It is the absolute nothingness which results through death that makes it an equaliser and neither the manner of the death nor the circumstances have any bearing on this effect.

Maybe in death we experience eternal calm without the annoyances of life. Would it matter a million years from now if ten years ago someone had more fun than you? Anyway, I think everyone's experience of life is very similar. Envy is not so much sinful as illogical

A good point. While yes, at the end we all die, it is the measure of the life that we live that will be different. If you are person born in a wealthy country, and have the intelligence and connections to gain wealth, you live a great life before your death.

Those who are born in war torn countries with no opportunity for wealth or peace, live lives far less then the fortunate. It is a good reminder. While people may believe there is something after this life, there is only us to help each other in this life.

However, maybe those suffering aren't suffering as much as you'd think and those having fun aren't having as much of it as you imagine.

My twin brother struggles with this issue. Somehow he thinks he is in a small minority of those who s lives are kinda shitty. Most other people, in his eyes, live in what to him would be a state of ecstacy. It's hard to reason with him about this. All you really know with 100 percent certainty are your own feelings

Yet, if one looks at the statistics, we see a disproportionate number of deaths among the poor, the underprivileged, the minority, the weak, the downtrodden; any individual or group on the wrong side of an inequality has the unenviable distinction of having an increased risk of dying prematurely — TheMadFool

You're not a very patient person.

Mind you, I don't mean that we should cull the weak — TheMadFool

Oh you better not. Some of the weakest people you can imagine are some of the strongest physically or in terms of social power. They never had to do anything for themselves or go through what someone who has to struggle to do what others have the inate and unearned ability to do. True weakness seeks power, be it physically or by position of authority. Anything to be the bigger man and lord over others without ever actually having to sacrifice, risk, or otherwise "do" anything difficult.

While the scales were forever tipped in the battle of brain versus brawn in the favor of the former the first time a tree fell atop a boulder creating the first lever, with each subsequent innovation an obscenely overwhelming victory for the former, strength is only half physical. At most.

In regards to the previous sentence, you're not incorrect. If something ever happens to the favorable circumstance or physical endowments one decides to build not only their entire identity and sense of self on but meaning of life on as well, it'd be like watching the training wheels fall off of a bike ridden by a toddler. At best you'd be left with an angry, confused child- at worst something not even Jane Goodall would recognize as human. If they keep themselves alive that is. Which is a toss up.

Not everyones like this. Any sensible person would want to keep themselves healthy. Of course. One who chooses either brain or brawn over the other will never know either.

Death is NOT, by a long shot, the great equalizer. It, if anything, is more like the hitmen in the service of the power mafia. — TheMadFool

They won't die? You can't have weakness without strength and vice versa. There's always going to be someone on top and another beneath. Someone has to pay the piper. The difference is one will never have to face their weaknesses while the other will never be able to hide behind circumstance or "an easy life" and call themselves strong.

I think Judaka is completely right in stating that what is meant in that quote is that death, which is inevitable, will eventually come to all. This is not focused on the life of the deceased or their death.

A religious person may argue that death is an equaliser because, before God, everyone is equal and judged on the good of their deeds and hearts, not of their wealth and privileges of life. As an atheist, I would argue that death is an equaliser because, in death, we all cease to exist... equally...

Where death would cease to be an equaliser would be if they manage to 'Cure' death, i.e. find a way to avoid it but only make it available to the rich, which it would be. In that case, death would certainly only be another thorn in the sides of the poor

True happiness is the great equalizer, because it comes only to those who truly deserve it.

"Most other people, in his eyes, live in what to him would be a state of ecstacy"

Why does he think this? Just a cursory glance at what America is going through right now reveals a country of desperately unhappy angry people.

I think he's been so disappointed in life that he feels his situation must be very unusual. I agree with you that many people are unhappy

One way to look at it is that Death is the language of privilege through nobility and honor. The code of Bushido combines the acceptance of death with the freedom to fulfill obligations and desired outcomes. Swearing till death do we part creates a structure in society.

The idea of a an equal life has more to do with leveling the differences between people. The Christian idea of a reality of souls that is what it is whatever roles people play in society is a clear expression of this principle.

True happiness is the great equalizer, because it comes only to those who truly deserve it. — Tzeentch

Wouldn't this imply no selfless and caring person has ever had a hard life? And that no selfish and toxic person ever had a good one? Let me guess. You're fortunate enough at present to call yourself happy?

If such things exist as heaven and hell or reincarnation, then death is not the great equalizer.

It's a good enough equalizer at least. In the throes of crippling and debilitating sickness, the poorest, meekest man and the richest, strongest man lay side by side on the doorsteps of death .. and suddenly all the strength, money, and power in the world means little more to him than being able to hear the faintest breath of the weaker man he never gave a second thought to, letting him know he's still alive. Difference is .. some never seem to learn.

Wouldn't this imply no selfless and caring person has ever had a hard life? And that no selfish and toxic person ever had a good one? — Outlander

True happiness is completely seperate from those things.

Let me guess. You're fortunate enough at present to call yourself happy? — Outlander

Happy? Yes.

Achieved true happiness? No.

It is the absolute nothingness which results through death that makes it an equaliser and neither the manner of the death nor the circumstances have any bearing on this effect. — Judaka

I beg to differ. Is there a difference or not between a short life and a long life? Don't people say that someone was fortunate to have lived to a ripe old age? Don't people say things like, "he died too young?" All these common utterances indicate a felt injustice in dying early, kicking the bucket prematurely. In other words, death occurring too early counts as a loss, vindicating my claim that death is not an equalizer - some die too young - this is unfair - and those that do die young are usually underprivileged - this is also unfair. A double whammy.

Maybe in death we experience eternal calm without the annoyances of life. Would it matter a million years from now if ten years ago someone had more fun than you? Anyway, I think everyone's experience of life is very similar. Envy is not so much sinful as illogical — Gregory

It appears that it does matter whether someone had more fun than someone else. That's precisely the reason people are more grieved by the death of the young rather than the old and that's why death is unfair - more underprivileged folk are taken away from us than those who have it good.

You're not a very patient person. — Outlander

What means you by that?

Oh you better not. Some of the weakest people you can imagine are some of the strongest physically or in terms of social power. They never had to do anything for themselves or go through what someone who has to struggle to do what others have the inate and unearned ability to do. True weakness seeks power, be it physically or by position of authority. Anything to be the bigger man and lord over others without ever actually having to sacrifice, risk, or otherwise "do" anything difficult.

While the scales were forever tipped in the battle of brain versus brawn in the favor of the former the first time a tree fell atop a boulder creating the first lever, with each subsequent innovation an obscenely overwhelming victory for the former, strength is only half physical. At most.

In regards to the previous sentence, you're not incorrect. If something ever happens to the favorable circumstance or physical endowments one decides to build not only their entire identity and sense of self on but meaning of life on as well, it'd be like watching the training wheels fall off of a bike ridden by a toddler. At best you'd be left with an angry, confused child- at worst something not even Jane Goodall would recognize as human. If they keep themselves alive that is. Which is a toss up.

Not everyones like this. Any sensible person would want to keep themselves healthy. Of course. One who chooses either brain or brawn over the other will never know either. — Outlander

All that matters is this: the weaker side dies more quickly and in more brutal ways than the stronger.

They won't die? You can't have weakness without strength and vice versa. There's always going to be someone on top and another beneath. Someone has to pay the piper. The difference is one will never have to face their weaknesses while the other will never be able to hide behind circumstance or "an easy life" and call themselves strong — Outlander

Read my replies to other posters above.

What means you by that? — TheMadFool

There's very little to misinterpret I'm afraid.

All that matters is this: the weaker side dies more quickly and in more brutal ways than the stronger. — TheMadFool

Well if that's all that matters. More quickly yet more brutal eh? That's.. an interesting conclusion. Are we still defining strength as physical or mental or a toss up? Again, you'd be surprised what a few inventions can do..

Well if that's all that matters. More quickly yet more brutal eh? That's.. an interesting conclusion. Are we still defining strength as physical or mental or a toss up? Again, you'd be surprised what a few inventions can do.. — Outlander

Well, name one occasion where the weaker side ends up on top in the game of survival.

I can't. But that's the point. We live in a world- and for the most (recent) part always have- where technology, innovation, logic, and reason paves the way forward. You use your brain. A tiny, frail man who thinks can poison the watering hole of a city of 10,000 brutes (or why not more) leaving them all dead or incapacitated by morning. The same goes further, see the atomic bomb. You clearly believe in evolution, yes? Why do we live in an age of technology, comfort, and convenience? Why are 95% of all scientists not large, buff, stocky "jock types"? Have you any other explanation why we're not still living in caves, hunting game to survive and beating each other over the head with a club for food and shelter?

Basically, we've yet to hear your definition of strength and whether or not it is primarily physical or mental.

I can't — Outlander

There usually is an exception to every rule.

Basically, we've yet to hear your definition of strength and whether or not it is primarily physical or mental. — Outlander

Quantitative differences (counts/measurements) in money, weaponry, physical prowess, mental ability, and population, to name a few, are strength disparities. Negatively viewed, fewer weaknesses than your competitors in the same areas go toward your strength.

I beg to differ. Is there a difference or not between a short life and a long life? Don't people say that someone was fortunate to have lived to a ripe old age? Don't people say things like, "he died too young?" All these common utterances indicate a felt injustice in dying early, kicking the bucket prematurely. In other words, death occurring too early counts as a loss, vindicating my claim that death is not an equalizer - some die too young - this is unfair - and those that do die young are usually underprivileged - this is also unfair. A double whammy. — TheMadFool

What death equalised are not our opinions on life, fairness, what we want for our loved ones, ourselves or people in general. It is from the perspective of the dead that we look to find what has been equalised. There is no truth to any of it, just interpretative relevance and consequence. If thinking that death is a great equaliser helps you to live with less worries then great, if you disagree, you're not really wrong, it's just interpretation.

This really opened my eyes.
What you write makes sense. All these years, I had read 'Death as the equalizer' in a simplistic fashion - no one escapes death. Now, I understand it a tad better.

Well, name one occasion where the weaker side ends up on top in the game of survival. — TheMadFool

I got one! Say society turns into a supremacist dystopia where the physically (and I suppose for this example mentally, either of) superior are allowed to live in some "super city" where everything is perfect and the rest of us average folk have to scrounge on the outskirts of barely maintained living complexes. This super city the elite live in is walled off and can be sealed off in an airtight fashion just in case. Now say, in their attempts at security and longevity their defenses end up failing or malfunctioning during an outbreak or major weapons malfunction or a nuclear meltdown, trapping everyone inside and resulting in there being no survivors. Stuff like that could happen.

This really opened my eyes.
What you write makes sense. All these years, I had read 'Death as the equalizer' in a simplistic fashion - no one escapes death. Now, I understand it a tad better. — zoey

Oh God it's spreading. Wait a minute- before you make any conclusions, consider this.

Without death, the weak would still be weak and alive and the strong would still be strong and alive. Instead, both weak and strong will die respectively. Sure, as TMF said, those who have greater resources generally have greater ability for security and as a result longevity. But this would be true regardless if death existed or not. So, both the weak and strong can take solace in the fact that death comes for us all, while the weak have to face this head-on, the strong only have the ability to delay and stave this inevitability off another day. Death is by no means any man's "henchman".

Important to differentiate a single individual whether strong or weak from any number or pool of random people who due to circumstance just so happen to be able to be categorized as "strong"(er). The pendulum of power sways back and forth until the end of time. David and Goliath- for example. At no point was David ever stronger than Goliath, wielding a slingshot or not. Yet. He was able to defeat him using an application of leveraging forces to work in his favor which another was ill-equipped to defend against, perhaps from becoming complacent in one's own strength thus being taken by surprise or otherwise not thinking of all possible outcomes and the defenses needed to defend against said outcomes no matter how unlikely.

Maybe in death we experience eternal calm without the annoyances of life. — Gregory

What is death?

Well, the collapse of the body of course. But that's not really what concerns us. What makes death worrisome is the absence of the data, our memories, thoughts, opinions etc. A careful observation will reveal this absence of data already happens all the time on a regular basis, and not only do we not mind the absence, it often forms some of our favorite experiences.

As just one of an endless number of examples, what is an orgasm but a brief moment of psychological death? I don't think it's a coincidence that this brief psychological death is the reward we are given for engaging in life creating activities.

And what this connection between life making and death experiencing may reveal is that life and death are not two different things. Lifedeath could be a single phenomena, much in the same way spacetime is a single phenomena. It could be that our highly dualistic division creating minds have conceptually divided something that in the real world is one. Always, always, always be on the look out for this source of distortion.

Well, this is a theory that entertains me. The best way to engage such a theory is not to agree or disagree, but to observe your own experience very carefully, and discover how many of the experiences you enjoy involve psychological death.

I got one! Say society turns into a supremacist dystopia where the physically (and I suppose for this example mentally, either of) superior are allowed to live in some "super city" where everything is perfect and the rest of us average folk have to scrounge on the outskirts of barely maintained living complexes. This super city the elite live in is walled off and can be sealed off in an airtight fashion just in case. Now say, in their attempts at security and longevity their defenses end up failing or malfunctioning during an outbreak or major weapons malfunction or a nuclear meltdown, trapping everyone inside and resulting in there being no survivors. Stuff like that could happen. — Outlander

There's no competitive element to this in the sense it isn't actually a case of one side meeting the other on a batttlefiled where strengths/weaknesses work with or against each other. No side has a hand in causing the opposing side's auto-destruct sequence. I suppose one could say that the enemy of my enemy is my ally. Can you look into this and get back to me.

That said, you've made a pertinent observation - the reality of what's seen in a lot of films viz. the self-destruct button. Strengths can be a double-edged sword - useful for offense but can be/become a liability. I recall discussing our so-called superior intellect in this regard. However, anything that negatively impacts our survival at any point in time, sooner or later, would be a weakness. I sense a mistake in this line of thought but can't quite put my finger on it. I mean if a strength/weakness is defined in terms of how advantageous/disadvantageous something is for survival then how do we explain the Architect's statement to Neo in The Matrix?

Hope. It is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest strength, and your greatest weakness. — The Architect (The Matrix)

We need to get past the contradiction of course.

True happiness is the great equalizer, because it comes only to those who truly deserve it. — Tzeentch

What is it that ensures that good people are happy and bad people are not?

The idea that goodness produces happiness, and badness produces misery.

In some twisted sense, it's comforting to know everyone dies no matter how unequal we are in life.

Yet, if one looks at the statistics, we see a disproportionate number of deaths among the poor, the underprivileged, the minority, the weak — TheMadFool

I think you've missed the point that it's not saying all groups are going to have the same distribution of ages or types of death. Merely that everyone is going to die eventually; the end of every life story, good or bad, rich or poor, popular or pariah, is death.

In the not-too-distant future it may no longer be true though. Many people alive today may get to see a time where life extension therapies are available. In the long run, what will the effect be? Will some of us still live mere decades, bodies plagued with disease for the end third of that time, while others run and play for centuries?
In that scenario, I don't think many would find it very comforting to reflect on the fact those elf-people will eventually die someday, probably when they've had their fill of pleasures.

The idea that goodness produces happiness, and badness produces misery. — Tzeentch

But is it true that this always occurs? Do good people always end up happy? Do bad people always end up unhappy? When we see people suffering, is it always because they did something bad and so deserve it?