Equal rights and egalitarianism

[bluethread]

This being Martin Luther King Day, many commemorate the principle of equal rights on this day. What specifically do you believe that principle to be and on what do you believe it to be based? Does it mean that everyone is to be treated exactly the same? If not, when should individuals be treated the same and on what basis?

[bluethread]

But the goal of humanity should be to help every human be the best they can be. Why should any human argue otherwise unless they have some selfish greedy intent that is not in favor of humanity as a whole?

Then are you of the opinion that everyone has the same potential?

What would that have to do with treating everyone equally?

Well, wouldn't it make more sense to provide more to those with greater potential?

[Divine Insight]

But the goal of humanity should be to help every human be the best they can be. Why should any human argue otherwise unless they have some selfish greedy intent that is not in favor of humanity as a whole?

Then are you of the opinion that everyone has the same potential?

What would that have to do with treating everyone equally?

Well, wouldn't it make more sense to provide more to those with greater potential?

How do you decide who has greater potential?

If you give the people you "think" have greater potential more resources, and you withhold resources from the people you "think" don't have as much potential. Then of course the people who were given the greater resources are going to do much better. After all, having resources to work with certainly affects what a person can potential accomplish.

For example, if you give me a hand shovel and you give someone else a backhoe because you think they have more potential. And then assign us both the job of digging a foundation for two identical buildings. Clearly the man you gave the backhoe to is going to do far better than I could ever hope to do with a hand shovel.

Then after he has finished digging a nice foundation, and all I've done was dig a small hole just getting started, you'll say, "See, I was right. I gave the backhoe to the right person. He clearly has more potential than you."

All I can say to that is "What in the world were you expecting?"

This kind of thinking is what keeps discrimination thriving.

[bluethread]

Well, wouldn't it make more sense to provide more to those with greater potential?

How do you decide who has greater potential?

There are many methods one can use. One is past performance under equivalent circumstance. Note that I am not saying that equal treatment is never appropriate. I am just wondering if it should be taken as an absolute.

If you give the people you "think" have greater potential more resources, and you withhold resources from the people you "think" don't have as much potential. Then of course the people who were given the greater resources are going to do much better. After all, having resources to work with certainly affects what a person can potential accomplish.

For example, if you give me a hand shovel and you give someone else a backhoe because you think they have more potential. And then assign us both the job of digging a foundation for two identical buildings. Clearly the man you gave the backhoe to is going to do far better than I could ever hope to do with a hand shovel.

Not necessarily. My initial assessment could be wrong. The one with the backhoe could not only not make as much progress as you can with a shovel, that individual might create a lot more damage than you could ever create with a shovel. However, if I treat the two differently based on a careful assessment, there is much less likelihood that will happen, than if I make no assessment at all and just treat them both equally.

Then after he has finished digging a nice foundation, and all I've done was dig a small hole just getting started, you'll say, "See, I was right. I gave the backhoe to the right person. He clearly has more potential than you."

How do you know I would say that? What makes you think I do not know how to do proper cost benefit analysis?

All I can say to that is "What in the world were you expecting?"

This kind of thinking is what keeps discrimination thriving.

Yes, both the straw man argument you presented and the argument you are making keep unwarranted discrimination thriving. The first, because it does not properly identify external factors and your argument because it does not acknowledge that there are internal factors. Though a shovel and a backhoe are both tools, they are not equal and should not be treated equally. In the same way, though we refer to all males over say 16 as men, they are not all equal and should not all be treated equally, in all circumstances. That is why MLK's dream was not that his children would not be judged, but that they would be judged based on what he considered to be the most significant internal factor, the content of their character.

[Divine Insight]

Well, wouldn't it make more sense to provide more to those with greater potential?

How do you decide who has greater potential?

There are many methods one can use. One is past performance under equivalent circumstance. Note that I am not saying that equal treatment is never appropriate. I am just wondering if it should be taken as an absolute.

That would be equal rights and egalitarianism. If you think it's not then you aren't understanding what equal rights means.

Egalitarianism doesn't require that everyone be given the same reward for varying performance.

If you give the people you "think" have greater potential more resources, and you withhold resources from the people you "think" don't have as much potential. Then of course the people who were given the greater resources are going to do much better. After all, having resources to work with certainly affects what a person can potential accomplish.

For example, if you give me a hand shovel and you give someone else a backhoe because you think they have more potential. And then assign us both the job of digging a foundation for two identical buildings. Clearly the man you gave the backhoe to is going to do far better than I could ever hope to do with a hand shovel.

Not necessarily. My initial assessment could be wrong. The one with the backhoe could not only not make as much progress as you can with a shovel, that individual might create a lot more damage than you could ever create with a shovel. However, if I treat the two differently based on a careful assessment, there is much less likelihood that will happen, than if I make no assessment at all and just treat them both equally.

If you are treating them both equally then you will assess them equality. So unless you are suggesting that they should be unequally assessed how can you argue against egalitarianism?

Equal assessment based on past performance is egalitarianism. They are both being assessed equally. Assuming it's true egalitarianism and not unequal bigotry claiming to be egalitarianism.

Then after he has finished digging a nice foundation, and all I've done was dig a small hole just getting started, you'll say, "See, I was right. I gave the backhoe to the right person. He clearly has more potential than you."

How do you know I would say that? What makes you think I do not know how to do proper cost benefit analysis?

If you do it equally and fairly then why would you argue against egalitarianism?

The only way you could argue against egalitarianism is if you are treating someone in an unequal fashion.

So if you want to claim to be able to do a fair and equal analysis, then you should support egalitarianism. Why wouldn't you?

All I can say to that is "What in the world were you expecting?"

This kind of thinking is what keeps discrimination thriving.

Yes, both the straw man argument you presented and the argument you are making keep unwarranted discrimination thriving. The first, because it does not properly identify external factors and your argument because it does not acknowledge that there are internal factors. Though a shovel and a backhoe are both tools, they are not equal and should not be treated equally. In the same way, though we refer to all males over say 16 as men, they are not all equal and should not all be treated equally, in all circumstances. That is why MLK's dream was not that his children would not be judged, but that they would be judged based on what he considered to be the most significant internal factor, the content of their character.

Judging people on the content of their character is egalitarianism.

However, if you refuse to recognize and acknowledge that people who have already been treated grossly unfairly are naturally going to have a chip on their shoulder then you are the one dealing in strawmen.

You can't compare someone who was born and raised in a wealthy class and had everything handed to them on a silver platter with someone who was born and raised into poverty and perhaps even discriminated against because of their situation.

In fact, this would go right back to my example of giving one person a backhoe and the other person a shovel and then judging them on how well they've done in direct comparison without taking into consideration the difference in resources.

Our society has already been treating people extremely unequally for many decades. Even centuries actually. So you can hardly now point to the people who have become hopeless and resentful as if this is the fault of their Character.

That right there is the foundation of bigotry and racism.

These are just excuses for continuing to treat people unfairly into the future.

The solution is not an easy one, and it won't happen overnight to be sure. But arguing against egalitarianism is not the path to the solution. Recognizing that everyone is not being treated equally, especially children who are born into adverse conditions, is the first step to enlightenment on this issue.

Pretending that to continue to treat disadvantaged people unfairly and judge them unfairly is not going to do anything but continue to support the status quo of bigotry and racism and keep us from ever acknowledging that we are nowhere near being a nation of egalitarianism.

[bluethread]

There are many methods one can use. One is past performance under equivalent circumstance. Note that I am not saying that equal treatment is never appropriate. I am just wondering if it should be taken as an absolute.

That would be equal rights and egalitarianism. If you think it's not then you aren't understanding what equal rights means.

Egalitarianism doesn't require that everyone be given the same reward for varying performance.

I think you are referring to simple classic egalitarianism, as a doctrine of legal standing, such as equal protection under the law. However it can also be seen as a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people, economic egalitarianism, or the decentralization of power. So, let's look at the OP questions again.

"Does it mean that everyone is to be treated exactly the same? If not, when should individuals be treated the same and on what basis?"

The legal form is fairly well defined with some disputes around the edges. However, the philosophical form, which is what I am primarily addressing, is not so clearly defined. It appears that you do not hold to the view that everyone should be treated exactly the same. So, in your view, when should individuals be treated the same and on what basis?

Not necessarily. My initial assessment could be wrong. The one with the backhoe could not only not make as much progress as you can with a shovel, that individual might create a lot more damage than you could ever create with a shovel. However, if I treat the two differently based on a careful assessment, there is much less likelihood that will happen, than if I make no assessment at all and just treat them both equally.

If you are treating them both equally then you will assess them equality. So unless you are suggesting that they should be unequally assessed how can you argue against egalitarianism?

Equal assessment based on past performance is egalitarianism. They are both being assessed equally. Assuming it's true egalitarianism and not unequal bigotry claiming to be egalitarianism.

It seems that we are looking at a true Scotsman situation here. However, let's continue with the view that true egalitarianism refers only to making judgments based on a defined standard, i.e. prior experience.

Then after he has finished digging a nice foundation, and all I've done was dig a small hole just getting started, you'll say, "See, I was right. I gave the backhoe to the right person. He clearly has more potential than you."

How do you know I would say that? What makes you think I do not know how to do proper cost benefit analysis?

If you do it equally and fairly then why would you argue against egalitarianism?

The only way you could argue against egalitarianism is if you are treating someone in an unequal fashion.

So if you want to claim to be able to do a fair and equal analysis, then you should support egalitarianism. Why wouldn't you?

The problem is that you presume that I would draw a conclusion without considering the relevant factors. That is not what I am doing. What I am doing is comparing egalitarianism to what MLK taught, to see if they differ and how.

Judging people on the content of their character is egalitarianism.

That is what I am examining, to see if it is indeed the case.

However, if you refuse to recognize and acknowledge that people who have already been treated grossly unfairly are naturally going to have a chip on their shoulder then you are the one dealing in strawmen.

I have not made such an assertion. However, how is treating a person with a chip on his shoulder differently egalitarianism?

You can't compare someone who was born and raised in a wealthy class and had everything handed to them on a silver platter with someone who was born and raised into poverty and perhaps even discriminated against because of their situation.

In fact, this would go right back to my example of giving one person a backhoe and the other person a shovel and then judging them on how well they've done in direct comparison without taking into consideration the difference in resources.

What does the worker's personal background have to do with excavating the foundation of a home? Why would I let a less experienced person use a backhoe to excavate a foundation, simply because that individual had a difficult childhood?

Our society has already been treating people extremely unequally for many decades. Even centuries actually. So you can hardly now point to the people who have become hopeless and resentful as if this is the fault of their Character.

You seem to be presuming that people do not have control of their feelings and are subject to some kind of predestinalism. What is it that defines one's character, if not how they react to adversity?

That right there is the foundation of bigotry and racism.

These are just excuses for continuing to treat people unfairly into the future.

How is it bigotry and racism to make decisions based on relevant experience? You said that was egalitarianism. Now, you say that not including personal experience is bigotry and racism. How is that relevant in deciding who should run a backhoe?

The solution is not an easy one, and it won't happen overnight to be sure. But arguing against egalitarianism is not the path to the solution. Recognizing that everyone is not being treated equally, especially children who are born into adverse conditions, is the first step to enlightenment on this issue.

The solution to what? Why is it important to recognize how someone was treated in the past when deciding who should run a backhoe?

Pretending that to continue to treat disadvantaged people unfairly and judge them unfairly is not going to do anything but continue to support the status quo of bigotry and racism and keep us from ever acknowledging that we are nowhere near being a nation of egalitarianism.

I notice that you are shifting the discussion from equality to fairness? Why is that? How is treating people equally based on relevant factors not fair? It also appears that you now have changed your position from the beginning of this post. You began by stating "Equal assessment based on past performance is egalitarianism." Now, you say that one must also take personal experiences into account. Which is it, past performance, or past performance plus personal experiences?

[2ndRateMind]

Seems to me that the foundation of these notions of equality in the Christian West is the idea that God loves us all, equally, however good or bad, however rich or poor, however clever or stupid, however strong or weak.

If we can just get that love thing right, I think many of these arguments around equality and egalitarianism would quickly disappear. If one loves, widely and deeply, as Jesus did, then no sacrifice is too great to offer in the service to and for the well-being of others.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[bluethread]

Seems to me that the foundation of these notions of equality in the Christian West is the idea that God loves us all, equally, however good or bad, however rich or poor, however clever or stupid, however strong or weak.

If we can just get that love thing right, I think many of these arguments around equality and egalitarianism would quickly disappear. If one loves, widely and deeply, as Jesus did, then no sacrifice is too great to offer in the service to and for the well-being of others.

Best wishes, 2RM.

The problem with the omni-benevolence argument, let alone the egalitarian argument, applying to Yeshua is his stating to the Canaanite woman, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.�

[Divine Insight]

The legal form is fairly well defined with some disputes around the edges. However, the philosophical form, which is what I am primarily addressing, is not so clearly defined. It appears that you do not hold to the view that everyone should be treated exactly the same. So, in your view, when should individuals be treated the same and on what basis?

I'm totally on board with a "Philosophical Form" of egalitarianism.

You seem to want to take into account things like a persons previous behavior. I have no problem with this. All I require is that when we do this we must do this on egalitarian grounds as well.

I already tried to address this philosophical issue in a previous post. And I definitely agree that this issue has not been sufficiently addressed in legislation. In fact, it would be extremely difficult to address in terms of pure legislation, although certainly not impossible.

Treating people differently based on their previous actions and behavior does not violate egalitarianism as long as everyone is being judged on their previous actions equally.

Here's the problem:

Take person A, and raise them in an environment where they are given every resource and opportunity to become very successful and financially well-off. Chances are that people raised as person A are going to turn out to be quite positive people. Although, we clearly know that even this is not the case. Unfortunately some percentage of people raised in this environment will, for some reason, turn out to be bitter hateful people who may even potentially become criminal, even though they have been given all the resources they need to succeed.

Now let's take person B, and raise them in an environment where they are not given resources or opportunities to become successful and financially well-off. Add to this an additional social "stigma" being placed onto them that they are inferior citizens in the overall social structure. Include into this mix an experience of even being personally insulted and degraded as being "Less than Human" by people who have been raised with the opportunities of person A.

Now let's ask whether it represents "Egalitarianism" to expect to judge these people based on their current attitude toward this social structure without taking into account these important social factors.

I suggest that it's not an equal judgement. It would be a 'blind' judgement that refuses to recognize that a far larger problem exists. It's not just person A or person B, but rather it's the entire social situation that created persons A and persons B.

One problem we often hear as an argument is that there are obviously people who are raised as person A yet become criminals and dangerous people (albeit a minority). And there are also people who are raise as person B yet find a way to become successful and financially well off in spite of their disadvantaged start in life (albeit a minority).

And this argument is then given as a reason why it shouldn't matter. And therefore all people should be judged the same whether they were raised like person A or raised like person B.

But that's an extremely weak argument that simply refuses to face the reality of the situation.

So yes, I agree that everyone should be treated the same. However, from a purely philosophical point of view this should happen from birth onward.

The problem is that in real societies we don't have this perfect philosophical model where everyone is treated the same from birth. Instead we have people being treated dramatically different and then expected to behave the same.

So if you are going to talk about a "Philosophical Egalitarianism" you're going to need to insure egalitarianism from birth onward. You can't just jump in and start treating people on an egalitarianism basis after the damage of a non-egalitarianism society has already taken its toll.