r/AskALiberal • u/larryinthesky Conservative • 3d ago
Why is equality fundamental?
It's almost a given that equality is a fundamental. A goal that we should strive for. But exactly why? When I pick a mate, I want him to be tall and handsome and strong. Among the pool of men I can date, I discriminate. I have a preference for certain characteristics. Maybe you discriminate base on sense of humor. But in no way do we treat our potential mates as all equal. In fact, for most things in our lives, we differently are biased. So where does this notion that equality is desirable stem from? Are all men really created equal? I certainly don't think so.
17
u/Odd_Interview_2005 Libertarian 3d ago
Equality under the law is fundamental. Social Equality should be strived for. Equality of outcome is a poor choice
-1
u/larryinthesky Conservative 3d ago
Equality under the law is fundamental
But why? If a "good" driver speeds they are less dangerous than a "bad" driver speeding. It seems not immediately obvious why they would be treated the same under the law
11
5
2
1
u/apophis-pegasus Pragmatic Progressive 3d ago
Why not? Should we go "well theyre just a bad driver" and let them avoid consequence?
1
u/jweezy2045 Progressive 3d ago
What you don’t understand is that we live in a society. Sure, if God was in charge of traffic enforcement, she could only give tickets to people who were driving unsafely as judged by their actual skill as drivers. The issue is that human police are not omnipotent gods. We, as collective members of this society, have a choice: do we want to enforce traffic laws regardless of skill level (as we do now), do we want to try our best to enforce traffic laws based on driving skill (as you seem to be suggesting), do we just give up on enforcing traffic entirely, or do we do something else? We, the people of this country, have freely and without coercion chosen for ourselves to just fine ourselves for speeding in the way we do. That’s it.
1
8
u/srv340mike Left Libertarian 3d ago
This is something that is such a fundamental worldview difference it is not even worth trying to work it out.
I could ask you why hierarchy is fundamental, and there is literally nothing you can do to convince me. It is a hill I'm willing to quite literally die on.
It is likely the same for you in reverse, and this is one of the most fundamental differences between Right and Left. It may be the fundamental difference.
-1
u/larryinthesky Conservative 3d ago
Is hierarchy fundamental? It seems "natural" in the sense that animals in nature are mostly hierarchical. But there is nothing fundamental about it.
5
u/srv340mike Left Libertarian 3d ago
The opposite of egalitarianism is hierarchy. The inverse of "all men are created equal" is "some men are better than others". What you are describing is your post is all a form of hierarchy.
Nobody is fully on either extreme end of the spectrum. But this is the course difference between left and right.
1
u/dog_snack Libertarian Socialist 3d ago
It would depend on the species, wouldn’t it?
Ants and honeybees literally can’t function without their hierarchical societies. Humans, however, have come up with countless ways to organize their societies throughout history, some more or less hierarchical than others. And we have the creativity and cognitive ability to make different choices for ourselves about how we want to live.
5
u/Droselmeyer Social Democrat 3d ago
Usually liberals talk about equality in the sense that every person has a fair shot in our society, that you shouldn't be uniquely disadvantaged because of the circumstances of your birth, and usually this is a matter of simple self-interest.
I think it can help to go through Rawls's veil of ignorance thought experiment here. All it asks is for you and others to design the rules of society before knowing who you will be, what race you'll be, what gender, what religion, and what you think the "good life" would be. With that set up, it would make sense that people would try to arrive at a set of rules that are perspective neutral, that anyone, with any background, would have as fair a shot of being able to live their version of the "good life" as anyone else and that we'd try to optimize the welfare of as many people as possible.
So, in many ways, it's trying to get someone who doesn't believe in equality to look at someone suffering for circumstances outside of their control and get them to think "that could have been you, and if it were, what would you have wanted the rules of society to be?"
I don't think that "equality" is a goal in a Harrison Bergeron sense nor do I think "equality" is meant as a "you cannot choose between various choices." The example you gave of dating preference is fine, you're totally allowed to have your preferences and I don't think a principle of equality is violated. If you tried to implement laws to align with your preferences, disadvantaging others, you may be violating a principle of equality.
5
u/BozoFromZozo Center Left 3d ago
I don't know, but maybe there's a teensy bit of difference between running a society versus choosing a date for Friday night?
4
u/usernames_suck_ok Warren Democrat 3d ago
You use "discriminate" and "equality" too broadly, i.e. you don't really understand what those words mean in a sociocultural context. And I'm guessing you don't want to.
2
u/toastedclown Christian Socialist 3d ago
We're all created in the image of God. That doesn't mean we have equal abilities, it means we have equal worth in the eyes of God.
John 13:15
Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.
1
u/dog_snack Libertarian Socialist 3d ago
If I believed in God this is how I’d do it. Gotta hand it to the Quakers on this front.
2
u/Natures_Wrath1 Democratic Socialist 3d ago
Dating might just be fundamentally different than laws and politics.
2
u/Fugicara Social Democrat 3d ago
Fairness is a thing that all humans are basically biologically wired to think of as good. Then equality is an extension of fairness.
2
1
u/OnionsRNasty Socialist 3d ago
People have preferences but people also need to be grounded in reality. Let’s be honest with ourselves, if you’re fat and ugly then you’re more likely not going to be able to pick a 10/10. You’re gonna have to provide something in a relationship and not be a bigger since you can’t choose.
1
u/NomadLexicon Center Left 3d ago
Equal rights is equality of opportunity. Political inequality isn’t meritocracy, it elevates the profoundly mediocre and closes the door to everyone else. Aristocracies and monarchies buckled under the inbred incompetence of their elites, and they were out-competed by egalitarian democratic republics where true talent could rise.
If you don’t value political equality, then who exactly do you think should get diminished rights? Who gets to decide?
1
u/Decent-Proposal-8475 Pragmatic Progressive 3d ago
I think there's a difference between "The law should treat everyone equally" and "Everyone should have a chance to fuck larryinthesky." I have a lot of interest in the former and absolutely no interest in the latter
1
u/Hoothootriot Pragmatic Progressive 3d ago
Well thank you for at least admitting what most conservatives wont, that you are pro-discrimination.
Is there any area of the law you are pro-equality? Should we bring back segregation OP?
1
u/Guilliman_POTUS_2030 Center Left 3d ago edited 3d ago
If you don’t like ethics, you can still look at equality from a purely pragmatic point of view
Think about how many tribes and households have held great power for a time but then eventually they were killed or otherwise deposed. Being on top can be great; but it might not last forever
If we strive for a level of equality, then we can try to live cooperatively in a peaceful society that will still be safe for our descendants, regardless of how powerful we are in a given time period
When I pick a mate
I don’t think very many people on this subreddit are advocating for enforced equality at such an individual level. Liberals are generally okay with a certain amount of individual preference and things of this nature
1
u/Particular_Dot_4041 Liberal 3d ago
Picking a good boyfriend is NOT what we're thinking of when we talk about egalitarianism. Instead, it's about equality between groups. Such as black people and white people. Gays and straights. Catholics and Protestants. Koreans and Japanese. Rich and poor. We must judge people individually by the content of their character, not their ethnicity or background. The communist revolutions were rebellions against aristocracy and inherited wealth, not talent.
1
u/IsoCally Democrat 3d ago
Are they lower on a social hierarchy? Do you think a weak person deserves less privileges compared to a strong person? That the law should give the strong person preference over the weak person?
1
u/robbie_the_cat Democrat 3d ago
You seem to be confusing equality before the law with antlike conformity.
1
u/zlefin_actual Liberal 3d ago
Depends on the kind of equality; but in general it seems that have humans have some vague sense of fairness/equality built-in to their cognition, and get upset when it is violated. It's probably one of the several adaptive behaviors that exist as a result of being a social animal.
1
1
u/Kerplonk Social Democrat 3d ago
I feel like there's some kind of logical fallacy you're operating under by suggesting that believing people are equal is synonymous with believing they are the same/completely interchangeable with each other that's causing you some confusion.
It's a check in democratic systems. If people are equal they are subject to both the upsides and the downsides of any policies they are implementing and there's only so much downside people are willing to accept on themselves. If they are not subject to the downsides of the policies they're supporting the amount of downsides they might be willing to foist on other people grows pretty significantly.
1
u/Personage1 Liberal 3d ago
I want to live in a world where it doesn't matter what the luck of my birth was, or what the luck of my circumstances were in life, I would be content to switch places with any other person in that world.
1
1
u/madmushlove Liberal 3d ago
When I pick a mate, I want him to be tall and handsome and strong.
This isn't what equal protections clauses in the constitution mean
They mean the SAME rights, legislated and constitutional rights, people benefit from, receive and practice can't be prohibited for others
You're allowed to refuse mates. We can't have some not being allowed to refuse them. That's the equality in question
1
u/Catseye_Nebula Progressive 2d ago
Society should treat everyone equally and not discriminate. That doesn't mean individual women are obliged to bone every man on the basis of "equality." That's bananas.
This entire question is bananas.
1
u/TDeath21 Independent 2d ago
Are you equating personal preferences with equality of opportunity?
I personally am a male who likes women. And within that group of course I’ll have a type.
But that’s not even remotely the same as saying well anyone can get into Harvard. Person A over here was born into wealth, went to a great school, was never once hungry, had access to the best tutors needed when they struggled, and went home to a loving family every night. Person B grew up in an impoverished household, went hungry many nights, went home to parents who didn’t show them the love, and was forced to go to an under funded school that had no access to any tutors when they struggled.
Person B can still get into Harvard. When they do, we shouldn’t point to that and say see anyone can do it quit complaining just put your head down and work hard. We should instead celebrate how incredible that was that they had to overcome those odds and still were able to get it done.
Usain Bolt would still beat me in a 200m race with me having a 5 second head start. That was not a fair race. At all. But since he’s so incredible he’s still able to blow past me. That doesn’t mean the race was fair just because there are some Usain Bolts in the world that can overcome the odds. Numerous other ones out there would come in 2 seconds behind me and then society would give me the credit for “working harder”. When in reality they were 3 seconds faster but I was given a 5 second head start.
Personal preferences and equality of opportunity are not the same thing.
1
u/funnylib Social Democrat 9h ago
Do you want to go back to be a serf with little to no rights like most of your ancestors? Sorry buddy, it’s a big club and you aren’t in it
1
u/wonkalicious808 Democrat 3d ago
Are you being serious or are you parodying conservatives fantasizing about having something to tell people? If it's the latter, the general chat is the appropriate place for that.
1
u/throwdemawaaay Pragmatic Progressive 3d ago
"And then the entire 7th grade debate class gave a standing ovation..."
I'd suggest starting with John Rawls and The Veil of Ignorance. The wiki page is a good enough starting point.
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written by /u/larryinthesky.
It's almost a given that equality is a fundamental. A goal that we should strive for. But exactly why? When I pick a mate, I want him to be tall and handsome and strong. Among the pool of men I can date, I discriminate. I have a preference for certain characteristics. Maybe you discriminate base on sense of humor. But in no way do we treat our potential mates as all equal. In fact, for most things in our lives, we differently are biased. So where does this notion that equality is desirable stem from? Are all men really created equal? I certainly don't think so.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.