Altruism and Education

[RWStanding]

It is evident enough that moral rules need to be made applicable to classes of subjects. Men, women, children, antelopes and zebras – or broadly nature other than humanity. But the core values, such as equality, freedom, diversity, are all universals. However they have their antonyms or opposites as universal values also. It is the way they relate that defines their limitations. Forms of society exist within those universal values. Such as altruism, which is a combination of values.
It would be absurd to employ equality so as to portray all people as morally equal. Even anarchist society will have its criminal law, while tending to provide equality to a wide and disparate range of person. Extreme authoritarian society has little truck with freedom and equality. Altruism relates together such values as freedom and social responsibility, including diversity, but that diversity only inclusive of ethical deviations so far as they are tolerable.
And whereas altruism logically accords many rights to its citizens, they must be balanced by duties. Young people with the right to education and the duty to employ it for social good, with self-interest secondary.

[Skepdick]

the core values, such as equality, freedom, diversity, are all universals. However they have their antonyms or opposites.

They are their own opposites, because no right is ever absolute.

Economic freedom (in the sense of Laissez-faire) results in inequality.
Freedom of choice hinders diversity because if subconscious bias.
Freedom of association hinders freedom of speech. By virtue of social ostracism.
We have the paradox of tolerance. And the well understood social phenomenon that the most intolerant usually win.

Human rights contradict each other. Trying to get the balance right is a lot like balancing a pencil on its tip.

[Immanuel Can]

... the core values, such as equality, freedom, diversity, are all universals.

In what sense? It's certainly empirically untrue to think that all people "universally" believe in them. It would only be true to say that those who DO believe in them believe they should be "universally" respected...but no more than that, surely.

...altruism, which is a combination of values.

Which "values" does it "combine"? Later, you say,

Altruism relates together such values as freedom and social responsibility, including diversity, but that diversity only inclusive of ethical deviations so far as they are tolerable.

I don't think this is true at all. One could be an "altruist" in an unfree society, or in an irresponsible one.

And as for "diversity," it isn't even a value...it's a statement of fact about a group of people; one may or may not be "diverse," but it's far from clear how a "diverse" group is always better than one that is less "diverse." For example, a workforce, a team, or an army may be far more effective being less "diverse," in some ways. If you blended all women's sports with all men's, you'd be more "diverse," but would not serve the interests of either group...and that would be bad diversity, surely.

Meanwhile, "diversity" is just a descriptive adjective; but "values" are moral judgments, not statements of observable fact. So "diversity" is surely not either a value or universal.

It would be absurd to employ equality so as to portray all people as morally equal.

Okay. Fair enough. That's logical, since their "moralities" often conflict.

Extreme authoritarian society has little truck with freedom and equality.

Right.

Well, there's your counterexample to the idea that "equality, freedom and diversity" are universally held, so I see you can't have meant that at the start. Fair enough.

But what set of values is granted the power to dub another society "authoritarian"? From whence do we get that, and how do we know that an "authoritarian" society is "bad" in a universal way? Those are follow-up problems.

And whereas altruism logically accords many rights to its citizens, they must be balanced by duties. Young people with the right to education and the duty to employ it for social good, with self-interest secondary.

"Altruism logically accords..." Those are three words that make no sense together. It reads "an abstract value, by logical calculation, gives."

However, your claim that rights must be balanced by duties is surely an important realization.

But why must "social good" come first, and "self-interest" be secondary? Which particular code requires this, and will people ever be inclined to obey it, if it did? Rand and Nietzsche would have argued that an enlightened "self-interest" WAS the only possible social good. So why do you see these as being different?