Equality: Is the basis moral, practical, or both?

[Athenian200]

Okay, I have a hypothetical scenario for you all. Imagine that science proved conclusively, and demonstratably, that a particular group of people were mentally inferior to the others, or had less capacity for restraint, or anything else that makes them less suitable as members of society.

If this happened, would we still have a moral basis for treating them as equals rather than as inferior? Or is this treatment rooted in the assumption of practical equality in terms of cognition, potential, and self-control?

Basically, are there any moral arguments that can be used to justify equal treatment in the absence of actual equality in capacity? If so, what are they?

Can the science be separated from the moral issue? It seems that one would affect the other, unless I'm mistaken about the basis of equality being an assumption of certain similar abilities in cognition, potential, and self-control.

Ultimately, it comes down to this... what rights would be owed to such beings, if we found that such actually existed and could easily be distinguished from everyone else? Would this ultimately be a similar issue to animal rights?

 

[BlackCat]

I would treat them equally, simply because I would like to be treated equally by everyone when "being treated equally" is on a surface level like this.

In reality no one is truly "equal," some people are stronger, some are more intelligent, some are more successful. But the rights that we have have a basis in a respect for living beings.

Aren't mentally handicapped people given equal rights? That seems to be going along the same lines as this.

Assuming these people had been in society for a long time and it was normal to see them, they should have equal rights. But if they suddenly came to the world, I'm sure that something would happen in a District 9 fashion though.

 

[Halla74]

Okay, I have a hypothetical scenario for you all. Imagine that science proved conclusively, and demonstratably, that a particular group of people were mentally inferior to the others, or had less capacity for restraint, or anything else that makes them less suitable as members of society.

Do you mean mentally incompetent to stand trail in a court of law?

Or do you mean that they are some considerably measurable margin less intelligent than normal humans?

Either way I don't see that it is possible to afford such citizens less rights, if they are indeed HUMANS. Our inalienable rights are granted to us as a facet of our humanity. Currently, persons with sever cognitive limitations still have the same rights as those "under the bell curve." They might get institutionalized, they might end up in trouble with the law more frequently than others, but they still have civil rights

I think the questions is, do these imaginary people pose a danger to themselves or others? If so, then you have to look at the issue under a different light.

But, you cannot take away their humanity. Human is human. We all bleed the same color. We all will rot in the ground when we die. No one is any better than anyone else, despite the magnificently complicated socirtal constructs that have been built over the centuries to compel us to believe so.

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

Many groups have already been found to be inferior, but this doesn't mean government should treat these groups unfairly. On an interpersonal level, I don't treat a handicapped person the same as someone with working limbs, although they have certain rights and privileges that other, more capable people don't have.

Are laws giving special rights to the handicapped immoral or unfair?
Would you consider an autistic child inferior to a healthy child?
Would you treat them the same?

 

[Athenian200]

Or do you mean that they are some considerably measurable margin less intelligent than normal humans?

Either way I don't see that it is possible to afford such citizens less rights, if they are indeed HUMANS. Our inalienable rights are granted to us as a facet of our humanity. Currently, persons with sever cognitive limitations still have the same rights as those "under the bell curve." They might get institutionalized, they might end up in trouble with the law more frequently than others, but they still have civil rights

I think the questions is, do these imaginary people pose a danger to themselves or others? If so, then you have to look at the issue under a different light.

But, you cannot take away their humanity. Human is human. We all bleed the same color. We all will rot in the ground when we die. No one is any better than anyone else, despite the magnificently complicated socirtal constructs that have been built over the centuries to compel us to believe so.

It seems that you're avoiding the question by pointing to their "humanity." But how is it that their humanity alone makes them equal, without regard to their abilities or self-awareness? What is the origin of this concept, and how does it practically apply?

Are laws giving special rights to the handicapped immoral or unfair?

No, they seem to be making up for a deficit.

Would you consider an autistic child inferior to a healthy child?

Yes. But only socially inferior, not mentally inferior.

Would you treat them the same?

Only if it were reasonable to do so.

 

[ajblaise]

Okay, I have a hypothetical scenario for you all. Imagine that science proved conclusively, and demonstratably, that a particular group of people were mentally inferior to the others, or had less capacity for restraint, or anything else that makes them less suitable as members of society.

It's called mental retardation. Why is this a hypothetical scenario?

 

[Halla74]

It seems that you're avoiding the question by pointing to their "humanity." But how is it that their humanity alone makes them equal, without regard to their abilities or self-awareness? What is the origin of this concept, and how does it practically apply?

I'm not avoiding anything; you have not sufficiently defined "inferior" and what that entails regarding overall balance in society.

It's called mental retardation. Why is this a hypothetical scenario?

Exactly. Duhh! Hello, McFly!

 

[Dooraven]

Okay, I have a hypothetical scenario for you all. Imagine that science proved conclusively, and demonstratably, that a particular group of people were mentally inferior to the others, or had less capacity for restraint, or anything else that makes them less suitable as members of society.

If this happened, would we still have a moral basis for treating them as equals rather than as inferior? Or is this treatment rooted in the assumption of practical equality in terms of cognition, potential, and self-control?

Basically, are there any moral arguments that can be used to justify equal treatment in the absence of actual equality in capacity? If so, what are they?

Can the science be separated from the moral issue? It seems that one would affect the other, unless I'm mistaken about the basis of equality being an assumption of certain similar abilities in cognition, potential, and self-control.

Ultimately, it comes down to this... what rights would be owed to such beings, if we found that such actually existed and could easily be distinguished from everyone else? Would this ultimately be a similar issue to animal rights?

No, we should still treat them as equals. Being mentally handicapped does not mean that you are any less of a human being, every human being has the ability to love, formulate ideas, provide warmth and many other items but everyone does/masters everything in varying degrees. If mentally inferior people are classified as inferior humans then shouldn't we also class socially inferior people as inferior humans, what about intellectually inferior? How about openness to change inferior or People who just have no artistic abilities? Do they deserve to be treated as inferiors?.

Mentally handicapped people may be stronger in other traits than others. Some people who are classified as mentally inferior has shown much more empathy than others, others have brilliant people who were lacking in another part of the brain.

Everyone is limited in one way or another, its a human trait this is.

Science is great for finding out stuff, but at the end of the day humans, as people have to decide if we want to use that part/discovery or not. There is a reason why we elect politicians and not scientists to run our countries.

 

[Athenian200]

I guess this means self-awareness/sentience isn't important... just humanity. So an alien or android with similar faculties (or even superior faculties) would NOT be equal.

Sigh. I just don't like the way this is going... it sounds like so many of our ways of doing things are based on delusions about our own significance.

 

[Dooraven]

I guess this means self-awareness/sentience isn't important... just humanity. So an alien or android with similar faculties (or even superior faculties) would NOT be equal.

Sigh. I just don't like the way this is going... it sounds like so many of ways of doing things are based on delusions about our own significance.

An alien would be considered in the same way as a normal human being in my eyes. They too have the ability to emphatize, formulate ideas and provide warmth as well as any human. An android well.. that would be different and considering on their type. If they could emphasize like a normal biological being and determine its own future then yeah by all means it should be treated as a human. If it is unable and can only carry out logical commands thats its builder has told them to do, what separates it from a computer?

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Okay, I have a hypothetical scenario for you all. Imagine that science proved conclusively, and demonstratably, that a particular group of people were mentally inferior to the others, or had less capacity for restraint, or anything else that makes them less suitable as members of society.

I believe there is a problem with the premise of this scenario. Science cannot judge what makes someone a suitable member of society. Science can create metrics and measure them, such as IQ, empathy level, ability to delay gratification, thumb size, skin pigmentation, etc.... However when it comes to judging how these qualities make a person suitable as members of society that question ends up being answered by law, religion, and philosophy rather than science.

If you look back through history you will be able to find examples where scientists were saying that people were less suitable members of society because of their skin color. While skin pigmentation is objectively measurable, we can look back at these examples and see that bad science was being performed.

 

[Athenian200]

They too have the ability to emphatize, formulate ideas and provide warmth as well as any human. An android well.. that would be different and considering on their type. If they could emphasize like a normal biological being and determine its own future then yeah by all means it should be treated as a human. If it is unable and can only carry out logical commands thats its builder has told them to do, what separates it from a computer?

Aha! So the definition of being human is the ability to empathize, formulate ideas, and provide warmth.

Could this imply that people who are lacking in creativity and the capacity for empathy (like sociopaths and narcissists) are less human? I like that idea... it sounds so much better than all that stuff about only people who measure up to a certain standard of rationality and self-control being human, which I hear so much of.

 

[Mole]

Equality and Religion

The doctrine of Equality is simply based on religion.

For instance, Christianity teaches that we are all children of God and so we are all equal in the eyes of God.

Let me repeat that - Christianity says, we are all equal in the eyes of God. And this has been encoded into the Common Law where all, repeat all, are equal before the Law.

On the other hand, Islam teaches that Allah has divided us into Muslim men, Dhimmi, Infidels and Muslim women. And Allah says that Muslim men are to rule over Dhimmi, Infidels and Muslim women. And this inequality has been encoded in Sharia Law where Muslims, Dhimmi, Infidels and Muslim women, are not equal.

But the equality of all taught by Christianity has been taken further by the Enlightenment into Reason. So the Enlightenment reinforces Christianity by teaching Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.

So equality comes from religion and is reinforced by the Enlightenment but is violently rejected by Islam.

 

[Polaris]

It's hard to understand what people even mean by "equality." Someone's rights are determined by what preconditions they meet, and this has always been the case. These preconditions have changed--for example, we no longer require a voter to be a male--but the fact that we make differences has remained the same, and it always will. All you have to do is acknowledge someone as a separate individual, and you've already made them less than equal; from there, all sorts of differentiations follow.

The one sense in which I can understand universal equality is in the sense that the law regards people as blank tablets when they come into the world. For example, the law no longer compels a person to enter a particular mode of life based on their parentage. But there are still some things you come into the world with, and the law takes stock of them. Your gender, for example, which has many subtle and not-so-subtle effects on your subsequent life. These effects don't immediately come into play, of course, but you've still been marked, right from the start.

As to the question of whether these things are moral or practical, I would say they're both: if we regard something as moral, it's also practical in some sense. It could be practical on the level of promoting some type of social progress, and it could be practical on the level of easing your own conscience. Whatever the case, there is always a practical need involved, and to feel this need and take measures to fulfill it, requires a value judgment.

 

[onemoretime]

I guess this means self-awareness/sentience isn't important... just humanity. So an alien or android with similar faculties (or even superior faculties) would NOT be equal.

Sigh. I just don't like the way this is going... it sounds like so many of our ways of doing things are based on delusions about our own significance.

Nothing about significance. It has more to do with reciprocality. Treat others the way you would want to be treated. With humans, you know that in general, they respond the same way to treatment that you yourself do. You know that there are hidden things about yourself that are unrevealed to others. How would you like those people acting oppressively toward you because they thought you inferior?

 

[Shimmy]

Okay, I have a hypothetical scenario for you all. Imagine that science proved conclusively, and demonstratably, that a particular group of people were mentally inferior to the others, or had less capacity for restraint, or anything else that makes them less suitable as members of society.

If this happened, would we still have a moral basis for treating them as equals rather than as inferior? Or is this treatment rooted in the assumption of practical equality in terms of cognition, potential, and self-control?

Basically, are there any moral arguments that can be used to justify equal treatment in the absence of actual equality in capacity? If so, what are they?

Can the science be separated from the moral issue? It seems that one would affect the other, unless I'm mistaken about the basis of equality being an assumption of certain similar abilities in cognition, potential, and self-control.

Ultimately, it comes down to this... what rights would be owed to such beings, if we found that such actually existed and could easily be distinguished from everyone else? Would this ultimately be a similar issue to animal rights?

I think it is possible to separate the moral from the practical part. It is biologically determined that men, on average, are physically stronger then women, and this differs quite a lot. Following that, it would seem rather logical to me that it is 'better' to put men in physically demanding jobs. In a society where most of the work is rather physically demanding, like in relatively primitive agricultural societies, It would follow that inequality is natural and beneficial.

This is something entire different from inequity, which would seem to raise only moral questions.

There are even some racial/biological biases that can be confirmed scientifically. Vietnamese on average are significantly worse in Basketball, then say, the Dutch, average hight of a vietnamese man: 162.1 cm (5' 3.8"), average hight of a dutchman: 184.3 cm (6' 0.6"). If I were a basketball coach looking for quality players, I would most certainly take these numbers into account.

 

[Xander]

Equally valued ≠ equally valuable to all.

Subjective - Objective.

 

[run]

First off, this sounds very Ti. Nice job.

Okay, I have a hypothetical scenario for you all. Imagine that science proved conclusively, and demonstratably, that a particular group of people were mentally inferior to the others, or had less capacity for restraint, or anything else that makes them less suitable as members of society.

If this happened, would we still have a moral basis for treating them as equals rather than as inferior? Or is this treatment rooted in the assumption of practical equality in terms of cognition, potential, and self-control?

No, it's not practicality. Then we'd have to judge. The judgment of such things isn't in our hands. It's objective. Therefore, unconditional equality. Let's make the distinction between legal equality and moral equality. There shouldn't be one. But we as a society make it happen because we don't legislate morality. We legislate practicality. That's despotism.

Basically, are there any moral arguments that can be used to justify equal treatment in the absence of actual equality in capacity? If so, what are they?

No. You have to prove to me that capacity determines rights first.

Can the science be separated from the moral issue? It seems that one would affect the other, unless I'm mistaken about the basis of equality being an assumption of certain similar abilities in cognition, potential, and self-control.

No. It'd be more intellectually robust to compatibilize them than to make polar generalizations. I don't think science is separated from morality when you say "capacity does not determine status." You could think of scientific reasons to support this, like "they're not sentient beings" or whatever. Who says science can't discover some moral things? Is science necessary? No not at all. I think it can be used though to help support some claims. Could be wrong about that though. Have to think about it.

 

[run]

It seems that you're avoiding the question by pointing to their "humanity." But how is it that their humanity alone makes them equal, without regard to their abilities or self-awareness? What is the origin of this concept, and how does it practically apply?

What is the origin of this concept? Do you have to wonder? If you look for support for every single premise, you won't find it, and you'll end up with all seemingly circular arguments. Premises are meant to be assumed. You can't assume the value of humanity? Simply because it's not supported?? Why do you need support for that? Would you go kill someone if it was expedient, then ask for support why it's wrong? No. A, you won't let yourself do that for a reason. B, No one has the support for that. Moral intuitions.

 

[Lark]

Conservatives have been with us for a long time.

Just kidding.

I think that rights and privileges havent ever been based upon innate capacities, whatever those innate capacities are assessed as.

Cognitive capacity, the different criteria you mention, they all seem fine and they are far removed from what has been the popular or personal determinants of superiority-inferiority before now like race, in group/out group status.

A moral argument could be make for equality on the basis of the individuals with greater capacity being changed by the expectation or evaluative criteria of equality, I dont mean dumbing down, I mean reciprocal obligations, social cohesion or solidarity.

However there are questions about the expectations for a degree of functionality from those with diminished capacities. Most recently I've thought about this in respect of the wholesale abandonment and shunning of behaviourist practice and principle in therapy or therapeutic environments which deal with individuals who have developmental deficits or diminished capacity.

While I understand where the flexible, caring and supportive approaches are adopted in the main for ethical reasons. However, I wonder if those ethical reasons are grounded in the generalisation of the experience and capacities of individuals who are as different from those towards which a service is being offered as apples and oranges.

To be honest I think that there hasnt ever been an egalitarian society, certainly not in the sense of a uniform expectation and consequences, and I think it could be horrifying, not for the conventional conservative or capitalist critique but for the kind of result that complete eradication of paternalism in all its forms could have.