We All Are Equal Essay Definition

  • All men are created equal but all men do not develop equal.

    Yes, all men are born with a penis. That makes them equal. The mind at birth is a clean slate. How they develop makes men unequal by the time they reach puberty. I was created equal but I am smarter than 99% of the population because I developed that way. You are not my equal. I'm not saying I am better than you---just not equal.

  • I am No Different than you are

    Just because I maybe Black or African American does not mean that i am not capable of doing the same thing that a Caucasian can do. As a matter of fact I know some Caucasian's that can not do things that I am capable of doing. I also know females that can do things that i am not able to do

  • Yes, we all have the same value.

    I believe that all men are created equal. Not everybody is or looks the same, but everybody deserves the same rights and opportunities. Some people in the world believe that not everybody is equal, that not everybody deserves the same, that some people don’t deserve to be treated equal. No matter what the color of your skin, your race, or your ethnicity you are equal to everybody.
    Some people might think that if you are black then you aren’t as good as they are, but there are people from all races and ethnicities that have been famous for being intelligent or good at a sport. Just because someone isn’t as smart as others mean that they aren’t equal. They just didn’t get as good of an education, had personal problems, or didn’t make good decisions. If we weren’t equal then one race or ethnicity would take over and the other races or ethnicities would extinct. Everybody is created equal and should be treated equally.

  • Equality as a Guarantee?

    We are: equally innocent, equally dependent, and equally insured by the Dec. of Ind. free to pursue happiness. However, there is no guarantees that we will all develop the same abilities, share the same experiences, or have the same desires. Our government for example can build Universities insuring that all citizens have the same opportunities to attend, it cannot insure your willingness, personal circumstances or ability to attend. As the FDA can limit the drugs marketed, insure a certain quality but cannot insure that every citizen will metabolize a drug in the same way. No one is perfect, no country, no government can guarantee complete equality when government is of the people for we are after all equally human.

  • Yes

    Yes actually I think so. All men are at least born equal and will later chose how they want to be treated (subconciously of course) but yes they are created equal. Can you consider one unborn child better than another? Babies are all equally important wether you are born a prince or a slave in your mother's womb, completely innocent, you are equal.

  • All men equal

    We all were born equal. With nothing but our physical body. No common sense, no money, no education. That is something we develop over the years. How can we call one child more successful or more wealthy when it has just arrived in this world. It has nothing. We need to understand that. And give everyone equal rights.

  • Of course they are

    All men are created equal because everyone has an equal chance to succeed in life and everyone has the chance to do some thing good. Family background doesn't make a difference because only that person can make a change to their behaviour or educational abilities. So all men have a chance to succeed so yes everyone is equal.

  • Dna, a recipe for perfection, doesn’t discriminate

    Evolution supplies each member of a species with the same DNA, allowing each the same level of perfection. Some lions are not born inferior to other lions. The same with humans. But while lions become perfect lions, if there’s no genetic damage or environmental shortcomings, humans are not genetically equipped with the appropriate instincts and anatomy to automatically become perfect members of the species Homo sapiens. However, we have been genetically equipped with a rich imagination, creative talents and the freedom of choice to overcome the challenges of life. Our perfection is described in Matthew 5: our goal must be to use our innate talents fully so as to become the salt of the earth (i.E. The spice that gives culture it’s variety). In a nutshell, Matthew 5:48: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Jewish psychiatrist Alfred Adler (1870–1937) elaborated: “God who is eternally complete, who directs the stars, who is the master of fates, who elevates man from his lowliness to Himself, who speaks from the cosmos to every single human soul, is the most brilliant manifestation of the goal of perfection.”

  • Equal but Different

    Others have already pointed this out, but, to reiterate: Those saying "yes" are saying "yes" to all men being equal as objects of intrinsic value and worth; those saying "no" are saying "no" to all men being equal of ability and life circumstances. These two votes are not mutually exclusive. Most of us probably believe both positions.

    All humans are intrinsically valuable and equally needing of love, compassion, and grace. At the same time, it is an obvious, observable fact that individual humans are different from one another in the life circumstances which influence them and the choices they make. A mass murderer, a Christian saint, and a young child are all equal in their underlying nature as human souls-- but they are not 'the same' in terms of what they have been exposed to and how they have responded.

  • But with conditions

    Let me clarify my answer. When I say all men are created equal, I mean we are all born with a blank slate - no knowledge, no common sense, nothing but a physical body and a mind with the potential to do great things. Things get complicated when you start to factor things in like the learning environment, outside influences, and living conditions, which affect the way humans develop (and often unequally).

  • Social equality is a state of affairs in which all people within a specific society or isolated group have the same status in certain respects, including civil rights, freedom of speech, property rights and equal access to certain social goods and services. However, it also includes concepts of health equality, economic equality and other social securities. It also includes equal opportunities and obligations, and so involves the whole of society. Social equality requires the absence of legally enforced social class or caste boundaries and the absence of discrimination motivated by an inalienable part of a person's identity.[1] For example, sex, gender, race, age, sexual orientation, origin, caste or class, income or property, language, religion, convictions, opinions, health or disability must absolutely not result in unequal treatment under the law and should not reduce opportunities unjustifiably.

    "Equal opportunities" is interpreted as being judged by ability, which is compatible with a free-market economy. Relevant problems are horizontal inequality − the inequality of two persons of same origin and ability and differing opportunities given to individuals − such as in (education) or by inherited capital.

    Conceivements of social equality may vary per philosophy and individual and other than egalitarianism it does not necessarily require all social inequalities to be eliminated by artificial means but instead often recognizes and respects natural differences between people.

    Ontological[edit]

    The standard of equality that states everyone is created equal at birth is called ontological equality. This type of equality can be seen in many different places like the Declaration of Independence. This early document, which states many of the values of the United States of America, has this idea of equality embedded in it. It clearly states that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". The statement reflects the philosophy of John Locke and his idea that we are all equal in certain natural rights. Although this standard of equality is seen in documents as important as the Declaration of Independence, it is "one not often invoked in policy debates these days".[2] However this notion of equality is often used to justify inequalities such as material inequality. Dalton Conley claims that ontological equality is used to justify material inequality by putting a spotlight on the fact, legitimated by theology, that "the distribution of power and resources here on earth does not matter, because all of us are equally children of God and will have to face our maker upon dying". Dalton Conley, the author of You May Ask Yourself, claims that ontological equality can also be used to put forth the notion that poverty is virtue. Luciano Floridi, author of a book about information, wrote about what he calls the ontological equality principle. His work on information ethics raises the importance of equality when presenting information. Here is a short sample of his work:

    Information ethics is impartial and universal because it brings to ultimate completion the process of enlargement of the concept of what may count as a centre of a (no matter how minimal) moral claim, which now includes every instance of being understood informationally, no matter whether physically implemented or not. In this respect information ethics holds that every entity as an expression of being, has a dignity constituted by its mode of existence and essence (the collection of all the elementary properties that constitute it for what it is), which deserve to be respected (at least in a minimal and overridable sense), and hence place moral claims on the interacting agent and ought to contribute to the constraint and guidance of his ethical decisions and behaviour.[3]

    Floridi goes onto claim that this "ontological equality principle means that any form of reality (any instance of information/being), simply for the fact of being what it is, enjoys a minimal, initial, overridable, equal right to exist and develop in a way which is appropriate to its nature."[3] Values in his claims correlate to those shown in the sociological textbook You May Ask Yourself by Dalton Conley. The notion of "ontological equality" describes equality by saying everything is equal by nature. Everyone is created equal at birth. Everything has equal right to exist and develop by its nature.[2]

    Opportunity[edit]

    Main article: Equality of opportunity

    Another standard of equality is equality of opportunity, "the idea that everyone has an equal chance to achieve wealth, social prestige, and power because the rules of the game, so to speak, are the same for everyone".[2] This concept can be applied to society by saying that no one has a head start. This means that, for any social equality issue dealing with wealth, social prestige, power, or any of that sort, the equality of opportunity standard can defend the idea that everyone had the same start. This views society almost as a game and any of the differences in equality are due to luck and playing the "game" to one's best ability. Conley gives an example of this standard of equality by using a game of Monopoly to describe society. He claims that "Monopoly follows the rules of equality of opportunity" by explaining that everyone had an equal chance when starting the game and any differences were a result of the luck of the dice roll and the skill of the player to make choices to benefit their wealth. Comparing this example to society, the standard of equality of opportunity eliminates inequality because the rules of the games in society are still fair and the same for all; therefore making any existing inequalities in society fair. Lesley A. Jacobs, the author of Pursuing Equal Opportunities: The Theory and Practice of Egalitarian Justice, talks about equality of opportunity and its importance relating to egalitarian justice. Jacobs states that

    at the core of equality of opportunity... is the concept that in competitive procedures designed for the allocation of scarce resources and the distribution of the benefits and burdens of social life, those procedures should be governed by criteria that are relevant to the particular goods at stake in the competition and not by irrelevant considerations such as race, religion, class, gender, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or other factors that may hinder some of the competitors’ opportunities at success. (Jacobs, 10).

    This concept points out factors like race, gender, class etc. that should not be considered when talking about equality through this notion. Conley also mentions that this standard of equality is at the heart of a bourgeois society, such as a modern capitalist society, or "a society of commerce in which the maximization of profit is the primary business incentive".[2] It was the equal opportunity ideology that civil rights activists adopted in the era of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. This ideology was used by them to argue that Jim Crow laws were incompatible with the standard of equality of opportunity.

    Condition[edit]

    Main article: Leveling mechanism

    Another notion of equality introduced by Conley is equality of condition. Through this framework is the idea that everyone should have an equal starting point. Conley goes back to his example of a game of Monopoly to explain this standard. If the game of four started off with two players both having an advantage of $5,000 dollars to start off with and both already owning hotels and other property while the other two players both did not own any property and both started off with a $5,000 dollar deficit, then from a perspective of the standard of equality of condition, one can argue that the rules of the game "need to be altered in order to compensate for inequalities in the relative starting positions".[2] From this we form policies in order to even equality which in result bring an efficient way to create fairer competition in society. Here is where social engineering comes into play where we change society in order to give an equality of condition to everyone based on race, gender, class, religion etc. when it is made justifiable that the proponents of the society makes it unfair for them.

    Sharon E. Kahn, author of Academic Freedom and the Inclusive University, talks about equality of condition in their work as well and how it correlates to freedom of individuals. They claim that in order to have individual freedom there needs to be equality of condition "which requires much more than the elimination of legal barriers: it requires the creation of a level playing field that eliminates structural barriers to opportunity".[4] Her work talks about the academic structure and its problem with equalities and claims that to "ensure equity...we need to recognize that the university structure and its organizational culture have traditionally privileged some and marginalized other; we need to go beyond theoretical concepts of equality by eliminating systemic barriers that hinder the equal participation of members of all groups; we need to create and equality of condition, not merely an equality of opportunity".[4] "Notions of equity, diversity, and inclusiveness begin with a set of premises about individualism, freedom and rights that take as given the existence of deeply rooted inequalities in social structure," therefore in order to have a culture of the inclusive university, it would have to "be based on values of equity; that is, equality of condition" eliminating all systemic barriers that go against equality.[4]

    Outcome[edit]

    Main article: Equality of outcome

    A fourth standard of equality is equality of outcome, which is "a position that argues each player must end up with the same amount regardless of the fairness".[2] This ideology is predominately a Marxist philosophy that is concerned with equal distribution of power and resources rather than the rules of society. In this standard of equality the idea is that "everyone contributes to society and to the economy according to what they do best.".[2] Under this notion of equality, Conley states that "nobody will earn more power, prestige, and wealth by working harder".

    When defining equality of outcome in education, "the goals should not be the liberal one of equality of access but equality of outcome for the median number of each identifiable non-educationally defined group, i.e. the average women, negro, or proletarian or rural dweller should have the same level of educational attainment as the average male, white, suburbanite".[5] The outcome and the benefits from equality from education from this notion of equality promotes that all should have the same outcomes and benefits regardless of race, gender, religion etc. The equality of outcome in Hewitt's point of view is supposed to result in "a comparable range of achievements between a specific disadvantaged group – such as an ethnic minority, women, lone parents and the disabled – and society as a whole".[5]

    References[edit]

    Further reading[edit]

    • Arnold, Matthew (1879). "Equality." In: Mixed Essays. New York: Macmillan & Co., pp. 48–97.
    • Bell, Daniel (1972). "On Meritocracy and Equality,"The Public Interest, No. 29, pp. 29–68.
    • Bryce, James (1898). "Equality,"The Century; A Popular Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 459–469.
    • Dreikurs, Rudolf (1983). Social Equality; The Challenge of Today. Chicago, IL: Alfred Adler Institute of Chicago.
    • Gil, David G. (1976). The Challenge of Social Equality. Cambridge: Schenkman Pub. Co.
    • Hyneman, Charles S. (1980). "Equality: Elusive Ideal or Beguiling Delusion?,"The Modern Age, Vol. XXIV, No. 3, pp. 226–237.
    • Jackman, Robert W. (1975). Politics and Social Equality. New York: Wiley.
    • Lane, Robert E. (1959). "The Fear of Equality," The American Political Science Review, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 35–51.
    • Lucas, J.R. (1965). "Against Equality,"Philosophy, Vol. 40, pp. 296–307.
    • Lucas, J.R. (1977). "Against Equality Again,"Philosophy, Vol. 52, pp. 255–280.
    • Mallock, William H. (1882). Social Equality: A Short Study in a Missing Science. London: Richard Bentley and Son.
    • Merwin, Henry Childs (1897). "The American Notion of Equality,"The Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 80, pp. 354–363.
    • Nagel, Thomas (1978). "The Justification of Equality," Crítica: Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía, Vol. 10, No. 28, pp. 3–31.
    • Nisbet, Richard (1974). "The Pursuit of Equality", The Public Interest, Vol. 35, pp. 103–120.
    • Rothbard, Murray N. (1995). "Egalitarianism and the Elites,"The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 39–57.
    • Rougier, Louis (1974). "Philosophical Origins of the Idea of Natural Equality,"The Modern Age, Vol. XVIII, No. 1, pp. 29–38.
    • Stephen, James Fitzjames (1873). "Equality." In: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. New York: Holt & Williams, pp. 189–255.
    • Stephen, Leslie (1891). "Social Equality,"International Journal of Ethics, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 261–288.
    • Tonsor, Stephen J. (1979). "Liberty and Equality as Absolutes,"The Modern Age, Vol. XXIII, No. 1, pp. 2–9.
    • Tonsor, Stephen J. (1980). "Equality and Ancient Society,"The Modern Age, Vol. XXIV, No. 2, pp. 134–141.
    • Tonsor, Stephen J. (1980). "The New Natural Law and the Problem of Equality,"The Modern Age, Vol. XXIV, No. 3, pp. 238–247.
    • Tonsor, Stephen J. (1980). "Equality in the New Testament,"The Modern Age, Vol. XXIV, No. 4, pp. 345–354.
    • Tonsor, Stephen J. (1981). "Equality: The Greek Historical Experience,"The Modern Age, Vol. XXV, No. 1, pp. 46–55.
    • Velasco, Gustavo R. (1974). "On Equality and Egalitarianism,"The Modern Age, Vol. XVIII, No. 1, pp. 21–28.

    Comments

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *