Equality

[The Voice of Time]

"I do believe there is a singular explanation for equality"

I'm all ears.

Read mine, and you got it.

[henry quirk]

Perhaps Manny has a better 'explanation'.

[Immanuel Can]

In his inimitable, blunt but engaging style, VOT is right

My apologies, VOT: I had recalled you as posting a remark which was actually floated by Mr. Quirk. However, had you said it, it would still have been a perfectly sensible remark. You won't mind even inadvertently being called "right" I hope.

No harm, no foul, I trust.

[Immanuel Can]

Mr. Quirk:

I shall do my best.

My thought is this: I agree with philosopher Nicholas Wolterstoff's recent book on Justice, in which he points out that we are in trouble no matter what human attribute we pick out as an indicator of equality. For example, if we pick "reason," then those who have less of it are, by inference, inevitably "less human" than those who do, so children, mentally challenged persons, and emotional people are not "equal" to academics. If we pick "individuality," then dependents and communitarians are "less human" than those who are automomous and self-driven...and so on. There is no argument for equality to be found in any criterion which can be had by a person in greater or lesser measure; those all rationalize inequality.

We're in a different kind of rational trouble if we pick something like "DNA" as the definer of humanness: it's that the fact that we happen to have a certain pattern of amino acids is just what philosophers call a "bare fact"; that is, it may be true, but its truth does not suggest we "owe" something like "rights" to a particular DNA sequence. Why should we assert that our DNA is morally better than that of chimps or dogs or fish or amoebae? We would need to explain that, and we can't.

So whatever we use to ground a claim of "equality," it cannot be any of these things. It has to be something larger, something beyond the advantages and disadvantages possessed by individual persons, and not something that is merely a bare fact. It has to be the same for all human beings, regardless of the contingencies of their birth and position. In other words, humans as a mass can only have rights if Someone gives them to them.

I have looked, but I have found no explanation capable of grounding equality or human rights except one. (If I have missed any, I would be very interested to hear what people think it might be.) We can rule out the most common candidates very quickly. Humans cannot impart to each other the quality of equality; and clearly, lower animals are even less capable than we are. Political bodies are just clusters of persons with particular shared interests, so they cannot either. Nations are just political organizations that come and go as borders change, so any rights they ascribe die with the State and never extend beyond its borders anyway.

All cultures, governing bodies, ideologues, enthusiasts and proclaimers of rights are capable of being doubted, and none can provide a defense against skepticism. And that which does not exist independent and above the throes of the human drama has the sort of enduring authority that can guarantee we are right to ascribe any equality of value or rights to all persons.

But Immanuel can.

[The Voice of Time]

My apologies, VOT: I had recalled you as posting a remark which was actually floated by Mr. Quirk. However, had you said it, it would still have been a perfectly sensible remark. You won't mind even inadvertently being called "right" I hope.

No harm, no foul, I trust.

'Course not But you should edit so the rightful person is addressed, not for my but his sake.

[Immanuel Can]

Quite right. Mea Culpa.

[henry quirk]

"you should edit so the rightful person is addressed, not for my but his sake"

Makes me no nevermind...any one readin' the thread knows 'who' said 'what'.

[henry quirk]

"But Immanuel can."

As in...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel

...yes?

[Immanuel Can]

But of course.

[henry quirk]

Mannie,

Since you're a believer (and I'm not), you have an 'in' I don't...could you mebbe get a meeting with Jesus for me? I'd like to hear from the Savior’s mouth about how men are created equal.

[Immanuel Can]

Henry:

I 'd be happy to, but you'd be better to go talk to John Locke, since the first and only person to provide a rational legitimation of human rights. His essay "On Toleration" pretty much covers all that.

I can explain further, if you prefer. But if you look at what he says, you'll have no reason to doubt me.

[henry quirk]

Locke is great, but I'd prefer to interview the source, not His proxy.

So: when's Jesus gonna ring me up?

I imagine He has my cell number...

[Immanuel Can]

Henry:

If we suppose that the Supreme Being exists, and exists precisely in the form implicit in Locke, the implications of His existence slip by most of us. But Locke didn't miss the point -- he gives a simple, grounded rationale explaining why if you believe in God you *have* to believe in human equality (and autonomy rights, I might add).

So if you're asking for a proper explanation of the reasoning I was speaking about, I recommend Locke. If you are asking me if I would be so kind as to arrange the Supreme Being to dance attendance on my wishes, then I fear you may have overestimated my powers of persuasion, and perhaps mistaken the servant for the Master.

If I have any delusions of Godhood, I trust they do not extend that far.

[henry quirk]

But, Manny, I thought I was clear up-thread: I'm not a believer.

I get Locke's arguments; his foundation, however, is sand.

My little request to meet Jesus was a joke, from apathetic agnostic to theist.


So -- as it stands -- there's no foundation to any of this 'equality' crap beyond personal preference (how one chooses to treat another).

[Immanuel Can]

You were indeed. However, that does not mean you are not entitled to respect for anything you ask; and you did ask. I simply honoured your request.

I'm glad you've grasped Locke's argument. I also cannot take issue with your conclusion, if your foundational supposition is right. And I would suggest you quite rightly conclude that if indeed his foundation is, as you put it, "sand," (ironically employing a Biblical metaphor, I recognize), then there is no known basis for equality or, for that matter, for human rights. I have no bone of contention with you over that: we agree.

The fact that I do not think his basis is "sand" is neither here nor there in the discussion; you do not live and die to please me, and like Locke, I would never dream of impinging on your right to do so. I only suppose that since we are in a philosophy forum we consider the rational results of *whatever* view we hold; on this forum, that doesn't seem an unreasonable thing to expect, does it?

So far from badgering you, I agree. My residual interest would be in gleaning from anyone who actually is *afraid* to make your quite courageous and frank conclusion (and hence who continues to believe in equality) on what basis they continue to hold that belief. I ask because I have never been able to find a grounded account outside of Locke, and would be interested to know if anyone else thinks they have.