This type of behaviour would involve you in following a "convenient fiction". For example, people are generally unequal in virtually all ways you can think of. Yet, in liberal-democratic societies (and some others) people tend to behave as if their fellow citizens are their equals. Some believe it's true, others do not.
I'm interested in the ones who don't believe in equality, but still behave as if it were true. Should they do this? Why?
I dunno, to me there are two issues involved here.
One is to always question our preconceived notions, our formula-think. Many, or maybe most people, are comforted in their perceptions of what is real. Probably best to allow for questioning of these supposed truths. Just to keep us on our toes.
The more specific question you ask seems about "equality" of people? But I'm not sure that notion has ever been unqualified. People are supposed to be "equal under the law," not to be confused with everyone being the same. Of course people are not all the same.
People have their own talents and interests, all of us different in that regard. Society rewards these according to societal needs. Some more than others. That's inevitable. But under the law, what applies to one person also applies to the other.
For instance, societies (many around the world) seem to really demand the talents of a few entertainment superstars. Think in terms of pro sports or acting in the movie/TV industry. It makes no difference whether I may personally find such pursuits to be trivial and unessential. Without any coercion or government mandates to compensate these few, people (society) quite willingly reward such services handsomely. These folk become amazingly wealthy, only because society rewards them.
Obviously, there's no sameness in evidence here. And yet, under the law, the superstars are no different from anyone else.
Albert,
Thank you! You're a brave man to go first on this one I think. Which, I'm sure, demonstrates talents beyond what equality might allow...?
You're quite right to identify "equality under the law" as the version that seems normally to be at work. Two things though: 1/ others believe in moral equality, or broad sexual equality, or equal rights, or...on and on....2/ in practice, equality under the law is rather slippery. The wealthy and connected get away with much more than I would if only because they can afford better lawyers. But there's others reasons as well, as you know.
Of course, recognizing some have better talents might well mean our collusion in the reality of inequality versus fake equality. David Beckham recently had a case for speeding thrown out of court. He had the very best loophole lawyer, because too many colluders payed to see him over the years.
Not quite sure where this gets us though!
NOCK
I should add that I think a key element in this is the grounds on which people demand and/or bestow equality. And, indeed, who grants or denies it. And, indeed, who it's granted to.
I'm pretty sure it begins as a political principle used to build compromise in the face of civil war. Granted by those holding transient power to their equally powerful opponents (who they likely hate!). Only the rich and powerful need to be included in the deal. Over time more and more groups demand inclusion: bourgeoisie, tax payers, proletariat, all men, women--liberal-democracy!
By this point it's a "moral truth". Denyers now risks persecution!
NOCK
Okay, you're adding the dimension of "inclusion/diversity/empowerment." The three buzz words.
In my view, there are two aspects to this.
1. The extent to which the political/religious elite deliberately block access to certain categories of people, to enter into certain professions or activities in general.
2. The extent to which underrepresented subsections of a society show lack of interest, in these professions or whatever endeavors.
I'd say, in most democratic societies today, the inequalities are caused more by #2 than by #1. Which is why we see so much effort at affirmative action. It's a way to force the issue.
To bring back the sports angle, and I'm only talking about democratic societies. One often hears grumblings of why women pro sports leagues don't get the coverage and the revenues that their male counterparts get. Well, you know, ask the fans! The nice thing about bringing up the sports examples is that they are truly what the people, the society, demands, as opposed to adding in the ambiguities that any sort of government or professional society regulations might introduce.
On the other hand, not to forget, in some places, women only just got the right to drive their own cars ...
Just sayin'.
You Americans and your damn sports 😁!
Well, it's interesting on the sports front. I used to loathe women's soccer here in the UK. But with more exposure and resources (from sponsors and professional clubs) things have improved dramatically and I'm now happy to watch it. I love following women's golf at the moment. But we do have our own top player at the moment. Women's cricket and rugby improve, but not enough for me yet. Tennis, I'm afraid I might be a bit sexist on that. Sssssssh. I prefer watching elegant players. My all time favourite is Yvonne Goolagong who floated across the Wimbledon lawns like a magnificent swan on the lake. No grunting, sweating, or tantrums pleased. Still I feel similar about the men's game as well. More Borg than Conners. More Federer than most others. So, hopefully, it's not sexism!
I wouldn't want to watch women's American Football. But then I'm not a big NFL fan anyway. Canadian football is a much more exciting game. Bigger pitch, only 3 downs, more passing. Exactly why Flutie, Brock, Tommy Clements, and so many other American quarter backs thrived there.
I think demanding paying sports people the same ain't quite right. it's equality taken too far. Within the sexes players rarely get the same rate. How many watch, and how much they pay? Ability to attract sponsorship? And so on. That may mean some women getting more than some men for the "same" work. Fine by me...
What's the point of all this? I don't know! So I'll sign off and have another look in the morning!
NOCK
Oh, and I should have mentioned the very best QB I ever did see: Warren Moon 🏈!
NOCK
And now I feel like real scum! Having remembered Warren Moon I went on to see if he ever won a Super Bowl with the Oilers only to find out he was investigated for sexual harassment and the other nasty thing of doing what Bill Cosby was found guilty of! I didn't check the outcome....
It's best not to have heroes these days....
NOCK
Hey, don't look at me! You clearly know a lot more about sports than moi.
The point of all of this was to examine the questions about equality, does it exist, do we believe in it, do we feel obliged to claim that we believe in it, what have you. And I thought that bringing sports into the discussion might be one good way to avoid the perennial excuses, apologies, and especially pretense.
Ah, thanks for the clarity! My mind wanders when I'm tired these days, I'm afraid. A result of hydrocephalus that was wrongly diagnosed for several years....
I don't think we would want to call a particular sport as equal between the sexes. But, it may be that they're equally enjoyable to watch. I suppose we could consider the outcome of a potential male Vs female clash? I'm guessing that would reveal great inequality? So we'd have unequal practical abilities. Equally worthy of respect though? Perhaps. Is my effort equally worthy as yours, even though you beat me every time. Is me tying you more worthy than you hammering me 8-0? The whole thing is a nightmare really....
And yet, we carry on with a rough agreement on what's what that constantly changes. When a "new" view pops up, we might adjust our view, or not. But it's advisable to do this if that new view is liable to sweep us away. Believe what you wish, but behave as if you believe if you want to avoid censure.
NOCK
It's best not to have heroes these days....
You're so right! I've actually argued that point, more than once.
So here's an example of what we are supposed to think and say. We are supposed to decry the fact that women are underrepresented in certain trades and professions, and yet we're free to ignore that this is frequently the case the other way around. The important thing is to focus on the former.
Premise, so we can leave that line of thought behind: there should be no artificial barriers to entry, into a profession, trade, course of study, what have you.
But, just because there may be no barriers to entry, should we automatically assume that the members of that profession, trade, university department, or what have you, must necessarily be evenly divided? No, of course not.
Women happen to be egregiously overrepresented in the field of veterinary medicine. I think we're beyond the 80% point, already. Is this a problem? I've never seen any evidence to suggest that it is, that men are being forcibly ejected from vet schools, or encouraged not even to apply. Probably the same can be said for some of the trades. How may male beauticians do we know? Should this be a concern? Interior design? Costume design in Hollywood?
Well, I do still manage the odd moment of insight--more's the pity!
Yea, there's a lot going on in the politics of equality. The students Union at the university of Manchester has recently banned clapping at its events. Something to do with it violating the equality rights of those enjoying differently abled hearing, or something like that!
We have to have a version of equality that is generally accepted in our societies. Its actual meaning will differ from country to country, and over time in any given country. Some will support it, others will oppose it, many others just won't give a damn! Debate and struggle will go on and on. Some struggles will win others will not. Forever.....!
It's a problem caused by equality shifting from a purely political principle, imposed from above, to a moral imperative claimed from below. If a claimant group danger wide support, or win legal victories, or both,the game is afoot and winnable. Black's in America and South Africa. Women in western societies, and the Soviet Union perhaps! Indigenous peoples who actually often need to be treated differently to be treated equally! These are all good things I think, and have contributed to creating and perpetuating a higher level of peace in many societies. But claims to equality that create tensions and violence must be resisted by authorities. No equality for racists, paedophiles, criminals, sexual predators...etc, etc....
So, it's both a game and a serious matter. A reasonable state should be able to work out which claims to allow and which to deny. But these days they'd rather be popular than right, I'm afraid.
NOCK
Arben, I think your view on equality not being absolute is well taken. Thank you.
Dennis, surely our true nature's are complex enough to known we are acting contrary to our beliefs, and that others might be doing the same?
NOCK
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking