Equality

[truthshift]

This is not a thread about homosexuality, so don't bring it up.


My friend and I were discussing the topic of equality and our attempt to find true, 100% equality.

Our discussion found it's way to the idea that, no two people, no two groups, no two lives can truly be equal unless they are the same in every possible way.

As in: 1 culture, 1 mindset, 1 set of beliefs, 1 society, and (yes) 1 race, and possibly even 1 sex.

I can only compare it to osmosis in nature, or atoms attempting to find equilibrium in a space. Say you have a bunch of triangle atoms(for this example) on this side of a room and a bunch of circle atoms in one corner, and a bunch of squares in another corner. Naturally, all of the atoms will eventually mix and find an equilibrium over time and become one big, equal, mix.

Unless, of course, there is some barrier that stops that from happening. This barrier, while defining a group of atoms, also separates it from the others and creates a dichotomy between the groups. That barrier (whatever it is) prevents what should naturally happen, from happening.
________________________
It's a very interesting thought. Ideally, what we like to see is separate but equal individuals. We desire an ability to be ourselves in every aspect, but we do not want to be inferior to another at the same time. The "but" is not to say they are mutually exclusive. As a society we promote diverse culture but demand absolute equality between the various 'groups'.

We notice, however, that as an entire society, we are becoming more homogeneous. We all are beginning to dress more and more alike, shop at the same stores, like the same broad groups of music, mix very distinct races into 'melting pot' people so to speak, gender bending, ect. ect.

Are we moving to a single culture? Society? Does this entail a world government? Is it part of the natural discourse?
_________________________________

This is the video that sparked my friend and I's discussion: It's not entirely related to the topic at hand, but it mentions a few things that all of us should make note of anyhow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0R6EvtGnoE

 

[Autumnleaf]

This thread ends in one predictable place. "Life is not fair."

ie You are a waiter and you are a guy. Your peer is a hot girl with big boobs. She will get more tips than you unless you are gay and most of your patrons are women. That is how it is. You can't change it...

Nothing about life is fair. You have to work like a dog to get what you want. And even then you won't always get it. On the other hand some people are born into wealth and they will have an easy time at whatever they do. Thats just the way it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9Qn1i4ZGWg&feature=related

 

[truthshift]

I'm aware of and fully accept that life is not fair. That's not the point. Are you saying that absolute equality is impossible, though?

 

[ShieldOFaith]

I'm aware of and fully accept that life is not fair. That's not the point. Are you saying that absolute equality is impossible, though?

Men are different from women. Men have different parts.

So, NO! Absolute equality is impossible.

GOD made Adam and Eve. One was a man, and one was a woman. Simple.

 

[Autumnleaf]

I'm aware of and fully accept that life is not fair. That's not the point. Are you saying that absolute equality is impossible, though?

If life is not fair it follows that absolute equality is a pipe dream. Did you really need me to point that out to you?

 

[truthshift]

Men are different from women. Men have different parts.

So, NO! Absolute equality is impossible.

GOD made Adam and Eve. One was a man, and one was a woman. Simple.

Ok, the statement I made regarding 1 sex, if you'll notice, had a 'possibly' before it.

I also said "the same in every possible way."

I added the sex part because it came up in my conversation.

That said, stop focusing on the sex mentioned in every thread because you're missing the point. Are you really that threatened by it? Do you really need to focus all your energy on it? You're attempting to discuss 1 small fraction of the entire post.

 

[truthshift]

If life is not fair it follows that absolute equality is a pipe dream.

No, that's not true. Just because there are differences between cultures and dichotomies in situation and status does not mean it will stay that way. If anything, equality may be an inevitability, no matter how long it takes; if it follows the natural model presented on the microcosmic scale.

Did you really need me to point that out to you?

Talk down to me more, please. I appreciate it.

 

[HighwayMan]

The concept of equality and being the same have nothing in common. Equality for all human beings is a right most modern day societies believe in, regardless of all the things you mentioned that make us different.

 

[truthshift]

The concept of equality and being the same have nothing in common. Equality for all human beings is a right most modern day societies believe in, regardless of all the things you mentioned that make us different.

You're right. I used the word too loosely. When I refer to equality in this thread, I am referring to it based on it's exact definition.

i.e. complete equilibrium.

I'm aware of the differences though. I know that we all seek social equality and that's another matter entirely.

-------------
However, this brings up another thought. How feasible is to expect social equality when there are distinct and separate groups of people. It is impossible for the mind to exist when it is aware that it may be wrong. It's a built-in instinctual process that keeps everything alive.

Ex: You will not continue to walk towards a cliff edge if you are not sure if you are going to fall off or not. Your mind will slow you down, if not stop you from walking altogether, for fear of injury or death.

When you have a set of beliefs that you follow through life and your neighbor has a set of beliefs that they follow through life, but they are different from yours; not only will you question yours at least once, you will question theirs. You will eventually come to a decision: either their practices are wrong or yours are wrong. One will become inferior.

If yours are wrong, you will change them. If theirs are wrong, you will _have_ to think less of them, be it conscious thought or not. They are wrong, after all. You may or may not act upon that, but the fact remains that you view their beliefs as inferior and they may feel the same way about yours.

At some time or another, this inequality will present itself in actions or in words. It may not be presented through you, perhaps through another person with your beliefs, perhaps your children whom you have taught your beliefs.

---------

All that said, with differences in beliefs, cultures, and mindsets; can there be no true social equality? Even if it's just mental inequality that exists, it's still there.

 

[truthshift]

I just came across this thought from another thread:

Can we ever allow ourselves to be equal for fear of boredom?

 

[HighwayMan]

You're right. I used the word too loosely. When I refer to equality in this thread, I am referring to it based on it's exact definition.

i.e. complete equilibrium.

I'm aware of the differences though. I know that we all seek social equality and that's another matter entirely.

-------------
However, this brings up another thought. How feasible is to expect social equality when there are distinct and separate groups of people. It is impossible for the mind to exist when it is aware that it may be wrong. It's a built-in instinctual process that keeps everything alive.

Ex: You will not continue to walk towards a cliff edge if you are not sure if you are going to fall off or not. Your mind will slow you down, if not stop you from walking altogether, for fear of injury or death.

When you have a set of beliefs that you follow through life and your neighbor has a set of beliefs that they follow through life, but they are different from yours; not only will you question yours at least once, you will question theirs. You will eventually come to a decision: either their practices are wrong or yours are wrong. One will become inferior.

If yours are wrong, you will change them. If theirs are wrong, you will _have_ to think less of them, be it conscious thought or not. They are wrong, after all. You may or may not act upon that, but the fact remains that you view their beliefs as inferior and they may feel the same way about yours.

At some time or another, this inequality will present itself in actions or in words. It may not be presented through you, perhaps through another person with your beliefs, perhaps your children whom you have taught your beliefs.

---------

All that said, with differences in beliefs, cultures, and mindsets; can there be no true social equality? Even if it's just mental inequality that exists, it's still there.

It depends what type of society you are talking about. If you mean something small like a club that is based on specific ideologies which all members are supposed to follow, then it will be quite hard for someone very different to find equality or even membership in that group.


If you mean society on a broader scale, as in for example the American society, then that's a different question. In America, the idea is to live and let live - everyone is free to do and believe whatever they want as long as it complies with the rules agreed upon by society (basically no harming others). In that case, no matter how wrong you think the other person's beliefs or customs are, the thing that is supposed to bind you together is the prevalent ideology of equality for all despite your differences. If the ideal of social equality is so big that it overrides all your other differences, then equality is possible.

 

[ReverendDG]

You're right. I used the word too loosely. When I refer to equality in this thread, I am referring to it based on it's exact definition.

i.e. complete equilibrium.

I'm aware of the differences though. I know that we all seek social equality and that's another matter entirely.

-------------
However, this brings up another thought. How feasible is to expect social equality when there are distinct and separate groups of people. It is impossible for the mind to exist when it is aware that it may be wrong. It's a built-in instinctual process that keeps everything alive.

Ex: You will not continue to walk towards a cliff edge if you are not sure if you are going to fall off or not. Your mind will slow you down, if not stop you from walking altogether, for fear of injury or death.

When you have a set of beliefs that you follow through life and your neighbor has a set of beliefs that they follow through life, but they are different from yours; not only will you question yours at least once, you will question theirs. You will eventually come to a decision: either their practices are wrong or yours are wrong. One will become inferior.

If yours are wrong, you will change them. If theirs are wrong, you will _have_ to think less of them, be it conscious thought or not. They are wrong, after all. You may or may not act upon that, but the fact remains that you view their beliefs as inferior and they may feel the same way about yours.

At some time or another, this inequality will present itself in actions or in words. It may not be presented through you, perhaps through another person with your beliefs, perhaps your children whom you have taught your beliefs.

---------

All that said, with differences in beliefs, cultures, and mindsets; can there be no true social equality? Even if it's just mental inequality that exists, it's still there.

thats the thing, you don't base equality on beliefs of each person, you base equality on a set of social rules everyone shares.

this is how we should be looking at it, we ignore the differences and base our laws on common traits we all share, that is equality.

we all do not want to be murdered
we all do not want our property taken from us without our permission
we all want a fair trial under our government.
we all want to be considered innocent till proven guilty
we all want the right to say what we want within reason( thought some seem to think they can say anything include things that will harm others)
we all want the ability to live our lives without being concerned others will attack us for not being in the same group as them.

this is why we have the 1st amendment, because no one wants to be the group everyone excludes, or ignores. this is also why no religious group should make laws that aren't secular.

 

[truthshift]

It depends what type of society you are talking about. If you mean something small like a club that is based on specific ideologies which all members are supposed to follow, then it will be quite hard for someone very different to find equality or even membership in that group.


If you mean society on a broader scale, as in for example the American society, then that's a different question. In America, the idea is to live and let live - everyone is free to do and believe whatever they want as long as it complies with the rules agreed upon by society (basically no harming others). In that case, no matter how wrong you think the other person's beliefs or customs are, the thing that is supposed to bind you together is the prevalent ideology of equality for all despite your differences. If the ideal of social equality is so big that it overrides all your other differences, then equality is possible.

This post is for ReverendDG too

I'm referring to a larger group of mixed cultures and beliefs. I smaller group like a club could be considered one of these groups in the larger one.

The issue with living with differences in beliefs and mindsets under one government, even a democratic government, is that the people not in power will alway be the victim of those with power. In the case of a place like the U.S., the majority rules. Therefor, the minority is the victim of majority rule and is not represented or recognized.

To achieve an equality that is free of the rule of others, there would have to be no large government forming an umbrella for all the small groups. There would have to be anarchy and a tribal system to get everyone in a place where they are totally socially equal, according to their own standards.

That eliminates the problem of differing ideals altogether (except on an individual scale).

Yes, we all share many common beliefs, including the basic human rights, and that's great that we all agree on that, for the most part. However, by forcing a common set of ideals on people in a society, we force them to accept them or leave or.. else.

So, that begs the questions:

Do we really live in a place with differing ideals?
Are we not already well on our way to a homogeneous state?

 

[truthshift]

Can we ever allow ourselves to be equal for fear of boredom?

I was just thinking about this a little more. Is it possible that at some point in time there will be no life, no drama, no struggle, no change... basically nothing but matter and space not interacting in any way. e.g. complete and equal dispersion of atoms across the universe.

Was there a time like this before... say... the beginning?

If there was a creator, I'd speculate that it created everything from sheer boredom.

Are there natural laws that prevent things from getting.. boring? The law of conservation of energy comes to mind, but I don't know. They say that the universe and the clusters of galaxies are expanding and falling apart, will it be possible that some time from now, everything will fall apart into dull, unchanging existence?

This is hardly on topic, but I thought I'd bring it up.

 

[Isambard]

Not to go offtopic, but I imagine you'd run into a problem if you wanted both legal equality, and economic equality. The two seem to relate to each other in a zero sum matter.

 

[truthshift]

Not to go offtopic, but I imagine you'd run into a problem if you wanted both legal equality, and economic equality. The two seem to relate to each other in a zero sum matter.

What if we moved to a resource based economy and moved away from a fiscal system?

 

[Isambard]

What if we moved to a resource based economy and moved away from a fiscal system?

Im unsure what you are getting at seeing that even in a resource economy, labour put into extraction would still yield different "payment' for the labourers/non-labourers.

 

[billwald]

No, we are not moving toward an undifferentiated society. We are self-segregating into a master class and a grunt class. Young people are mating on the basis of IQ, education, and ambition at both ends of the scale. Movers with movers, slugs with slugs.

 

[truthshift]

Im unsure what you are getting at seeing that even in a resource economy, labour put into extraction would still yield different "payment' for the labourers/non-labourers.

With a non-fiscal system, there would be no artificial wealth e.g. stocks, bonds, moneymarket, shareholding, loans, interest, ect. ect.

It would be a purely trade based system. That said, there would be no passive or supplemental forms of income and there is only so much time in a day to do work.

People would trade their goods and services for the goods and services that they need. Wealth could not, by any means other than force or a shortage in supply of something, stay in an unbalanced state of wealthy vs. poor.

An inequality in "wealth" status could only promote people to work harder, should they really want it. There would be an understanding that the material possessions gained by a person are directly related to the amount of work they have done for it. There would be no spiraling debt or interest or stocks that could help detract from or accumulate said wealth.

Therefor, financial inequality would not be a relevant issue in the broad perspective on equality as a whole.

Unfortunately the resource model usually only works on a small community level, as in, in a tribe or an anarchic society.

I don't think that financial status should have any affect on legal equality.

 

[truthshift]

No, we are not moving toward an undifferentiated society. We are self-segregating into a master class and a grunt class. Young people are mating on the basis of IQ, education, and ambition at both ends of the scale. Movers with movers, slugs with slugs.

Yes, there is a vast dichotomy between the rich elite and the rest of the population. However, the desire exists in the majority to close that gap, only the circumstances do not allow it. When the conditions are right, I think that people jump on every opportunity to do so, though.