Are All Men Equal? My Discussions with Olde Drunk

[leto]

If Einstein, you and Hitler were on a boat. Let's say you knew you were too weak to survive, but had the key to a lifeboat that could save precisely one of the remaining two people. Who would you pick? Or would you flip a coin?

I would pick myself because I would never give up. Presuming I knew I was going to die regardless, I would choose Einstein because I would expect that choice to make the world a better place for people I cared for. I would not do this because I felt that either life was superior, but because I want to act in my best interests as an empathetic human.

The idea that men are all equivalent in some mysterious cosmic sense strikes me as absurd when viewed in this light.

The idea that different lives have a different value in some greater scheme strikes me as absurd. Our existence is mysterious. The scales we use to measure someone are always based on our self-interest. They are especially useful when we wish to rationalize killing.

for all intents and purposes other than running they are the same human being), the one who sprints faster than the other should be considered superior as a human being logically? Or not?

He would be a faster runner. You could only say that he is a superior human being if you believe running fast is a trait of a superior human being. Someone else could believe the slower human being was superior if he believed that running slowly was a superior trait. While this probably seems absurd to you, wouldn't it be feasible to suggest the slower runner was able to observe more detail before he moved on? Where is it, exactly, that the faster runner needs to get to so fast?

 

[Loren Booda]

For all men to be equal, they must first recognize that they all are.

 

[FZ+]

If Einstein, you and Hitler were on a boat. Let's say you knew you were too weak to survive, but had the key to a lifeboat that could save precisely one of the remaining two people. Who would you pick? Or would you flip a coin?

But that is cheating, isn't it? You are chosing based on what they have done. They are equal, but their actions are not. Hence, we have "equality before the law". If you had baby Hitler and baby Einstein on the boat, and you did not know what they would do, you cannot make a clear choice.

I agree though - superiority is a subjective concept. If you were a neo-nazi, you would make an altogether different choice...

Should we bother feeding the people with lower intelligence quotient when the smarter have greater use of our resources?

Yes, because they also harvest the food. And if all the smart people and all the dumb people fought, the dumb will probably actually win. And the conflict will far outweigh any dubious advantages - society functions on trust, and conflict undermines trust. In the modern world, intelligence quotients are far from a limiting factor on human success.

Killing a serial killer may eliminate an economic burden from society, but to many people, it simply adds a moral burden to the general population. Human society is not solely determined by food, space and money.

Are there too many people on Earth? Should we execute and get rid of 2 billion people or more?

There are not too many people on Earth. In many cases, we have not enough people.

 

[Loren Booda]

Equality is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

 

[leto]

So is inequality - If I'm following you right, which I think I am.

 

[THANOS]

If Einstein, you and Hitler were on a boat. Let's say you knew you were too weak to survive, but had the key to a lifeboat that could save precisely one of the remaining two people. Who would you pick? Or would you flip a coin?

What would happen if i sacrificed myself so tht both can survive. You can not really tell the outcome of the future after that action. Perhaps Einstein and Hitler have a long talk after being stuck on a boat for awhile and Hitler changes his outlook on what he was doing because of the talk and the fact that some stranger gave up his seat for his survival. Or maybe he decides to kill Einstein and increase his chances for survival. Or maybe He convinces Einstein to help Hitler and he wins the war. Or maybe Einstein gets water related ideas and doesn't come up with his theories of relativity.

The thing is we can not choose who's life is more valuable then who's just because of there actions. Believe it or not it is also the "bad" actions that shape the way our world turns out.

 

[Thallium]

Originally posted by THANOS
What would happen if i sacrificed myself so tht both can survive. You can not really tell the outcome of the future after that action. Perhaps Einstein and Hitler have a long talk after being stuck on a boat for awhile and Hitler changes his outlook on what he was doing because of the talk and the fact that some stranger gave up his seat for his survival. Or maybe he decides to kill Einstein and increase his chances for survival. Or maybe He convinces Einstein to help Hitler and he wins the war. Or maybe Einstein gets water related ideas and doesn't come up with his theories of relativity.

The thing is we can not choose who's life is more valuable then who's just because of there actions. Believe it or not it is also the "bad" actions that shape the way our world turns out.

The problem with such options that were given here is that the writer of this idea that you had to pick one among these three or flip a coin, and in any similar examples, you must choose ONE. There is always ONE answer to a question it seems. And there is not! and that breaks down the whole point with that example no matter how relevant the options are - or the example. Now that is out of the world!

Let's get on with something clear!

 

[The Green Giant]

If we kill the people at the bottem of the spectrum, there is no longer a bottem. There would have to totla equality, or we could kill all but a select few. But some people should be put some where for special purposes. Possibly selected at birth or shortly after, it would put the lower people with the higher5 people, the middle being working class, the lower people would havew the influence ogf the higher

 

[Loren Booda]

We consider the intersection of questions more than their answers.

 

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

All men should be equal in person. If not for God's or ethic's sake then for logic's sake.

Societies that hold all individuals to be equal in person, regardless of capability or wealth, are healthier. They suffer less internal turmoil, its citizens are more productive (thus, the society/civilization)and are generally more content. In other words, there is more peace, happiness and prosperity.

There is a difference between equality of person and equality of things. Commonly, people will associate equality with material items or capability. But we know that on that level, true human equality is unobtainable. To think so is folly. History has shown such assumptions (i.e. communist theory) does not work and science and common sense, proves there are physical inequalities.

Thusly, equality of person is the only thing that remains. It is also the only feasible concept of equality. Its applications are both humane and practical, towards the mental and physical health of individuals and society. Therefore, men should be treated as equals in person.

As for humans being created equal, untrue if you discount God and the soul. No individual is born equal, neither materially or physically.

Yet bear in mind, we are basically the same. We breath and eat, we bleed, we have feelings. Every culture has a concept for good and evil, love and hate. Equality of person is a fact.

Edit:

There are things I hold as true about humanity. There will always be an upper echelon and a lower one. Always will there be heroes and villains, evil and good. The only thing we can do is influence the severity of these negative and positive things.

Trying to socially engineer humanity and make it in an unrealistic image is futile and can only result in disaster.

 

[THANOS]

there are two extreme examples that one can use to explain each view of better humans and equal humans. One is based on standard perfection. one with less imperefctions is better then one without. one with more better then one without. so and so. Or equal meaning we all share the same force and all things are equal an example is atoms are a part of us all.

ack, good night

 

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

^^^^

Man is not equal in things or ability. Yet we are basically the same. We breath and eat, we bleed, we have feelings. Every culture has a concept for good and evil, love and hate. Equality of person is a fact.

However, there is no other form of quantifiable equality I can think of. Unless, of course, you count similar abilities or wealth among certain individuals or groups. Then you have equality of things or money. Id est, technology, abundance of material things like food and mutual happiness, etc.

I do know that, in a communism, the majority are all equally destitute. There's a thought :)

 

[physicsisphirst]

it is important to stop this population-growth? It annoys me so much!

i think this is a very important point you make!
what is the logic in eliminating or even curbing natural predators (specifically disease), if you are not going to compensate at the production end?

is it not foolish to think the population can grow to our hearts content unchecked and without consequences?

and by doing so are we not robbing our progeny of quality in their lives?

in friendship,
prad

 

[olde drunk]

every time i revist this thread i keep thinking 'mother nature knows how to take care of our world. have faith'. this time i posted my thought.

while i do not subsribe to a master plan, i do believe that all of us wouldn't be here if there wasn't cosmic consent or purpose. the challenge is to learn to live together in harmony and thrive.

peace,