Were men created equal or was equality created by man?

[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.

[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