Firstly, let me explain that I don’t mean this in a way that society keeps us unequal and it needs to be fixed. I mean this in a way that we are not all equal and that’s the way it’s supposed to be. We are individuals for a reason, because we are not the same as everybody else. This is what gives us uniqueness.
Some people are faster, some people are smarter, some are braver, richer, poorer, more competent, better in certain fields, and worse in others. This doesn’t mean person A is better overall as a human being than person B just because they’re more talented at some random skill.
However, it does mean they aren’t the same and thus not equal in their ability. When there’s a competition, everyone doesn’t come in first place because someone is the winner of the competition. This can be applied to real life applications, and situations as well. To think we’re all equal is a very dangerous thing.
The delusion of thinking equality exists, creates conformity, and we all become part of a group think. No one does anything different. No one has uniqueness. No one has individual identity. I’m not going to go into extreme detail how this ruins society just look around you.
Society isn’t worse off when we understand that equality is a falsehood. It is worse off when we give the false pretense that equality is a real thing. The person that trains to be the fastest runner cannot be categorized in the same group as someone who is lazy and doesn’t even like to go on walks, who is slow.
It is by that person’s effort, determination, their dedication and devotion to their training, their exercise, practice, or growth that they are superior, not equal to that person who is lazy and slothful. (The runner example can be used for any example that it is applicable to. There doesn’t have to be physicality involved.
We are all human but we are not all equal. Sometimes people are better. Sometimes people are worse. And that’s perfectly fine.
Despite much text you didn’t really state an opinion, or I failed to see it.
We’re not equal? That is not a groundbreaking insight or an opinion, that is very obvious and no secret to anyone.
But does being equal and being treated equally mean the same? No. You might be the best in everything, but if you’re speeding you’d get the same ticket as everyone else. Do you want to be treated noticeably different just because of your sex, gender, race, monetary status, fitness, age, your face or whatever? You probably will, but that’s because the world is unjust, dumb and highly judgemental.
I believe we aren’t and SHOULDN’T be equal. That’s what is unpopular. Or maybe you all feel the same and it isn’t unpopular
I didn’t question that we are. That is plain obvious. I said we should be TREATED equal. Unless you prefer to be treated special. Like being a minority of some form, or being fat or ugly, or Like being snickered at for going to work by us non-workers or whatever else you can think of.
Isn’t every social, theological, and polical group always saying they are special on Lemmy and Reddit. You hypocrites don’t even see what you all actually practice. Ironically I feel none of them are special at all just not equal
Dunno what you’re even talking about. I act like I speak. I’m misanthropic. All people are the same to me: a sexually transmitted virus.
This is only unpopular because you’re missing the entire point of equality, and your conclusions are banal tautology. Of course people are different, but our differences alone do not account for the differences in success or failure, the differences in freedom and oppression, in joy and suffering.
Your starements are offensive because you imply that people are largely responsible for their own respective lots in life, and you suggest we are worse off as a society when we try to treat people equally. It is the foundational argument for fascism and kleptocracy. It’s bad for society and bad for humanity, and you should feel bad for thinking it is an opinion at all. Your ignorance is not equal to an opinion.
people are largely responsible for their own respective lots in life
This is called the Just-world fallacy.
There is no way to assign a value to overall worth. yes one person is faster and one is smarter and maybe one is luckier. None in sum total can be definitively said to be better. If you know the lord of the rings who is the best and who is the worst as a being. gandalf, gimli, aragorn, frodo, sam. Or maybe look at its a wonderful life. its like the butterfly flapping its wings. for that matter look at the effects one insect species has on the planet.
I can’t tell if you’re a moron, a troll, or just a truly awful person.
Those categories do not preclude each other. I think she’s got the trifecta here.
Would you say that they’re not equal to yourself then?
It is not about being equal.
It is about being given an equal chance for the pursuit of happiness.
When you are born who said you were owned a equal chance? This is a thing you’ve imagined. You aren’t owned anything good or bad.
There’s no natural universal laws governing fairness, but society as a human construct can and should be structured to maximise equal opportunity.
First you have to get rid of evil people for that to happen
Owed*, both times.
And yeah no one did, but wouldn’t it be nice if everyone did have an equal chance? That’s kind of the whole point.
Unpopular opinion so upvote 👍🏽
Is there a particular declaration of equality that you’re arguing against? I don’t know that I encounter a lot of people who would disagree with your assertion that we’re not equal in ability or traits. That likely seems obvious to a lot of people. When equality is spoken of, I usually find that it’s addressed as an ideal relating to treatment and opportunity. Some people espouse that society should treat all people equally, in the idea that we all have the same human rights, that we all have the most commons needs, we’re all born and die, etc. And treating each other equally is a generally straightforward way to navigate human relationships.
If you focus on the idea that we’re all different as the basis for a value system rather than a factual observation that informs your perceptions, that might lead to some people arguing that being different in some ways means you’re “better” as a person and should be treated better and have more rights or privileges or freedoms over other people.
If we’re categorizing people based on their top speed, yes, an Olympic athlete is likely “better” in that category than an obese guy who doesn’t get much or any exercise. But that category may not be relevant to many people outside of sports and athletic competitions and being better in that category doesn’t make you a better person in general. A fast runner could also beat their spouse or murder people or kick puppies or just generally be a sociopath. And an obese person who doesn’t get much exercise could be a volunteer worker at a children’s cancer ward. So “better” in some categories doesn’t mean “better” over all or in categories that others might value.
Have you read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut? It’s a dystopian short story about a future in which the government attempts to make everyone equal by handicapping people with above average abilities. There’s also a decent movie adaptation called 2081.
https://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
It’s a good story, but it’s arguing against something that as a society, we don’t seem even close to being in danger of. We have large swaths of the population who don’t want people to be equal or perceived as equal and they’re actively pursuing policies that treat people inequally, especially in regard to civil and human rights.
I explained in my post some of what you said, I haven’t read the thing you sent and yes you being better at math will make you favored for the accounting job. So the uneducated or inefficient person will be treated unequally. That is fine and needed.
you being better at math will make you favored for the accounting job
This isn’t always the way it shakes out because there are more factors than skill or merit that determine who has what position. You might be better at math, but you’re also better at cooking, so you get a job as a chef and someone who is worse at math is your accountant, but since it’s their job, they know the accounting laws that apply to your business better.
There isn’t some grand artificial intelligence with a universal database that has categorized all people and their skillsets such that we could easily identify who is better than anyone else at something and equitably apportion those people to those positions and doing so would violate individual freedoms.
What if you’re better at math, but you find being an accountant sucks and you become an artist instead? Should you be treated worse just because you didn’t choose to be an accountant?
Many determinations of “better” will be highly subjective, so it’ll just come down to what the people currently in charge think is of value, and that’s a recipe for unethical discrimination. Sure, we can determine who can run faster, but there’s not an easy measurement for who is a more deserving person if there are limited resources to apportion.
True but I’m not trying to figure out who’s better. I’m letting it be known that we aren’t all equal. You came with the hypotheticals and “what ifs”
People already know that people aren’t equal in skills or talents or abilities. You’re not really saying anything new there. But you are saying that people should be treated inequally by virtue of undefined criteria, and that necessarily requires someone to make a judgment call as to what is valuable and what is not. You’re not following your assertions through to their logical conclusions. Hypotheticals are useful for evaluating proposals to see if the proposals are practical or humane or achievable. If you aren’t sure how your proposal would play out, you’re admitting you haven’t thought it through enough. There isn’t much value in a raw concept with no feasibility.
People aren’t the same in their abilities, you are correct. And some people will contribute to society more than others, yes.
In these ways, some people will seem to have more “worth” than others, I will concede.
But to me it comes down to the fact that every person deserves:
- a chance to be happy,
- to be free from pain,
- and to be accepted as they were born.
This is what I mean when I say all people are equal. Not that everyone is the same person somehow. 🤨 Granted, some people will forfeit their birthright to these things by betraying humanity or their community in certain ways, but that’s beside the point.
I think we should have the same opinion here, right?
I disagree with 1, 2, and 3. You said they deserve, no one deserves anything they must obtain, demand or prevent it
I instinctively disagree with what you’re saying, but I’m willing to listen if you are willing to state your arguments as to why.
Like, wouldn’t you say a newborn person deserves a chance to be happy? That’s just focusing on (1). And in isolation, a newborn doesn’t deserve to be free of pain (2)? It didn’t ask to be born, so it shouldn’t be subjected to pain if we can prevent it.
If this makes sense, wouldn’t it make sense that all people, not just newborns, deserve these things? (Obviously we are not considering people who do things that forfeit their right to happiness by taking away other’s happiness, etc. But the initial default ought to be that they do deserve, right?)
So anyway, I’m open to hearing you out if you want to elaborate your stance on this. It didn’t sound good at all off the bat, so I’m really curious about your way of thinking here.
They shouldn’t be abused for no reason or ‘good reasons’ they just don’t deserve anything. Life is life. Pain is part of life. Just because you think its undesirable or bad doesn’t mean it is. Sometimes pain is necessary
I think you’re getting too hung up on the word “deserve”.
Pain is a part of life, yes. But nobody deserves pain, unless/until they’ve done something to deserve it. And by logical inversion they then deserve to be pain free, the way I see it.
But we’re also now just focusing on pain. What about deserving a chance to be happy? Like, just a chance? The inversion of that would be to be born for the purpose of not being happy. That sounds like something only a sadist would condone.
Any thoughts on that?
Everyone already has a chance at happiness though.
No they don’t, but that’s beside the point. It’s just a part of my definition of everyone being equal, that all should have a chance at happiness in life from the beginning. Do you agree or nah?
I try to help people intellectually so that they can not make dumb decision that would bring unhappiness but I don’t mind when people suffer. If someone allows continuous suffering. Then they are a perfect fit for it. If I was suffering I’m going to detox, fix, or detach from whatever’s causing it.
If necessary extreme force will be used
Judging by how often death is celebrated and violence or murder is openly advocated here, I don’t think many people actually even believe we’re all equal - only that their in-group is. And often, not even everyone within that.
Precisely, these people on average are superior in their evil and not equal to let’s say a more godly person
This doesn’t mean person A is better overall as a human being than person B
If a person is no better or worse than another, what are they if not equal? Sure they’re faster but “overall” they’re equal.
Five hundred pennies, and five singles are different, but they are equal. Just because a thing is different from another thing, doesn’t mean it isn’t equal. Sure, five hundred pennies are heavier, they’re still equal.
Perhaps “equitable” is a better word for the concept people are talking about. But “equal” is the word used, so it means this now. Regardless, the specific word isn’t worth arguing about, it’s the concept that is worth discussing.
I think the problem with deciding people aren’t equal, is that some group has to decide what metrics are most important. That group will inevitably be the one with the most power, and they’ll inevitably pick metrics that they themselves excell at. Then the metric becomes a target, and every metric that becomes a target becomes malicious.
We already see this, we as a society, value people by the amount of capital they own. Wealthy people get to enjoy all the benefits of society and are insulated from most of its problems. As a result (gestures around).
People are already not equal in today’s society. There are the 'have’s, there are the 'have not’s, and there’s everything in between. We’re not equal, but we should be.
There are no metrics people are not equal
This doesn’t mean person A is better overall as a human being than person B
If a person is no better or worse than another, what are they if not equal?
Superior in their key talents, abilities, self control, skill, thinking, etc.
This doesn’t mean person A is better overall as a human being than person B
If a person is no better or worse than another, what are they if not equal? Sure they’re [Superior in their key talents, abilities, self control, skill, thinking, etc.] but “overall” they’re equal.
As an aside, how do you know they’re superior without the metrics you deny exist? Not really an important question. Focus on the first contradiction. The contradiction between: “people aren’t equal, but overall people are equal” I think gets to the core of your position.
As a human being. Meaning they shouldn’t be ruled over. That’s all I mean. They still aren’t equal. You don’t need metrics because you can experience the quality differences
Meaning they shouldn’t be ruled over. That’s all I mean.
But that is what most people mean when they say “we all are/should be equal”, they don’t mean “we can all run the same speed”. Did you think they meant “we can all run the same speed”?
This doesn’t mean person A is better overall as a human being than person B
If a person is no better or worse than another [as a human being], what are they if not equal? Sure they’re [Superior in their key talents, abilities, self control, skill, thinking, etc.] but “overall” they’re equal.
You don’t need metrics because you can experience the quality differences
What is the “quality difference” you’re experiencing that dertrimines who’s a faster runner? Answer not being a metric, like how fast they run 100m of course.
No I didn’t think that. I’m not saying they should even be treated the same. I’m just saying
- We aren’t all equal
- They shouldn’t be ruled over
Showing favoritism, not treated everyone equally is just natural. You can’t force those things. As long as it doesn’t get violent what’s the issue?
