other.
Inequality is unpleasant and unescapable. But i didn’t say important.
…I was trying to say that it is up to each individual to be on a par with their peers, or live a futile life if they cannot achieve that satus quo.
Except in one are, justice or a system of law. Otherwise yeah, you should be own your own. But socialists buy their elite status by promising to keep the plebes economically (and in several other areas) equal-- by force. They’re not going to bite the hand that feeds them.
Being on par with peers should be no problem. I do not think it is necessary to be like St. Paul, and all things to all men. The more intelligent a person is the more they should try to grasp what is common to all people, and not try to excell so far beyond that as to lose sight of the fact that we are all the same, having needs in almost every sense, the same; and sharing nearly identical forms of achieving our needs. If the desire is present, and the person is able, they can walk into any situation with almost any sort of person from any corner of the planet, and find common ground. It is almost as easy out of ignorance or hubris to walk into any situation and alienate everyone including yourself. If I can offer an example, it would be this. I think Jewish people are superior because they do. I think I am superior because I know Jewish people, and they are no more superior than I am though they are clearly superior. To be in the same space as a Jewish person you have to accept their superiority as a proved matter of fact, But it is only part fact and a whole lot of wanting to prove what is believed true, because the sense of superiority is some kind of security blanket which they defend that in turn defends them. It does not have to be true to define them, but you don’t have to buy that they are better, or worse to have equitable dealings with them. All you have to do is concede what is obvious, that they are at least equal.
Why are you always rambling about inequality joker?
- Almost every human alive is very well versed in inequality, almost every well-off human alive, knows theres massive massive amounts of people that aren’t.
- Its a natural, albiet, horrible part of the human condition.
- That we care more about friends and family, than people dying a few miles away. In many ways humans can be sympatetic, loving, caring towards other humans, but humans in an out-group might as well not exist, their starvation, pain, suffering, they mean nothing to a great deal of us, most of us, at any true or overwhelming response to the problem.
We just don’t care that much about people we don’t know, can’t see, and are part of outgroups. (as a species as a whole) though historically we see more and more people caring about outgroups (or rather people with ingroups that include most of humanity) and helping to eliminate in-equality.
Sure equality is bad right now, it’d be a lot worse without people who spend their lives devoted to saving a billion people. Norman Borloug (sp) for example, took his life and devoted it to saving a massive part of the population, you may suggest he did it to be a hero, famous, rich, known, some kind of benefit to himself, but since he largely didn’t recieve any of these things it’d be an unfair criticism.
Were there as many people like him a 1000 years ago? No. Was there as much technological progress being forced by people to help the poor? No.
Yeah, we’re a bunch of selfish violent apes and equality is a long way off, but at the very least, we’re a step above our more primitive ancestors.
I don’t think decrying dozens and dozens of legitimate scientific statements about the human mind is a way to eliminate inequality either, I don’t think you ignoring all the facts to hold this joker-esque view of the world would help, infact, the further and further people typically move away from the truth to support/immerse themselves in their own beliefs, perhaps delusions, the further they get from being able to positively effect the world, or even another human brain with their ideas.You might want to work on your ability to coherently sift through ideas accurately, before addressing inequality.
For now I will just answer this question:
Because it proves my assertion that we are all psychological egoists thus putting the final nail in the coffin of idealism, romanticism, metaphysics and religion.
It shows that a “human” is not some cooperative moral agent but instead is a selfish ruthless survivalist willing to exploit,imprison and kill his or her own neighbor just to survive.
It shows the direct opposite of selflessness but instead shows inherent selfishness.
A sense of morality or morals is a driving force behind being a ruthless survivalist. When you’re facing another tribe/group, and your whole clan is assured that they are morally correct and divinely inspired, that doesn’t somehow decrease violence.
A sense of justice, right, religion and morality is a driving force behind violence.
No one ever claimed differently, except for you, who would like to claim that these feelings simply don’t exist and people put on an elaborate show to go about their egotistical greedy ways. Or maybe, just maybe, the emotions/feelings do exist and because of their complicated nature/adaptive ways, is WHAT CAUSES US TO BE VIOLENT, propelled by our concepts of right and wrong. (largely arbitrary)
The reason people get up and slaughter other villages isn’t because morality doesn’t exist, quite the contrary, its because the people thought they were in the moral right to do so, they didn’t delude themselves into it just for the sole purpose of killing/gain, people are by nature, morally driven,and when by nature we’re also grossly savage,things can get dirty.
See what you don’t get is that if humans didn’t have these highly complex and contradictory emotions/manifestations, then we’d never be the greedy war apes that we are, these moral sentiments propel us to more and more violence, and not because we’re ruthlessly selfish, its because the natural flip side to ingroup acceptance is outgroup hatred.
If we were selfish we’d never be convinced to hate anyone, if we love our own group, and are naturally afraid, violent and xenophobic that naturally lends itself tow anting to KILL OTHERS, who are not like you, this has been a driving forcee behind ALL VIOLENCE in history, and you simply want to say it doesn’t exist.
You’re decrying the things responsible for the violence/immorality which you always rant about and then you somehow think its evidence/proof against against those decried things.
2 hunter-gatherer groups living at close range.
why do they go to war?
- because they want stuff from the others greedily.
- because they fear/hate the other group for being different/envolved with evil spirit entities + they want their stuff.
The fear for their safty and that of their CHILDREN AND FRIENDS is a huge promoting factor for violence between ‘natural’ human groups. Which is why, every tribe thinks other tribes are associated with evil spirits.
Its not simply we want the stuff, lets justify it by evil spirits.
They actually fear/hate the people envolved for that association, that association is real to them, its not a byproduct of unconscious greed.
Joker; wouldn’t you agree that cooperation is much more common than exploitation, and that nurturing is for more available than war. We all want to survive, but we say that and do that not understanding the meaning of WE. We are an organic being called humanity, and we need each other, not only for comfort, but for genetic diversity, depth, and health. We need each other to know the human story which can only be told by survivors. Only I alone survived to tell you, and if I could not tell you my story a bit of your own would be lost to you. The methods we have used, as in your list above, and all our systems of thought have failed us in the past, and should be buried. The solution to our problems are as manifold as the faces of the problem. It does not help to simplify the complexity of our existence. Instead, we should accept that the knowledge we need has already been discovered, and only needs to be learned again by each new generation, and in brief it is: How do we get along with people we care about, and how do we care about people we have no reason to love?
People are savages, ruthless, immoral.
They have the tendency to be the exact opposite.
In a world of billions of humans with competing goals, this naturally, creates more violence than any other combination ever could. Because we have the tendedncy for love/selflessness doesn’t make us less violent, it makes us willing to go to greater lengths, greater slaughter, than we 'd have ever been able to before.
You haven’t seen a savage human until you have taken away somthing that they loved and their in a position to hurt you for it. Take away somthing someone really truly loves, somthing they truly had unselfish emotions for, and you will see an explosion of rage and savagery unmatched by anything a selfish emotion could ever produce in a human.
First; if people have a tendency it defines them. If they have a tendency to walk on two feet, and occasionally, a third; that defines them. You are attempting to define all people by the occasional characteristics of a few.
I hardly think that savagery can be considered an insult, only because I know savagery as a high state of social development, and know that savages were quite rational and intelligent, and only wish that in this regard we could be more like them. Savages in no sense deserve to be considered badly, and neither do people because if we were worse than proud, certain, and determined then we would have died off long ago of war and murder.
Either way it would appear that I’m correct when I describe people as violent selfish psychological egoists now wouldn’t it?
If this is so what does it describe morality to be?
A smoke screen for a inherent selfish creature that desires to dominate through the will and desire of power. 
Before morality or ethics were conceived we were the same violent emotional creatures as we are today.
What you don’t understand is that morality and ethics was created as a sort of control mechanism as a smoke screen distraction utilized for subjugating others.
It is the prime ultima of deception in the use of gaining power over others by using symbols, abstracts, metaphors and ideals by conquering others through that of thought alone.
I didn’t understand this post. ( can you help me out here? )
Actually if you listen to me at all I have always stated that man throughout his entire existence has been a psychological egoist motivated by selfishness, violence and power.
If you actually listened to what I have been saying about morality you would understand how I describe it as just another will to power by staging a pretend show of righteousness in order to get what people selfishly want and by decrying others as evil heretics in order to dispell threatening individuals into submission by that of cultural fanaticism for selfish ends. 
In a way I look at morality much like the literary work entitled the invasion of the body snatchers where a cult like collective mind subjugates anybody not assimilated to a selfishly motivated hive mentality.
If all things were all equal then no progress or evolution could be made. It is competition that moves species forward. All species are selfish, its not a bad thing to be, its sort of keeps you alive. :-" But, to be utterly selfish would kill off a species, so some altruism must be with in too. I don’t want to be forced to help others by the gov’t taking my things. I will gladly voluteer somethings to help as long as it does not break me. I am not a socialist, I fall more into the capitalist catagory, that seems to keep closer faith with what humans are anyway. I am not ashamed of being a faulty human.
So we agree that morality is just another violent will to power like any other where the only difference is that it utilizes a pretend masquarading theatrical fictional show of righteouness and infallibility dominated by cultural fanaticism.
Excellent.
Here we clearly see that morality or ethics is not dominated by selflessness but instead extends from a collective selfishness in desiring security and power all the while it disenfranchises a select number of individuals in order to get such possesions which clearly at the same time destroys any remnant of equality.
No I wouldn’t.
Although I would say that individuals will cooperate together for their own selfish motives by coming together in making war on other people or by exploiting others where afterwards they fight amongst each other around the conquered spoils.
I have read global history from it’s beginning to the present and I have done so without any romanticization of the subject.
Humanity is just a word. There is no entity humanity beyond the word.
You assume there to be a solution.
You are so naive.
All societies operate on inequality, extortion, blackmail, threats,exploitation and suffering of individuals.
Without such instances society could never exist.
Oh and by the way since you are apart of society you are also apart of it whether you intentionally support such actions or not since you benefit from such colorful marketable societal transactions.
Characteristics of a few individuals…pfft…More like a characteristic of our entire species.
That market consumer economy that you so much take advantage of for your own security,survival and social prestige how exactly do you think it survives everyday? By tranquil cooperation and people holding hands in merry delight? 
( You can’t be that naive…Are you?)
What makes a society is mutual cooperation. Civilizations are built upon slavery and exploitation, but it destroys each one. A community is any group that defends your rights, and if the larger society does not defend my rights then I many be forced to form new societies, like a labor union. There is no reason that it may not be turned in time against my interests, but if it does I will not be much of a member.