That’s true. Circumstance is a big player in determining who is the more likely to develope into a contributing member to society vs the one more likely to become a burden.
Well, how about two sets of poor parents give birth. All things being equal, the former has given birth to their first while the latter their 8th. The former are poor because they are new immigrants to this country but with a good education and good potential to really make a go if it. The latter are still habitual welfare recipients who do not show much promise of self determination and initiative.
If all else is equal, then I’d say each has potential to contribute greatly. Of course they also each have potential to be real wankers too. The well-educated parents’ child could ignore his family’s teachings and pursue a life of crime. The welfare family’s child could discover early on that he must pull himself up by his own bootstraps if he is going to make a go at it.
I think the point that I’m trying to make is that when a person is born he is modeling clay. There are a trillion circumstances that could affect his value to society, starting at day one. It doesn’t matter to whom he was born. Sure that plays a part but it doesn’t override the unforeseen.
If my parents had struck gold right before I was born, I’d be sitting in my little trust fund penthouse right now, typing away on the latest technology available, instead of wasting my employers time, before trudging back to my studio apartment.
Or look at it this way. A person is born. He is fresh, new, a clean slate. In this way he is equal to everybody. From that point on it is the circumstances in which he is surrounded that make the differences. If he goes home with his abusive parents, his course is set. But if they get into a car accident on the way home and both parents die, and then that child is adopted by the two most loving, nurturing people in the world, he is set on a different course.
Does that make sense? It made sense in my head when I thought of it.
I know just what you are getting at and it’s a triffle unfair of me to insist that my set of circumstances are realistic while your’s (read: auto accident leading to a better adoptive home for the child) are not.
Suffice it to say that the 8th child of the welfare family is not particularly likely to die in a car accident - certainly the chances of that occuring are equally likely for both families in question. More than likely, they will both make it home with their respective kids following the surgery.
But we should not speculate on potential accidents that may or may not occure. Neither should we speculate on whether kid A or B will have interest in higher learning when he has grown.
The facts are before us. One kid belongs to a well educated immigrant couple, the other to an uneducated habitual welfare couple. Who has the greatest potential of success in life given current day circumstances?
Then I would agree with you, in that the child of the well-educated people has a statistically better chance of it. But I think you’re getting away from the original argument as I read it.
“Are all people created equal?”
My argument is: yes they are. From there on out it is their circumstances that may give one an edge over another.
Be that as it may, and given that both these kids have theoretically the same chances at success in life (family circumstance aside) we will most likely elect to donate the heart to the immigrant family. Why? Because of family circumstance that kid has the greater chance of becoming a contributing member to society.
So even as we say that all people are created equal, what we really mean is: Equal, as long as we don’t have to choose between them.
This is touchy.
While I am not a doctor, or a hospital administrator, I don’t think family circumstance dictates, over all other circumstances, which child would get that heart. It might, but I would be appalled if it did.
I guess it depends on who is doing the choosing and for what. As you said in the OP, the American Constitution makes each of us equal, so judging by that, I would rather see a coin toss for the ticker, rather than a judgement by a ruling authority.
I have met far too many who were better people than myself. More willpower, more kind, more energetic, more active. Often all four of these characteristics and more in the same person.
I don’t come from a bad family. I wasn’t brought up poorly. I have no major health problems. I’m just a little lazy and easily angered.
Sure, I’ve met people who probably rate lower than I do in some of my fault areas, but I’ve also met people who are better than me in almost every comparable respect. I suspect I’m somewhere toward the middle of the spectrum of humans.
Maybe we’re created equal initially, but if so, where does the change come that makes us better or worse people in the end? There doesn’t seem to be any sure-fire method of “making” a good person, so I conclude that it’s the luck of the draw.
Not only are people not equal, most of them are pretty damn worthless.
Having said that, everyone does deserve the same rights, whatever those are.
Kinda like that “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.
I may happen to think you’d be more valuable as fertilizer, but your rights must be defended as vigorously as mine, since the loss of yours only sets precedence for the loss of mine.
while all people may or may not be created equal, i don’t think anyone is capable of making a judgement on who may be better than anyone else, there are too many variables… heck there are too many possible scales
so you don’t believe in any genetic advantage at all? We are all born with the same intelligence potential? It is solely nurture as opposed to a combination of nature/nuture?
Take one baby, any baby and you can turn the baby into Einstein? Just give the baby opportunity?
I have a child who tests in the profoundly gifted range. I can tell you that I have done nothing more in the area of educating him than is common. I can’t explain why he tests so much higher and learns and processes information so much faster than his peers than by acknowledging that somehow in the genetic lottery, he happened to score some useful intelligence stuff.
well einstien wasent more of a genius than todays average he just had luck and a oversized part of his brain which gave him certain abilitys others didnt. Had he not been forced into those circumstances he probably would have been a bum or a teacher.
Asmodean have you got some cites for that opinion? Einstein was not “today’s average”. While the Flynn Effect has seen some drift in IQ scoring, the Flynn Effect does not apply at the extremes of the IQ bell curve. If Einstein scored in the profoundly gifted range in his time, he would score in the profoundly gifted range now.
Anyway high IQ is simply certain abilities which others don’t have and I don’t see where luck enters into Einstein’s achievements. He worked to achieve his accomplishments. What particular life circumstances forced him not to become a bum or a teacher?
Genetic advantage for intelligence - yes. Genetic advantage for equality - no. I’m not saying there aren’t people who are inherently smarter, better athletes, more artistic, etc. than others. But I am saying, why should those qualities in a person make them more valuable to society. There are a lot of smart, athletic, artistic people in the world who waste their lives. However, with the right kind of breaks, a less intelligent, 98-pound weakling who couldn’t draw a straight line, has the potential to conquer the world.
The other point I was trying to make earlier is that there is a certain amount of luck or happenstance that affects all of us. What (hypothetical) circumstance forced Einstein to not become a bum? There are a million. He wasn’t hit by a car. He wasn’t gored by a rabid wildebeest. He didn’t contract typhoid. He wasn’t exterminated in the holocaust. Again I know these are stretches, but where would we be today if by some unlucky break, Einstein died as a child? Maybe someone else would have come up with everything he did, but then we’d be using someone else’s name to make fun of our little brothers. “Yeah, right, good answer, ???”
All People are most certainly not created equal. Too many examples to cover here, but here are just a few:
Guy I work with born into a family so poor the dinner dishes were used in turn (i.e., one set of dishes, took turns eating dinner). Now has terrific job, wife, and life. One of the nicest people I know, no resentment toward others.
Guy born into a family with money, success placed neatly at his feet. Now a drug addict, never longer than a few months, maybe a year, at the same job.
Immigrants son. Parents arrived in US with no money or assets, except a willingness to succeed. Now thriving, financially independent, respected, and happy.
Something must exist within the person to drive him in a given direction. Circumstances are definitely enough to put certain people into certain situations, but not all. Those who succeed despite the most difficult obstacles, and those who fail despite incredible opportunities are all too common to allow us to think that all are created equal.
I think a terrible flaw in current US society is to strive for equality among people, specifically in the younger age groups. We are foolish to deny the differences, and attempt to protect people’s egos. We should recognize achievement and ability, and not allow ourselves to be fooled into thinking we are all somehow equal in our abilities. Rights, absolutely equal; abilities, intellect, will power - never.
Quicksilver, Needs2Know, Chaim, and Jack Batty: The U.S. Constitution does not say that all men are created equal. The document you’re thinking of is the Declaration of Independence. Which, by the way, is not legally binding. For whatever it’s worth.
The closest the Constitution comes, as far as I can see, is in the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified after the Civil War:
Emphasis mine. Every other reference to equality in the Constitution deals with legislative apportionment and other procedural matters.
OK I think we agree then. You need a mix of nature and nurture? Without a decent environment, nobody is going to succeed but you need the basics of intelligence to optimise the environment.
Well as an Englishman, for me this discussion never was about American law. Some of us in countries not governed by the Amercian constitution still believe in and wish to discuss the concept of being born equal.
I think this argument has split two ways:
[ul]
[li]Those who are insisting that we are not the same genetically, that we have different potentials and circumstances and that society will inevitably give some the advantage over others[/li]
[li]Those who are arguing that all of the above doesn’t matter since the concept of ‘being equal’ refers to our rights in law. These should be independent of our personal circumstances.[/li][/ul]
So which are we arguing folks?
Dinsdale - “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is one (rather Amercian) way of defining rights. I was more thinking of the idea that the law should recognise all parties equally. That it should not be legal for individual A to do action X unless it is also legal for individual B. An example society in which this holds is (in theory at least) the US. An example society in which it did not hold would be Nazi Germany.
The question can’t be answered because it makes an incorrect assumption.
First, “creation” would indicate that a higher being or entity threw some instant people mix into a bowl, added water, stirred, baked for a couple of hours and presto, people!
If you look at it from an evolutionary perspective, it is, as every one knows, survival of the fittest. In the past it was only the most able hunter who would be more likely to pass on the genes. The circumstances have changed somewhat in today’s society, but the concept is still there. (I’ll leave that discussion for another thread). The person with the smarts, is the most able “hunter” or breadwinner today. You got the bucks; you get doors opened for you.
You might say, “hold on,” what about the kid born rich. He has more privileges to succeed than the poor kid born in the slum does, should he not have the same resources to succeed? In my opinion, the poor kid does deserve the right to succeed, invariably, s/he will have to work harder at it than the kid born rich. But now we are discussing equal rights. The OP clearly asks about equal creation.
