Is equality evil?

I'm going to let the good Emperor Charles di Britannia speak for me.

""All men are not created equal. Some are born smarter, or more beautiful, or with parents of greater status. Some, by contrast, are born weak of body or mind, or with few, if any, talents. All men are different. Yes, the very existence of man is discriminatory! That is why there is war, violence, and unrest. Inequality is not evil. Equality is.

What became of the EU, who claimed that all are equal? It is in constant conflict because its tenets go against human nature! The Middle-Eastern Federation, which harbours similar sentiments, is constantly mired in sloth!

But our Britannia is not like them. We put an end to wars and evolve with every conquest! Britannia alone looks forward and moves toward a better future! The death of my son Clovis is proof that our empire is evolving. For the future rests in the hands of its rulers!

All Hail Britannia!""

Basically it is an insult to our individuality to force equality, and as such we force nothing more than a balance in our society - each is entitled to their due, but our due is not equal. Some are entitled to more, some are entitled to less. Justice may be a great equaliser, but equality is not the aim, but rather a side-effect. Equality for the sake of equality is, in my view, evil.

The world would be better off if each was treated according to their abilities.

Just because someone is human does not mean they deserve the same treatment as another human.

I'm having trouble seeing what the "evils" of equality are, and what exactly "forced equality" is.

If by forced we mean not easily accepted by the majority of society, then black people should still be slaves and women should never have been given the right to vote.

Or if we go by "not everyone is born equal" then perhaps since women have lower physical abilities they should be barred from sports. And disabled people should be locked in institutions since they can't support themselves and are a "forced" burden on society.

Nobody said equality was easy. It's not a fact of nature, it's an ideal. A human ideal. We might as well shut down every single equal opportunity program and rely solely on survival of the fittest. Definitely a step forward for our society.

Originally Posted by Opheliac Cookie

I'm having trouble seeing what the "evils" of equality are, and what exactly "forced equality" is.

If by forced we mean not easily accepted by the majority of society, then black people should still be slaves and women should never have been given the right to vote.

Or if we go by "not everyone is born equal" then perhaps since women have lower physical abilities they should be barred from sports. And disabled people should be locked in institutions since they can't support themselves and are a "forced" burden on society.

Nobody said equality was easy. It's not a fact of nature, it's an ideal. A human ideal. We might as well shut down every single equal opportunity program and rely solely on survival of the fittest. Definitely a step forward for our society.

All you really need is equality under the law, otherwise, it's not gonna happen.

Originally Posted by Anann

The world would be better off if each was treated according to their abilities.

Just because someone is human does not mean they deserve the same treatment as another human.

How do you treat someone according to their abilities?

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

All you really need is equality under the law, otherwise, it's not gonna happen.

Of course, that's the way we "enforce" it, and it is the only way for it to actually work. But does the fact that it's a law make it something forced? Unless we're assuming that human nature is inherently unequal and having laws that require equality go against that nature. But if that's the case we might as well regress back to survival of the fittest.

Originally Posted by Opheliac Cookie

Of course, that's the way we "enforce" it, and it is the only way for it to actually work. But does the fact that it's a law make it something forced? Unless we're assuming that human nature is inherently unequal and having laws that require equality go against that nature. But if that's the case we might as well regress back to survival of the fittest.

In order for things to work properly, there must be lines drawn on the issue, but people never really can come to a clear line to draw on this subject.

But I don't think this thread is about where to draw the line, or at least I haven't gotten that impression. I would still like to know what these "evils" are and what "forced" means.

Originally Posted by Opheliac Cookie

But I don't think this thread is about where to draw the line, or at least I haven't gotten that impression. I would still like to know what these "evils" are and what "forced" means.

That's basically what I said a page ago; no proper discussion on this is possible until the topic of discussion is clearly defined.

In the absence of someone else to define it, I will choose:

Is the legal/political system that most civilised countries use - whereby all have equal rights to not only things like life and liberty, but also things like having a vote and a certain amount of welfare money if unemployed, etc - unfair to those who contribute more? That is to say: is it right that someone should have to support others and respect them as equals when that person believes that the support and respect are undeserved? Is it right to force that responsibility on someone?

As for myself, I would have to say that the system is in place not for just those who contribute less, but for everyone. The world's greatest athlete can be injured and confined to a wheelchair for the rest of his or her life. The world's greatest genius can suffer brain damage. The world's hardest worker can lose their job if their boss has run the company into the ground. By providing systems of equality, in which the strong support the weak, one not only helps others but also creates a safety net for oneself. It is hubris to assume that those in a position to give support will never need to receive it.

Because of this, these systems are a part of law, since laws are essentially the result of an unspoken social contract that obliges everyone in the group to protect the interests of each individual, in exchange for the guarantee of receiving the same protection, should they need it. It is basic cooperation. To throw it out the window is like breaking a contract simply because one party no longer needs another. If you were unemployed and for some reason had trouble finding a job, would you not be glad of this safety net?

Having said this, it is also an unspoken part of the unspoken contract that those who receive the aforementioned support and respect should at least TRY to contribute as much as they can. Those people who make no attempt to get a job because they can live comfortably off of welfare are abusing the system. This does not mean the entire system should be thrown out the window; rather, that a part of the system requires improvement, to prevent such abuse while not excluding those who genuinely need it.

Originally Posted by Opheliac Cookie

I'm having trouble seeing what the "evils" of equality are, and what exactly "forced equality" is.

If by forced we mean not easily accepted by the majority of society, then black people should still be slaves and women should never have been given the right to vote.

Or if we go by "not everyone is born equal" then perhaps since women have lower physical abilities they should be barred from sports. And disabled people should be locked in institutions since they can't support themselves and are a "forced" burden on society.

Nobody said equality was easy. It's not a fact of nature, it's an ideal. A human ideal. We might as well shut down every single equal opportunity program and rely solely on survival of the fittest. Definitely a step forward for our society.

Originally Posted by Opheliac Cookie

Of course, that's the way we "enforce" it, and it is the only way for it to actually work. But does the fact that it's a law make it something forced? Unless we're assuming that human nature is inherently unequal and having laws that require equality go against that nature. But if that's the case we might as well regress back to survival of the fittest.

Originally Posted by Opheliac Cookie

But I don't think this thread is about where to draw the line, or at least I haven't gotten that impression. I would still like to know what these "evils" are and what "forced" means.

If one person is clearly superior to another, their abilities should be recognised.

If a person has a clear disability that affects what kind of work they are capable of, we are incapable of treating them the same as others without that disability, and so this difference should be considered where relevant (we cannot have a man with no hands be a typist for the sake of "equality", for example).

If we take distributive justice to the extreme, we get the situation where, for the sake of equality, we would see how many organs are needed, how many people have spares, and remove them from people who have them just for the sake of those who don't. Two-eyed people might have to give up one of their eyes for no-eyed people, for the sake of equality.

If we hold up equality as the ultimate ideal, things go wrong, because by our very natures we are not equal. My quoted speech by Emperor Charles di Britannia may be from Code Geass, an anime work of fiction, but can you honestly tell me he's wrong? No, you cannot, but this doesn't mean his policies, or indeed any policies by a government who discriminates, are justified.

This is where the principle of the "veil of ignorance" comes in (a concept of John Rawls' which I thought of long before I even learned of it but he simply described it far better than I could). Imagine you are trying to create a society from behind a veil of ignorance - you don't know what kind of body, ability, talents or otherwise that you are going to have when you are born, so you don't know what role you will have in this society. You might end up black or white, tall or short, young or old, rich or poor, a man or a woman, incredibly able or disabled. Thus, it is in your interests only to take account of relevant differences between people, because you wouldn't like to create a society where you might be unreasonably discriminated against, now would you?

Are you going to create a society where any party is discriminated against on entirely irrelevant grounds? "You can't be a secretary because you're black/young/female"? These qualities have nothing to do with the job that needs to be done. Are you going to create a society where people are discriminated against because of a lack of ability? "You can't be a rocket scientist because you do not have the intelligence or capability of being a rocket scientist"? Of course you are, because these are relevant differences, based in objective criteria. In order to be a rocket scientist, you need to be intelligent enough to understand rocket science. In order to be able to type, you need fingers and dexterity. If you are an amputee with no fingers or toes, we cannot allow you to be a typist unless we can create a contraption that puts your ability on equal grounds with other potential candidates and that does not create an unnecessary burden on the employer.

Forcing equality would be allowing such a person to be a typist because you don't want to treat him differently even though he is different and it is impossible not to treat him differently. To force equality is to ignore relevant differences when deciding how to treat people.

This does not mean that we ban women from physical labour just because they're not as strong as men - the fact is, unless they are actually physically incapable of doing that work, there is no reason to ban them, because you'd be banning them based on irrelevant differences, not relevant ones.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

All you really need is equality under the law, otherwise, it's not gonna happen.

It's a basic principle of the legal system that like cases must be treated alike, and different cases must be treated differently. The penalty should not be the same for rich people and poor people if they both steal a sandwich, for example, because a fixed sentence has different levels of punitive value. These are not the same case at all, but vastly different cases purely by the nature of the person committing the crime, not the crime itself. Thus, supposing the sentence were a fine, you must fine the rich person more than the poor person because if we made it a blanket £50 for both parties, the rich person basically gets off with a slap on the wrist, and the poor person might be severely punished by it. So you must fine based on how well we can serve the five guiding principles of sentencing (which for your reference are punishment, deterrence, protection of society, rehabilitation, and reparation).

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

That's basically what I said a page ago; no proper discussion on this is possible until the topic of discussion is clearly defined.

In the absence of someone else to define it, I will choose:

Is the legal/political system that most civilised countries use - whereby all have equal rights to not only things like life and liberty, but also things like having a vote and a certain amount of welfare money if unemployed, etc - unfair to those who contribute more? That is to say: is it right that someone should have to support others and respect them as equals when that person believes that the support and respect are undeserved? Is it right to force that responsibility on someone?

As for myself, I would have to say that the system is in place not for just those who contribute less, but for everyone. The world's greatest athlete can be injured and confined to a wheelchair for the rest of his or her life. The world's greatest genius can suffer brain damage. The world's hardest worker can lose their job if their boss has run the company into the ground. By providing systems of equality, in which the strong support the weak, one not only helps others but also creates a safety net for oneself. It is hubris to assume that those in a position to give support will never need to receive it.

Because of this, these systems are a part of law, since laws are essentially the result of an unspoken social contract that obliges everyone in the group to protect the interests of each individual, in exchange for the guarantee of receiving the same protection, should they need it. It is basic cooperation. To throw it out the window is like breaking a contract simply because one party no longer needs another. If you were unemployed and for some reason had trouble finding a job, would you not be glad of this safety net?

Having said this, it is also an unspoken part of the unspoken contract that those who receive the aforementioned support and respect should at least TRY to contribute as much as they can. Those people who make no attempt to get a job because they can live comfortably off of welfare are abusing the system. This does not mean the entire system should be thrown out the window; rather, that a part of the system requires improvement, to prevent such abuse while not excluding those who genuinely need it.

You seem to believe in "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" as a social equaliser, and I think it was either Nozick or Hohfeld who said that this basically means "from each according to his liability to each according to his asset". If you are in need, your needs become an asset, and if you have an ability, your ability becomes a liability because, under your idea of a social contract, you have a duty to use that ability to help those people in need.

This naturally leads to the situation where, if the world looks up and shouts "save us!", saying "no" because you don't want to is unacceptable. It gives less able people rights in more able people. If I have an ability and you need it, you would have a right to force me to use my ability to fulfill your need.

A person is incredibly skilled in one area, but chooses a job in another area because he enjoys it more. Under the "from each according to his ability" mantra, he is violating the principle because he is not using his great ability to help those who might need it. He has ability, he refuses to use it. He is rejecting his liability, and thus flips the bird at your concept of a social contract. Do you believe it is just to impose this kind of duty? Currently society simply imposes a duty not to actively or even passively cause harm to your neighbours - this conception seems to impose a duty to actively use an ability that you have for the good of others.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

It's a basic principle of the legal system that like cases must be treated alike, and different cases must be treated differently. The penalty should not be the same for rich people and poor people if they both steal a sandwich, for example, because a fixed sentence has different levels of punitive value. These are not the same case at all, but vastly different cases purely by the nature of the person committing the crime, not the crime itself. Thus, supposing the sentence were a fine, you must fine the rich person more than the poor person because if we made it a blanket £50 for both parties, the rich person basically gets off with a slap on the wrist, and the poor person might be severely punished by it. So you must fine based on how well we can serve the five guiding principles of sentencing (which for your reference are punishment, deterrence, protection of society, rehabilitation, and reparation).

Perhaps a fixed rate? (Fine wise)

You seem to believe in "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" as a social equaliser, and I think it was either Nozick or Hohfeld who said that this basically means "from each according to his liability to each according to his asset". If you are in need, your needs become an asset, and if you have an ability, your ability becomes a liability because, under your idea of a social contract, you have a duty to use that ability to help those people in need.

This naturally leads to the situation where, if the world looks up and shouts "save us!", saying "no" because you don't want to is unacceptable. It gives less able people rights in more able people. If I have an ability and you need it, you would have a right to force me to use my ability to fulfill your need.

A person is incredibly skilled in one area, but chooses a job in another area because he enjoys it more. Under the "from each according to his ability" mantra, he is violating the principle because he is not using his great ability to help those who might need it. He has ability, he refuses to use it. He is rejecting his liability, and thus flips the bird at your concept of a social contract. Do you believe it is just to impose this kind of duty? Currently society simply imposes a duty not to actively or even passively cause harm to your neighbours - this conception seems to impose a duty to actively use an ability that you have for the good of others.

You probably won't want to hear this, but you sound a lot like Ayn Rand here .

In something she wrote very similar to what you are saying, she elaborated on this point by suggesting that the people with ability would conceal that ability to avoid being taken advantage of, instead of being forced or obligated to serve another who is less able.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Perhaps a fixed rate? (Fine wise)

That's what my entire paragraph was arguing against.

You probably won't want to hear this, but you sound a lot like Ayn Rand here .

In something she wrote very similar to what you are saying, she elaborated on this point by suggesting that the people with ability would conceal that ability to avoid being taken advantage of, instead of being forced or obligated to serve another who is less able.

I may sound like Ayn Rand, but real philosophers have made similar points while still disagreeing with her reasoning (because while she claims to be a philosopher, she's a pretty poor one, if one at all). I'm not suggesting that people would conceal their ability to avoid being taken advantage of (although that is a good point, the only kind of person who would actually do that would be Ayn Rand and her devoted followers), but I am suggesting simply that if a person has an ability in one area, and would rather go to work in an area where they are less able but would enjoy it more, under the extreme version of Marx's mantra, they shouldn't be allowed to do that.

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

it's a simple premise, people are born inherently different and unequal. Some are more intelligent, others are swifter of foot. Our society is shifting towards a paradigm of forced "equality" those who have talents are forced to contribute their abilities to prop up the incompetent. Those who have done well are being forced to compensate, to work harder, for the sake of those who have made poor decisions. Often those who are born with disadvantages are given advantages of the general populous to compensate for the sake of equity. But is this really equity?

I think if you were to analyze the original intent of the founding fathers, by saying, "all men are created equal" was a fancy way for them to say, "we have rights and they can't be taken away by any other man".

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

That's what my entire paragraph was arguing against.

I said fixed rate not fixed amount. If we did a percentage, it wouldn't affect the poor so badly, but the rich would get hit a lot harder. Which is what you wanted right?

(although that is a good point, the only kind of person who would actually do that would be Ayn Rand and her devoted followers)

I don't think you'd have to be one of her devoted followers to try and avoid being a slave to your own ability : /. If it came to it.

being a slave to your own ability?

I'm not familiar with this person or the ideas.

It sounds like she is just wanting to be either overly pretentious or is encouraging people with refined/demanded skills to not let societal demand dictate how they use said talents.

Also @ Lord Zero/FoV

It sounds like you want socialism?

Originally Posted by Erasmus

being a slave to your own ability?

I'm not familiar with this person or the ideas.

It sounds like she is just wanting to be either overly pretentious or is encouraging people with refined/demanded skills to not let societal demand dictate how they use said talents.

Also @ Lord Zero/FoV

It sounds like you want socialism?

Yes, Lord Zero was suggesting above that in an extreme interpretation of Marx, you wouldn't be able to choose where you work because that isn't what you are best at. In which case, your ability determines where you work and for how long and how much you can do, you have no right to say no to your fellow workers, ergo, you are a slave to your ability.

Ayn Rand is where I first heard something along these lines. I'd say the goal is the latter.

I personally am not a proponent of socialism.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Yes, Lord Zero was suggesting above that in an extreme interpretation of Marx, you wouldn't be able to choose where you work because that isn't what you are best at. In which case, your ability determines where you work and for how long and how much you can do, you have no right to say no to your fellow workers, ergo, you are a slave to your ability.

Ayn Rand is where I first heard something along these lines. I'd say the goal is the latter.

I personally am not a proponent of socialism.

huh.

The problem I have with the idea that Lord Zero is talking about is that it artificially reinforces naturalistic determinism-causality, thus it seems it reduces the ideals of individuality (albeit ironically so), free will, and thus liberty in general.

However as far as I'm aware Marxism never proposes that this system actually be implemented.

and I don't really think it would happen in a Marxist society, especially in light of a globalized city/nation.

I think it more likely that Utilitarianism would become the predominating set of work ethics in a Marxists society as opposed to the dehumanizing principles of the "invisible hand".

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

You seem to believe in "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" as a social equaliser, and I think it was either Nozick or Hohfeld who said that this basically means "from each according to his liability to each according to his asset". If you are in need, your needs become an asset, and if you have an ability, your ability becomes a liability because, under your idea of a social contract, you have a duty to use that ability to help those people in need.

Need, by definition, is not an asset. It is a lack of some vital asset. The important thing to note is that at no point does the one in need wind up better off than the person with ability - if they do, then the roles are reversed and THEY are the ones who must give support. Obviously this state of affairs doesn't occur too often, since most of the time the amount of 'support' called for doesn't break the bank.

This naturally leads to the situation where, if the world looks up and shouts "save us!", saying "no" because you don't want to is unacceptable. It gives less able people rights in more able people. If I have an ability and you need it, you would have a right to force me to use my ability to fulfill your need.

Give me an example where this would be a bad thing - 'need' does not equal 'want'.

A person is incredibly skilled in one area, but chooses a job in another area because he enjoys it more. Under the "from each according to his ability" mantra, he is violating the principle because he is not using his great ability to help those who might need it. He has ability, he refuses to use it. He is rejecting his liability, and thus flips the bird at your concept of a social contract. Do you believe it is just to impose this kind of duty? Currently society simply imposes a duty not to actively or even passively cause harm to your neighbours - this conception seems to impose a duty to actively use an ability that you have for the good of others.

This person with ability is USING their ability - one of them, anyway. I am skilled in a couple of areas; just because I am pursuing a career in only one area, does not mean I am shirking responsibility - I'm only one person.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Give me an example where this would be a bad thing - 'need' does not equal 'want'.

Why isn't "I don't want to." an acceptable answer. Only you have the right to decide whether you do something or you don't.

Need means whatever you want it to mean. If you need 300 tons of Hershey chocolate, you damn well better get it because it's your need. Who is to determine need but the person themselves? How does anyone else know what another needs?

I think the education system might be a good example of equality being bad.

First you had the segregation of Caucasions and African Americans. while not a bad idea, it has lead to the uneducated bringing down the higher educated. People were put in classes according to their age, instead of their education level, so the public school standards were brought down. That's easy for me to tell, because I've been to both public and private schools.

Also, the no child left behind thing. Passing someone just for the sake of moving them along is not a good thing.

@ FoV

no, need doesn't mean just "whatever you want it to mean"

there all kinds of needs and not just the ones that keep your heart pumping and brain ticking.

there are emotional needs, mental needs, and bodily needs.

and others would also say spiritual needs as well.