All men are created equal... right?

[neutrino_cannon]

Clearly, there is a measure of inequity among humans. Ignoring whatever wealth or security we are born into, since wealth, possessions etc. are all social constructs and therefore apt to be arbitrary and unfair, some people are just born better than others.

I've never seen it refuted that some people are simply smarter, stronger, faster, tougher etc. than others albiet usually to a fairly low degree (much of an athlete's prowess is from practice, much of a professor's knowlege from study). However, there is a significant proportion of the population that is born mentally retarded or otherwise challanged. These people are significant less capable than most others in one given area due to their retardation or whatever.

So why is it then, that we assert all people are created equal? There are some who would say that we are all the same at "soul level" or some other such nonsense, but until they show me a soul, and thereby get me one million richer, I don't believe a word of it. Is there some level at which we are equal? What is that level, and why do we give it special emphasis?

Furthermore, should we even have to believe that all people are equal in order to be morally obligated to treat them equally? Is it wrong then to promote people based on their abilities?

And if we all aren't born equal, and if it is right to treat people preferentially based on their abilities, then why would eugenics be wrong? If it isn't right to give any defference to people based on their abilities, inborn or otherwise gained, then why do we have special programs for the gifted, as well as those for those with special needs?

Last, if we don't care if some people are born with traits that keep them from operating in certain realms of society (i.e. mental and physical handicaps) then why do we care about behaviors that are apt to produce more (i.e. incest)?

 

[jimmygun]

If I might be so bold as to suggest...All men are created equal under the law. In a perfect society all those things that make man different from others would not be taken into account.

 

[sorgoth]

I agree with Jimmy. It's not so much that we're all exactly equal, it's that the law treats us all equally. It's just simpler to put it that way.

 

[jimmygun]

As far as eugenics is concerned, it is not a real science based on real observations and is filled with bias and bigotry.

I have had friends argue that if a person were deemed to be inferior then society could put its efforts towards bringing that person up to snuff, special education and tutoring, special attention paid to the problems of that person. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to work that way. Those deemed inferior are deemed to be worth getting rid of either through involuntary sterilization or the other extreme, murder. Don't just look to Nazi Germany for examples, it happened in almost every country in the world.

It was thought that by special breeding that all kinds of human deficiencies could be eliminated...drunkeness, sloth, lax sexual morals, tuberculosis, mental disease, criminal tendencies etc. The trouble with special breeding or selective sterilization is that the sterilization always went to the poor.

Families such as the Kennedy's would not be sullied with eugenics because they had money and influence even though they also had mental retardation and criminal behaviour in their midst.

 

[Yahzi]

Furthermore, should we even have to believe that all people are equal in order to be morally obligated to treat them equally?

Try reading that sentence again. Of course we have to believe that people are equal in order to act as if they are equal. Unless you are suggesting that we should act in ways that do not accord to our beleifs - why then even have beliefs?

And if we all aren't born equal, and if it is right to treat people preferentially based on their abilities, then why would eugenics be wrong?

Eugenics is wrong for the same reason astrology is wrong. Perhaps there is an ethical way to reproduce that will actually result in improving the gene pool, but that method has not yet been discovered. Until such discovery, promoting barbarous superstions causes nothing but tragedy.

If it isn't right to give any defference to people based on their abilities, inborn or otherwise gained, then why do we have special programs for the gifted, as well as those for those with special needs?

Generally, when someone says something this stupid, it's because they are a closet racist trying to assert the Niechitzeian ideal of Ubermen.

The very simple point, which seems to have escaped you completely, is that all men are created MORALLY equal. The writers of the Declaration never imagined that someone would be so illiterate or uneducated as to mis-understand their use of the phrase, "all men are created equal." Furthermore, they go on to explain exactly what they mean by equal, as in "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights." Not all men are equally moral: but all men are morally equivalent.

Suppose you have a very stupid person, a low-grade moron. Suppose you give him a cookie, and he becomes very happy. Now suppose somebody gives you a sports car and a Nobel prize, and now you very happy. Question: who's happiness is worth more?

The point is that my happiness is just as valuable to me as your happiness is to you. Ergo, you should treat my happiness (whatever motivates it) with the same respect you want me to treat your happiness (the Golden Rule, see). Which means that when we all get together to agree to the political rules that will govern our lives, we are all going to protect each other's moral status as solidly as we wish ours to be protected.

It is perfectly rational and consistent to acknowledge the differences in capablity of men. That has nothing to do with the fact that we are all moral agents, and therefore we must all be treated as moral beings.

Your happiness is not more valuable to you than mine is to me. What part of that do you not understand?

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Well said, Yahzi!

 

[neutrino_cannon]

I wasn't sure how to reconcile the fact that some people are more capable than others, and are therefore awarded more than those less capable (not even less capable. Awards are given based on past actions not even inherant ability), with the ideal that all people are equal and therefore deserving of equal treatment. It seems that the coinage here is happiness, not material possesions, which would seem to be the root of my confusion here.

Aside I do not support Herbert Spencer's ideal which seems to be a pretty close cousin to what I was aguing (stawman, strawman, please put down the lynching tools!). I think Herbert Spencer was a class A moron, and it's poetic justice that he's buried next to marx (in many ways his oppisite) for all the rest of eternity.

Would it be fair to say the yahzi, that in your view, all people's desire of and right to happiness is equal, and happiness is an end unto itself?

So that's how it works.

 

[ceo_esq]

Well said, Yahzi!

I second that.

 

[whitefork]

The Declaration is a fine piece of writing but it leaves a lot open to question. The notion of in(un?)alienable rights is historically suspect - rights come into and go out of existence in the course of time - there is no law of conservation of right that I'm aware of.

I'd rephrase it as "all those subject to the government described by the constitution are to be regarded as having equal rights under the law, such rights subject to change". One doesn't take into account the identity of the agent, only his actions and motives, when deciding whether an action is lawful or criminal.

The deus ex machina of the declaration, I contend, is a rhetorical device that merely states "God is on our side in this one, the devil take King George".

 

[Professor Frink]

All men are created equal, but some are more "equal" than others.

Frink

 

[whitefork]

It's Blairly possible that you're right.

 

[Yahzi]

Would it be fair to say the yahzi, that in your view, all people's desire of and right to happiness is equal, and happiness is an end unto itself?

Well, I don't know about happiness being an end unto itself, but yes, everyone's right to happiness is equal.

The only reason this confusion exists is because certain groups created it, for their own political reasons. It's amazing how many otherwise intelligent people you can fool if you blather long enough. We're all susceptible.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Yahzi:

Eugenics is wrong for the same reason astrology is wrong.

And what might that reason be?

Perhaps there is an ethical way to reproduce that will actually result in improving the gene pool, but that method has not yet been discovered.

Is tax incentives for additional offspring of couples who are deemed intelligent, unethical?

[Edited to add: "who are"]

 

[whitefork]

Is tax incentives for additional offspring of couples deemed intelligent, unethical?

Would the incentive be offered before conception, after the beginning of pregnancy but before birth, or after birth? I think that makes a difference. I'd like to see some statistics that show the offspring of intelligent people to be higher than the rest of the population, and furthermore, that such intelligent people are more likely to act in the interest of the society granting the incentives.

If that can be shown, I would agree that such an incentive is ethical in principle, and then we can discuss the practical implementation of such a policy, specifically ways to prevent its abuse at the hands of corrupt bureaucrats.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Kullervo (or "whitefunk", if I may be so bold):

Would the incentive be offered before conception, after the beginning of pregnancy but before birth, or after birth? I think that makes a difference.

Let us suppose it was offered before conception.

I'd like to see some statistics that show the offspring of intelligent people to be higher than the rest of the population, and furthermore, that such intelligent people are more likely to act in the interest of the society granting the incentives.

Me too, at least in regard to the first part of your question. It is my understanding (without googling) that intelligent couples on average have children who are less intelligent than they are and that less intelligent couples on average have children which are more intelligent than they are. However, the children of intelligent couples are still substantially more intelligent than those of less intelligent couples. Again, this is just my understanding.

If that can be shown, I would agree that such an incentive is ethical in principle, and then we can discuss the practical implementation of such a policy, specifically ways to prevent its abuse at the hands of corrupt bureaucrats.

I agree.

We already perform eugenics by testing young fetuses for Downs Syndrome or other genetic defects and then recommending abortion. Why would simple economic encouragement of a proven survival trait be unacceptable?

 

[whitefork]

Kullervo (or "whitefunk", if I may be so bold): Why would simple economic encouragement of a proven survival trait be unacceptable?

Be so bold. The funk by any other name.

I don't know - my objections are pretty fuzzy and related to the somewhat intangible nature of intelligence, the abuse of testing, and the possibilty of misuse, than the basic soundness of the idea, and the suspicion that money would go to those who don't need it as much as others, because they know how to game the system. Perhaps some lingering Brave New World flashbacks, too. Do any governments have such programs in place today?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Kullervo:

Be so bold. The funk by any other name.

...is still the funk.

I don't know - my objections are pretty fuzzy and related to the somewhat intangible nature of intelligence, the abuse of testing, and the possibilty of misuse, than the basic soundness of the idea, and the suspicion that money would go to those who don't need it as much as others, because they know how to game the system.

In reagrd to the intagible nature of intelligence, it appears that the g-factor method of intelligence testing bypasses all social, racial, etc. factors.

Perhaps some lingering Brave New World flashbacks, too.

Indeed. [Homer]Mmmmmmm.....science fiction[/Homer]

Do any governments have such programs in place today?

Not that I'm aware. However, during the 80's Singapore had something similar, encouraging well-educated couples to have more children.

 

[hammegk]

....The notion of in(un?)alienable rights is historically suspect - rights come into and go out of existence in the course of time - there is no law of conservation of right that I'm aware of.

...

The rights -- as they care to define them -- of those with the largest muscles/clubs/weapons/group-cohesiveness are always, in the longer term, conserved (imnsho).

 

[whitefork]

Suppose that "all men are created equal" is not a statement of fact (it is not clear that that they are created, and it seems obvious that they are not equal), but a moral judgment. We can restate it as "all men should be taken as equal with regard to a set of categories to be determined .........., and then work out what categories to use and what particulars to disregard.

Start with something that seems clear, like "Pol Pot and Winston Churchill are equal", and then take away qualities until what remains is in some sense equal.

Or, consider that each of us, with only the bare knowledge that we exist physically as a human being, should construct a social order in which you would be satisfied to accept any role, without knowing in advance what the role would be.

You don't want to be a slave? You eliminate slavery from your social order.

A kind of John Rawls analysis (Theory of Justice), I can't argue it adequately without going back and rereading.

What's justice under a presumption of equality and should that assumption even be made? Jefferson's choice of words is just brilliant, because it sounds like something anyone should agree with, but the details, we still haven't worked them out. Maybe the whole point is in the process rather than the result.

What's the social calculus? If I am closer to the top, do I lose anything if those below me gain?

What do we have to work with here, Danish? If we reward the smartest for having smart children, can we find an argument to support the idea that the commonwealth (at least that of Massachusetts - or the funkosity thereof) benefits?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Kullervo:

Suppose that "all men are created equal" is not a statement of fact (it is not clear that that they are created, and it seems obvious that they are not equal), but a moral judgment. We can restate it as "all men should be taken as equal with regard to a set of categories to be determined .........., and then work out what categories to use and what particulars to disregard.

OK

Start with something that seems clear, like "Pol Pot and Winston Churchill are equal", and then take away qualities until what remains is in some sense equal.

That's a whole lot of "taking away".

Or, consider that each of us, with only the bare knowledge that we exist physically as a human being, should construct a social order in which you would be satisfied to accept any role, without knowing in advance what the role would be.

You don't want to be a slave? You eliminate slavery from your social order.

Interesting idea. The problem IMO is that even if everyone votes "garbage collector" off the island, the garbage still needs to be collected.

A kind of John Rawls analysis (Theory of Justice), I can't argue it adequately without going back and rereading.

Sorry, like many things, I'm also ignorant of this gentleman.

What's justice under a presumption of equality and should that assumption even be made?

Yes, that presumption should be made. Very much so.

However, that presumption is in regard to "justice" (which IMO refers to the justice system) and presupposes that a person has already been born. How does "justice" apply to someone not yet concieved?

Jefferson's choice of words is just brilliant, because it sounds like something anyone should agree with, but the details, we still haven't worked them out. Maybe the whole point is in the process rather than the result.

Indeed, the devil is in the details.

What's the social calculus? If I am closer to the top, do I lose anything if those below me gain?

Again, interesting question. I'm not sure how it relates to the question at hand, though.

What do we have to work with here, Danish? If we reward the smartest for having smart children, can we find an argument to support the idea that the commonwealth (at least that of Massachusetts - or the funkosity thereof) benefits?

Yes we can. It is a relative safe bet that those who inovate and create industries (and hence jobs) are generally more intelligent than those who don't. And new frontiers, new knowledge, and new jobs invariably help the commonwealth.