Where Is Equality Located At?: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Where Is Equality Located At? » Where Is Equality Located At?

Where Is Equality Located At?
The non-existence of equality in societies.

Where Is Equality Located At?

SinisterUrge
Misanthrope

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 01, 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 9

Posted 05/01/08 - 09:13 AM: Subject: Where Is Equality Located At?	#1
History is largely a example of inequality, hypocrisy, and double standards. If I was to take a look at a society in observance where can I locate equality at specifically? People speak of equality all the time in politics or in descriptions of whole societies so much that sometimes the meaning of the word is loss indefinately. When I take a look at the affairs of the world I see alot of inequality yet nothing when it comes to the understanding of equality itself through observance. Does equality even exist or is it just some phantom we have constructed as a security blanket in world that is inequal and unjust? Edited by SinisterUrge on 05/01/08 - 09:18 AM
_____________________ The end justifies the means and given the relativity of existence the means can be anything. If there were objective values, then they would be entities or qualities or relations of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe.

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 69

Posted 05/01/08 - 12:20 PM:	#2
Equality and fairness are myths that lead to inevitable, bloody, conflict. If you want peace, stop being concerned with what is 'equitable' and what is 'fair' and worry about what works. Both (or all) sides in a conflict have their own idea of what is equal and fair. Oddly enough, it frequently involves the other side falling over dead.
_____________________ It is what it is.

The_Rational_Animal
Übermensch

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: München, Germany
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 161

Posted 05/03/08 - 12:24 AM:	#3
1. equality - (in the political sense) suggests equal access to resources and opportunities and equal participation in all realms of society for women and men, but also for members of different races, ethnic groups, and religions Equality or the lack thereof is entirely subjective. This is perhaps why "the meaning of the word is los[t] indefintley." No two people are going to see a certain situation in the exact same light and will be more or less inclined to ascribe a label of "equal" or "unequal". There is also a great deal of relativism in applying these terms to the degree of which there is some element of equality or inequality. The definition thusly is very vague; it is not entirely clear how one goes from equal to not-equal without relying upon his own impressions and not the objective facts. The use of fuzzy logic between equal and unequal would make the classification more clear indeed, but the ambiguity of the terms lead to the kinds of linguistic mistakes presented here. Sinister Urge wrote: Does equality even exist or is it just some phantom we have constructed as a security blanket in world that is inequal and unjust? One has to ask himself "What would be the purpose of such a 'phantom' or 'security blanket'?" If Absolutely Relative wishes to suggest that equality and fairness lead causally to war and conflict, what would the benefits be in creating the guise of equal conditions? With such logic, preaching the inequality of a certain group of people would be "best", but such only leads to further resentment and more conflict. I see equality as code for egalitarianism, such as in the given definition above, where human beings are conceived as being fundamentally the same. I despise this view that "all men are created equal". However, I do advocate a non-initiation of force, a type of negative equality in that nobody has the right to initiate force against, or unjustly violate the rights of, another party. Equality as it is used commonly in social commentary and politics is mostly a "feel-good" term, utilized as justification in advocating certain policies and opinions, sort of like "democracy" and "freedom" in these modern contexts of discussion. The world is not inherently "[u]nequal" or "unjust". This would imply that these descriptors are objective indicators; even your assessment of the world is subjective. There is no objective basis for claiming that these claims are true, even if they do seem inductively true.
_____________________ ύπαρξη υπάρχει - (existence exists)

Tobias
metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: The world has moved on
Total Topics: 52
Total Posts: 4818

Posted 05/03/08 - 01:37 AM:	#4
If we want to know what works we first have to know what we would consider 'working'. Equality is an ideal and so will never be fully realised. It is also not equality in the sense that everyone is the same, rather equal opportunity for all to realise their life plans. As such inequality has been pushed back through social security schemes, insurances, rule orf law and so on. It is not a myth it is a political goal. Juts as fairness is. Being fair means that people are awarded what they deserve no? And so that will not always be the case, but that doesn't make the world inherently unjust or something.
_____________________ The power of Kant compels you The power of Kant compels you The power of Kant compels you "Im tiefen, tiefen Wald Da steht ein Krankenhaus, Darin tauscht ein kleiner Doktor Liebenden die Herzen aus." Samsas Traum - Stromausfall im Herzpital

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 1235

Posted 05/13/08 - 03:25 AM:	#5
Absolutely Relative wrote: Equality and fairness are myths that lead to inevitable, bloody, conflict. If you want peace, stop being concerned with what is 'equitable' and what is 'fair' and worry about what works. Both (or all) sides in a conflict have their own idea of what is equal and fair. Oddly enough, it frequently involves the other side falling over dead. And the other side falling over dead is a problem, just because..... Because it's unfair and unjust, I suppose. Conversely, the death of the enemy may be something that works. "Hell, they may not deserve it, but it works for me." It may even bring peace in the sense of absence of conflict. As Tacitus said of Rome: "They created a desert and called it peace." So back where we started.... Perhaps 'equitable' and 'fair' aren't so bad after all. ******* Equitable is not always the same as equal. E.g. "We don't know who the terrorists are, so let's kill everyone in the village. Then everyone gets equal treatment." Equal, but not fair. On the other hand, only the guy who wins the race gets the gold medal. Unequal, but fair. Occasionally equitable happens to be the same as equal. If one person's vote carries more weight than others' in a democratic election, then that's inequality and for that reason alone is inequitable. Edited by Cuthbert on 05/13/08 - 03:33 AM

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.