[unPerson1]

It is pretty widely accepted that all people are fundamentally equal.

Are we?

[Truth-a-naut]

Of course not.
But it's fun pretending to be.

Equal things are easier to rule and very predictable.

[U-235]

By what do you mean equal?

[Jesse]

A character in one of Aldous Huxley's books said it best:

It is a fallacy to assume that men are more than psycho-chemically equal

We may not be equal, but it is the duty of the State to make all its Citizens equal - this makes them happier, and more productive: two goals of the State.

[Noumenon]

I think nearly everyone agrees that we are not equal. Some people are richer, some better at sports, some better at math, etc. It would be foolish to try to make people equal, even impossible. People are not even fundamentally equal, since we all have different genes. The only way to ensure everyone is equal is to make everyone clones and prevent them from gaining any specialized skills.

[Todd D.]

We are all equal in the sense that when it comes to externalities, we should not be subjected to forces that are not subjected on other people for reasons like sex, sexual preference, race, religion, creed, etc. It's the concept of equality of opportunity, that all people have a fundamental right to be give the same opportunity to succeed as the next.

This differs very much from equality of outcome, which is what DTguitarist99 I think is talking about. Some people are better at sports, some earn more money, some are naturally endowed with more talents than others. It's how they use them that dictate their place in the world.

To answer your question, I think that we are all fundamentally human, and as such should be given the same opportunities to prove our worth to the world, but to assume that we will all preform uniformally, that's just ignorant.

[enLight]

Equality is a myth - or rather an invention of the human mind. Nothing wrong with that either. Shit, if all humans were equal it would be a damn boring world.

Western governments attempt to encourage equality with concepts like "natural rights" or "equal opportunity." But really these notions are not part of an absolute force that governs humanity. They are privileges granted to citizens by the kind of society we live in. Outside of it, the rest of the world is harsh, cold, and very survivalistic. Not an ideal environment to provide equality.

[clownboy]

It is pretty widely accepted that all people are fundamentally equal.

Are we?

Equal to what?

Perhaps it would be better to say that most people start off being equivalent.

[Maxim Litvinov]

I don't think people 'starting off' as equivalent is accurate, either.

Perhaps a better way to look at things is that - irrespective of equalities - people recognise the need to be treated justly, and not discriminated against on the basis of conditions and circumstances that they cannot be expected to change.

I think one good way of looking at what 'equalities' should be in society, is along the lines of John Rawls' 'veil of ignorance'. Namely, a system which minimises inequalities on the basis of what a person ignorant of their own inequalities would find fair.

Apologies for this cut-and-paste, which explains Rawls' position:

(Summary of John Rawls' essay taken from Stumpf's Elements of Philosophy)

Imagine yourself in the original position, a situation where you are
about to establish an organized society. You, and everybody else,
will have to decide how to create a good society, one in which
everyone is treated in a fair way. What should each person's place
or situation, job, class position, and social status be? How should
questions of this kind be answered? To make sure that the answers,
and therefore each person's position and status, are decided on
fairly, Rawls asks us to forget what our present situation is. To make
sure that the principles of justice we are about to agree to are fair
and objective, it is necessary for us, says Rawls, to step behind a
"veil of ignorance." This veil of ignorance simply means that none
of us knows (i.e. we act as though we do not know) what our
special circumstances are. We are to suppose that the slate is wiped
clean and we are starting all over. No one knows what his or her
special talents are. The purpose, then, of the veil of ignorance is to
eliminate from our minds any prejudice based on our special cir-
cumstances so that we can approach the task of formulating the
principles of justice from as objective a point of view as possible.
Under these circumstances, how should we go about devising an
arrangement among people which would amount to justice?

Rawls assumes that all men have a sense of justice. This does
not mean that everybody always agrees with a particular definition
of justice. It does mean, however, that all people have a certain
rational ability through which they understand what is and what is
not fair. Moreover, rational human beings also know which princi-
ples will be respected. Rational persons know, for example, that it
is not fair to achieve the good life for some at the expense of others.

From his ideas about the "original position" and the "veil of
ignorance," Rawls arrives at "two principles of justice." The first
principal is based on the special way in which each person is
assumed to be equal. Hence Rawls says, "First: each person is to
have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible
with a similar liberty for others." This form of liberty is basically
political liberty. It includes the right to vote and to be eligible for
public office as well as freedom of speech and assembly, freedom
of conscience, and freedom to hold property .

The second principle of justice, says Rawls, recognizes certain
inequalities among people. People are, after all, different in many
ways. These differences are reflected in the distribution of wealth
and income. Recognizing these differences, Rawls describes this
principle as follows: "Social and economic inequalities are to be
arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to
everyone's advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open
to all." What Rawls is attempting to accomplish in this second prin-
ciple is, first, to recognize the facts of inequality and differences
among individuals, and second, to make sure that these differences
do not lead to injustice. Justice, says Rawls, does not require that
wealth and income should be divided equally. However, an
unequal division is justified only if everyone is better off, that is, if
such an unequal division results in everyone's advantage.

These two principles must be arranged in a special sequence
that Rawls calls "a serial order." The first principle deals with polit-
ical freedom. The second principle deals with social and economic
arrangements. Justice requires that political freedoms should
always remain the highest priority and that the social and economic
arrangements should be adapted to these political freedoms.
Accordingly, it would be a violation of justice if a society sacrificed
personal and political freedoms, the basic liberties, in exchange for
some additional social and economic benefits.

[Goranhammer]

All men are created equal.

After birth, you're not

The vast majority are what I would call "equal" (or average) starting out, but after that, a million X-factors come into play.

[Maxim Litvinov]

The two most important X-factors being:

i - How rich are your parents?
ii - Where were you born?

[enLight]

Ah, I see you follow the "victim of society" line of thinking.

Anyone who has the constitution to succeed will do so if they try hard enough. It doesn't matter where they live or how rich their parents are.

[Maxim Litvinov]

I see you follow the naive 'they're poor because they deserve to be' line of thinking

The fact is, many millions around the world can work their butts off all their lives without getting anywhere much.

[enLight]

Sure, in poorer countries. In third world countries.

[clownboy]

The two most important X-factors being:

i - How rich are your parents?
ii - Where were you born?

I'd think having all the requisite limbs and organs, and in functioning condition, would be the most important.

You can follow that with, do you HAVE parents, and if so, how many? And, are you wanted here?

[Maxim Litvinov]

Sure, clownboy. I agree. Being crippled from birth is probably a bigger encumberment than being born in a very poor country. A moot point, though.

e n L i g h t - except in specific cases, I try to make my statements as universally applicable as possible. Therefore, I'm talking about most people in the world, and not Americans or Australians, etc.

[clownboy]

Sure, clownboy. I agree. Being crippled from birth is probably a bigger encumberment than being born in a very poor country. A moot point, though.

No problem, in a roundabout way, I was trying to say that I don't think being born rich is all that great. NOT saying I was - we tar-papered our roof weekly in the winter. I've known more than a handful of born-to-wealth folks, at all different ages. They DO have an initial boost, but then, without exception, they've all struggled with life. I think overall, it evens out - at least opportunity-wise.

I'm excluding the Hilton ultra-rich (billions) set from this point because:
1) I've never even known someone who knows someone like this.
2) The .001% at both ends of the scale are beyond my understanding.

[Falleen Prince Xizor]

i've seen people drive up to a store and buy 8,ooo euro worth of computer equipment for their son...they thought nothing of it... ruddy toffs...

[lookingin]

It is pretty widely accepted that all people are fundamentally equal.

Are we?

"All people created equal" is supposed to be an agreement that we will all play fair with each other.

However it depends which side you're on. You choose Evil or Good. Decide for yourself what is what, and which one of these you want to belong to.

An unfortunate amount of people will eventually choose out of cowardice or "painting themselves into a corner" as the saying goes, but by then it won't matter. Many people don't know the mark is on their faces until they accidentally uncover a mirror. The key is in searching out a mirror while you still have time.

Correction, the only real choice you have is to choose Good, because Evil is effortless and automatic, it doesn't require you to choose.

[Vivisekt]

All people are not fundamentally eaqual, but everybody needs an eaqual chance or society is functioning detrimentally. Greatness often springs from what we percieve as the most unlikely of places.