I don't know if I'm completely missing the point on what equality entails, but this was one thought I came up with:
"Actual equality" is something I see as physically impossible and morally improbable. We humans are all different; some people are more athletic than others, some are more intelligent, some are tall, some are short, some are in-between, we are all different colors, etc. Beyond the physical factors, we're also all different in personality, who we are as individuals and what values we believe in.
Since this is the case, it seems as though equality is something that can't truly happen outside of a Utopian society. However, I thought that maybe "implied equality" is the kind of "equality" that is most relevant.
What I mean by this is if, in social interactions, we treat each other as though we are equals, and think nothing of our actual differences, then don't we, in a sense, become equals as long as we consider ourselves to be so? We can be totally different on a number of levels, but as long as we imply, be it through words or actions, that we're really on the same level, does that count as equality?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that "implied equality" as you defined it definitely counts as equality. The concept of social equality has a powerful draw in my opinion, and it seems a lot easier to implement than a policy of absolute equality including redistribution of wealth (which I'm not convinced is morally favorable anyways). One would hope that implied equality would become a social norm within society; this could feasibly resolve many of the potential negative psychological effects that may be linked to inequality of wealth, as Silliman has suggested in class.
ReplyDelete