Equality at what level? For instance, an ultimate biology-based goal might be equality in happiness also accepting that the manner how happiness is reached differs across cultures/countries/individuals....  ?

Can there be 'equality' at one level (e.g. spiritually-based) in a world without  'equality' at another level (e.g. materialistic/biology-based)?

How would you see the world with 100% equality, e.g. a world of XXX....  human clones from a biological, social, spiritual point of view? Would there be much social exchange/collaboration/help?

True Marcel, however, almost all the constitutions call for equality! Should it be a reasonable goal for a democratic society? Were our founding fathers themselves myopic and discriminatory about inequalities or they thought only from the point of view of the 'have nots'?

Equality at what level? For instance, an ultimate biology-based goal might be equality in happiness also accepting that the manner how happiness is reached differs across cultures/countries/individuals....  ?

Can there be 'equality' at one level (e.g. spiritually-based) in a world without  'equality' at another level (e.g. materialistic/biology-based)?

Dear Ankur,

Equality before a court, not in other senses, I believe. Differences were not man made. They have existed along our history and it is important to maintain them. It is a natural law which we have no power over it.

What about social equality? For example, if we talk about equitable healthcare...  is it possible for all to have availability of same level of health care given their different economic status.. or the level of healthcare available to them... ?

Each one according to his efforts. If one does not work, another one will have to pay for it. This is what I do not consider just. I hate the idea that I have to work hard to maintain the quality of life for those who decided to sleep while they should be working out there.

@Vilemar: The world is much more complex, I think. People that sleep a lot might help to save the planet at a long-term basis, e.g. also in the framework of environmental dental protection.....

I agree with you Marcel. Besides, in such little answers we can not show a wider view.  Education, food and basic health can be provided by the State. But the person has to contibute to that society to have these guarantees.

...those down the social strata might as well be those who are actually working harder (labour)....so...in that sense it may have a different meaning... so far as environment is concerned... i feel sleeping is a bad way for saving environment... it would hamper development...dental or general....we need to work towards better methods...

I think there will always be inequality but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for a more equitable society than the very unequal global society we live in now.

I agree with Vilemar

Dear Ankur

Everything will depend on the context of inequality to say it is a curse or a blessing. In the event that the laws put people on the same footing and if people emmergent compared to other materials according to their potential or intellectual I will say at this point that inequality is a source of blessing. By cons if initially people are not put under the same conditions before the laws of a country I consider that it is a curse because there was segregation whatever form  

 Best regards

FADEL

Dear Ankur and all,

In reading the discussion so far I feel like we are being lead into a trap. The idea that inequality breeds competitiveness and development is a red hearing. The historical data demonstrates the falsehood of this claim.

Second, I ask Ankur why must it be an either or and not a both and? Meaning why must we or a society strive for one and not the other instead of both inequality and a prejudiced society? In striving for the removal of one its seems we would also be removing the other. Inequality is reproduced through prejudice and prejudice reproduces inequality. Therefore, I would contend that the question you pose presents us with a false choice and therefore mute. 

How, for example, would we calculate the values a 21st century Picasso compared to the value of a late night plumber stopping raw sewage coming out of the toilet? What about poetry v non-fiction research based science? How about a baseball player v a doctor, the local grocer v wall street investment banking? In other words we must bring our human emotions and values into the equation thus bringing in subjectivity. Therefore, I suggest the only way forward is through a human rights argument that are guaranteed throughout the life of every social actor living on this planet.

I would argue that six meet all basic needs of human life and they are; clean drinking water, healthy food, shelter, clothing, education, and universal health care are fundamental to all human life. In this fashion we hold true to both cognitive development and educational theory covering all basic needs and in step with Blooms Taxonomy. 

If any social actor wants more "material goods or services" they must earn them and therefore relieving my friend Vilelmar's justified concerns over the person who sleeps as he works. Using an approach like this also eliminates Marcel's concerns over a homogenius bland and colorless human species, while at the same time rejecting the claim that somehow a society based in equality leads directly to cloning. 

@ Vilemar does this approach satisfy the vast majority of your concerns? It allows for the person who wants more to have more through his effort as you so rightfully see as just while at the same time also validates the dignity of human life and as Krishnan so rightfully stated (in a previous thread, the basic needs of the person are meet.

@ Marcel, can you kindly explain the connection between equality and cloning? For me it is a leap to far. 

@ Ankur, I think this sort of approach is a valid attempt in humanities quest for equality being the bases for a just society, any thoughts?

I conclude that for far to long inequality has been a curse but in the end with help from all of you it may turn out to to be a blessing.

In hope,

Douglas

Even in social context 

1. Can we practice it? In how many countries for example we will give equal consideration to ex-criminals, families of terrorists, eunuchs, immigrants? How many of us will be willing to accept an illiterate, foreigner, homeless, criminal etc as a part of our close family circle (I talk of dining table discussions)?

2. Does our present social structure allow us to practice equality? We have families, nations, social groups etc. Can we think of a time in future when all the countries would pool in all their finances for equitable distribution? All families would except anyone without home as guests? All social groups become all inclusive rather than exclusive. I feel that we are rather going the opposite way presently.

Quotes from some great guys:

Malala Yousafzai

I speak not for myself but for those without voice... those who have fought for their rights... their right to live in peace, their right to be treated with dignity, their right to equality of opportunity, their right to be educated.

Kofi Annan

Gender equality is more than a goal in itself. It is a precondition for meeting the challenge of reducing poverty, promoting sustainable development and building good governance.

J. K. Rowling

If you want to see the true measure of a man, watch how he treats his inferiors, not his equals.

George Orwell

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Emma Goldman

The demand for equal rights in every vocation of life is just and fair; but, after all, the most vital right is the right to love and be loved.

True, Beatrice. It is really important to be treated with dignity for whatever one is. We have no right to look down upon a person due to his caste, religion, colour, race, region, language and social status. However, many societies have taken social equality in a different context. Some societies have taken away the right to own things on pretext of equality. Some others have given special rights to the weaker section in name of equality, while still others take away hard earned money of people to protect interests of those who would just sit and expect the benefits (I'm not talking about the geriatric and special population here). Are such societies moving toward equality in any sense? Is it really possible to get equality? Is it good for such societies? Should we be striving for equality or personal respect for everyone/ equal opportunities?

Further, is it possible for us to be completely free from all personal prejudices (it seems really difficult). @Beatrice, is there something in our mind that makes us all prejudiced? Can we remove it? 

Dear Ankus,

We call it xenophobia. Definition:  "deep-rooted, irrational hatred towards foreigners" (Oxford English Dictionary), and "unreasonable fear or hatred of the unfamiliar" (Webster's).The word comes from the Greek words ξένος (xenos), meaning "strange", "foreigner", and φόβος (phobos), meaning "fear.

Can be treated like any phobia. However the human being cannot always trust its own members. There is a mistrust towards minoriries. Wikipedia defines two forms of xenophobia:

- A. a population group within a society that is not considered part of that society, such as recent immigrants, but xenophobia may be directed against a group which has been present for centuries (such as Finnish-Swedes), or became part of this society through conquest and territorial expansion. This form of xenophobia can elicit or facilitate hostile and violent reactions, such as mass expulsion of immigrants, pogroms or in other cases, genocide.

B.  Cultural xenophobia is often narrowly directed at foreign loan words in a national language. It rarely leads to aggression against individual persons, but can result in political campaigns for cultural or linguistic purification. In addition, entirely xenophobic societies tend not to be open to interactions from anything "outside" themselves, resulting in isolationism that can further increase xenophobia -

Antonio Tabucchi

"Xenophobia manifests itself especially against civilizations and cultures that are weak because they lack economic resources, means of subsistence or land. So nomadic people are the first targets of this kind of aggression."

Treatment: Successive exposure in vivo

Thanks Beatrice, for the valuable inputs. I have known cultural xenophobia here with the English Bombay, Madras and Calcutta becoming Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata as well as the other form of xenophobia. I think that its everywhere. I think there is some reverse xenophobia as well...

Dear Ankur. Nothing that can make people unequal is beneficial. I believe that the identification of inequalities can be a motivating tool for seeking social and economic balance among people.