I hold this truth to be naive:

[behemoth]

That all men are created equal.

It's a ridiculous idea, and one that points again to my one big beef with mankind: our need to differentiate ourselves from animals.

Substitute almost anything (barring the nonsensical) for the word "man" in the phrase and you begin to see my point. Are all cats created equal? All raindrops? Hell, are all chairs created equal? No! There are are differences in every one of them (albeit mostly subtle ones). These differences are what allow for evolution (though it is nigh undeniable that man's evolution, since the advent of tool usage, has followed a different line than that of most other organic beings).

Now I am by no means denying that all men have "unalienable rights" such as those defined in America's Constitution. I am merely calling into question what I believe to be a completely naive outlook on things.

Given that my outlook on this is correct (which I am not saying is true, that's why I'm posting), the quest for absolute equality is, I believe, one of the largest reasons why this country has steered so far away from the democratic republic it was founded to be. Not to mention that absolute equality is an unattainable goal.

But back to the original point: agree/disagree, thoughts/howls of outrage?

 

[ComradeSAL]

Well, you're going to need to define "created equal." When most people talk about all men being created equal, they mean that all men should start out with the same basic rights. I agree with this, although I might be persuaded otherwise.

But no, in the literal sense I cannot play golf equally with Tiger Woods, so men are not created equal.

 

[The Executive]

Absolute equality is only attainable in theory, and only socioeconomically at that. If we have to work at it, that means it wasn't there to begin with, thus all men are not created equal. This applies economically, socially, physically, mentally, and across all other fields.

 

[lordzedd]

yeah i agree. it doesn't matter if all men are created equal, because there has never ever and perhaps never will be, a point where all men are treated equal. equally?

 

[Crimson King]

People are unique. My worth is not equal to anyone but my own, but it can be greater than others or less than others.

Then, when you get into Russian collectivism, you see all people as multiple faces of the same identity. That's why Russian Communism failed.

 

[blazedaces]

You're taking the quote out of context and then manipulating the words to have different meanings then in their original context.

I assume I don't need a source for this(note, not the complete document):

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

And you didn't even put the whole sentence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The sentence right after that he (Thomas Jefferson) says ",that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." No one ever tried to argue that everyone is the same... not once.

The only thing people claimed (which you in the post agreed with) is that we all should be given the same unalienable rights. That's what people fight for and that's part of what this country stands for.

-blazed

P.S. How have we steered away from the democratic republic we were supposed to be by trying to make ourselves the same?

 

[adumbrodeus]

Moving away from the issue that you've completely straw manned Jefferson's argument (probably accidentally but that is besides the point), there's a practical issue with putting your idea into practice.

While it is true that all men are not effectively equal, because true equality when there are differences is impossible (balancing doesn't work in practice), who is better?

It's a simple question, how do you decide which person is overall "better" then any other person?

Do you take personal wealth? Well, it's a fickle thing, and what about pure luck? Being put into a particular position by parents? How about defects that don't affect wealth but are less then beneficial to a person?

Ok, athletic abilities? Same issue, what about other defects? What about lack of ability to support oneself?

Intelligence? Again, what about other defects?

Survival skills? Again, what about other defects?

Heroism? Heroes don't often survive very long, shouldn't that be considered?




Meta-combination of all of the above and more? How do you weigh each attribute in order to properly decide this? How can you be sure that you have incorporated everything that could possibly affect a person's score?

The answer is, quite simply, you cannot. Even if a person seems "weak", a crucial gene might be in the person's body. This is especially true when you consider that the future is uncertain, something that is genetically poor right now might be incredibly useful for some later crisis.


To know who is a better man is to have a perfect scale, and like with equality, perfection in scaling is impossible.

That is why all eugenics is ultimately futile, we have some idea of what is desirable at the time, but desirable is not the same as ultimately helpful to the human race. By attempting to encourage "good genes", one risks eliminating a crucial gene come some future crisis.



So, all men our equal as best as we know. Not because any two people are truly equal,. Instead, it is because we lack any way to tell what differences as meaningful between people.

In other words, we are all equal because we are all too blind to tell the difference.

 

[itsameSMB]

Ugh... I had typed up a 5-paragraph reply to this and my browser froze up before I could reply. Anyway, I'll just summarize what I was going to say before.

Men are created equal, but that's the only time that they are ever truly equal as they have a clean slate. After that we are no longer equal, but that does not mean one is superior to another. Equality doesn't equal conformity either, just a general balance of qualities. When we strive for equality, we realize how different we are and when we do the opposite, we find that we are not all that different either. Harmony is what we want, but what we are going for is unity.

I realize this is a short post and doesn't give a lot of info, but I don't want the browser to freeze again before I can post.

 

[yossarian22]

That all men are created equal.

Congratulations on mischaracterizing a statement into an absurdity and arguing against it.

the quest for absolute equality is, I believe, one of the largest reasons why this country has steered so far away from the democratic republic it was founded to be. Not to mention that absolute equality is an unattainable goal.

You mean the quest to equalize the playing field for everybody? Because I haven't seen any eugenics programs around here.

 

[Biggie Smalls]

..It really depends on how you take "created equal". I think the writers implied for it to mean everyone has equal rights.

 

[DuskMarthWater]

Yea, I think so too. But for people to be equal in all things? That's a little ridiculous. And I don't think that that is what anyone meant by that phrase, including the starter of this thread. To be equal in rights and opportunity should be possible, but so far the world has yet to reach even that point. That is, I think, the goal that our founding fathers meant when they put that in the Declaration of Independence. Everyone is born with different abilities and talents, which makes people unique. However, unique does not apply to equal, obviously.

 

[Shiny Noctowl]

That all men are created equal.

It's a ridiculous idea, and one that points again to my one big beef with mankind: our need to differentiate ourselves from animals.

Substitute almost anything (barring the nonsensical) for the word "man" in the phrase and you begin to see my point. Are all cats created equal? All raindrops? Hell, are all chairs created equal? No! There are are differences in every one of them (albeit mostly subtle ones). These differences are what allow for evolution (though it is nigh undeniable that man's evolution, since the advent of tool usage, has followed a different line than that of most other organic beings).

Now I am by no means denying that all men have "unalienable rights" such as those defined in America's Constitution. I am merely calling into question what I believe to be a completely naive outlook on things.

Given that my outlook on this is correct (which I am not saying is true, that's why I'm posting), the quest for absolute equality is, I believe, one of the largest reasons why this country has steered so far away from the democratic republic it was founded to be. Not to mention that absolute equality is an unattainable goal.

But back to the original point: agree/disagree, thoughts/howls of outrage?

All people are created equal in a sense, in that they have differences, but we are all special in our own ways so no one is "better" or "worse" overall than anyone else.

 

[adumbrodeus]

All people are created equal in a sense, in that they have differences, but we are all special in our own ways so no one is "better" or "worse" overall than anyone else.

Impossible.

Different and equal requires perfect balance. Perfection in anything is literally impossible, because it requires ultimate equality of an infinite number if factors. Everyone on earth is either better or worse then everyone else, but trying to figure out anyone's status reletive to anyone else is an extercise in stupidity and futility.

The reason is quite simple. There is no objective measure of who is better and who is worse then anyone else.

Ultimately everything is comparable, but we do not know the measure. Is breakdancing equal to handball skills or political intelligence. If not, then what's the conversion ratio? This problem can be applied to absolutely anything.

In addition there are infinite minute skills and facets in a person's life. Comparing 2 infinite sets of individual values is impossible in a finite period of time even if we have a useful scale to compare with. For reference, this would have to include each and every cell in a person's body, how many leaves they crunched underfoot in their lives, what they were thinking while they crunched each leaf, etc. These may SEEM irrelevant, but in reality these infinite tiny factors can easily overwhelm any value achieved by "major ones", and if you only account for a tiny minority of values you accomplish nothing.


In essence, there are two problems with comparing any two people, lack of a useful scale and the raw number of attributes that a person has is infinite.



So in essence, no two people are created equal, but it is impossible to know who is better then who. Therefore we are faced with either randomly deciding who is better then who or resigning ourselves to treating everyone equally.

 

[Wheelz]

All men were created equal in the sense that if you're born an american you are no better then the american being born next to you, however lately this has been thrown to the side as it is more then that. If you had the choice to shoot you're best friend or a stranger, who would you choose? Look outside the mediocrity that is 'Everyone means the same to you' It's the same with those people that say You're one of my best friends. If you have five best friends and you like best friend number 1 better then best friend number 4 guess what they are not equal. In that sense Men are only equal in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[Kur]

Sure, nobody is equal to anybody else. somebody will always be better at something than you are, and you will always be better at something else than somebody else is. But since everybody is better and worse at things than everybody else, aren't we all equal in our mediocrity?

Somebody said they will never golf as well as Tiger Woods. Well whose fault is that? Is it impossible for some other person to play as well as Tiger Woods or has that other person just devoted more time to a different pursuit?

Every person I believe is born equal. It is what we do with our time on earth that makes us better or worse than other people.

Of course you might say that some people are born with serious disadvantages. But those can be overcome with hard work and perseverance. Just look at Stephen Hawking as an example.

I think denying that all people are born equal merely boils down to a belief in fate. That every person is destined to be a certain way and there is nothing anyone can do to change it. Would be rather difficult to be equal then wouldn't it?

Good thing there is no such thing as fate isn't it?

Of course the reasoning behind the original line of "All men are created equal" is that all people have the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that any other person has. I suppose this means that if you are the son of a king, you do not automatically become king just because your father dies. Which is why the presidency of this country is decided by election rather than bloodline. Anybody can be president. The fact that Hillary and Barrack are legitimate candidates is testament to this fact.

Everybody is equal in that respect.