Is the quest for equality noble?

[Conaeolos]

Equality is one of our newer virtues as it come out of christian & other religious teachings whose emphasis on the view of charity for the poor/suffering made wealth/privilege seem selfish and lacking in some type of non-material wealth we all associate with virtue regardless of our belief or non-belief in God.

The quest for equality however does not need to be motivated by personal virtue. We well can seek “equality” out of jealousy of those who have more then us and covet and seek to take what they have at the cost of our happiness, satisfaction and wellbeing. Indeed even with race or gender privilege, social justice always has the potential to be the “sin” of jealousy rather than the virtue of “fairness” and “justice”.

In fact, many now see the virtue of equality as pretender to the virtue of humility . That is to say, they don’t think that relgious charity comes from fairness rather one is charitable and understanding since every privilege is a gift worth respecting. The two are not mutually exclusive but it begs the question if equality is a virtue at all.

Since this philosophical question is often at the heart of political debate. What are your thoughts on the subject?

 

[Angel]

As it is carried on today, the "quest" is misguided and ignoble.
As asserted in the American Declaration of Independence, equality was a cogent and noble concept.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

As it is carried on today, the "quest" is misguided and ignoble.
As asserted in the American Declaration of Independence, equality was a cogent and noble concept.

Equality is still an noble goal.

 

[Daisy]

The fight for equality has become as twisted as the world we live in...there seems to be many motives other pure motives...most of them for selfish or for one's own agenda rather than with the goal of benefiting mankind...

 

[Tanngrisnir]

The fight for equality has become as twisted as the world we live in...there seems to be many motives other pure motives...most of them for selfish or for one's own agenda rather than with the goal of benefiting mankind...

Can you give an example of how the fight for equality has become 'twisted'?

 

[Daisy]

Can you give an example of how the fight for equality has become 'twisted'?

Ummm BLM for one thing...

 

[Cephus]

Equality is still an noble goal.

Equality of opportunity is. Equality of outcome is not.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Equality of opportunity is. Equality of outcome is not.

Making sure the opportunities are available to everyone is a goal.

Equality under the law is also important

 

[MrPeanut]

Equality of opportunity is. Equality of outcome is not.

I'll agree with that. It is noble to work towards having similar baselines to start from.

 

[Conaeolos]

...there seems to be many motives other pure motives...most of them for selfish or for one's own agenda rather than with the goal of benefiting mankind...

This is what intrigues me. Is there ever a pure noble motive?

Take some big "wins" like the civil rights movement, gay marriage or woman suffrage. We can both agree its more equal.But was the motive of the movement equality?

With civil rights…it certainly uses the language of fairness…but was it the fairness that gave them credibility or the arbitrary nature of the unfairness? The system bred abuses as it lacked key virtues. It lacked honest justice: equality before the law. It lacked humlity - respect for shared humanness.

With woman suffrage…it certainly used the language of fairness…but was it the fairness that gave them credibility or the arbitrary nature of the unfairness? Was it not again given crediability by a call for honest justice & humlity.

With gay marriage a thing you may agree or disagee with…it certainly used the language of fairness…but was it the fairness that gave them credibility or the arbitrary nature of the unfairness? Was it not again given crediability by a call for honest justice & humlity.

So were the moral wins a call for equality or humility:equality before the law? Social justice or good old fashioned justice.

Equality before the law is different from equality as demonstrated by the example of a king to john doe as long as all the same laws apply to joe that apply to the king we can say they are equal before the law. Equality though would argue they should have about the same legal resources and privledges not simply the same rules. Law is blind, the law is not blind.

Correct me if I am wrong, but that to me it does not seem at all to be refering to the same thing.

 

[RAMOSS]

The fight for equality has become as twisted as the world we live in...there seems to be many motives other pure motives...most of them for selfish or for one's own agenda rather than with the goal of benefiting mankind...

Can you support this opinion?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Ummm BLM for one thing...

I'm sorry, but how is that an example of the fight for equality becoming twisted?

 

[Conaeolos]

Equality of opportunity is. Equality of outcome is not.

To convert this back to personal ethics, would you then say:

Equality of opportunity: virtue of humility

Equality of outcome: sin of jealousy

Making sure the opportunities are available to everyone is a goal.

Equality under the law is also important

To convert this back to personal ethics, would you then say:

Equality under the law & making sure the opportunities are available to everyone: virtue of humility not equality?

I'll agree with that. It is noble to work towards having similar baselines to start from.

So adult conditions and child conditions should be separated? [would not be unprecedented]


To convert this back to personal ethics, what would you say is the virtue which drives one to believe that is a noble pursuit?

 

[Daisy]

This is what intrigues me. Is there ever a pure noble motive?

Take some big "wins" like the civil rights movement, gay marriage or woman suffrage. We can both agree its more equal.But was the motive of the movement equality?

With civil rights…it certainly uses the language of fairness…but was it the fairness that gave them credibility or the arbitrary nature of the unfairness? The system bred abuses as it lacked key virtues. It lacked honest justice: equality before the law. It lacked humlity - respect for shared humanness.

With woman suffrage…it certainly used the language of fairness…but was it the fairness that gave them credibility or the arbitrary nature of the unfairness? Was it not again given crediability by a call for honest justice & humlity.

With gay marriage a thing you may agree or disagee with…it certainly used the language of fairness…but was it the fairness that gave them credibility or the arbitrary nature of the unfairness? Was it not again given crediability by a call for honest justice & humlity.

So were the moral wins a call for equality or humility:equality before the law? Social justice or good old fashioned justice.

Equality before the law is different from equality as demonstrated by the example of a king to john doe as long as all the same laws apply to joe that apply to the king we can say they are equal before the law. Equality though would argue they should have about the same legal resources and privledges not simply the same rules. Law is blind, the law is not blind.

Correct me if I am wrong, but that to me it does not seem at all to be refering to the same thing.

Oh I agree...it seems most groups who fight for equality, it is really special treatment they're asking for...

 

[KevinKohler]

Noble and impossible. Like so many noble endeavors.

 

[fmw]

Equality is one of our newer virtues as it come out of christian & other religious teachings whose emphasis on the view of charity for the poor/suffering made wealth/privilege seem selfish and lacking in some type of non-material wealth we all associate with virtue regardless of our belief or non-belief in God.

The quest for equality however does not need to be motivated by personal virtue. We well can seek “equality” out of jealousy of those who have more then us and covet and seek to take what they have at the cost of our happiness, satisfaction and wellbeing. Indeed even with race or gender privilege, social justice always has the potential to be the “sin” of jealousy rather than the virtue of “fairness” and “justice”.

In fact, many now see the virtue of equality as pretender to the virtue of humility . That is to say, they don’t think that relgious charity comes from fairness rather one is charitable and understanding since every privilege is a gift worth respecting. The two are not mutually exclusive but it begs the question if equality is a virtue at all.

Since this philosophical question is often at the heart of political debate. What are your thoughts on the subject?

You can't mingle the government and the people in this way. The public sector should always practice equality rather than fairness. It needs to treat everyone the same. People, on the other hand, can practice fairness and self interest. Personal freedom depends on people managing their own lives as they see fit. Proper government depends on equality.

 

[Conaeolos]

You can't mingle the government and the people in this way. The public sector should always practice equality rather than fairness. It needs to treat everyone the same. People, on the other hand, can practice fairness and self interest. Personal freedom depends on people managing their own lives as they see fit. Proper government depends on equality.

A collective virtue verses a personal one? That's intresting, but not sure how that plays on a person by person level [since groups are made of people and don't have a collective free choice). From to try and from the simpliest example, so not until one becomes king? Am I getting that right?

 

[fmw]

A collective virtue verses a personal one? That's intresting, but not sure how that plays on a person by person level [since groups are made of people and don't have a collective free choice). From to try and from the simpliest example, so not until one becomes king? Am I getting that right?

No. I just said that government can't have as much freedom as people can have. Government needs to practice equality. Sorry it is confusing for you.

 

[_Sal]

You can't mingle the government and the people in this way. The public sector should always practice equality rather than fairness. It needs to treat everyone the same. People, on the other hand, can practice fairness and self interest. Personal freedom depends on people managing their own lives as they see fit. Proper government depends on equality.

treating everyone the same is not a display of fairness

people do not begin the race of life on equal ground

we are not all created equal...that is a fact

 

[vegas giants]

Oh I agree...it seems most groups who fight for equality, it is really special treatment they're asking for...

Of course it is special treatment for some....its why we build those ramps in buildings

 

[vegas giants]

treating everyone the same is not a display of fairness

people do not begin the race of life on equal ground

we are not all created equal...that is a fact

Survival of the fittest is the opposite of a civil society

 

[_Sal]

Survival of the fittest is the opposite of a civil society

agreed

basic tribalism displays this as well

 

[fmw]

treating everyone the same is not a display of fairness

people do not begin the race of life on equal ground

we are not all created equal...that is a fact

Correct. Equality and fairness are not the same thing. Equality is objective. Fairness is subjective. There should be no room for fairness in government practice. We are not all created equal and it is not the role of government to try to make us equal. Its role is to treat everyone equally.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Equality is one of our newer virtues as it come out of christian & other religious teachings whose emphasis on the view of charity for the poor/suffering made wealth/privilege seem selfish and lacking in some type of non-material wealth we all associate with virtue regardless of our belief or non-belief in God.

The quest for equality however does not need to be motivated by personal virtue. We well can seek “equality” out of jealousy of those who have more then us and covet and seek to take what they have at the cost of our happiness, satisfaction and wellbeing. Indeed even with race or gender privilege, social justice always has the potential to be the “sin” of jealousy rather than the virtue of “fairness” and “justice”.

In fact, many now see the virtue of equality as pretender to the virtue of humility . That is to say, they don’t think that relgious charity comes from fairness rather one is charitable and understanding since every privilege is a gift worth respecting. The two are not mutually exclusive but it begs the question if equality is a virtue at all.

Since this philosophical question is often at the heart of political debate. What are your thoughts on the subject?

Since Christianity was leveraged in american society to rationalize both slavery and genocide, and is now being used to sanction endless wars against "evil" which are really nothing more than emprical expansionism, these so called religious teachings have no real meaning at all. Capitalism is our god.

 

[Conaeolos]

Since Christianity was leveraged in american society to rationalize both slavery and genocide, and is now being used to sanction endless wars against "evil" which are really nothing more than emprical expansionism, these so called religious teachings have no real meaning at all. Capitalism is our god.

So you think slavery, war and genocide are made worse by Christianity despite having the best record? You'll have to explain more for me to follow....

against "evil" which are really nothing more than emprical expansionism

You don't think there is evil or what being labeled evil by christian standards is not if fact evil?

these so called religious teachings have no real meaning at all

I beg to differ but there are many ways to find morality so if you find them a hinderence I would do the same.

Capitalism is our god.

I sometimes wonder that whenever I vist a mall.