Sidewinderpro2 Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 I am currently writing an editorial piece concerning the misuse of the word "equality" in political, economic, and social contexts and analyzing the nonsense of egalitarianism. My problem at the moment is providing a basic definition and explanation of equality. Following an introduction, the piece in question currently reads: "What is equality? A dictionary will provide one with a basic answer: the state of being identical in value (i.e. “the same”). However, one must realize that one entity cannot be another entity, only itself. The entity can never be fully equal to something else. Two objects, no matter how similar they appear to be, cannot be the same thing as they occupy different , particular quantities of matter. Equality in a material sense cannot exist when such a definition is held as it is." Simply put, did I explain this correctly, or have I made some errors in the logic? The next step will be a comparison to equality in concepts (to set the grounds for a comparison on interpretation of rights based on common phrases that use "equality"). Any and all feedback is appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 It's hard to make any judgement from a few sentences. It depends how you develop the idea. However, if I were a typical advocate of equality, I would read this little snippet as raising a straw-man. For instance, I may think: "I don't want to make Mr. X equal to Mr. Y; I just want them paid equal amounts of money". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L-C Posted March 11, 2010 Report Share Posted March 11, 2010 Equal in effect regardless of cause. Translation (read in Ralph's voice (The Simpsons)): Force force force force force force ... ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert J. Kolker Posted March 11, 2010 Report Share Posted March 11, 2010 I do not have a problem with the concept of equality (in respect to some property or relation). My alarm bells are set off by equalization, forcing two different things to be the same regardless of their true nature. Bob Kolker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayR Posted March 11, 2010 Report Share Posted March 11, 2010 "What is equality? A dictionary will provide one with a basic answer: the state of being identical in value (i.e. “the same”). However, one must realize that one entity cannot be another entity, only itself. The entity can never be fully equal to something else. Two objects, no matter how similar they appear to be, cannot be the same thing as they occupy different , particular quantities of matter. Equality in a material sense cannot exist when such a definition is held as it is." If the piece your writing is about social equality, or egalitarianism this definition seems too metaphysical. It would be more effective if you examined the ethics of equality, and explain why something/someone is valued in the first place. This is a good topic, I hope to read the final work, are you planning on posting it here? j.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapitalistSwine Posted March 11, 2010 Report Share Posted March 11, 2010 This is a good topic, I hope to read the final work, are you planning on posting it here? I also would very much like to read the finished work once you get it all worked out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokarrin Posted March 11, 2010 Report Share Posted March 11, 2010 I can see two possible senses in which the word "equal" may be used: quantitative and qualitative. The qualitative sense is the one that would properly be used in the phrase "equal rights", since freedom is not a matter of degree, and cannot be usefully described quantitatively. The quantitative sense applies to two people who, for instance, receive the same salary for their work. Misuse of the word in the context you seem to be working in would arise from confusion between these two senses. When seeking a quantitative measure to determine how to enforce an imaginary right, it is quite easy to find that people from different social groups have very wide differences in affluence in the aggregate, and to therefore state implicitly that "these people have 42% more rights than those people, and we need to fix that". In reality, the only way that equality can be applied to rights and freedom is in the sense that the same laws, not the same economic conditions as a result of those laws, are applied universally. It should be a qualitative judgment, not a quantitative measure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidewinderpro2 Posted March 12, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2010 Thank you all for the input. I am in the process of finalizing the piece. I placed quite a bit of emphasis on picking apart the basics of egalitarianism, in relation to the various uses of the word "equality." I described three popular ideas, "Equal opportunity," "Equality of output" and "Equal protection of the law," the final being the only one I advocated. The scope and length restrictions prevented me from going out of the original scope of the piece, but I plan on writing about other issues to try to stimulate some minds out there. Even if all the readers continue on as they are without change, the process of writing helps my understanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidewinderpro2 Posted March 20, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2010 I have posted the final piece in the Productivity forum. Again, thanks for the assistance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.