All men are created equal... right?

[whitefork]

The only true measure of a human being is their capacity for honesty and compassion and in that regard I believe we are all born with the same potential.

You've led a sheltered existence in the monastery? Maybe, just maybe, everyone is born with a capacity for honesty and compassion, but there are those who seem to lose it much more easily than others.

As far as the claim of natural rights goes, I take it as a kind of Confucian argument, where Confucius say "the true ruler has these characteristics...." and procedes to enumerate a set of traits that many rulers clearly did not possess, then concluding that those rulers were not "true rulers".

"All men are created equal" - except slaves, women, and those that don't hold property. It's the definition of "men" that had to be expanded, and is still expanding, in order for the claim to be true. A moral guidepost, perhaps, rather than a statement of fact.

It's a bit of rhetorical legerdemain, but effective in the right hands.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Yahzi:

The concept of eugenics might possibly contain some merit; but the practice of it, in the absence of any viable theory is just superstition. And as you so aptly pointed out, we have no viable theory, because we have no data to draw a theory from; worse, we know for a fact that human genetics are so complicated that we know we we can't possibly know what we are doing.

Are you saying that intelligence isn't gentically based? If so, that is obviously wrong. Firstly, the main survival trait which humans have going for them is intelligence. Secondly, there are tons of studies showing how intelligence is in the main gentically based. Studies on genetically equal twins, for example.

Natural rights come from biology and mathematics. What Jefferson was trying to say is that the Golden Rule is more than just an arbitrary rule we made up - it is a principle of the objective world. Animals that have theory of mind and are eusocial will discover the Golden Rule, just as they will discover 2+2 = 4. Hence morality has an objective basis in the real world. Hence natural rights.

The Golden Rule is a nice rule of thumb. However, you seem to be saying that it is genetic. Do you have evidence for this?

 

[Yahzi]

.The only true measure of a human being is their capacity for honesty and compassion and in that regard I believe we are all born with the same potential.

Even that is not true. Some people simply lack the mental hardware to be compassionate. Sociopaths and what all.

Still, as long as they behave morally, I'm willing to grant that their happiness is as important to them as mine is to me.

 

[Blue Monk]

You've led a sheltered existence in the monastery?]

Hey, I have more than enough scars, felony convictions and ex-wifes to easily disprove that, hehe.

Maybe, just maybe, everyone is born with a capacity for honesty and compassion, but there are those who seem to lose it much more easily than others.

Exactly. All are created equal. Whether they choose to enhance that value with good deeds or demean it with self-centeredness is entirely up to them.

As far as the claim of natural rights goes, I take it as a kind of Confucian argument, where Confucius say "the true ruler has these characteristics...." and procedes to enumerate a set of traits that many rulers clearly did not possess, then concluding that those rulers were not "true rulers".

"All men are created equal" - except slaves, women, and those that don't hold property. It's the definition of "men" that had to be expanded, and is still expanding, in order for the claim to be true. A moral guidepost, perhaps, rather than a statement of fact.

It's a bit of rhetorical legerdemain, but effective in the right hands.

I think the point I'm trying to make is that the inequalities pointed out in this thread are all superficial and have no bearing on a person's true worth.

Being equal in this context does not mean equal social status or physical capabilities but instead the equal right to respect and dignity.

I do not beleive that the King is inheritantly 'better' the his lowest slave. Quite the contrary. If the King is a jerk but the slave a decent honest person then I would say that the King is not the slave's equal.

No child born as I write this is better or worse than any other. Their social status and various external aspects may vary wildly but their worth, in my opinion, is exactly equal.

It is up to them as to whether they expand on that by the choices they make, the ones they are allowed to exercise free will over, to the ethical crossroads that lay ahead.

 

[Blue Monk]

Even that is not true. Some people simply lack the mental hardware to be compassionate. Sociopaths and what all.

Still, as long as they behave morally, I'm willing to grant that their happiness is as important to them as mine is to me.

Interesting point but I would argue that anyone who is hampered by mental illness is not acting with total free will and understanding and is therefore not responsible.

I'm not speaking. of course, in the legal sense.

In my opinion, someone born under such conditions still begins life as my equal only due to mental illness they do not have the opportunity to reveal the true nature of their heart. Should they be cured along the way then they would have the opportunity to improve their 'value' (for lack of a beter word) through ethical behavior or throw their intrinsic value away with selfish behavior.

They still begin with the same worth as you or I and we cannot look at someone like that and know for sure that someday they might not become 'healed' and then go on to do great works.

 

[Yahzi]

.They still begin with the same worth as you or I and we cannot look at someone like that and know for sure that someday they might not become 'healed' and then go on to do great works.

They don't have to become healed. They just have to have enough intellect and discipline to function within acceptable boundries. As long as they do, they continue to have the same worth.