I'm not exactly sure, but from a value perspective it's like this frustrating feeling of like on the whole we are being given the option of this beautifully crafted piece of solid oak furniture that will last for generations versus a crappy piece of particleboard furniture and taking the particleboard... a despair at feeling a lost innocence. Maybe this is why most states condone those who beat down religion and it's values.

Eighty percent of non-religious individuals of Western-European culture you would ask about this - in my urban living area at least - would decry the Judeo-Christian moral set and fully maintain the order of the other at the same time. Surely there must be some type of explanation for this change, which I'm not fully gasping. — kudos

Two thoughts. First, if you ask a non-religious person about religious principles it's no surprise if you find negative attitudes. Second, just because people are not aware of the connection between religion and personal liberty doesn't mean it isn't important. Religion has been politicized to the point that it is hard to get perspective. It hasn't been long since the two were inextricably entwined, the civil rights movement being one example.

Is it expressly social, political, technological, anthropological, etc.? — kudos

As I said, I think it's primarily political.

From my own observation the West seems to be in this sort of transition process moving from cultural institutions and structures of individual life derived from these 'unclean' histories to a sort of ideologically automated version. Another way of putting it would be tying up the histories into a type of self-sustaining loop that negates the full extent of their intended meaning but still allows them to survive in a symbolic form through practice. This is done in such a way that over time they would almost certainly become deteriorated and lost or at least alienated from their original meaning. — kudos

I don't understand.

I'm not exactly sure, but from a value perspective it's like this frustrating feeling of like on the whole we are being given the option of this beautifully crafted piece of solid oak furniture that will last for generations versus a crappy piece of particleboard furniture and taking the particleboard... a despair at feeling a lost innocence.

Maybe this is why most states condone those who beat down religion and it's values. — kudos

They do??? This has not been my experience.


You'll need to express yourself in more direct terms, as it's still not clear what you're getting at.

Well we appear to have reached some analysis that the original post about the equality of someone who fails that is unintelligent, not physically strong or agile, etc. is one component of an ideological narrative of Western-European individualism, one which is dominated by a force that is to a large extent a result of the move from deterministic relations of the individual (x is entitled to y) to a more far-reaching concept of self-hood and individual life.

For the extreme libertarian, for instance, the concept of liberty is extended so far as to become the complete opposite; the repression and subjugation of individual life. A billionaire heir who has been educated by the top minds and trained in physical strength by the finest teachers and who is expected in their civil life to remain in power, if given the same opportunity as someone from a family without money who is expected to fail, is it true liberty to simply leave these two the same freedoms of choice and wipe one's hands? What about the biological effects of individual genetics with the qualities of attaining these circumstances?

But this is problematic because it presents the need for a determination of worth that moves past fixed universals to one that is to a certain extent spiritual and objective. This becomes increasingly challenging with the draining of spiritual life from modern life that comes with secularized education and social life and the challenges that face our objective way of thinking from globalization. I guess you could say that Western history, and especially religion, in a certain sense represents beliefs that are undesirable to modern thought, but at the same time contains certain ideas that allow individuals to be complacent in certain differences. Subjugation of those ideas for its own sake may have effects that could be called negative from within that limitation of being.

This could be one reason why many first-world countries grant the right to freedom religion and security against persecution.

I get the feeling that the discussion here got quite diffuse fairly quickly. Maybe because it's the kind of title that invites a lot of interpretation.

@Valentinus said:

The equality of persons as persons does not refer to their capacity or lack thereof. The idea is that, as a person, you are just like other persons, no matter the circumstances one finds oneself within

I think that captures a good chunk of the sentiment found on page 1 of this thread. The problem is that it's practically useless, I think: If the equality of bananas does not refer to their color or shape, or even size or ripeness, then what are we comparing, exactly? "A banana is always a banana". But you wouldn't eat a rotten one, surely?

In other words, I read the OP as "on what grounds can we measure an individual to be equal to other individuals, especially in cases where they exhibit traits and behaviours which we personally find offensive or deplorable?".

Your last post goes into the nature vs nurture thing, and you mention inheritance. I think there is a lot to be discussed here.

But this is problematic because it presents the need for a determination of worth that moves past fixed universals to one that is to a certain extent spiritual and objective.

I think I understand the first part: we can no longer treat individuals simply according to their individual, isolated lives. "The rich kid" inherits some privelege and gains a head start, so his family becomes part of his identity in some sense, I guess this is what you mean by "spiritual and subjective"?