I'm surprised this topic hasn't gotten its own thread. Nonetheless, what are your thoughts on Egalitarianism? Are organisms equal as individuals or collectives? We can keep this intraspecies. Are people equal individually or collectively?

Before you misinterpret me, I'm fine with equal treatment under the law. If a black/white/hispanic/Down syndrome individual isn't harassing you, there's no reason to harass them. I don't believe in the concept of a supreme race. To me, it's far too absolute to quantify and risks stepping towards the territory of subjective rather than objective.

On topic...As lofty as it sounds, I find Egalitarianism critically flawed, quite simply, because no two organisms, either as individuals or collectives, are equal. Would you try to outswim a shark? Presuming your knowledge of the subject is in-depth and well versed, would a shark try to outsmart you in Calculus (hehe)? Why are some of the best Olympic Gold Medalist runners black? Why are fields of science, genius, and comedy disproportionately Jewish? Etc.

Please, enlighten me. Are people truly equal? Or not?

They are? I didn't realize. I knew their was a huge number of Jewish Comedians.

I don't think that "fields of science are discproportionally Jewish". However, the majority of famous comedians here are either Jews or of Jewish origin.

I think a better way to put it is that no two organisms are identical. My understanding of the principle of equality is that if two organisms (two sentient beings, rather) are, in the moral sense of the term, equal, then the interests of one warrant just as much consideration as those of the other.

A contrary principle might state that two sentient beings may be unequal because they aren't identical; beings who possess certain characteristics to certain degrees - intelligence, strength, wealth, etc. - may be held to be more or less deserving of consideration by virtue of those characteristics.

To look at it another way: Suppose that by two separate acts you create an equal amount of pain (or pleasure) for two unidentical beings. The principle of equality would imply that those two acts are just as wrong (or right), whereas a contrary principle would imply that one act is more wrong (or right) than the other; e.g., it may be considered more wrong to kill a person of IQ 130 than a person of IQ 80.

It seems possible in some situations to discriminate without violating the principle of equality. If you can let only one more person into your neighborhood bomb shelter, and the choice is between a janitor and a medical doctor, you may choose the latter because it's in the best interest of the most people, without favoring any single person's interests over another.



I find nothing disagreeable about the principle of equality, but I've never tried to argue for it. I'm aware that not everyone accepts it - Nietzsche didn't - but I imagine most people would say they do, though they may unwittingly contradict it in practice. I suppose it's ultimately a matter of preference.

That would predominantly be because people of west African origin have genetic traits that endow them with proportionally longer thighbones, low body fat and a narrow waist.



It's indisputable that not all people are equal, not characteristically, intellectually, physically nor emotionally. To claim so would be foolish, since there are as many unequal people on earth as there are, well, people. That's also why you have to treat every person differently to treat them equally, if that makes any sense (but that might already go off-topic).

Importance in community provides for different evaluation of people's worth. So do skills, that's why some jobs pay more than others. Whenever there's a large body of people involved, some people will always be "more equal than others".

Results of an objective evaluation of people's "worth" would differ depending on the evaluated characteristics.

My reasonings are: If all human beings are, by definition, equal, then there cannot exist one human being that is not equal. Because this moral equality is definitely a subjective affair, and because there will infallibly be a person that is to someone more important than another person, the grand equality scheme is fantastic and can never be achieved.

All people are different, but they all should be treated with equality.

mtlzr:

I presume you consider it wrong to discriminate based on race and sex - you consider the races and sexes to be equal in the sense I described (that the interests of one warrant just as much consideration as the interests of another) - and if so, I'm curious what your argument for that would be.

It seems there are two ways to argue against racism and sexism: 1. by claiming that the differences between races and sexes are exaggerated or non-existent, or 2. by claiming that the differences between races and sexes are irrelevant to moral equality. The first approach seems to imply that if the differences were greater, discrimination would indeed be justified; i.e., races and sexes are morally equal to one another insofar as they are similar. Now the races and the sexes obviously aren't completely similar, so wouldn't this approach lead to a sort of moderate racism and moderate sexism?

If you favor the second approach over the first, do you also think it holds true for differences between, say, the disabled and non-disabled?

I'm getting dangerously close to pure semantics, but I try to explain my view: It's not wrong to discriminate, as in differentiate, people based on their physical aspects since that is natural, as stated with my example of west african athletes. Ultimately, for each individual the most important interests are those of their own, which will hardly be surpassed by those of any other group. In general, all I say that one should keep in mind that objectively, the interest of another person will have the same value as one's own, even though that might not be a subjective truth. Not because I think everyone should do the "jesus treatment" to everybody, but knowing and acknowledging that will help in reaching one's own goals.



Alternative 1: The differences are biologically and indisputably there, it is a claim of the fanatic and thoughtless.

Alternative 2: Yes, that's partly what I'm going for, however I am not campaigning against racism and sexism in their classical senses. This is exactly what has led to the practice of "positive discrimination", which is most evidently seen in how some welfare countries favor political immigrants over the local populace. I consider that wrong.



I wouldn't go as far as taking into account disabled people, since they do present a need for discrimination which is not, in lack of a better word, normal, as for example racial differences are. But perhaps it explains some if I try to summarize in one sentence: It is admirable to give diverse people the possibility to engage in an equal fashion. Does that make any sense?

I may have misread, but that sounds like a naturalistic fallacy: "X is right because X is natural" ("natural" here tends to mean something like "most intuitively agreeable"). What's natural isn't always right.



Again, I'm not sure I'm reading this right. Here you seem to say that in spite of people's egoistic inclinations, equality is truly moral...but only because behavior that presumes equality is in the ultimate interest of the individual?



I definitely don't deny the differences. Which claim does your "it" refer to: that those differences are not there, or that those differences warrant racism and sexism?



That last statement seems agreeable, but before I can judge, I think we both need to make our terms a little clearer.

By "racism" I mean the belief that the interests (the desires to attain happiness and avoid unhappiness) of another person are less deserving of consideration than one's own by virtue of that person's belonging to a race other than one's own. By "sexism" I mean the same, except with the term "sex" in place of "race." I don't see how one can sensibly reject these except by embracing what I've described as the "equality" principle, which holds the interests of all beings to be worthy of equal consideration: It's equally good for any two beings to achieve happiness, equally bad for any two beings to fall into unhappiness. I dislike the alternative approach (#1 from my previous post) because it seems to imply that equality exists only in proportion to biological similarity and thus leave room for a certain degree of racism and sexism.

I would also say that the principle of equality does not always demand that the same treatment be given to two different beings. It merely requires the satisfaction of their interests to be regarded as equally valuable. Two beings may require very different treatment in order to have their equally valuable interests fulfilled.

I think I've been using the term "discrimination" inconsistently, and I'll try to fix that here. By "discrimination" (this may be an unconventional use of the term, but I find it suitable for this post), I don't mean to refer to something contrary to the principle of equality, but instead to something that acknowledges that different beings require different treatment in order to have their interests fulfilled. Discrimination itself can be okay, but racism (or sexism, etc.) requires discrimination that is based on race and race alone (or sex and sex alone, etc.), and this, however, is bad - insofar as the being's race (or sex, etc.) is irrelevant to the being's interests.

Does any of that differ from what you're saying?

I treat everyone as an equal. Without context there's no way to define anyone else as "better" or "worse" than another person. For example, a person with a 130 IQ might be homely, yet a person with a 80 IQ might be very attractive... it's in the subjective view of whoever is judging to say who's better, if they even feel the need to do so. Given the anti-intellectual nature of our society, i'd wager on most people thinking the beautiful moron was superior.

I find most people are good at something, and are usually surprised at what they can accomplish when they believe in themselves. Everyone has different flaws and abilities.

My view of egalitarianism is that everyone should be given the same starting position. What they do with it after that is up to them. This is from a purely subjective point of view, of course. I mean that when you meet someone, you should have a blank slate state of mind about them. Let their actions create your perception of them.

Unless someone has done something or said something that would alter my view of them, I treat them as an equal. That is to say, everyone is a blank slate when I first encounter them. In that sense, I am egalitarian. I am also egalitarian in that I am fully in support of people being treated the same regardless of race, sex, sexual preference, etc.

However, I do not think that all people deserve to be treated equally. Some people are just pricks and will get no respect from me.

People have equal rights under a just republic law, as well they should. All people should be equal in how we treat one another, preceive one another, behave around one another, etc. That is a political viewpoint.

Genetically, people are not created equal, both ethnically and individually. If we were, we'd all look the same and be one race. Fact is, black people, white people, Asian people, arabic people, indian people--each race evolved largely separatly in different regions, though all related going all the way back to ancient Africa. Gradually, people in these different regions evolved into bodies best suited for said regions. Which gave some races certain advantages that others wouldn't need depending on where they lived.

I'm not saying this should be taken seriously, but perhaps black people routinely excel at things like running because evolving on the generally open plains of Africa allowed room for, and necessity for this kind of endurance. Whereas running is a less important skill in mountainous European terrain.