In your opinion, what is the highest value a society should strive towards?

[Archon]

How do you know? You're not enlightened. I'll have you know buddha was quite the procrastinator. Maybe the entire universe revolves around procrastination!

Ha! I know precisely because I'm not enlightened! If procrastination was enlightened, then I would be enlightened. Since I'm not, procrastination isn't either.

And the universe can't revolve around procrastination! This is true for one major reason. Procrastination doesn't have a mass or a charge or anything else. Thus, the universe can't revolve around it. And obviously procrastination can't have a charge or mass or anything, because the universe doesn't revolve around it. See! It's so simple even the unenlightened can see it!

 

[pattylou]

I never intended to derail the thread, nor make a statement beyond: "It will be interesting to see who values equality more than other options."

This is not an attack upon any particular group, in intent or in any other way.

I have a half formed idea that all the world's problems can be traced (in one way or another) to inequality. I had half thought to make that argument earlier, as others are making with their choices.

Civil war: Mistreatment of blacks.

WWII: (Pearl Harbor and) mistreatment of jews.



Etc. Anyway, it would take more of an effort to construct the argument than I want to invest. Still, the idea that one option would lead to all the rest, or that one is the necessary foundation for all the others --- I expect you can make that argument for many of the options provided.

You know, it gets to the "us vs. them" mentality, which I am certainly *not* trying to foster, but rather to raise awareness (ie 'enlighten') about. I seem to be failing.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

LOL... Well, I have all sorts of vague, half formed insults to throw around in good fun, using words like 'honky' and 'arian' ...
I feel so victimized here! Though I'll take your responses as an indication that you think there's something to the argument, ie : that it is understandable that women claim they are discriminated against (particularly since we *are.*)
LOL.

So what exactly do you mean here?
I believe I said that I think all groups wind up being discriminated against. How could anyone infer that I don't believe women are discriminated against from that? And why do you feel you have to qualify the idea by saying "particularly since we *are*"?

I do not think that the experience of being discriminated against is the element that would make people choose equality on the pole but rather the perspective they have chosen to adopt based on their experiences as a whole.

 

[franznietzsche]

I like how honor isn't a choice.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I have a half formed idea that all the world's problems can be traced (in one way or another) to inequality. I had half thought to make that argument earlier, as others are making with their choices.

Was it really inequality or lack of freedom?
The term Equality seems to be being used in a rather nebulous way.
What exactly does equality mean to you?

 

[Smasherman]

Oh, I see, Pattylou. My reaction came from some recent experiences I've had. Sorry for misinterpeting you. It would be interesting to see if the perceived "highest value a society should strive for" is primarily based off of intense personal experience. As far as tracing the world's problems to inequality, I'd say you're probably right. Most of what I know on that account is economic inequality, though.

 

[sameandnot]

where did inequality come from? i mean, why would anyone want to treat another unequally?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

where did inequality come from? i mean, why would anyone want to treat another unequally?

Instinctually preservation of ones self and family are any animals highest priority. Logically that would put anyone else on an unequal level in such an animals mind. The more complex social interaction becomes the more complex the reasons for inequality become until the animal evolves past those instincts.

 

[sameandnot]

what might that state be?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I have no idea.

 

[sameandnot]

excellent!

 

[Smasherman]

Well, people usually (if not always) treat others unequally because they feel they have the right to. People may feel this way because an individual or group has wronged them, so they treat others with similar trait(s) with hostility.

As for where inequality came from, my guess is:

1) Inequality of the genders came about from males and females assuming their most natural roles as evolution brought it about. Eventually females realize that they can do much that males can do (and vice-versa, but this would probably have been a less severe problem). Since males were brought up believing that they need to be strong, among other things, to protect females, they wouldn't readily accept females into their roles (since they're perceived as weaker (which is generally true in a physical sense)). This is reinforced through group agreement by the physically more powerful males, leading to less noble reasoning at keeping females "in their place". This has evolved extensively to where there's no real reason to keep females out of most male-dominated jobs. On the flip-side, there's no reason to keep males out of most female-dominated jobs, either.

2) Inequality of the races came from economic differences and perceptions bred from that. It's my understanding that people didn't really care about skin color until they had to fool themselves to give themselves the moral conscience to treat others unfairly. Afterall, who cares what color her/his skin is if his/her goods are cheaper?

3) Economic inequality comes from luck and skill. Luck in getting good opportunities or birth. Skill from being able to manipulate events in your favor. Economic inequality is perpetuated because the people with the money have the most guns (basically)*.
*This assumes feudal-type heirarchy. I'm not getting into a debate about economic theories.

 

[pattylou]

Oh, I see, Pattylou. My reaction came from some recent experiences I've had.

I doubt that this is the case, certainly not all of the time, but I think the idea that we base our choices on our life history makes perfect sense. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic in this response or not, so I'll assume you are not.

I maintain that it is interesting to see who picks what option; it is further interesting to consider why different groups might pick different options - what their motivations might be, or their thought processes. Some might see one option as preferable due to a completely rationale (non-emotive) process. Others may not. In the case of my personal choice, I wondered if historical discrimimination against women (pay, employment opportunities, etc) plays a part in my thinking. I don't think it does, but who knows?

No doubt everyone is passed over unfairly at some point or other. But because the general trend is that some groups seem to have a more difficult time (academically, professionally, experiencing discrimination, etc) than others, it stands to reason that such groups may place more emphasis on the creation of a society that does not discriminate in this manner.

I am not implying that the other options are less noble, merely that I wouldn't choose those options. We all have to choose one, if we want to participate, which means not choosing all of them.

Thank you, Smasherman, for the notes about inequalities through history.

~~~~~~

TSA: You asked what I think equality means. To me, it means recognizing that every person is a human being, and that the actions towards one group could have easily been directed against a different group had the dice (historical events) fallen differently. It also means recognizing the connectivity of actions and people on the planet. When one group treats another group in a particular way, there are ramifications for the first group. EX: Our hostility towards the Middle East has negative repercussions for our country. The problem is *not* contained in the middle east. Children and women, innocent civilians, who are being killed (and some argue that they are targeted but let's not open that can of worms here; I am simply trying to illustrate the idea of equality as I hold it) are being called things like "collateral damage." (they are being dehumanized; they are being treated unequally.) Images of Katrina poured over the media, but images of Fallujah didn't. That's inequality. It's valuing Americans over Iraqis.

I am not anti-American. But, I think until we recognize that a child being killed in Fallujah experiences every bit as much pain and astonishment and fear as a child that died from Katrina, we will not be an ideal society.

 

[Blahness]

This is a physics forum, most people WILL vote for enlightenment.

 

[Smurf]

the buddha is not what you say buddha is. tathagata is not the name or the label, imposed by mind. we are talking about a transcendental nature here. do not attempt to imprison or confine the buddha to you description/perception of the buddha.

Siddhartha then. Sue me.

 

[Smurf]

Ha! I know precisely because I'm not enlightened! If procrastination was enlightened, then I would be enlightened. Since I'm not, procrastination isn't either.

False Dichotomy. Enlightenment can involve much more than just procrastination. Thus, you can easily be a procrastinator and not have achieved full enlightenment. Enlightenment is a journey as well as a destination.

 

[Smurf]

WWII: (Pearl Harbor and) mistreatment of jews.

uhh... What about mistreatment of japanese and germans?

Why do we always forget our own crimes?

 

[sameandnot]

Siddhartha then. Sue me.

taking legal action seems to be the first response, nowadays, huh? silly, i think.

i will not sue you, but i should suggest that you first become aware of your ignorances and assumptions, BEFORE you let them shine all over a mesage board.

 

[pattylou]

uhh... What about mistreatment of japanese and germans?
Why do we always forget our own crimes?

Were those the basis of our going to war? I was under the impression that they were the result of war. They led to other troubles of course...

But my education was extremely poor on the flaws in American policy in this time frame, and your point is taken.

 

[Smasherman]

I doubt that this is the case, certainly not all of the time, but I think the idea that we base our choices on our life history makes perfect sense. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic in this response or not, so I'll assume you are not.

I was not being sarcastic. I realized that the answer is kinda obvious after I posted, but I let it be, thinking that perhaps people hold certain higher ideals regardless of their more immediate experiences (assuming they have access to certain information).

Also, I'm not entirely sure what you're doubting here. Are you doubting that I "see", that my reaction was based off of recent experiences, or what?

 

[Anttech]

Pattylou.
You still haven't defined what a "White" person is?
:-)
I understand what you are getting at, but I still want a definition.. will you give me one?
Americans seem to use this expresion a lot.. A "White" person of European heritage.. But what does that mean? I know many Europeans (I am one of them) who are Darker than northern Africans, this is due to my Greek heritage...

 

[pattylou]

Also, I'm not entirely sure what you're doubting here. Are you doubting that I "see", that my reaction was based off of recent experiences, or what?

Oh, I see, Pattylou. My reaction came from some recent experiences I've had.

I 'doubt' that most participants base their choices on recent emotional experience. I actually expect that most participants here base their choices on reason and evidence and rational thought. I expect most privileged individuals can understand the problems with a class society, even if they have not experienced the down side of it directly. That's all.

And, I expect our experiences shape our choices.

 

[Anttech]

False Dichotomy. Enlightenment can involve much more than just procrastination. Thus, you can easily be a procrastinator and not have achieved full enlightenment. Enlightenment is a journey as well as a destination.

you tell him obi1

 

[pattylou]

Pattylou.
You still haven't defined what a "White" person is?
:-)
I understand what you are getting at, but I still want a definition.. will you give me one?
Americans seem to use this expresion a lot.. A "White" person of European heritage.. But what does that mean? I know many Europeans (I am one of them) who are Darker than northern Africans, this is due to my Greek heritage...

I would define "white" as the US census bureaus uses it. This definition is lacking, increasingly more so as 'races' become more intermixed.

To a first approximation, the US census bureau has the following categories: Asian, Black, Hispanic, White, Native American, ... ( A few others I may be forgetting.) The census bureau is revising its definitions of race, however, and my use of the term may indicate not only my American upbringing but also my age.

Meditteranean isn't in the mix, so you'd be white even with your greek heritage.

ειλικρινώσ,

(I hope that translated right),

Patty

p.s. I realize I still didn't actually define it, let me know if you want me to google the Census Bureau's actual definition.

 

[Anttech]

Nah.. I didnt want a "census Bureaus" definition.. I wanted yours being an american..

So this is more or a "geographic" definition rather than colour? It seems that way, as for example a Morrocan isn't Black, isn't White, isn't Asian..

καταλάβετε ελληνικά? :-)

 

[loseyourname]

The Census Bureau recognizes Caucasian, Asian, African, and Native American as races. People of Hispanic descent get to mark that they're Hispanic, but the box is auxiliary and they're still counted as Caucasian. The categories are geographic. You're Caucasian if you're of European or Russian descent, Asian if you're of Asian descent, African if of African descent, and Native American if of American descent. Since a great deal of people in the US are of mixed descent, especially in the east LA area that I worked as an enumerator, we were instructed that a respondent just picks whatever race he/she self-identifies most as.

Edit: It's worth mentioning that this practice of recording races in these four categories began during the Nixon administration, well before we had the genetic knowledge that we have today, and realistically speaking, they're pretty much meaningless. Even for recording self-identification, they aren't all that useful, as the Latinos in Southern California hate having to list themselves as Caucasian and definitely do not think of themselves that way.

 

[Smasherman]

I 'doubt' that most participants base their choices on recent emotional experience. I actually expect that most participants here base their choices on reason and evidence and rational thought. I expect most privileged individuals can understand the problems with a class society, even if they have not experienced the down side of it directly. That's all.
And, I expect our experiences shape our choices.

I was referring to my reaction to your posts, not my decision on the poll.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

TSA: You asked what I think equality means. To me, it means recognizing that every person is a human being, and that the actions towards one group could have easily been directed against a different group had the dice (historical events) fallen differently. It also means recognizing the connectivity of actions and people on the planet. When one group treats another group in a particular way, there are ramifications for the first group... snip

Don't you think this is better defined as liberty? All people having freedom including freedom from the oppression of one another? In essence all people are equal in their inalienable rights. The word "Equality" does not mean people are free or happy or well off. In a society where everyone is oppressed by the law they are all equal. Then there is the fact that you are not using the term "equality" fully. You're restricting your usage to simply the equality of rights. There are several other attributes that can be "unequal" between people.

The problem I see myself with the term "equality" is that it helps reenforce the division that it seeks to negate. It focuses on the inequality and creates a victim mentality on both sides. Those with the short end of the stick become indignant and feel they are owed something by those on the high end and begin to discriminate against them. Those with the better deal become indignant because they feel they deserve what they have and that those with the short end of the stick want to "steal" from them in order to "equalize" the situation. This creates a people who have devided into enemies.
Do you remember the legislation they tried to pass making all people equal for hire a while back? It said that it will be illegal to make hiring decisions based on religion, sex, race, creed, yada yada yada. Who shot it down? The people who say they want "equality". Why do you think they'd do that?

 

[pattylou]

Anttech: Let me say simply that I don't "believe" in race but that I brought up "white" as a matter of convenience since most people kind of "get the drift." So, I don't have a definition for you ... but I would hold that use of the term is still expedient in sopme cases.

Smasherman: It looks like we had a miscommunication, and I apologise. Sounds like my "I doubt that" was taking something out of context.

TSA: I'm OK with that, I don't think we need to get hung up on the distinctions between words as similar as "equality" and "Liberty" (especially as any word can be modified by its use by a particular group, ex: "moral values.") In other words, if we agree on the sentiment, then the exact terminology is not very important. Still, I'd pick "equality" as being more in line with the sense of any particular life being equal in worth to any other, over "liberty."

 

[pattylou]

Anntech:

καταλάβετε ελληνικά?

Ummm, at a guess, "do I speak greek?"

No, but I love baklava and line dancing. Grape leaves, olive,s the works.

My father was mediterranean (sicilian) and a good friend was greek. She made us Easter babka (or whatever the appropriate greek name is) complete with a penny inside, although I never got the penny.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

TSA: I'm OK with that, I don't think we need to get hung up on the distinctions between words as similar as "equality" and "Liberty" (especially as any word can be modified by its use by a particular group, ex: "moral values.") In other words, if we agree on the sentiment, then the exact terminology is not very important. Still, I'd pick "equality" as being more in line with the sense of any particular life being equal in worth to any other, over "liberty."

I think that the differences between words, however subtle, are rather important. The usage of these words tends to reflect and influence a persons perspective. You were interested in the reasons why anyone might pick one over another weren't you?
I'm sorry for coming off so argumentative.
I definitely respect you and your opinions Patty and I hope I haven't made you feel otherwise.

 

[Entropy]

Liberty and equality are luxuries, not necessities. People today are brainwashed with this "give me liberty or give me death" attitude.

I almost chose preservation of life, but I went with enlightment instead.

 

[pattylou]

I think that the differences between words, however subtle, are rather important. The usage of these words tends to reflect and influence a persons perspective.

But your definition of "equality" is evidently different than mine.

Are you suggesting that I adapt to your definitions? Or, alternatively, as I tried to indicate above, that we recognize that we have different definitions to begin with?

Thank you for the kind words.

 

[ron damon]

why would anyone want to live in a world where everyone is "equal" to each other? Without difference, there is no life.

 

[Smurf]

equal does not mean identicle.