Why does equality valued so highly when it is self-evident truth that people aren't born equal and life isn't fair from objective point of view.
What do you call these kind of threads? /pol/ baiting?
>>906753
This is good philosophical and historical question.
>>906741
Because race has no bearing on a person besides arbitrary reasons.
Because to some; an equal world is a perfect world, I wouldn't have an issue with this American or Social Liberalism or people subscribing to it, if it hadn't killed off Classical Liberalism
1. Left-wingers have a strong psychological propensity to perceive unfairness where there may be none (just like how conservatives see danger where there may be none).
2. People have been fed a logic that says that the only possible cause of a disparity is unfair treatment (this is where left wing logic seriously falls apart, in that outcomes are completely determined by external factors rather than both internal and external).
>>906765
Second. Somewhat of a classical liberal here, from a country that for most of it's history understood what liberalism is. Now though, and the only cause I can see for this is american media saturation, that is dying off, and liberals are seen and acting more and more like the modern sjw liberals.
>>906741
Because inequality is a degrading and unfair position for those negatively affected by it and said people should logically follow their own self-interest and eliminate the inequality. Why is this even a question?
because at face value the idea is so nice sounding, like much of marxism but falls apart when you critically think about it
>>906907
Subhumans don't deserve equal rights.
>>906914
define subhuman
>>906918
Individuals who aren't civilized and don't conform to first world societies' standards.
>>906927
define civilized
OP when you grow up and actually read some political philosophy, and regular philosophy, you'll come to understand that your idea of objective is the projection of all your culturally inculcated, received truths onto other human beings who are fundamentally equal to you. You are so thoughtless you have allowed simple-minded, reactive, anachronistic teleologies to blind yourself to the complexity and nuance of real life, because it's easier to use a good/not good dichotomy to sort everything around you so you aren't troubled by critical thought.
Once you get out of high school though I imagine you'll realize how staggeringly pretentious it is to think something like this.
I don't believe everyone is absolutely equal, and I don't know anyone who does. I do believe that everyone should receive an equal chance to prove themselves and that ideally, no one would be in a position of real power over anyone else.
>>906951
Well that totally deals with the subject matter at hand, yes. You have proven your grasp of pseudo-intellectual shitposting is much greater than our own this day. Congratulations.
>>906935
To speak the common language, pay taxes, don't do crime, follow the fucking law, and being a contributing member of society. What's your point?
>>906951
>human beings who are fundamentally equal to you
>complexity and nuance of real life
>>906951
you'll come to understand that your idea of objective is the projection of all your culturally inculcated, received truths onto other human beings who are fundamentally equal to you
utter shit, prove it faggot
Of course life isn't fair. That's why we try to make it more fair.
>>906741
Actually the real self-evident truth is that all humans are equal.
Equally worthless and impotent before death and the passage of time. So the real reason equality is valued so highly is because anytime some one starts mouthing off about self-evident inequality, it's actually just a prelude to them trying to put themselves in a superior position to you with the hope that you'll meekly submit and acquiesce to their "self-evident" superiority.
>>906975
Because some people don't do those things at all and giving them equal rights will have them doing the same things and even exacerbate the shit they're pulling. When it becomes common in a group of people, it is justification to take away their rights, every last one.
>>906969
You really don't understand that the discourses we occupy are totally constructed? The way you perceive value in other human beings is completely contingent on the context in which you learned to understand value.
>>906990
>implying you can't objectively measure features of the world apart from value judgements
We can measure the heights of people objectively and find that people are of different heights and are thus unequal.
>>906987
stop arguing a red herring and answer the question
>>907009
what part of 'self interest' do you not understand
Because of envy. The entire notion of equality as its popularly used in conversation can be taken to mean several things, the most popular of which ar as follows.
1. That people are equal in potential
2. That people are equal in ability
3. That people are equal before the law
4. That people are equal in rights
5. That people are equal in some abstract fashion, such as "we all die" or "we're all children of god" or "we're all human"
My objections are as follows
1. Is blatantly false, and as our knowledge of genetics increases it becomes increasingly untenable.
2. Is blatantly false, some people have no noteworthy talents, others have dozens of talents. Life is not a video game where all the characters have to be balanced. Merit is a cross-section of innate ability and cultivated skill, and in any case the end result is inequality.
3. Not true, people of various stations, ages, etc are held to different standards, many of which no one is in any hurry to abolish. I don't think anyone wants a six year old being held to the same legal standards as an adult, or a normal person held to the same standards as a soldier or politician. Higher and lower standards exist for those of higher and lower station. Even if the law was applied the same to everyone, the law itself is an instrument of inequality. It defines all individuals into two categories, innocent and guilty, that is, those who pass and are successful and those who fail and are not. The legal process exists for no other reason than to separate people into unequal categories.
4. Mostly true, if you take rights to mean the natural rights preserved under the social contract, but I don't think this is sufficient to establish 'equality' in any meaningful sense, such as in
[Cont]
>>907019
5. Most of these statements are either false, or do not suffice to establish 'equality' in a meaningful sense. When people say "All people are equal" or "All people ought to be equal" what they are really saying is that this carries with it some kind of moral imperative or preferred social or political organization. Even if you accept one of these premises, such as "All men die" or "All people are the children of god" that does not carry with it any kind of imperative or reasoning, its simply a brute fact devoid of meaning.
The entire idea of 'equality' is really the idea of envy. No one who views themselves as superior says "I'm as good as you", only people who perceive themselves as inferior feel the need to make such a claim. The beautiful person never says it to the ugly, nor the strong to the weak, nor the charismatic to the socially lacking, nor the learned to the ignorant. It is exclusively an ego-defense for those who, in their own minds, are lesser, weaker, inferior, or bad.
>>906741
Because the alternative is far further from a meritocracy than an egalitarian society is.
>>907015
>Allowing people to succeed and gain benefits when you know they're detrimental to society
>>906741
Becuase humans have a bad habit of pretending, and acting like imagination is fact.
>>907027
do i need to repeat myself
>>906990
social construct theory is nonsense. the way i perceive things are not contingent on the things you named, people can think for themselves and determine
>>907043
Actually, that anon is halfway right, halfway retarded.
He's right, because ultimately any evaluative judgment separating people into different categories depends upon a subjective standard of value.
He's wrong, because under practically no standard of value imaginable is everyone 'equal', nor is 'equality' useful for determining social hierarchy.
>>907019
nice strawmen.
let's talk about the policy you want to implement, what would be your policies?
>>907079
>>907079
I'm not arguing in favor of any particular social policies in this thread, I'm merely arguing against the current ideas of Equality, all of which are reducible to statements that are either meaningless feelgood nonsense, or are blatant lies.
People are not equal in potential, nor in ability, therefore the fundamental premise of equality is wrong. People are not equal. Avoiding this truth requires increasing nuanced and abstract definitions of 'equality' which really don't say anything.
Okay, we all die. How does that make us all equal in any classification other than our mortality?
Okay, we're all human. How does that make us all equal in any classification other than being equivalent in species.
Its feelgood nonsense invented by the envious, pure and simple.
>>907009
protip: you're the unwanted
rip laddy
>>906758
t. Teen
>>906741
Are /pol/ untermensch the ultimate cucks?
the unfit masses will forever clamor to take away the rightful power held by the ubermensch
>>907043
>the way i perceive things are not contingent on the things you named
This is absolutely bullshit. How did you learn to describe and understand hierarchies? What mechanism do you use to actually do that? You use language, which you were taught via cultural diffusion, internalizing and understanding elements of western culture from which your perspectives on things like value, morality, race, etc etc emanate. This is really, really basic stuff.
You did not spring into existence an articulate, fully empowered adult capable of evaluating and categorizing the world around you. You are able to do that because of a lifelong process of acculturation and living in society, which impressed its values onto you. People "think for themselves and determine" within the parameters of the society they occupy.
>>907060
>He's wrong, because under practically no standard of value imaginable is everyone 'equal', nor is 'equality' useful for determining social hierarchy.
>Natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws).
>>907114
What power is that? World domination? Enslavement?
>>907097
>I'm merely arguing against the current ideas of Equality
okay, so which policies are you arguing against?
If you are merely arguing for an idea without any policy change this is the academic equivalent of shitposting.
without taking a stance on action, saying equality is bad is the same as saying the word 'blue' is bad.
my reaction is "so what? what are you trying to change?"
>>907119
First of all, you're an idiot. People don't categorize the world entirely as a result of the society they occupy, they also categorize as a result of the ideas they come into contact with, and most importantly, often as a reaction against the society they occupy. Trying to reduce the importance of evaluative reasoning and act like everyone is just pure putty in 'society's hands is retarded. People's ideas of value are INFORMED by their culture, they are not shaped by them, if they were we would never have any cultural revolutions or even modifications.
Secondly, your point against me doesn't say anything. Natural rights are just the things you could do in a state of nature if no one stopped you, and in the context of politics they're the natural rights reserved under the social contract that the government must not infringe upon lest it lose its legitimacy.
That concept does not in any way imply people are equal, except in so far as they all retain these [socially constructed by the way] natural rights.
Saying "Everyone is equal because they share this one particular quality" is ridiculous.
>>907131
anything that involves a top down hierarchy
>>907140
This is an academic thread, I'm making an academic point, saying that equality is a bad idea and a bad value that should not be treated as a good thing.
I don't have to go full /pol/ for me to make that point, nor would this thread by enriched if I were to derail this into a political conversation.
The point I am making is purely one against the idea itself, if you want me to talk 'brass tacks' of what I'd change in light of this concept being invalid, that's not what this thread is for and its not what I'm interested in talking about.
>>906990
nobody occupies a fucking discourse you fucking homosexual nonsense-spewing hegeltard
history is a series of deeds, not a series of discourses
off yourself
>>907172
Guys, check out this fucking drunk, 16 year old faggot
>>907183
>hurr durr nothing is objective
he's right, literally kill yourself
>>907191
He's not right. Phenomena is objective, the universe is objective, the terms we use to describe phenomena are symbols defined by fiat and agreed upon by consensus, as are the values we draw from that phenomena.
There is no moral phenomena, there is only various moral interpretations of phenomena.
>>906741
"Equality" can mean a bunch of differebt things.
I think what most reasonable people mean is equality before the law. Why does it matter that people aren't born absolutely "equal" in every way? Surely equality before the law is still the hallmark of a civilized society.
>>907154
>bad idea and a bad value that should not be treated as a good thing
rip in peace hope for intellectual discourse in this thread.
You can't discuss an idea without discussing its implications.
I hope the one thing you learn from this shitty thread is that.
I could easily make a dumb thread saying
>the color blue is bad
some anon asks what we should do about it
>I'm not here to discuss that. the color blue is bullshit
what are you trying to imply?
>i'm not implying anything, the color blue is bad, and people should not think it as a good thing anymore(note: the second part of this sentence is exactly as meaningless as the first)
okay, so when people stop thinking blue is good what happens, or should happen?
>not here to discuss that, only here to discuss blue is bad.
>>907207
Phenomena traditionally is subjective. Noumenon is objective.
>>906763
/thread
>>907226
>OP starts a thread about virtue ethics
>Says its a good concept, argues about how it works and what it is, others argue about whether its good or bad.
>Anon asks what political arrangement a society with virtue ethics would have
>OP says thats irrelevant to the current discussion, which is about deconstructing this particular idea
>Anon spews some bullshit about 'no intellectual discourse' because people don't care about his stupid tangent.
This is you right now.
>>906907
>implying it's not in an inferior's self interest to leverage his own servitude in exchange for the benefit of his superior's excellent qualities
t. Karl Marx
>>906763
Who mentioned race?
On 4chan we are all equal.
like if you consider the mods to be the mechanism of our rule system and that they work somewhat correctly.
Everyone on 4chan is equally valuable. Anonymous
do nut furgiv
