Before I begin, sorry if this has been done before. I searched the forum and came up with nothing.
The question I wonder is are all people on this earth equal and/or created equal?
One part of me tells me yes, they are. Each person has the right to life, happiness, love and everything else this world has to offer. People have many differences as well, and everyone has special talents they have to offer. There’s also other points to this idea as well that I can’t quite put my finger on.
I think it’s more of an ideal though, because I find myself judging others a lot. This person’s dumber, fatter, not as wealthy but on the flip side I envy others because I find them to be smarter, more hardworking/talented, funny. And, I understand that my feelings are only my feelings but when others share the same feelings, they add up. Do the cumulative feelings of the people around define the individual in question?
I guess I’m just trying to grasp my true feelings. Do people have a right to judge others? I know I do and I don’t think I can help it, but I always try to be kind and nice to everyone I come across. However, I don’t always get this same kind of treatment in return. If I have the virtue of respect, which I and many others find to be important, and another does not, wouldn’t that mean that that person is not good. Am I fooling myself to think that all people are equal?
We aren’t all created equal. Some might argue that we’re all equal in different ways, but I’d venture to guess that they’re ignoring the retarded kid with no arms or legs who’s going to die before he reaches the age of 4.
“All people are created equal” refers to equality of rights, not equality of abilities. The doomed limbless retarded kid has the same constitutional rights as a nobel prize winning billionaire physicist who’s also a starting point guard in the NBA.
Denmark is a monarchy. The royal family has by birth more rights than other Danes. Besides it depends on what or whom does the judging. To me my family & friends are worth more than strangers.
ok perhaps my question is more about judgement. That retarded kid with no legs, do you look down on him because he’s not as “good” as you? I, myself would hopefully find sympathy and may recognize my own fortune some more, but can I consider myself better? I think I would and I find something wrong with this.
Would you define laws that treat him differently from myself as “looking down”?
Back when slavery was prevalent, people didn’t view themselves as looking down upon blacks. Blacks were considered to be like children. Cute and all, but you couldn’t expect a lot out of them, and they certainly couldn’t be trusted with anything of any real import. They viewed it as being simply a matter of course that blacks wouldn’t have the same rights as whites, not that they were evil or disgusting or anything.
In modern times we’d say that they were looking down on blacks. But in a hundred years people might say we’re looking down on our children by not giving them the same rights as ourselves.
The only way to justify any sort of policy which treats one person differently than another is if you can show a clear, provable cause and effect. But if we actually did that for everything, we’d end up discriminating more than we do now since then people could make laws at the individual level which–while maximizing the benefits to all in the society–removed/granted some rights of that person in relation to his particular strengths/weaknesses.
Unless you give everyone the same exact rights, regardless of whether they’re still a sperm or Barack Obama, you’re looking down on someone. But at the same time, doing that just isn’t practical. Using a pejorative like “looking down” really becomes meaningless.
I don’t think I can define any laws as I am not that knowledgeable, but I would bet that the government works in favor of many disabled. It probably works in favor of Barack Obama as well. Wouldn’t this be considered more of “looking up” to a person?
Sage Rat, I understand and respect your views on policy and the general societal attitude of people. I agree that some need to be treated differently, in ways good and bad. Criminals who violate others rights should have theirs violated as well, perhaps.
You did not answer my question though, are you “better” or “more important” than the retarded kid?
Better at what or more important how? I’m probably a better runner than the kid, I’m probably a better orator. I’m certainly more important to me and my family. The kid is probably more important to his family.
Probably. I’d spend more money to save one of me than to save one of him.
But, like I said, expressing it in terms of importance or looking up or down only makes sense in a world where right and wrong are clearly defined. We don’t live in that world. I’m of more value to society because I have physical and mental capabilities, as well as a lifespan over which to utilize those abilities. Or–that would be my view of things. But you can certainly find someone who’ll tell you that every life is equal or that disabled children are more important than any adult, regardless of the situation, etc. I would vote that they’re rather silly for thinking in that way, but they’d vote that I’m silly for thinking the way I do. I’m not self-centered enough to claim that my morality is the correct one.
We are not automatically given equal opportunity; the circumstances of birth are pretty much luck from the standpoint of the baby.
Nature assigns no notion of equality for any living thing.
For humans, “equality” is a value assigned by societies which choose to grant it. There is no authority to which one can appeal that we are equal in value. Such a concept is simply a common agreement which derives from our altruistic drive. (At odds with that drive is the drive to be selfish and put ourselves or our families or our clans above all others.)
We can decide as societies to grant equal worth in principle although in practice it is impossible to effect. Because we are unequal by nature, trying to effect an equality of worth necessarily involves treating those less enabled or given less opportunity unequally in the hope that we can smooth out the inequalities that nature and circumstances have created.
Diversity is important for the human race. We wouldn’t be much as a species or civilization without it. So that’s just unavoidable.
But I guess one of the ways we differ is in what we value. For almost any trait you can find descriptors with a positive valence, a negative valence or a neutral one - it’s up to you to pick which you’re going to go with. So you have chosen to use the terms dumb, poor and fat. You could have probably referred to the same people as unpretentious, unassuming, plump. You could call a hard worker either industrious or a drone. You could see someone as wealthy or greedy. Not being as funny as someone else can be sobriety.
Sometimes the culture lays it on pretty thick which term we’re supposed to use, and what we’re supposed to prefer, but in the end it is always our own choice. Of course it’s all right if you value one person or one trait over another. Or you can value not valuing one person over another too - it’s up to you and it’s about how you create meaning.
So I guess what I’m saying is, nobody can answer this question for you - it’s completely up to you, it has more to do with who you are and what you come up with when you do your own soul-searching - than it has to do with anyone else.
He is different than you, does not make his worth less than you. We each have our own value in life. I am good as a wrench turner but lousy with words.
As far as judgement as to value as a person, that will end you in trouble sooner than later. I could give an example or two, but lets keep it short. But making a judgment about a persons ability is not wrong. I had to make that kind of judgement about someone last month. He had volunteered to be on the electrical team at a festable that I work at. I had to make the judgment that having him on the team could be dangerous because of his thought process. I could not assign him work on his own, someone would have to watch every thing he did. But I am trying to get him on one of the labor teams because he is a good worker with a good heart. But I am not better than him or have more value than he does.
The PC answer is that everyone is equal. Of course this is not the case. There are people who posess extraordinary ability, intelligence and drive and who make great contributions to society. There are also people who can barely tie their shoes in the morning.
The age old question is how do you encourage and support those of extraordinary ability so that they continue to make great contributions to society without subjegating the weak and incompetant or having them become a drain on the strong.
The answer is equal application of law. You are free to pursue your greatness as far as you can, within the confines of not trampling on the rights of others.
Scripture speaks to all people not being equal, some people (even today in so called ‘free societies’) are born slaves, others are born free, and varying degrees in the middle, many people are born bearing the bondage of sin of there forefathers. There is no equal opportunity, just a illusion that it may exist. This illusion tends to make those oppressed think less of themselves, thinking there must be something wrong with them, when it is the nature of the world that is holding them back.
Equality comes through Jesus, He is the only one who can set a person free.
I think people should be treated equally, but I don’t think they’re necessarily created so.
-Those of an African origin have more (around 3% if memory serves…) fast-twich muscle fiber, making them fast runners for example. On the other hand, they have higher bone density making them not so great at high level competitive swimming.
-Asian people have a larger brain by weight (forget the exact figure, but it’s around a few grams). Their bodies are also predisposed to being more flexible (the term starts with ‘x’… I think). Hence the martial arts synonymy.
-Caucasians have a proclivity for concentration (and males in general in fact - has to do with the isthmus), hence the correlation with invention/discovery throughout history. More so at least than ‘aboriginal’ people who have some difficulty in committing their minds to a single task for extended periods. (*anecdotal from someone who’s worked with aboriginal children).
But ultimately, I think all of the above can also be argued as attributable to nature and evolution, at least in a roundabout way:
-Africans: harsher climates make for a ‘thicker hide’…?
-Asian: complicated communicatory systems and rich culture leads to more advanced cerebral growth…?
-Caucasians: world dominance invariably will give a peoples the upper hand in the area of technological advancement…?
Absolutely not. The correct understanding of human equality was stated by G. K. Chesterton.
In terms of soul, all human beings are equal, that is to say God views us all as equal. In terms of anything else, we are certainly not equal. There is no physical characteristic or mental ability in existance that all human beings have in equal amount, or even in close to equal amount. Hence any philosophy of life that insists on judging human beings that way will eventually lead to inequality, first in the philosophical sense, then in the legal. You can find books in your local bookstore explaining why certain people should be denied voting rights or other rights.
Actually I’d say that conservatives and libertarians act more like they think we are all born equal than liberals do. How else to explain that a poor person could get rich if he just tried a little harder?