Total equality possible?

Post Reply New Topic

So people go on about equality all the time and I wonder what exactly they mean when they talk about equality.

[ul]
[li]Obviously some people are smarter than others (mentally superior)[/li]
[li]Some people are physically fitter than others (physically superior)[/li]
[li]More socially capable than others (socially superior)[/li]
[li]People may be emotionally more or less capable although this is difficult to measure.[/li]
[li]Person for person, men are stronger than women generally speaking.[/li]
[/ul]

So people pursue equality aggainst the basic facts of the situation. Smarter people will find better jobs with their smarter brains and make more money. They will attain greater wealth which will lead to a class system. In a monetary system it's hard to see how we could have economic equality. There are ways we can achieve it through taxation (which I support) but we are not equal to begin with.

Are people just unwilling to face up to the basic facts? They seem to be trying to achieve something which is unachievable, like short people trying to be as tall as taller people, you aren't!

People are not equal in their abilities, but human rights are constant. It is up to a just state to provide an arena of opportunity that is open to everyone. People deserve respect and the ability to earn a living regardless of their challenges.

Total equality is not possible, because each individual is unique. Equal treatment under the law ideally treats every person the same. Thus, equality is not fair.

Equality is sentencing every murderer to death. Fairness is providing lighter sentences for accidental murder, and no sentence for murder in self defense.

Equality and fairness are not the same thing.

I like to think of it this way:

Everybody gets 1,000 marbles
and 100 jars.

If too many marbles get dropped in the intelligence jar than some of the other jars are only going to have one or two or none at all.

I imagine average people would get ten marbles per jar.

I see autistics as having 20 to 300 marbles in a couple of jars leaving some other jars empty.

We are all equal because we each have a total of 1,000 marbles = Total Equality.

So, yes.

Also, one can lose one's marbles.

I think there's strong evidence that we don't get the same number of marbles.

Total equality is not possible, but a combination of equality of opportunity plus fair treatment for the "losers" - what you might call "fairness" - is possible, and ultimately more desirable. Equality is not a good thing, in and of itself - if everyone was poor and hungry, that wouldn't be better than our present situation.

Explain someone like Brian Cox? Could have been a professional musician, gave it up to be a scientist, very socially capable and charming, a talented writer, a successful media career... On the other hand, you have many people with few skills at all.

So I suppose you could say that America has a very equal justice system? 99 year sentence for stealing a bread roll

This explains it.
Was he that guy on facebook with the perfect life?

Aside from physically and cognitively handicapped people, we're all within a very close range as far as genetics-- we share 99% of the same genetics as a few other primates, we're not all that wildly different on a genetic level. More than anything the environment we inhabit determines what our skills will be. If you grew up around a lot of musicians you're probably going to be a pretty good musician when you get older, if you grew up around bankers you'll have a high likely hood of getting into banking. It's not that those abilities are necessarily innate it's that you've been influenced by them from an early age and so they become natural by the time you're older and therefore more likely to lead to success.

Take someone like Mozart who was playing piano at age five and composing by age 12. He only did those things because his father, a professional musician himself, started teaching those skills when Mozart was just 3 years old. Imagine how good you would play piano if instead of learning to walk you were taught piano instead, it would become instinct just like walking is for everyone else. Likewise, say Mozart was put up for adoption and ended up in a baker's household, he might have never even had a chance to play an instrument.

It's just like an RPG, if you come out of the womb as a bard you're gonna have a few stats boosted in a few bard related areas, but those are just starter points-- you still have to level up (practice) to fill out your talent sheet (skills) and the more time you invest in certain talent points the better they get.

Completely agree (well, except for the notion that the disabled are hugely different genetically, aside from those with chromosomal disorders), I just don't think this is compatible with the marble metaphor.

Yeah that was poor wording, they're genetically similar just like everyone else-- but if there's not a disclaimer some asshat will always try to invalidate the entirety based on some small inconsistency which is usually self apparent.

It's something that many have faith in, so it's always given the benefit of the doubt even when it produces less then stellar results.

As I see it, the real myth/conundrum isn't whether full equality is achievable, or even whether an equal world would be a beautiful one, but whether the state can be the one to carry this out, and do so fairly. But also... what the state would do with all of those who aren't equal or don't want to be a part of such a society. The state, the machine in charge of creating this equal world, is a dubious character that makes things messy.

The perversion, as I see it, is that no one has given it a meaningful try. We're told that we should create something that has no working examples or existing models to base on. I mean, I think there's enough land on earth for a mixed group of people to try and create such a society. To see if it produces better men and women. To see if they reproduce at all. To see if they can build a thriving economy that lifts all boats, equally. To see how they react to those who don't contribute at all, or to those who want to move away from equality or want out altogether. To see if it can provide upward mobility to people who have never known it. To see if it can sustain a good quality of life. To see if it can provide an environment conducive to innovation. I think it's something we should really consider experimenting with. It would resolve a lot of questions, too.

You are 100% correct.