I know that they are made equal by the American.
But are they really equal?
Frig’it -
Well it depends on what you mean by equal? Of aproximately equal mental and physical abilities? Yes.
No… but I don’t know that it has any practical value.
Nobody is going to argue that Einstein and a severly retarded crack baby are “equal” as far as abilities and value to society. However, both Einstein AND the crack baby should be regarded as equal in the eyes of the law. Neither should be discriminated against. Both should have opportunities as available to their abilities. Yes, Einstein is certainly going to make more of those opportunities, but the crack baby oughta at least be given a chance.
('course, that’s the “perfect world” scenario. I think in real life that things happen very differently.)
I would say yes. All people are created equal. That is, at birth they all have the same potential. Unfortunately, some governments, religions, societies, organizations, etc. don’t agree with me. People are treated unequally, but essentially they are equal.
In response to Athena’s arguement: I suppose we need to know how the OP is defining equal.
A severely retarded crack-baby may have a great deal of value to society as seen through the eyes of that baby’s adoptive parents. And those same parents may not even know who Einstein is.
I am assuming that you mean equal as regards rights and opportunities and not identical. (If not then the simple answer is “no”)
In which case, what arguments are there for individuals not being born equal? Eugenics? At the end of the day birth is a lottery. As such my concept of justice can simply not be aligned with the idea of non-equality.
regards,
pan
No way.
No matter how you define equal.
Sure, all beings are born with some degree of inherent potential value, but the dimensions of each individual’s potential vary widely from every other individual.
Unless you want to say something like, “no individual or institution should actively deprive any person of his life without adequate cause.” But as soon as you start suggesting any individual or institution owes any action, I see grounds for disagreement. Also, do you want to restrict the sample in any manner? Geographically? Economically?
The inequalities result from both each individual’s inherent characteristices as well as the environment into which one is born. For instance, who on this board will argue that an infant born into starvation in subSaharan Africa has equal opportunities to develop as they enjoy?
oldscratch offers “approximately equal mental and physical abilities.” Whoa, that strikes me as a pretty darn big approximation. A child born with severe physical deficits is nowhere near Carl Lewis’ abilities. And a severely retarded infant is quite distant from Marilyn Vos Savant. (On second thought …)
JB says “at birth they all have the same potential.” No way the crack baby has the SAME potential as baby Einstein. Sure they both have potential as JB clarifies in his 2d post, but how can you suggest it is “equal”?
Give us some parameters, Quicksilver.
Legally, one would hope.
In terms of physical ability, hell no. Unfortunately.
Mentally, yes and no.
Spiritually, yes (but that’s a belief more than a fact, I think).
Financially, no.
Sociologically and in terms of social status, no.
I think the AC framers were thinking about moral/ethical/legal rights and as such were perfectly right, IMO, to say that all “men”/people are/were/evershallbe created equal.
hee hee. The Marilyn thing was good. That was intended to be a pretty big approximation. I was stating that normal humans are born aroximately equal. That if given the right opportunities and chances they can all accomplish the same things. There are those who are born with genetic defects, they are no longer equal. There are some who have gifts, idiot savants, but most people are or have the ability to be equal. There are not a few really smart people and a whole mass of idgits out there.
krabbes, even if we limit ourselves to rights, I suggest that equality exists only on an extremely limited basis.
For example, shall we examine “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”?
Okay, life. This is what I was suggesting in my prior post. Say a child is born requiring significant medical treatment to survive. It is one thing to say the government, individuals, or the hospital should not kill that infant, but it is quite another thing to suggest that any of the above has some obligation to perform any specific actions to prolong or enhance the infant’s life. Perhaps exceptiong provision of basic food and shelter. But no exceptional medical treatment. No individualized therapy or education.
Liberty, well, are we talking about any society in particular? Further, I suggest on a practical basis, even in America we are not all equally free. For example, I suggest a wealthy, educated white man has greater freedom to travel, associate, and express his views in a meaningful manner than a poor, illiterate black woman.
And the pursuit of happiness? Note that all you are entitled to do is pursue it, you have no enforceable right to actually attain happiness. Go ahead and pursue it as best you can on your own given your individual capabilities. But don’t think you are entitled to any help from anyone else.
Finally, the utilitarian strain in me forces me to suggest that all individuals are not equal in their value to society. Sure, everyone has some degree of potential value to certain segments of society and, as a result, to society as a whole. But not equal.
I was sure someone would ask. I can’t… or won’t… 
I want to allow for as many possibilities on equality/inequality as people offer in this discussion.
iampunha - you forgot aesthetically.
Oh if only the rest of humanity were as damn goodlooking as yours truly! Gotta get me to a mirror.
Dinsdale, the patron saint of self love.
“I’m not wierd about it. I don’t tie myself up or anything.” Tom Waits
Allow me to elucidate.
Is that crack baby going to grow up and invent a better mousetrap? Probably not. But at the moment of birth, one must give him the benefit of that doubt. There is a lot of ifs that go by the wayside, that could change anybody’s life.
The severely retarded crack baby could end up as a case study that leads to a break- through in education, or developmental studies or what-have-you. Very valuable to society.
If the doctor at Albert Einstein’s birth had dropped him on his head, the A-Bomb may have been left to someone else, while Albert spent his days drooling and babbling incoherently. Not much value to society.
Go to the hospital neo-natal ward right now, and point out which babies will be successful and which will end up homeless. You can’t with any certainty. But wait a few years until society and religion and organizations etc. get a hold of them and your odds will rise.
I wasn’t thinking along the lines of the Constitution of the Untited States what I was thinking you were addressing in the OP is the idea that people of different genetic backgrounds have different attributes. Or so I’ve heard. Is there any truth to the idea that Orientals have larger brains or that black people have more muscle mass or bigger peenies. If that’s the case then I’d still have to say yes, people are pretty much equal. Because in some instances it may be more to your advantage to have a larger brain and a smaller wanker. Is this even true? Let me look into it.
You weren’t thinking about something like this were you?
Needs2know
Needs2know
sure you wouldn’t prefer a large unit attached to a small brain?
Aesthetical equality is, IMO, more of an opinion than a factual equality. I’m not going to lie and tell you that I’m physically attracted to every female I’ve ever seen. I’m not THAT full of bullshit. Nor am I going to tell you that I’m emotionally or otherwise attracted to every female I meet.
re: my amazing body . . . you said it, not me.
No Dins actually I wouldn’t, been there, done that, I get bored, need someone to talk to, that kind of silliness. And no I was not being a smarty pants with my question. Although I haven’t had any luck finding anything on this subject yet. I’m still looking. Thought maybe Cecil had addressed it before but I must not be asking the search engine the right questions.
It just seems logical to me that humans are equal but not the “same”. Which might be a better way of putting it. Why else would we have entire groups of people that are shorter, taller, with more skin pigmentation/less, more body hair/less, etc. These differences may have occurred due to environmental conditions that no longer apply now, but they could be construed as not being equal. Then equality would be based on the largest common denominator within the group.
I’m gonna keep looking.
Needs2know
Two kids are born in the same hospital with a serious heart problem requiring a transplant. One from a very wealthy and successful family that has donated extensively to the hostpital while the other is born to habitual welfare recipients. The former is the only child while the latter is the 8th. The former will have every opportunity to grow up in a good home with love and all the benefits his family’s wealth provides. The latter will be just another mouth to feed on an already severly stressed budget. The former can look forward to the best education money can buy (provided he is intellectually competent enough to be accepted - no guarantees in life.) The latter will probably never make it through highschool (although he may grow up to be the guy who cures cancer if given half the chance - who knows, right?!)
Who get the only heart available in the country at this time. Both kids are an equal match for the organ.
Now I know that this is an extremely implausable situation, but let’s just pretend for a moment. What choice would you be compelled to make?
The choice, and a shitty one to make for sure, would probably go to the wealthy baby. That’s another argument.
But, to add to the hypotheticalness (is that a word?) of the arguement. These two kids are born at the same time, in adjoining birthing rooms. Through some SNAFU they are switched. The child belonging biologically to the poor folks gets the heart and lives. The child belonging biologically to the rich folks does not and dies. I know that is a stretch, but it’s possible. So I’d say it’s not the person who has been born who suffers from inequality, it is the circumstances in which he has been born that dictates his inequality.