A while ago, we had some talk going about democracy, aristocracy, meritocracy and all that jazz. I was leafing through Plato's republic around that time, and stumbled back onto that good ol' Concept of Philosophicus Rex. It's the sort of thing that appeals to us (or at least, some of us) when we start studying philosophy, before we come back down from our high horses and act like proper academics. However, while I was thinking back over this, recently, the question came to me like an evidence that I had somehow skipped over in the process of my education: "Why exactly are we all equal, again?". I dare say our current social model is somewhat based on this concept (ideally), and I personally quite like it that way. But I think it's our duty as fledgeling philosophers to ask fundamental questions, and question fundamental "truths". So why are we equal then? And if we are equal, how so? I see quite a few ways in which we are not equal in terms of identity. Some of us are blond, some have brown skin, some are men, some are left-handed, some have hair in bizarre places, etc... There's no question of "better-ness" involved, just the evidence that blond hair is not equal to brown hair, both not being equal to black hair. So I do not think this is what is considered one of our most fundamental human rights means by "all men are born equal". But we are not equal beings mentally either. There are a myriad of "types" of brains out there: big ones, small ones, female ones, males ones, whatever-is-in-the-middle ones, ones with chemical imbalance, ones with electricity shooting through that shouldn't be, ones with "problems", ones with overdeveloped areas. Defining "smart" is hard enough as it is not only dependent on the brain (or is it), and I have doubts concerning the scientific value of statements such as "he has a literary mind", or "his brain is made for maths" (although this is really the case for a very small percent of humans, and a non-negligeable percent of autistic people). But nonetheless, it's quite evident that our cerebral phenotype plays some part in the... extent of our cognitive abilities. What's more, what holds true for the mental also holds true for the physical in the case, as some people are predisposed to be physically stronger or more able than others (and some, less able). Once again, training and conditioning play a part, but if your genes say you're going to be 150 centimeters tall and you want to play basketball, you can train all you want, you're not going to get very far. To resume the above: although in the last two cases (brain and body) I did mention notions of capacity, let's set them aside for a second. Reading "equality" as "equality in identity", it is safe to say that humans are not equal (and thankfully so!). So what is this "equality"? Is it equality in capacity (read: potential)? I believe this fits the social concept of equality these days (or should, ideally) in that it is assumed that everyone can (perhaps) become anything and should not be denied the opportunities to prove his or her capacities. Ironically, this implies that "equality" is simply the ability to prove that one is not equal to his or her peers (in being better at a certain task). This apparent contradiction makes me feel a bit unsecured about the concept of equality: I, a defender of a certain degree of moral relativity, still appreciate the concept of "moral convention" insofar as conventions are questioned and reviewed on a regular basis. But what of a convention which defines itself as the negation of itself? Equality is a term so often thrown about with the noblest intentions these days, but which equality is being discussed? Does it exclude other concepts of equality, and should it? I'm not too well read on ethics, but I know we have quite a selection ethics enthusiasts reading this, and would be delighted to hear what you think of this egalitarian conundrum. -- Edward. |