Re: Equality: Fundamental Truth, or necessary sham?

[Paul Hubbard <curley_boy_99@yahoo.co.uk>]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


I don't think there is any natural form of equality
(either socially or biologically speaking). 
'Equality' is an ideal that has evolved with society. 
Certainly we are not born biologically equal, as we
all look different and are born with different tastes
and potential talents.  But perhaps what is meant by
equality in the 'social' sense (what people refer to
when they say: "All men are made equal") is that we
should all be treated alike.

But surely this too, although an initially noble
sounding ideal, is problematic?  In what way ought we
all to be treated alike?  For if none of us are born
alike, then surely it would be unjust to be treated as
such?  How many of us here, I wonder, suffered under a
system of formal education that believed that each
child was fundamentally the same (and would therefore
benefit from a similarly uniform method of education)?
 But in the justice system, do we not treat the
convicted man in a different manner to that of the
innocent: the former is deprived of his freedom, and
the latter not?

So if we can agree that 'biological' equality is
nonsense when applied to human beings, and that
'social' equality is not without its controversies,
then where does this leave this once cherished ideal
of ours?  What is required is a definition of 'social'
equality that does not lend itself to interpretations
that lead to some of the pitfalls I have detailed
above.  Perhaps, then, what we ought to mean, when we
talk of 'equality' in this context, is nothing more
than to talk about 'fairness'.  That each individual,
whatever the circumstances of his birth, should be
given the same opportunities to realise his potentials
as his peers, and the same opportunity to defend
himself before the law.  Sex, race, nationality,
disability, social class etc should not be an
impediment to achievement in our society.

But what distinguishes 'fairness' from 'equality'
(defined as vaguely as it usually is in social and
ideological contexts), is that although all men ought
to be free to pursue their ambitions within the
boundaries of the law, they ought not to be treated as
if each of them were the SAME man (with the same
dreams, hopes and desires, and the same methods of
achieving each).  The first step in achieving this aim
is through education.

At the present, our school system is geared towards
pumping out what I can only describe as 'drones'
(people suited to dull, repetitive and, ultimately,
unrewarding work).  There is no thought given to the
future of culture, or the development of critical
thought: the student is nothing more than the
mouthpiece for the ideals of the state.  Only when we
have a system in place where individuals receive an
education designed to actualise their full potential
as individual human beings (as well as subjects under
the crown) can the other 'inequalities' in our society
be tackled head-on: racism, sexism, religious hatred
etc.  Quality of education -- as opposed to knee-jerk
legislation -- is the way forward for the ideal of
'equality'.

(As for Rawls, he is a figure whom I have heard a lot
about, but, regrettably, read next to nothing of.  I
will try and rectify this when the opportunity next
presents itself.)


		
___________________________________________________________ 
Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. Enter now. http://www.yahoo.co.uk/blackberry


Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml