Closing Thoughts

Now back to the question I asked at the beginning... "Is equality a noble ideal and something we should strive for or should we simply acknowledge the inequalities in society and continue on with the hierarchy of power?" The second question was, "If we do believe that equality is a worthwhile goal, does it have to be absolute? Can it be a reduction of inequality.. or equality only in certain areas?

If it had to be black or white, an all or nothing situation then I would have to argue against equality. In a capitalist society there can never be a true equality. It is not my political views that would have me argue against equality. In terms of equality in regards to income my issue is not that everyone be equalized... but that the poor have enough to make a decent life.

There are three equalities from a political standpoint.

1. Equal rights
2. Equal opportunities
3. Equality before the law

I do, however, believe in these three equalities. I believe that citizenship in a country should give us equal rights. We have the freedom of speech, freedom of religion. We have the ability to vote in a democratic matter.

In terms of equal opportunities I do not believe in affirmative action. I do believe that we should have equal access to health, education, employment and social welfare. On that note it would be good if education was sponsored by the government. But that is just my thought.

Equality of law means that when a law is created every person is to be treated equally under the law.

I guess the only one I have a problem with is the idea of equal income distribution. I do not believe that socialism is the answer and I enjoy having the individual freedoms. But any attempt to create equality will undoubtedly challenge those freedoms. Sometimes it is necessary to sacrifice the individual for the good of the whole.

Culture, religion, lifestyle, feelings – these are all aspects of our private lives and should be of no concern to the state or other public authorities. Yet governments in the West pour public money into what should be private, to separate and divide people even more. A truly plural society would be one in which citizens have full freedom to pursue their different values or practices in private, while in the public sphere all citizens would be treated as equals whatever the differences in their private lives. Today, however, pluralism has come to mean the very opposite. The right to practise a particular religion, speak a particular language, follow a particular cultural practice is seen as a public good rather than a private freedom. Different interest groups demand to have their ‘differences’ institutionalised in the public sphere.

If culture, religion and lifestyle were private and were part of individual rights there would likely be more equality in society. The problem is that all of these issues have now been on display in the public arena with each group wanting more rights. How about each group be treated equally so that we do not need special interest groups, all talking of the injustices they face?

So to answer my own question... yes I do believe in equality. However, I do not believe in absolute equality. I believe that equality should be promoted in certain areas, such as equal access but not in terms of income.

As a side note.... this whole debate isn't even really mine. So Adam... this one's for you. Wanted to give you something to think about. :o) In a philosophical debate I would rather discuss morality, ethics or logic. So the debate I had about absolute truth was more my style.

Capitalism

There are 2 definitions of capitalism.

The most common definition is "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."

From political/philosophical point of view the definition is “Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights.”

My goal is not to debate the finer points of socialism vs capitalism.... Suffice to say that capitalism creates a social hierarchy of classes and in doing so breeds inequality. Usually we divide society into three distinct groups: Upper class, Middle class, and Lower class. The dividing line is typically economics. Classes can also be divided among other lines as well. But in separating people into groups we automatically create dividing lines and reinforce the inequality.

So the debate on equality centers around the debate on the rights of the individual vs the rights of the group. True equality ignores the rights of the individual and focuses solely on the rights of the group.

In any society there is a natural tension between the interests of individuals and the interest of the group as a whole. There is a conflict between what individuals want and what serves their interests and what is needed for the welfare, safety and security of the entire group. Government needs to moderate that conflict. Depending on the type of view that is operative concerning the nature of the social arrangement and the nature of government, the conflict will be resolved in favor of one or the other sets of interests.

Challenges Faced by Socialism/Egalitarianism

Is the equality of rights even a good thing? Do people even want it? People, being individual, have different wants and needs. The group mentality would then be forced onto the individual. How is this beneficial?

The most important issue is whether equality of results is practical. History shows that it is completely impractical. The only thing that equality of results has accomplished where it has been implemented is to spread poverty and famine. It has never raised the living standards of those it claimed to benefit, but has only lowered them. As has been noted by many – “capitalism is the uneven distribution of wealth, and socialism the even distribution of poverty.”

Egalitarians have confused the meaning of Jefferson ’s “all men are created equal.” While this is one of the most important concepts in the Declaration of Independence , it has nothing to do with equality of results. Obviously, it can not mean people are identical. Nature creates us as individuals, all with different talents, characteristics, and desires. All it can mean is that all people have equal liberty, and an individual should have the complete freedom to choose how he or she wants to live. Egalitarianism is actually at odds with this concept, and would try to force individuals to accept the dictates of the masses.

Is it really equality that we are after? At first glance, equality seems to be a noble ideal and one that should be pursued. Take the gap in incomes for instance. We believe in equality when one person is earning $20,000 and another is earning $100,000. Do we feel as strongly when one person is earning $1,000,000 and the other is earling $100,000? Perhaps the problem is not that the poor have less than the rich, but rather that the poor do not have enough--a sufficient level of resources to provide a good life or a reasonable prospect of a good life. The suggestion then is that sufficiency not equality is what per se matters. How one's condition compares to the situation of other people is not important in itself. What is morally important is that people have enough to bring them over the threshold of decent life prospects.

Egalitarianism

The definition of egalitarianism is:

1 : a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic rights and privileges
2 : a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people

The egalitarian doctrine indicates that human are equal in fundamental worth or moral status. Equal opportunities in this school of thought means that a job offer is made to the person with the most merit, not based on sex, religion, or status.

Egalitarians also support an equality of wealth and income. This is undoubtedly one of the biggest obstacles to equality. This involves restricting our liberty. Some restrictions of liberty are worth their cost and equality may be one of these values that are strong enough to agree to a loss of freedom. It may be a compromise, trading in the individual freedom to earn money to better society. In this respect, it has the same view as socialism.

Even egalitarianists have to face the issue of how to determine which groups should be equalized. Is it determined by people in the same age bracket... or that it should be everyone is completely equal? Is the equalization global? But again, the egalitarian school of thought seems to be a utopia... the perfect world and not something that is ever achieveble.

Truth: An Absolute or Just Relative?

I know I am deviating at the moment from the debate of equality/diversity and inequality.... but in almost any philosophical debate the question of truth arises.

Truth is definied as:

1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5. 1. Reality; actuality.
   2. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.

For centuries truth was seen to be the underpinning of philosophy. Truth was an automtic assumption... It was only with the writings of Kant, Nietzsche, and Marx, among others that this belief has been challenged. Can we automatically assume that truth exists? Is there such a thing as abosulute truth?

If truth is relative does that mean that the debate over equality/diversity is reduced to the political and social arena? Or does it even matter? Do we need some idea of truth as the basis for everything else?

Say there is no such thing as truth. Truth is just a construct and it is all relative. Then what I believe to be true someone else may believe is false. Take the statement "There is inequality in the world today." Is that statement true or false? Depends on whether or not truth is an absolute or is relative. If it's relative then the validity of that statement depends on politics, society, even time. We assume that equality is the ideal but that inequality is unavoidable. Without some absolute standard the reverse could also be true.

Take the statement, "There is no such thing as truth." If you assume that a statement is either true or false then there are two conclusions. 1. It is true and there is no such thing as truth (which would actually make it an absolute truth) or 2. It is false and truth exists. Believers in absolute truth use theis example as a proof that truth is absolute. But... it is possible that this is the only absolute truth. Is there anything else that we can unequivocally say is true? Everything we believe to be true is based on our value system and our beliefs. Try and think of something that is absolutely true. Yes there are things we take for granted but that does not necessarily make them true. Most people that argue for the absoluteness of truth use it as a proof that God exists. But there is no way to prove the existence of God. God is about beliefs, faith, and a religious doctrine... and not about truth. But you likewise cannot disprove the existence of God with that logic.

If you strip away truth and determine that it is in fact relative then you are left with an undeniable fact. That morality is also relative. It is dependant on our own world view and our culture. Equality is a human construct and as such, it is up to the society to determine which is more important, the rights of the society or the rights of the individual.

Going back to the idea of truth, Nietzsche believed that truth was in the eye of the beholder. He argued that society has certain "values" which it calls truth. It is also how we establish the norm and establish right and wrong. "There is an old illusion, it's called good and evil."

Nietzsche is most famous for saying that "God is dead" comment that has sparked religious debates and outrage. But here is the actual quote:

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: "I am looking for God! I am looking for God!"
As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances.

"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and again regarded his listeners; and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground, and it broke and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time has not come yet. The tremendous event is still on its way, still travelling - it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done, before they can be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the distant stars - and yet they have done it themselves."

It has been further related that on that same day the madman entered divers churches and there sang a requiem. Led out and quietened, he is said to have retorted each time: "what are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchres of God?"

Nietzsche's point was that in the hearts of modern (wo)men God is dead, having been killed by rationalism and science. Prior to his death, however, he defined cultural beliefs and our system of morality. If God is dead and we accept his death then our standards of morality go with it.

With moral relativism what is considered moral can change and there is no absolute standard of right/wrong. Take murder for example. We assume that it is an absolute and cannot fathom that it could ever be considered acceptable. Now we make exceptions to this rule: Self-Defense, Insanity, War, Martyrdom, Accidental deaths, etc. But even if you ignore that murder has been considered acceptable in certain cultures. At one point Eskimoes engaged in infanticide and would kill off elders since they were no longer able to contribute but were still consuming resources. Who are we to judge these societies?

Now back to the question of equality and diversity. If there is no absolute truth and no moral standard then how can I possibly judge something to be equal or even inequal? That's all assuming, of course, that truth is not absolute and therefore, neither is morality. If there are absolutes and this is what we are governed by then the notion of equality is fair and desirable.

Since the debate between absoulte truth and relativism is a heated debate and the topic of much discussion I am going to leave it alone and focus on the debate as to whether or not we should be aiming for equality.

Diversity vs Equality

Just to muddy the waters even further...

According to the dictionary, diversity is defined as, "1a. The fact or quality of being diverse; difference. b. A point or respect in which things differ. 2. Variety or multiformity."

Or as the person who indvertently started the debate said, "Diversity means recognizing people's differences while still treating them the same."

According to the dictionary, equality is defined as, "1. The state or quality of being equal."

Or as Sherry said, "Equality means treating everyone the same."

Whenever I do any type of search on the subject the articles seem to be including both, as though they are the same thing. I'm sure some people are now saying what's the big deal? They both mean treating people the same. Or, don't the words mean virtually the same thing? In reality they are miles apart even though they seem pretty similar. In one instance you are not recognizing them as individuals and in the other you acknowledge the fact we are not all the same.

The U.S. seems to promote equality, with the melting pot and the identity focuses on being a US citizen. Canada, on the other hand, promotes diversity. Canada recognizes the notion that people are unique and have their own beliefs. People aren't going to fit into a cookie cutter mold. Differences can stem on many fronts: Race, Religion, Sex, Culture, Physical & Mental Disabilities, even Sexual Orientation.

Is it possible to strive for diversity or would it be reduced to equality? Can we actually recognize the differences while still treating people the same? Let's take apples for example.

Red

Green

Sweet

Sour

Eating

Cooking

Both of these are apples. They have different tastes and are better suited for different tasks. But once we start looking at their differences are they still being treated the same? Or are we now showing preferential treatment for one? In the same vein, we can consider everyone as being equal on the basis that they are human but once you start adding in the differences this becomes the basis for exclusion or discrimination.

A good example is the recent anti-smoking law that just came into effect. No smoking in public places. Bars can no longer allow smoking on the patio or have an enclosed room for smokers. Non smokers are undoubtedly cheering the news and think it's been a long time coming. There has even been pressure not to allow smoking in an apartment. But what happened to the rights of a smoker? I'm not saying the law is entirely bad and it will undoubtedly have health benfits for people that are around smokers. But... why did the law also make a bar remove the enclosed area? Logic would say that if non smokers go in there then they are making their own choices. Instead we are now discriminating against smokers.... while the government continues to make a profit off them, and have increased the taxes on cigarettes 3x since the liberals came into power in Ontario.

Another good example is the right to marry and the right to adopt children. Undoubtedly some people are now saying that is a constitutionally protected right so what's the problem? Yes you do have that right, as long as you are heterosexual. Homosexuals are routinely denied the same rights the heterosexual community has always enjoyed. The argument against it seems to stem from the lifestyle and people's views over it. But why should they not have the same right simply because they are a member of society and this was their choice? Let's say a couple is together for 10 years and then one of them dies on the job. If they were heterosexual then the other person would get the benefits. If they were homosexual, on the other hand, they would not. How many jobs include medical or dental benefits? Since the homosexual relationship is not recognized they do not receive the benefits if their partner has them. I'm not trying to start a debate over the behaviour. That isn't the point. The point is that we discriminate againt them on a daily basis and most people don't even acknowledge it. In fact, most people probably say they are accepting and support equality... but do we really? A conservative government was voted in... and part of their platform was that they would re-examine the rights of gays to marry. Since I already know the debate that is coming from my views. Let's go back to the Bible for some insight. According to Luke 6:37-38, "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38Give, and it will be given to you." Or Luke 6:41-42, "1"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Or how about John 8:7, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Enough said on that one.

Non smokers are not treated the same as smokers. There is a certain inequality there. And who decided that the right to smoke should be denied in a social setting? I may have quit smoking but that doesn't mean that I don't believe they are now being marginalized. There is definitely an inequality between heterosexuals and homosexuals right down to the rights one has. A lot of the debate comes back to the rights of the individual compared to the rights of the group. Diversity would say that each person should be given the same rights while still recognizing the differences. How do you treat a nonsmoker and a smoker the same? How do you give them equal rights? Since one group wants smoking outlawed and the other wants the freedom to continue smoking if they so desire. Is there any common ground between the two groups? Okay I guess the workplace has been a compromise... I have no problem with not being able to smoke on the job. Okay so that wasn't really a compromise any ways... The non smokers won. If the new laws had been fair and not aimed at discrimination then diversity might have been a little more evident. For instance, banning smoking at restaurants and bars but allowing them to have an enclosed room where people could go to smoke. Then they would not be ostrisized and would be treated fairly.

A stereotype is defined as: "

1. A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image.
2. One that is regarded as embodying or conforming to a set image or type."

As verb, stereotypes, stereotyping and stereotyped means:

1. To make a stereotype of.
2. To characterize by a stereotype: "Elderly Americans are the neglected sector of the fashion industry, stereotyped by blue hair and polyester pantsuits" (American Demographics).
3. To give a fixed, unvarying form to.

Every day we create stereotypes. It allows for classifications and categories so we can make sense of the world. We often associate stereotypes with being negative but that isn't always the case. A stereotype is simply a simplification or generalization. If you see someone across the street you are already stereotyping them and making an opinion without ever talking to them. We stereotype other groups (such as based on race, social class, gender, nationality, age, sexual orientation, etc.) But even within a group there may be stereotypes. There are often sub groups. For instance women encompass one group but there may be many subgroups within that. From nurturer to businesswomen and we all have certain beliefs about each sub group.

Our entire social system is based on categories and hierarchies. We stereotype people so that we do not have to overwhelm ourselves with thinking of everyone we come across as a unique individual. So can we recognize differences and still treat people the same? From the minute that we begin to acknowledge all of the things the set two people apart it becomes exceedingly difficult to treat them the same. Again this debate largely stems around a utopian society since in a free society it is unlikely that people would be willing to trade in their personal freedoms for equality.

Now back to the question I asked yesterday.... should we focus on the hierarchical nature of society and accept that people are not equal... or should we work towards an emphasis on diversity and treating everyone the same? If we look towards diversity does it have to be an absolute, an all or nothing proposition? Or will that only lead us towards the Big Brother society of Orwell's "1984"? If it's not all or nothing... then should we be focusing the energy on reducing inequality in all areas? or just eliminating inequality in certain areas? I'll leave you, for now to ponder those ideas.

Notion of Equality

Aristotle wrote of being a "tabula rasa" or blank slate at birth. If you follow this then it would mean that genes do not account for anything and knowledge is developed from life experiences and sensory perceptions. I guess Aristotle took the side of nurture in the nature/nurture debate. I believe there is a mix of genetic predisposition and then cultural experiences. We don't live in a vacuum. But the brain is pre-programmed for certain emotional responses. Take the pain experience for example. While everyone feels it differently we still recognize it as pain and it hurts. Our mind tells us it's not pleasurable (well okay I do have to make the exception of sado-masochism). Yes that could be a cultural response but with classic conditioning would it ever be possible to associate pain with happiness? Not that I propose that study ever be conducted since it would be unethical. Watson also believed in the notion of a tabula rasa and stated that if he had 20 infants he could create who they would become (thieves, doctors, etc.). Now what does the idea of a blank slate mean for equality? If we start out as a blank slate then everyone would be equal from the beginning. But even if you do state that everyone is a blank slate at birth will they remain that way? Will equality continue throughout time? To use an extreme example, two children are born on the same day. One is born to a judge and the other to a crack addict. Will these children be the same? Yes they are both equal at birth in the sense that they are both infants and both human. But their worlds will undoubtedly be shaped very differently so how can there be equality?

In a political sense the idea of equality encompasses three things.

1. Equal Rights
2. Equal opportunities
3. Equlity before the law

But, in practice, do we really have those three equalities in society? Someone commits a crime and goes to jail. They no longer have the same rights. Granted they gave up that right by committing the crime but that also means they are no longer equal with other members of society. I have the right to vote. The homeless guy downtown does not have the same right since he does not have an address. What happened to equal rights? Why do they not have the same rights simply because they are homeless?

Equal opportunities.... I did a google search and really all I got were web sites on affirmative action. According to Wikipedia, "Equal Opportunity is a descriptive term for an approach intended to give equal access to an environment or benefits, such as education, employment, health care, or social welfare to all, often with emphasis on members of various social groups who historically suffered from discrimination. Some protected groups include gender, race, or religion. Equal opportunity practices include an organizations' implementation of personnel practices to ensure equality in the employment process. Equal opportunity also applies to equality in housing and public accommodations.In developing countries, equal opportunity is provided by creating jobs accessible to poor people. Economic studies suggest that this is achieved by reducing barriers to entry and allowing entrepreneurial activity."

Now, how exactly is that equal opportunity? Okay, I understand the idea that we are supposed to have equal access but then that is followed by an emphasis on the disenfranchised in society? So now the white guy is screwed for a job and is discriminated against because he's not part of the minority. How exactly is that better? As you can tell, I am not a fan of this type of policy.

Another example of how equal opportunity falls short is in the access to health care. Let's go back to the homeless guy. Or even employment. Is he as likely to get medical care from a family physician? Or even from a hospital? Whereas I can go see my family doctor if needed and can call for help. Let's say we both have a degree in psychology and apply for the same job. We have the same qualifications (it could actually be argued he has more in the way of life experience) but who is more likely to get that job? I am. If you follow the logic of equal opportunity then would it not be discrimination to show preference for someone with a university degree over someone who simply has life experience? While both people are able to apply (equal opportunity at work) it has already been pre-determined that the person with the degree will get the job.

When it comes to equal opportunity is there such a thing when it comes to education? Post-secondary education is not publicly funded and few can afford it without a loan. There is a huge disparity in who goes on to get a degree. Not to mention the cost of paying it back. When I finished school my loan was $54,000 (I think) and then there is the interest on top of that. Since it is education and relates to the betterment of society then why do we have to pay interest on the loan? Because it's the government. And they make it incredibly difficult to get interest relief. But that was a bit of a tangent there. The point is that we do not have equal access to post-secondary education.

Equality before the law means that when a law is made every person is to be treated equally. Equal protection of the law means that when a law is applied or is enforced then there should not be any differentiation except where it is rational and justifiable. The courts have admitted that is impossible to treat everyone equally. In this context equality has come to mean that if two people in the exact same situation should be treated equally. But it is also very difficult for situations to be identical.

As taken from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Equality Rights
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law	15.	(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Affirmative action programs		(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (83)

Equality can also be looked at from a political, social or economic viewpoint. In politics there is the charter of rights and freedoms as mentioned previously. And, of course, the goverment wants us to believe that everything is equal and that the justice system is fair.

Economically it is easy to see that we are not all equal. For things to truly be equal there would need to be a redistribution of wealth. In a capitalist society this will never happen. And if wealth is taken from the rich and given to the poor then it inhibits personal freedom. What would the incentive be to work hard if that was the case? You won't get ahead in the long run. So society would actually become poorer if we tried to make things equal.

Taken at it's simplest equality is treating everyone the same. Within any culture is this ever possible? A corporate executive that steals from the company will get less prison time (if they get any at all) then the person that robs a bank. Why are the courts more lenient on white collar crime? The societal notion of equality is related to equal access to education, employment, and social services. As already mentioned this doesn't happen.

Equality is a lofty goal that does not appear to be attainable. But does that mean we shouldn't strive for equality? Philosophers use logic and reason to construct beliefs and then attempt to prove them. I guess the question would actually be "Is equality a noble ideal and something we should work towards or should we simply acknowledge the inequalities in society and continue on with the hierarchy of power?"

To be continued...