Is equality evil?

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

And that surplus goes to people who "need" it. Thus you are entitled to the surplus of able people.

But you end up no better off than one with ability - both now have enough.

That's also true of communism, in essence.

Okay...?

Yet if you have a decent amount of strength and maybe something to smack him with, then under the Marxist mantra there is no reason why you shouldn't.

A decent amount of strength and a frying pan < an axe.

Lip service. "We care about human rights, honest!" Every day member nations of the UN flaut these rules. They cannot possibly be law, or until something was done, every member nation would be held liable. They're more like guidelines than actual rules.

They are what we aspire to.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

But you end up no better off than one with ability - both now have enough.

You're better off in the sense that if you have everything given to you, you are given incentive to put yourself in a position of need rather than have your ability exploited for those who need it.

Okay...?

So there's no point denying that it's communism, since "capitalism with regulation" isn't really the same as taking the surplus from people with ability to those who need it. Capitalism with regulation is just to prevent unjust exploitation, and not giving to people in need is hardly exploiting them.

A decent amount of strength and a frying pan < an axe.

I dunno, I think a wok would be able to lessen the blow, unless the guy is Jason Voorhees or something.

They are what we aspire to.

A man aspiring to obey the law does not mean he is in compliance with it. We do not praise a man when he obeys the law, it is expected of him. We praise him for morally righteous behaviour that is not obligated by law. We punish him for breaking the law. Aspirational law is hardly good enough.

I remember some legal philosopher mentioned "aspirational law" and another kind of law, might have been Lon Fuller, I'll look through his book again this week actually.

equality of sex, race, orientation= good.

equality of what OP mentioned= bad.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

You're better off in the sense that if you have everything given to you, you are given incentive to put yourself in a position of need rather than have your ability exploited for those who need it.

How so?

So there's no point denying that it's communism, since "capitalism with regulation" isn't really the same as taking the surplus from people with ability to those who need it. Capitalism with regulation is just to prevent unjust exploitation, and not giving to people in need is hardly exploiting them.

"Capitalism with even more regulation", then. Not everything has to be a dichotomy.

I dunno, I think a wok would be able to lessen the blow, unless the guy is Jason Voorhees or something.

Except that a strike to the chest with a wok = pain, a strike to the chest with an axe = probable death.

A man aspiring to obey the law does not mean he is in compliance with it. We do not praise a man when he obeys the law, it is expected of him. We praise him for morally righteous behaviour that is not obligated by law. We punish him for breaking the law. Aspirational law is hardly good enough.

I remember some legal philosopher mentioned "aspirational law" and another kind of law, might have been Lon Fuller, I'll look through his book again this week actually.

You're missing my point. Once again, I must point out that whether something is an actual law does not determine its morality; I mention Article 25 as an example of people acknowledging that civilisation is a tool which is meant to improve people's lives, and citing instances of how it should improve them. I am not saying that the enforcable laws which I would like exist already, I am saying that they do not, and citing the Charter as an example of what I would choose to look to in creating those laws.

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

Some are more intelligent

I'd just like to say this is wrong.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

How so?

Why work when you can find a way not to? Why have an ability if the only thing it will get you is a responsibility to use it?

"Capitalism with even more regulation", then. Not everything has to be a dichotomy.

After a certain point if you regulate it too much it stops being capitalism, since capitalism effectively requires being able to exploit your own ability for your own, not that of others for your gain.

Except that a strike to the chest with a wok = pain, a strike to the chest with an axe = probable death.

To defend against an axe, I meant, and if you're going for the chest with a frying pan you're a tit to begin with My point is that all kinds of constructions could be come up with to ensure that someone who didn't act in such a way could be held liable, and on top of this, an arbitrary and nonsensical limit on "proximity" would be required to prevent every person in a crowded street from facing criminal prosecution for not taking actions to prevent a crime in that street.

You're missing my point. Once again, I must point out that whether something is an actual law does not determine its morality; I mention Article 25 as an example of people acknowledging that civilisation is a tool which is meant to improve people's lives, and citing instances of how it should improve them. I am not saying that the enforcable laws which I would like exist already, I am saying that they do not, and citing the Charter as an example of what I would choose to look to in creating those laws.

But creating a charter of moral rules is useless. It is a charter of rights, rights are something that must be enforced by law. If they are not, the charter is useless, and aspiring towards them is useless.

Fuller as I mentioned earlier spoke of the "morality of duty" and the "morality of aspiration" in his book "The Morality of Law" (where he tries, and fails, to claim that there is an inner morality of law which means that law must be moral or it is not law. But that's beside the point).

A moralist of duty condemns a man for violating the basic rules necessary for the operation of society, a moralist of aspiration condemns a man for engaging in behaviour that stops him from being the best example of a human he can be. He says that the similarity between a law-making perspective and that of a moralist of duty is apparent - these are the basics, you have violated them, something must be done. He says that the morality of aspiration has no place in law, however, because we can't really do something about people who fail to be the best that they can be, because the morality of aspiration is nothing more than a recognition that no one can be perfect but that we should certainly try.

For example, if I were to punish you because you didn't spend all your time studying whatever it is you study (if anything), and you instead chose to procrastinate by arguing on a board where your arguments will never have a direct influence on the world that they concern, you would most likely complain that it's practically impossible for you to reach the standards of what a perfect human being is so I should just leave you alone and tolerate your procrastination.

The reason I'm mentioning this is that I don't think it's good enough for us to consider the charter "something to aspire to" - we must make it law. If we truly believe that it is a matter of duty, that all states should follow these rules as a basic procedure, then something will be done about it. As with the morality of aspiration, we may condemn member states for not achieving these aspirations, but if we continue to consider it a matter of aspiration, then we give them the excuse of "well, we can't be expected to be perfect!" If we really do consider these the basic requirements of a society, then they are not aspirations, they are duties, and if we fail to treat them as such, THEY will fail to treat them as such.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

Why work when you can find a way not to? Why have an ability if the only thing it will get you is a responsibility to use it?

Because you enjoy it?

After a certain point if you regulate it too much it stops being capitalism, since capitalism effectively requires being able to exploit your own ability for your own, not that of others for your gain.

OK. It's not capitalism. Now what?

To defend against an axe, I meant, and if you're going for the chest with a frying pan you're a tit to begin with My point is that all kinds of constructions could be come up with to ensure that someone who didn't act in such a way could be held liable, and on top of this, an arbitrary and nonsensical limit on "proximity" would be required to prevent every person in a crowded street from facing criminal prosecution for not taking actions to prevent a crime in that street.

First of all, I was illustrating the fact that with something like a frying pan, the only truly useful target is the head (which may or may not be easy to hit), whereas with an axe or similar, targeting any body part will cause significant damage. Secondly, someone who is unaware of a crime taking place cannot be expected to assist, and so no legislation should condemn a man for something he was unaware of. In any case where there's any doubt whether he did or did not know, then he must be presumed innocent. Only when he can be confirmed to have known does it become his duty to help. This is not MUCH of an improvement over the current state of affairs, but it's better.

But creating a charter of moral rules is useless.

Agreed.

It is a charter of rights, rights are something that must be enforced by law. If they are not, the charter is useless, and aspiring towards them is useless.

I agree that such laws should be given legal force, yes.

Fuller as I mentioned earlier spoke of the "morality of duty" and the "morality of aspiration" in his book "The Morality of Law" (where he tries, and fails, to claim that there is an inner morality of law which means that law must be moral or it is not law. But that's beside the point).

A moralist of duty condemns a man for violating the basic rules necessary for the operation of society, a moralist of aspiration condemns a man for engaging in behaviour that stops him from being the best example of a human he can be. He says that the similarity between a law-making perspective and that of a moralist of duty is apparent - these are the basics, you have violated them, something must be done. He says that the morality of aspiration has no place in law, however, because we can't really do something about people who fail to be the best that they can be, because the morality of aspiration is nothing more than a recognition that no one can be perfect but that we should certainly try.

I am not saying that people should be thrown in jail even though it's not yet a crime - I am saying it should be made a crime.

For example, if I were to punish you because you didn't spend all your time studying whatever it is you study (if anything), and you instead chose to procrastinate by arguing on a board where your arguments will never have a direct influence on the world that they concern, you would most likely complain that it's practically impossible for you to reach the standards of what a perfect human being is so I should just leave you alone and tolerate your procrastination.

#1. Tiny pebbles can make great waves - I wouldn't say I'm WASTING my time, but...
#2. You make a good point. I should finish that assignment. I have now started.

The reason I'm mentioning this is that I don't think it's good enough for us to consider the charter "something to aspire to" - we must make it law. If we truly believe that it is a matter of duty, that all states should follow these rules as a basic procedure, then something will be done about it. As with the morality of aspiration, we may condemn member states for not achieving these aspirations, but if we continue to consider it a matter of aspiration, then we give them the excuse of "well, we can't be expected to be perfect!" If we really do consider these the basic requirements of a society, then they are not aspirations, they are duties, and if we fail to treat them as such, THEY will fail to treat them as such.

Agreed wholeheartedly. I am at a loss as to where to begin, however.

Did someone just argue that no one is more intelligent than any other person?

Originally Posted by Anann

Did someone just argue that no one is more intelligent than any other person?

Yes, but he's offline now, so you may as well make your point.

It's pointless if they aren't here to flail about and spout nonsense.

I'd have to take what they said as a particularly lame joke, and that's pushing the boundaries of bad humor.

If there is only one human fact in this world, it is that some people are more intelligent than others.

Originally Posted by Anann

It's pointless if they aren't here to flail about and spout nonsense.

I'd have to take what they said as a particularly lame joke, and that's pushing the boundaries of bad humor.

If there is only one human fact in this world, it is that some people are more intelligent than others.

Really? Out of ALL the possible facts about humanity, that's the one you choose?

Originally Posted by Anann

Did someone just argue that no one is more intelligent than any other person?

Heh, there was no argument.

If you knew anything about the human mind, you'd understand that it's true.

Originally Posted by Jake Fenton

Heh, there was no argument.

If you knew anything about the human mind, you'd understand that it's true.

potential = /= reality

Originally Posted by Alonely

As a side note, we've pretty much killed off natural selection by developing medicine and providing for so many people who cannot fend for themselves. Equality at this point is entirely what humans decide to make of it.

yes, and the intellectuals are reproducing less when proportionally compared to the "average" educated person.

Now why would that be?

as a curious side note, you sound a bit like Frank Herbert when you speak about modern medicine and natural selection.

Was that intention?

(he is border-line in support of genetic-social engineering--at least that's how he comes across in his Sci-Fi literature.)

If you knew anything about the human mind, you'd know you were wrong for claiming what you did.

You probably know more myths than fact really.

Fact is, some people are more intelligent than others. That is indisputable truth.

I think if natural selection came back into play, many many people would die.
Morality has made people weak.

Originally Posted by Anann

If you knew anything about the human mind, you'd know you were wrong for claiming what you did.

You probably know more myths than fact really.

Fact is, some people are more intelligent than others. That is indisputable truth.

I think if natural selection came back into play, many many people would die.
Morality has made people weak.

Excellent.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Because you enjoy it?

It's true that if you pick a job you love, you'll never work a day in your life, but many people won't be qualified for the job they would enjoy, and I'd say the majority of jobs that need doing in the world today are ones that people can't possibly enjoy.

OK. It's not capitalism. Now what?

Well you basically denied you were talking about communism so I think we've established enough there.

First of all, I was illustrating the fact that with something like a frying pan, the only truly useful target is the head (which may or may not be easy to hit), whereas with an axe or similar, targeting any body part will cause significant damage. Secondly, someone who is unaware of a crime taking place cannot be expected to assist, and so no legislation should condemn a man for something he was unaware of. In any case where there's any doubt whether he did or did not know, then he must be presumed innocent. Only when he can be confirmed to have known does it become his duty to help. This is not MUCH of an improvement over the current state of affairs, but it's better.

I was simply supposing that if a crime were to take place in a crowded area, or in an area where the surrounding tenants should reasonably be able to hear an incident (such as my current halls where I can hear someone having a ****ing conversation in the next room), if that person chooses not to do anything on the assumption that someone else will, even if someone else actually did, he could be criminally liable for not acting when he should have. This would not only flood courts in relation to public incidents, but jam up emergency services if all they're required to do is phone the police.

Agreed. I agree that such laws should be given legal force, yes.

I am not saying that people should be thrown in jail even though it's not yet a crime - I am saying it should be made a crime.

You seemed content that they were at least something to aspire to, which is why I was objecting.

#1. Tiny pebbles can make great waves - I wouldn't say I'm WASTING my time, but...
#2. You make a good point. I should finish that assignment. I have now started.

Well it helps formulate ideas at least.

I don't hate anyone.

I and others find it entirely amusing that people still believe they know the tone I take in my writing.

I'm not sure what others dislike so strongly about me stating matters of fact. It's very immature.