Death and taxes.

Other than that old saying, nothing really comes to mind.

Haven’t read the entire thread, but equal in what sense? Equal in height, in gait … I suspect that “equality” is here shorthand for “equal in value” … which would translate into “equality of rights” or “equality of justice” or some such. In which case, taking my cue from the US’s declaration of independence, from George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”, and from the present state of affairs in the USA, to not mention the world:

It is a self-evident truth that all humans are created equal, and that some humans are being created increasingly more equal than others, with this dichotomy between equals growing exponentially as the days pass.

Soon enough we might be reinstating slaves and slave-owners, just that in this future the two will be officially decreed equals, with the latter being vastly more equal in value than the far less equal slaves they’ll own.

---------

Well, my dark-humored chuckles aside (better to laugh than cry I say) ...

On what grounds should all humans be governed by the same laws if all humans are not equal in value?

Else, for example, should some group A be lawfully allowed to murder while some group B receives capital punishment for doing the same?

I don’t really think it matters if people are ‘equal’ or not.

The guiding principle should be to treat each other as if we are all capable of something in some capacity and therefore view humans as potentially being better and making themselves and others better.

Equality in this sense has nothing to do with abilities or personal resources. Equality is simply about respecting fellow humans and making the most of what we have and learning about our own inadequacies so as not too often overreach or cause undue harm within our immediate sphere - and accepting and being responsible as we’ll fail in our youthful years repeatedly.

Mm, I would agree with your general statement, but disagree with the way you put it. I think Human inequality is natural, just not a needed variable when we demand ethical questions.

:up:

How would equality in value translate into equality in rights? For example, I could have 1+3=4, and 2+2=4. Two identical values but with blaring differences. In this case both individuals, even though they bring the same value would have to be treated differently.

Im my opinion you shouldn't base equality of rights on value. I think you should base equality on the equal differential/personalization of rights, e.g because we are all different we are all equal (in that regard).

Mm, I would agree with your general statement, but disagree with the way you put it. I think Human inequality is natural, just not a needed variable when we demand ethical questions. — john27

Yep, much as I hate to admit it, you're right. Equality, in fact, is very, very human. We're trying to fix the world. We've made some boo-boos along the way but I'm sure, no matter how atrocious our actions, we'll eventually forgive ourselves for...we didn't know any better.

How would equality in value translate into equality in rights? For example, I could have 1+3=4, and 2+2=4. Two identical values but with blaring differences. In this case both individuals, even though they bring the same value would have to be treated differently. — john27

This is equivocating "the degree of importance given to something" with mathematical notions of value.

Im my opinion you shouldn't base equality of rights on value. — john27

To then rephrase, on what grounds should all humans be subjected to the same codified consequences to conduct if not the grounds that all types of humans (types differing in things such as average skin color, and so forth) nevertheless are granted to have the same degree of inherent importance?

I think you should base equality on the equal differential/personalization of rights, e.g because we are all different we are all equal (in that regard). — john27

This doesn't seem to suffice. Humans are different from rocks, but the fact that the two are different does not thereby make humans and rocks equal - else, the same - in any regard relevant to equal rights.

This is equivocating "the degree of importance given to something" with mathematical notions of value. — javra

Er...not exactly. I was trying to describe how same ≠ equal.

This doesn't seem to suffice. Humans are different from rocks, but the fact that the two are different does not thereby make humans and rocks equal - else, the same - in any regard relevant to equal rights. — javra

Well of course, you would use that statement in moderation, or in some specific parameter that renders it useful.

You still haven't answered my question.

Forgive me if I interpreted wrong but your question was:

To then rephrase, on what grounds should all humans be subjected to the same codified consequences to conduct if not the grounds that all types of humans (types differing in things such as average skin color, and so forth) nevertheless are granted to have the same degree of inherent importance? — javra

In which i disagree this initial premise, by my statement above:

Im my opinion you shouldn't base equality of rights on value. I think you should base equality on the equal differential/personalization of rights, e.g because we are all different we are all equal (in that regard). — john27

(i.e, I don't believe in codified consequence).

Which is why i believed my answer here sufficed:

Well of course, you would use that statement in moderation, or in some specific parameter that renders it useful. — john27

Because this would seem to acknowledge its inherent deficit which you had pointed out (human treating rock equally), in a concise manner that still makes it applicable.

(i.e, I don't believe in codified consequence). — john27

Should I gather from this that you don't believe in democratic principles? All variations of autocratic systems will not have all humans of that system subjected to the same laws, i.e. codified consequences to conduct.

No, I just think that some rules just are not applicable to everyone, and requires an intelligent/positive biases to suit their needs.

Heres an example: if there was a rule in a school that you MUST use the stairs and not the elevator, would someone in a wheelchair still be applicable to the rule? No! You would provide an intelligent bias, to make his QOL better. i.e, people in his case are now allowed to use the elevator.

I just think we need some malleability in the way we treat others.

Well, I'm referring to state sanctioned laws. As in, what aspects of the US constitution should apply to only some USA citizens but not to others?

Some malleability is built into the US constitution by default, btw. Yes to free speech but no to falsely claiming fire in a crowded theater, kind of thing. But its laws are still intended to apply to every citizen, not just some.

Well, I don't know. I haven't read the US constitution before so I wouldn't be able to give a practical explanation of my thoughts, but I think my main idea is that I would like for the constitution to perform initially malleable, not apply it later. That way we can deal with situations according to their circumstances themselves, and not on something that was written that was presupposed to be true.

OK, but if different humans (which will be different by definition) will be deemed to have different degrees of importance, how does one prevent justifying things such as slave ownership?

In the wheelchair example you previously provided, one affords an exception to people on wheelchairs with - I assume - the implicit conviction that their lives are as important as the lives of non-handicaped peoples.

On the other hand, if a category of humans are deemed to be of less intrinsic importance, on what grounds would they not be implicitly considered "sub-human" by those of so-called normal importance? Thereby not meriting the same rights to life, to not mention things such as the same rights to pursue happiness and such.

OK, but if different humans (which will be different by definition) will be deemed to have different degrees of importance, how does one prevent justifying things such as slave ownership? — javra

I don't recall saying that. Could you demonstrate where I implied this?

I'm sorry If i did; the basis of my point is to assess our differences AS an equalizing property. As well, the variable treatment of all is in the pursuit of contentment, so it wouldn't necessarily describe varying degrees of importance...

It started with "equality of value" ... not of mathematical notions of value, but of "degrees of importance" ... not being deemed by you a proper grounds for the basing of equality of rights. As in:

Im my opinion you shouldn't base equality of rights on value. — john27

Notice that this statement isn't about the semantics of sameness v. equality, as mentioned here:

Er...not exactly. I was trying to describe how same ≠ equal. — john27

But about the virtue of value - again, as in "the degree of innate importance pertaining to something".

In sum, the debate between us centers around whether or not all humans ought to be deemed to be of equal value, i.e. to hold the same degree of innate importance.

(Hey, if equal and same were synonymous to the writers of the US declaration of independence, I'll choose to be of the same mindset as far as semantics go.)

Well no, we are not all of equal value, but that shouldn't be a basis of equalizing rights.

In which case, I'll point back to this post.

Hey, seems like you're a decent person, so good luck with your endeavors of figuring out what equality of rights should be based on. But, from where I stand, vague affirmations that are acknowledged to further require as of yet undiscovered conditions will not on their own go very far in preventing one group of humans from trampling all over some other group of humans.

Hm... Well I did say we are of different value, but I never said we are of different importance. Are they correlated?

I guess my main concern is that I don't necessarily see it the same way. I would say that one should treat a janitor and a president with the same amount of respect, even if the real world doesn't work that way.

I would say that one should treat a janitor and a president with the same amount of respect, even if the real world doesn't work that way. — john27

Yea, I agree that this is the ideal which we ought to be striving for. Unfortunately for those who hold such perspectives, the world is currently becoming ever more autocracy yearning; the growth of fascism's popularity (be it implicit or explicit) is one evidence of this. How to turn the tides back to a democracy yearning world, is the question I'm posing.

From my vantage, autocracy feeds of the conviction that different humans hold different innate importance. Democracy, on the other hand, feeds on the conviction that different humans will hold the same innate importance despite their differences.

Hm... Well I did say we are of different value, but I never said we are of different importance. Are they correlated? — john27

One prominent definition of "value" is "the degree of importance given to something". Within the context addressed, as I tried to previously explain, the two are synonymous.

Yeah this is what I was basically tryna' say.

Democracy, on the other hand, feeds on the conviction that different humans will hold the same innate importance despite their differences. — javra

Sorry, i'm a little slow sometimes :groan:

As far as how to return the world to a democratic state, I think we just need to be more kind to one another. Pretty simple, but I think a lot of problems could be solved if we were just nice, tolerant, dudes to begin with.

Hey, who isn't slow sometimes? :razz: Reminds me of a song lyric: "slow like honey, strong like music" :wink:

As to the resolution, I do wish the world worked in that way. It hasn't been my experience in life, at least so far.

Damn.

So what do we have that we can base our self-worth on that is immune to “the slings and arrows” of fortune? — Leghorn

Death and taxes.

Other than that old saying, nothing really comes to mind. — john27

I don’t doubt that Benjamin Franklin was a great philosopher...but may I suggest a more serious alternative?

You may.

@john27

“Demetrius [the Macedonian general], whose nickname was Poliorcetes [“Sacker of Cities”], had taken Megara [a city near Athens]. When Stilbon the [Megarian] philosopher was asked by him whether he had lost anything, he replied, “nothing: all my goods are with me.” Nevertheless his patrimony had been turned into spoils of war, the enemy had carried off his daughters, his fatherland had come under foreign authority, and a king surrounded by the arms of a victorious army interrogated him from a superior position.
“Yet he [Stilbon] took his [Demetrius’] victory away from him, and gave witness that he himself, though his city had been taken, was not only undefeated, but unharmed; for he had with him the true goods, onto which there is no placing of a hand, and the goods which were being carried off despoiled and scattered he did not judge to be his own, but external and following the nod of fortune. Therefore he had prized them as not his own; for the possession of everything flowing in from without is slippery and uncertain.
“Consider now whether a thief, or a slanderer, or an unbridled neighbor...could do harm to him from whom war and the enemy and he who professed the extraordinary art of crushing cities could take nothing. Amid the blades flashing everywhere and the tumult of pillaging soldiers, amid the flames and blood and slaughter of the smitten citizenry, amid the crash of temples falling upon their gods—to one human being was there peace...”

This is my translation of a passage (5.6–6.2) from Seneca’s dialogue “On the Constancy of the Wise Man”. Do you think it sheds any light on the question at hand?

Definitely it would give evidence to a something, in which we could place our selfhood with high hopes. However, the amount of wisdom needed to make this a practical thought is astounding; I don't think I would be ever able to attain it, and hence, its lack of reality in correlation to me.

How could I go about grounding this idea? How can I make this applicable to my average self?