Were men created equal or was equality created by man?

[caesar]

Q1: Were men created equal or was equality created by man?

Please begin the answer with a precise 'yes' & 'no'. Since Q1 is a combination of two question, you may separate the answer to the first and the second question by '&'. For example, if you think that all men were not created equal and that equality was created by man, then you may begin by saying: no & yes

The question came to my mind while reading the posts in the tread, ‘God is great!’ In one of the posts it is said that God created all men equal, but it is men who have created inequality amongst themselves.

I agree that rich & poor and good & bad, were definitely created by the society. But are men not born unequal at a more fundamental level, that is, physically? We have different races and sexes and we come in different sizes. The stronger has always tried to exploit the weaker. We all have definitely seen, or atleast, heard of discrimination on the basis of race and sex. It exists everywhere, even today. But humans have endeavoured to bring about equality in the society. We have laws to promote equality and to prevent discrimination. It is also a corollary of the principle of equality that ‘unequals must be treated unequally’. Which means that the weak must not only be protected but must also be shown some favour in order to equalize them with the strong.

If your answer to Q1 is no & yes, then,

Q2: Do you think, if there was no society or laws, humans would instinctively (by nature) have a tendency to discriminate?

Q3: Do you think humans are trying to erase the inequalities which were actually created by God (or nature)?

Thanks.

[jgweed]

Q1. yes/yes

[Virgil]

Q1. yes/yes

Don't you see the inherent contradiction in that? If equality was created by man then what's to say that some other men can't come along and change their minds. In fact we went through over a thousand years of the middle ages where men established a hierachy of equality; there are caste systems in many parts of the world that don't have equality between people. Either equality is endowed by a higher order, yes God, or the notion of equality is fanciful.

My opinion:
Men were created equal by God and the earthly inequalities that arise are enforced by power. Man has the notion of equality through his observation of natural law.


Q2: Do you think, if there was no society or laws, humans would instinctively (by nature) have a tendency to discriminate?
The notion of no society or laws is so hypothetical that I have no concept of what it could mean. Man by nature live in socities. Man also does have a tendency to discriminate, but that doesnt mean that all men are created equal.


Q3: Do you think humans are trying to erase the inequalities which were actually created by God (or nature)?
What I think you are confusing is the notion that all men are created the same. No all men are not created the same, nor is an inequality of outcome an inequality. A smart person hypotheitically will earn more money than a stupid person. But both are equal in before the law and there is nothing unjust with the smart man making more. In fact it would be unjust to take the fruits of his labor away from him.

[toology514]

yes and yes

[CognitiveArtist]

Q1. no & yes

Q2. yes

Q3. yes

The idea of no societies is a very common thought experiment, like Thomas Hobbes' state of nature. I think people, like nature are very discriminatory. In general (that is people would be in the hypothetical situation free of society) and today, in western capitalist liberal democracies. Discriminating between political parties, the media discriminates every move by each political party, employers discriminate employees and on. That's because discrimination is an intelligent, natural thought process.
Equality is a vague term, and much politics is just about defining what's 'equal'. Liberalism focuses on promotion of legal and political equality (e.g. everyone has right to an attorney, every legal adult has right to vote) and equality of opportunity (like equality in general this is a notoriously disputed term. I'll just say it could mean equality to strive for work and wealth). Socialism is a clear variation, as it focuses on social equality (that is, roughly, everyone has the right to equal goods and services).
Equality is very much interwoven with freedom in my eyes. Freedom is a little easier to work with as it has 2 useful categories. There is negative freedom and there is positive freedom. A Negative freedom is no one has the right to hurt anyone, the emphasis is on letting things be. A positive freedom is giving free education to everyone, the point being to enable more action.

I have liberal views on equality. I think equality should focus on starting people off (which in the smart liberal manner includes some positive freedom, like welfare), letting them construct themselves. If there is adequate freedom and a fair start then a competitive, capitalist economy and a democratic political system are good servants. I also think despite them both utilising discrimination they do an excellent job of not "discriminating and killing things". For example, despite the music market and industry being discriminatory we have vast amounts of music artists and a plethora of genres with more fusions happening then ever before.


Political philosophy is problematically abstract as I'm sure my views would change or mean different things when referring to different countries and different industries. Yet like all political discussion I'm sure this discussion will get specific soon enough :)

[sleep tight]

Q1. neither. i don't believe for a second there is equality.
Q2. yes
Q3. yes and no.

i don't believe in equality or following moral codes.
heres two interesting quotes from a book called might is right.


Quote: "THE VICTOR GETS THE GOLD"...

"Virtue is rewarded in this world, remember, Natural law makes no false judgments. Its decisions are true and just, even when dreadful. The victor gets the gold and the land every time. He, also, gets the fairest maidens, the glory tributes. And — why should it be otherwise? Why should the delights of life go to failures and cowards? Why should the spoils of battle belong to the unwarlike? That would be insanity, utterly unnatural and immoral."

"As far as Sociology is concerned, we must either abandon our reason or abandon Christ. He is pre-eminently, the prophet of unreason— the preacher of rabble-rabies. All that is enervating and destructive of manhood, he glorifies, —all that is self-reliant and heroic, he denounces. Lazarus, the filthy and diseased vagrant, is his hero of heroes; and Dives the sane, energetic citizen, is his 'awful' example of baseness and criminality. He praises the "humble" and he curses the proud. He blesses the failures and damns the successful. All that is noble, he perverts— all that is atrocious he upholds. He inverts all the natural instincts of mankind and urges us to live artificial lives. He commands the demonization of virtues that aggrandize a people, and advises his admirers to submit in quietness to every insult, contumely, indignity; to be slaves, de-facto. Indeed, there is scarce one thought in the whole of his Dicta that is practically true."

[Scheherazade]

Men were created equal by God and the earthly inequalities that arise are enforced by power. Not all inequalities are enforced surely. How abotu the baby who is born with incurable condition?
A smart person hypotheitically will earn more money than a stupid person. But both are equal in before the law and there is nothing unjust with the smart man making more. But the fact that not everyone is created as smart to be able to make that kind of money is an inequality imposed by God?

[Virgil]

What I think you are confusing is the notion that all men are created the same. No all men are not created the same, nor is an inequality of outcome an inequality. A smart person hypotheitically will earn more money than a stupid person. But both are equal in before the law and there is nothing unjust with the smart man making more. In fact it would be unjust to take the fruits of his labor away from him.


Not all inequalities are enforced surely. How abotu the baby who is born with incurable condition?But the fact that not everyone is created as smart to be able to make that kind of money is an inequality imposed by God?

Like I said above, there is a distinction between all men being created the same and people being equal. Are you saying that people born with a defect or mentally retarded are to be slaves of people born normal? Are you saying that they do not have a right to a vote? Are you saying that a retarded person gets 20 years of jail for a crime while a "normal" person gets 20 days for the same crime? No. All people are equal. Unfortunately not everyone is the same and not everyone has the same luck.

[motherhubbard]

Not all inequalities are enforced surely. How abotu the baby who is born with incurable condition?But the fact that not everyone is created as smart to be able to make that kind of money is an inequality imposed by God?

We all have equal value, just not equal attributes

[Smoogles]

Was man created Equally? Yes, in short.

Man created Inequality from there: As we are rational beings with the know how on how to thrive, man adapted to environment and realized that they needed to appoint people (namely king and queens) to govern them mostly for economic purposes and thus social structure was created which made man seem lesser or greater in comparison to others. It was inevitable as soon as one man was given more authority than the rest that jealousy was planted in every mans heart and no one wants to be the bottom of the social latter, which brings upon the Problem of Evil... but that's for another time.

[Scheherazade]

Like I said above, there is a distinction between all men being created the same and people being equal. Are you saying that people born with a defect or mentally retarded are to be slaves of people born normal? Are you saying that they do not have a right to a vote? Are you saying that a retarded person gets 20 years of jail for a crime while a "normal" person gets 20 days for the same crime? No. All people are equal. Unfortunately not everyone is the same and not everyone has the same luck.I do not make any judgemental comments in my post so please do not put words into my mouth. We can also argue that, following your suggestions, smart people are "worthier" and more "valuable" but let's not go down road.

What I was trying to point out was that if we all do not have the exact same starting point, then we cannot claim that we are all created equally by God.
We all have equal value, just not equal attributes. This is a different kettle of fish. We can say that even though we are not created equally, we all have equal rights and treated equally (well not according to Virgil but we will overlook that for the timebeing ;)). Hence, we can conclude that humans are actually trying to erase the inequalities created by God.

*bad Elvis impersonation*

"Thank you very much!"

:D

[kelby_lake]

Q1: Were men created equal or was equality created by man?

Men, equal? Women are so much better (though seemingly not in the Arts I might add) ;)

[Virgil]

I do not make any judgemental comments in my post so please do not put words into my mouth. We can also argue that, following your suggestions, smart people are "worthier" and more "valuable" but let's not go down road.

What I was trying to point out was that if we all do not have the exact same starting point, then we cannot claim that we are all created equally by God. This is a different kettle of fish. We can say that even though we are not created equally, we all have equal rights and treated equally (well not according to Virgil but we will overlook that for the timebeing ;)). Hence, we can conclude that humans are actually trying to erase the inequalities created by God.

*bad Elvis impersonation*

"Thank you very much!"

:D

This is all a distinction in semantics. When goverments across the world state that their citizens are equal, no one, even communists, are claiming that everyone has the same capabilities. You are using the word equal in reference of capabilities (which clearly everyone are not equal) and I am using the word equal in reference to human value. The way I'm using the word equal stems from the Enlightment era philosophic discussions which culminated in the United States Declaration of Indepence, written by Thomas Jeffereson:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The French Rights of Man I believe (I am no expert in this document, just vaguely aware of it) has a similar statement, and I quote the following:

(From Article VI) – "All the citizens, being equal in [the eyes of the law], are equally admissible to all public dignities, places, and employments, according to their capacity and without distinction other than that of their virtues and of their talents."
I think both statements above (though I caution again I'm pulling the French one out of context which I may not fully understand) are referring to the term "equal" as a human value in distinction to individual capacities.

In fact I think that's the point. No matter how one is born, with defects or disimilarities to the larger society, each person as an individual is equal. And the only reason that would be true, in my opinion, is that each person is a child of God. Otherwise it's hap-hazard and subject to human whims. Any human whim can establish any sort of hiearchy of status.

[Scheherazade]

It is all semantics in a way, yes.

When we say "God has created humanbeings equally", it is not true, in my opinion.

However, that does not mean that people are not equal in front of law or on humanitarian grounds... which are all "human inventions".
No matter how one is born, with defects or disimilarities to the larger society, each person as an individual is equal.But some are more equal (according to your earlier post)? Hence, those who are "smart", say, should get better pay - which can also mean better health care, better living conditions, education and what not?

[blazeofglory]

Equality is created by man. Man is clean of equality and inequality. Man is at birth above all these tags ideas and crass things. Man is pure and spotless. Do not smear his state with gibberish ideas and ideologies.

[Virgil]

However, that does not mean that people are not equal in front of law or on humanitarian grounds... which are all "human inventions".But some are more equal (according to your earlier post)? Hence, those who are "smart", say, should get better pay - which can also mean better health care, better living conditions, education and what not?

I never said that some are born more equal. This time don't put words in my mouth. People are born equal and they earn what they get in life. That is if their government allows them to earn it.


When we say "God has created humanbeings equally", it is not true, in my opinion.

I didn't know he created some as slaves and some as free and some as Lords or Ladies or Kings. Or let's create a special status for engineers. :) I get to not pay any taxes, serve no criminal penalties, and have all you lower people kiss my ring. :D

[cipherdecoy]

"Man were created equal"

My take on that is yes, that is, we are created
equal in terms of our most fundamental worth, disregarding societal impositions like status and wealth. Then there's also fact that we're born with varying degrees of intelligence and abilities might refute my statement. However it's like comparing a Suzuki to a Rolls Royce - they're both cars all the same, but they're not equal only in terms of their abilities, only in their abilities, not in their fundamental worth. (Bad analogy perhaps?)

"was equality created by man?"
Although Man can impose it's own yardsticks of equality such as the aforementioned, our most fundamental worth - the fact that we're all human anyway - is untouchable, in spite of what Man might do to make it seem otherwise.

[Virgil]

Actually Scher it occurs to me that what you're alluding to is a question of justice. Is it just that someone born with the same equaity as another but with a defect not be not able to earn the same as that other through no fault of his own? Well, that is for socety to adjust through laws. Let me also put in that in an act to offset that injustice you will have to take something away from another that was legaly earned through his skill and labor. So how one adjusts those competing injustices is a matter for society to decide. Indirectly through elections of their legislatures of course.

[ShoutGrace]

Yes to the first question, no to the second.

The conception of justice noted in the Hebrew Bible and by Aristotle: Equals ought to be treated equally, unequals ought to be treated unequally.


When we say "God has created humanbeings equally", it is not true, in my opinion.

We have intelligent and moronic people, fat people and skinny people, kind people and malevolent people, happy people and depressed people, tall people and short people, people of one particular genetic ancestry and those of another.

If we have nothing in common that is equal, then, why should we all be treated equally?

Notice that not even appealing to our DNA is helpful - on naturalism, species are classed from the ground up, so to speak - meaning that we don't truly have different 'kinds' on evolution, but merely 'similarity classes.' That is to say, human beings are members of a certain class and not of another to a greater or lesser degree insofar as they resemble the first and differ from the second.

Moreover, what it means to be 'human' is not an agreed upon idea, but rather one that differs between worldviews. 'Speciesism,' for instance, is a new brand of ethics being taught today, espoused by such notable personages as Peter Singer and Richard Dawkins. Speciesism is basically an unjustified bias toward your own biological classification - or, to put it differently, it is the arrogant view that you are special simply because you are a human being.

So on certain schemes of things, what it means to be human doesn't rise to the level of intrinsic value, anyway.

If human beings don't have anything in common that is equal, they ought not to be treated equally. I agree with Virgil that there is just the one way to resolve this dilemma and eventually affirm equality:


In fact I think that's the point. No matter how one is born, with defects or disimilarities to the larger society, each person as an individual is equal. And the only reason that would be true, in my opinion, is that each person is a child of God. Otherwise it's hap-hazard and subject to human whims. Any human whim can establish any sort of hiearchy of status.

Theists can claim that human individuals have something of infinite worth in common - the image of God.

In the words of Joel Fineberg, one of the leading philosophers of law in the twentieth century - “If you do not have the existence of God to ground the image of God, the idea that people have equal rights is nothing but a myth.”

[Virgil]

Shoutgrace!! My God, where have you been? It's great to see you. Have you been lurking all along and not posted or was this a special occaision where you decided to drop by? Hope school went well and you are doing well. :)

[Xarlot]

Hmm, this sounds oddly familiar...

Chicken? Egg? Anyone?

Sorry, it's too vague a question for me to supply a simple yes or no answer.

For starters, today's society gives rise to other factors, more important then physical attributes. Money, possessions, social class, these can void someone's race or physical stature, sex and etc.

As for question two, I believe yes, it is human nature to promote one's own survival. And, in most cases, that includes 'removing' other being depending on A) the threat level and B) the amount of differences between the persons.

And as for question three, well, lol...

As long as such a strong sense of 'political correctness' is apparent, I think we're simply pushing ourselves further away from out goal of equality.

Hope that made sense, I'm quite tired :p