|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2005 9:21 pm
To get back to what I think Jefferson meant by "equality," and by extension the classical liberal tradition, I would say that equality in a sociopolitcal context is the concept that we, by virtue of our nature as human beings, have the same rights.
While this was not exactly the case in America for quite a long time, the principle was there, and I believe it's a valid one.
It's interesting to see the number of people who defined (implicity or explicity) equality as economic equality. I think this is telling of the influence Marxist thought has had on our society.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 8:07 am
Well if you step back and look at it, we are not all born inherently equal. Whether we like it or not, that economic impact dominates everything in our life. It is the economic condition that grants or denies us social and academic opportunity.
I agree that Jefferson spoke of the ideal and of the rights we deserve, but the fact of the matter in modern society is that we do not all have the same rights. We are not born with the same rights. We are born to a condition. We are defined the moment we enter the world and doors close. The economic condition limits us almost universally. To use the cliche, 'money makes the world go round.'
One thing that is fair and equal however is everyone's right to try. Everyone, no matter who they are, can better themselves. It might be harder for some, but we can't have the cake and eat it too. I don't believe we have equality. I believe we have the closest thing to it that we as humans can cope with, but I do not believe that we have the ideal that Jefferson spoke of. In many ways, it's still an ideal that we try to reach for, in vain perhaps, but it helps us sleep at night.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 10:52 am
We are all born with the same rights (the right to life, liberty, and property*). The fact that those rights can be violated does not change the fact that we have them.
* The right to property in this context means the right to keep, use, trade and dispose of the products of one's own labor, not a right to the products of another's labor.
The issue of economic equality and whether that is a value is another discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:58 pm
Kalile Alako Maze1125 Ever do maths? If something is exactly the same it's classified at equal. If something isn't exactly the same it can't be classified as equal. Equal means exactly the same. But people aren't numbers. And even in math, 1/2g*6 = 3g. They're different, but still equal. Like people; we're different, but all human. They're aren't different. They are exactly the same. In fact with the equation you have there you can say they're equivalent, not just equal. Which means they're always exactly the same. Numbers aren't like people. But words are always words and equal means exactly the same. smoovegeek We are all born with the same rights (the right to life, liberty, and property*). The fact that those rights can be violated does not change the fact that we have them. * The right to property in this context means the right to keep, use, trade and dispose of the products of one's own labor, not a right to the products of another's labor. The issue of economic equality and whether that is a value is another discussion. No-one has rights. We only have privileges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 6:34 pm
Maze1125 They're aren't different. They are exactly the same. In fact with the equation you have there you can say they're equivalent, not just equal. Which means they're always exactly the same. Numbers aren't like people. But words are always words and equal means exactly the same. My point; human beings are the same, but still different, if you follow me. Just because they are exactly the same does not mean that you treat them (solve them) the same way. Much as we'd sometimes like to deny it, humans are almost exactly the same from every point of view, but we need to be treated in different ways. It's up to us to make that equvalency extend to our rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 6:46 pm
smoovegeek We are all born with the same rights (the right to life, liberty, and property*). The fact that those rights can be violated does not change the fact that we have them. * The right to property in this context means the right to keep, use, trade and dispose of the products of one's own labor, not a right to the products of another's labor. The issue of economic equality and whether that is a value is another discussion. Maze1125 No-one has rights. We only have privileges. That's not true. It's not true in America, and it's not true anywhere. Every human being has rights. Rights that we are free to exercise. Rights that we are free to defend. No one can take those rights away. Now, not everyone recognizes those rights, and attempts to supercede them through power. Fine; the right still exists. It may be suspended, but not indefinitely. At the absolute worst, Revolution will win back the right to live. It is only when you do not know that you have rights that you are able to be dominated; one who thinks that they are weak are weak. Those who believe that they are meant to be beaten will be beaten. But people that are secure in the knowlege that they should have the right to liberty, the right to life, and to death too, if it comes to that, have risen throughout history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 6:51 pm
SeraphArcher Quote: That's the danger of carrying equality to extremes. Over and over people have written stories about striving too hard for equality, but we still do it. There is a delicate balance - prejudice and bigotry on one side, and constricting bland unfairness on the other. If we can achieve that balance, obtaining equal rights while retaining individuality, we can achieve utopia. (Farenheit 451 is also a good one, although it's a novel. Harrison made me cry when I was in sixth grade. ) good, point, but here is the true question of the thread then, where do we draw the brightline in the middle. Indeed. How to maintain competition while balancing equal opportunities for everyone! We have made a good start; making education available to everyone, indeed required in the US. I suppose that the best way would be to allow everyone the opportunity to achieve and to better themselves, without putting a limit on how far you can go. This pertains purely to the intellect, of course, not to racism or anything like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 7:40 pm
Maze1125 No-one has rights. We only have privileges. I disagree with you. Can you elaborate a bit on your position?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 8:53 pm
Maze1125 wrote:
No-one has rights.
We only have privileges.
I'm sorry I'm gonna have to disagree here. There are inherent human dignities that exist because you are human. Also priviledges can be taken away, there are inherent aspects of being human that it confers that are impossable to steal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:46 am
SeraphArcher Maze1125 wrote: No-one has rights. We only have privileges. I'm sorry I'm gonna have to disagree here. There are inherent human dignities that exist because you are human. Also priviledges can be taken away, there are inherent aspects of being human that it confers that are impossable to steal. Yes priviledges can be taken away. So can every one of your so called rights. Someone could tie you up, rape you, tourture you and steal everything you own, finally leaving you to die in the gutter. In doing that they have taken away every single one of your 'rights'. Right not to be harmed. Right to own things. Right to defend yourself. Right to live. We are just big bags of mostly water. Bags of mostly water only have the rights that are given to them by other bags of water, in our case, the goverment. But because they are given to us they can be taken way too. Therefore they aren't rights only privileges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 3:20 pm
smoovegeek Pushing reality aside? Please elaborate. Well, I was gonna go into that, but I worried I'd go onto a tangent. We ignore basic truths, things that appear before our very eyes, and believe things that have very little unarguable evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 7:39 pm
Maze1125 Yes priviledges can be taken away. So can every one of your so called rights. Someone could tie you up, rape you, tourture you and steal everything you own, finally leaving you to die in the gutter. In doing that they have taken away every single one of your 'rights'. Right not to be harmed. Right to own things. Right to defend yourself. Right to live. We are just big bags of mostly water. Bags of mostly water only have the rights that are given to them by other bags of water, in our case, the goverment. But because they are given to us they can be taken way too. Therefore they aren't rights only privileges. But the right would still be there. Someone would have infringed upon that right, but the fact still remains that it is your right to live and defend yourself. And I really don't see how that person took away your right to defend yourself at all. I can almost see the others, but surely you would try to defend yourself! Even if you failed, the fact remains that it was your right to try. And I don't think that there is a right to not be harmed. That isn't a right, and I for one wouldn't want it to be. If someone steals your things, you still have the right to own things. You may not be able to afford them; that doesn't matter. You still can. So basically, all this person really would have taken away is your right to live. And I don't really agree with that either, but I honestly don't have a good reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:16 pm
The concept of rights, in a political context, is best justified by ethical theory. I think Rand's theory of rights has merit, although further refinement by subsequent scholars helped a lot.
How would you respond to her justification of rights?
By the way, the right not to be harmed is part and parcel of the right to life. A right may be infringed without completely destroying it. My right to life includes my "right to limb." Or in someone else's words, whose name escapes me, "My rights end at your nose."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:53 pm
There is no such thing as equality. We are all created different, so there is no way we can all be considered "the same."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 9:45 pm
"All men are created equal."
I'm not so sure that they meant humanity at the time. It's very hard to tell since we were still largely a 'macho' society at the time. We translate that today to mean the all of us, but lets not kid ourselves on what they were probably thinking which is very likely not really about women's rights.
"Created" is interesting since it's implying that we are created due to the beliefs at the time. Another flaw with this statement.
- The last word of the statement is the worst, "equal." Of course, no two anything is really exactly the same. Even if I were to say 1 = 1, well then there is the 1 on the left and the 1 on the right. That would make them different now wouldn't it. Of course in the abstract world we can avoid this dilemma, but in reality that's not going to happen. Nothing is equal.
- As far as "inherent" rights... well, I will have to agree that we are 'not' born with anything rights or privileges, seeing as they are just ideas in the first place. Someone would have to come up with them, or at least think of them before they would even be considered rights. These rights are bestowed upon us and taught to us. Granted we could come to the same conclusions (possibly), but that doesn't make them any more an 'inherent' right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
