Political Crossfire Forums

['Till Trumpets Sound]

Well...are we created equal? Your reasoning please.

[The Comrade]

'Till Trumpets Sound wrote: Well...are we created equal? Your reasoning please.


until we're all one race, one sex, one mind we will never be equal.

[Paladin]

We are created by God equal. We are all his children but some make him happier than others. :lol: We are all equal in that we all have choice.

[Alfrond]

'Till Trumpets Sound wrote: Well...are we created equal? Your reasoning please.

Who said we were created? :-o

[Atlas Bergeron]

We are equal in natural rights. Becuase we each have the ability to reason for ourselves and decide our own actions, it is right that we each take upon ourselves the consequences of our actions.

We are not, however, equal in all aspects. Just in our natural relation to eachother. Our rights are equal

[Fido]

We are all equal, and all share the same identity philosophically. May be I did not say that quite right. I am philosophical about our shared identity, but some people clearly resent having to classed with a bunch of mere humans. They think they're special. They think they're going to go to heaven. They don't think they need to evolve cause God made them.

No, that sort of created equality may have done something to lessen the severity of Feudalism on the peasant, but it did nothing to set him free. That is because equality is impossible to accept, and to accept the impossibility of creation stacked like a turtle on the back of equality is too much to believe especially when it might interfere with your exploitation of your metaphysical equal. Does that make sense to you?

[Alextyphus]

Everyone has the same rights at birth but not everyone has the same opportunities to exercise them. I have a much better opportunity to exercise my right to free speech than someone born in China for instance.

I dont believe everyone has the right to be equal in later life. A serial rapist does not deserve the same rights as your average citizen, surely the act of rape in this case forfeits the rights to equality?

Rights come with responsibility, it seems lately there are a lot of people on the news for example who seem to forget that.

[mr.snruB]

Science indicates that we're all essentially the same thing, except for very minor adaptions. SO yes

[British boy]

I'm unsure as to the answer. Philosophically I would argue yes, I believe that everyone had an equal genesis (not necessarily from a religious perspective). However realistically I know that others cannot do some of the things that I can through lack of ability and education etc.
that can either mean that we are either not equal, or are but to donnot receive equality of oppurtunity. I think the latter seems more plausible.

[Atlas Bergeron]

British boy wrote: I'm unsure as to the answer. Philosophically I would argue yes, I believe that everyone had an equal genesis (not necessarily from a religious perspective). However realistically I know that others cannot do some of the things that I can through lack of ability and education etc.
that can either mean that we are either not equal, or are but to donnot receive equality of oppurtunity. I think the latter seems more plausible.

This is not what is meant by equality. It means that we all deserve our own lives, and it is our decision as to what to do with our own lives. It means that the initiation of force against any man is prohibited, that might does not mean right, and that men should live in society by consent rather than by force.

It means equal rights under natural law. Nothing else.

[Fido]

Quote: [quote="Atlas Bergeron"] British boy wrote: I'm unsure as to the answer. Philosophically I would argue yes, I believe that everyone had an equal genesis (not necessarily from a religious perspective). However realistically I know that others cannot do some of the things that I can through lack of ability and education etc.
that can either mean that we are either not equal, or are but to donnot receive equality of oppurtunity. I think the latter seems more plausible.

This is not what is meant by equality. It means that we all deserve our own lives, and it is our decision as to what to do with our own lives. It means that the initiation of force against any man is prohibited, that might does not mean right, and that men should live in society by consent rather than by force.

It means equal rights under natural law. Nothing else. [/guote]
Alright Atlas. You tacitly recognize the relationship between the metaphysical conception of humans and natural law. The only problem results if you consider mankind's nature differently than if we were created. If we are as a matter of genes and evolution equal then we are brothers as creation by God does not imply. We have an exacting equality with humans, a approximate equality with apes, and a near equality with mice. This is not to say we are the equals of mice except in certain situations, but we do have 90% of our genetic makeup in common. This does say we are the physical brothers of men and the cousins of mice. So we are not only equals under law, but equal of identity and equal as concept, and equals genetically.

[Atlas Bergeron]

[quote="Fido"] Quote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: British boy wrote: I'm unsure as to the answer. Philosophically I would argue yes, I believe that everyone had an equal genesis (not necessarily from a religious perspective). However realistically I know that others cannot do some of the things that I can through lack of ability and education etc.
that can either mean that we are either not equal, or are but to donnot receive equality of oppurtunity. I think the latter seems more plausible.

This is not what is meant by equality. It means that we all deserve our own lives, and it is our decision as to what to do with our own lives. It means that the initiation of force against any man is prohibited, that might does not mean right, and that men should live in society by consent rather than by force.

It means equal rights under natural law. Nothing else. [/guote]
Alright Atlas. You tacitly recognize the relationship between the metaphysical conception of humans and natural law. The only problem results if you consider mankind's nature differently than if we were created. If we are as a matter of genes and evolution equal then we are brothers as creation by God does not imply. We have an exacting equality with humans, a approximate equality with apes, and a near equality with mice. This is not to say we are the equals of mice except in certain situations, but we do have 90% of our genetic makeup in common. This does say we are the physical brothers of men and the cousins of mice. So we are not only equals under law, but equal of identity and equal as concept, and equals genetically.

The defining characteristic of common law which gives rights is the ability to gain conciousness, not genetic makeup (appart from the fact that genetics are what gives the human brain the ability to develop into a thinking entity). Even if the apes had all our genes but one, they would still not have rights becuase they cannot think anywhere near the level on which we do. This is a fundamental difference.

[LostSoul3412]

We can be considered equal, if, and only if, we are equal under the law.

Without that, then we can never be equals.

[Fido]

LostSoul3412 wrote: We can be considered equal, if, and only if, we are equal under the law.

Without that, then we can never be equals.

Law is a form and a formality. Genetic equality is fact. Because of our obedience, out of necessity, of the common law of genetic relationships, we have been able to maintain our genetic humanity- our equality as humans -even while separated by many thousands of years, and while continents apart.

Law protects inequality much more than it defends equality. Western law, even while based in many respects upon a metaphysical equality has always recognized inequality of wealth and positions as granted by God. The King's peace was always considered of greater value than the peace of peasants.

[Fido]

[quote="Atlas Bergeron"] Fido wrote: Quote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: British boy wrote: I'm unsure as to the answer. Philosophically I would argue yes, I believe that everyone had an equal genesis (not necessarily from a religious perspective). However realistically I know that others cannot do some of the things that I can through lack of ability and education etc.
that can either mean that we are either not equal, or are but to donnot receive equality of oppurtunity. I think the latter seems more plausible.

This is not what is meant by equality. It means that we all deserve our own lives, and it is our decision as to what to do with our own lives. It means that the initiation of force against any man is prohibited, that might does not mean right, and that men should live in society by consent rather than by force.

It means equal rights under natural law. Nothing else. [/guote]
Alright Atlas. You tacitly recognize the relationship between the metaphysical conception of humans and natural law. The only problem results if you consider mankind's nature differently than if we were created. If we are as a matter of genes and evolution equal then we are brothers as creation by God does not imply. We have an exacting equality with humans, a approximate equality with apes, and a near equality with mice. This is not to say we are the equals of mice except in certain situations, but we do have 90% of our genetic makeup in common. This does say we are the physical brothers of men and the cousins of mice. So we are not only equals under law, but equal of identity and equal as concept, and equals genetically.

The defining characteristic of common law which gives rights is the ability to gain conciousness, not genetic makeup (appart from the fact that genetics are what gives the human brain the ability to develop into a thinking entity). Even if the apes had all our genes but one, they would still not have rights becuase they cannot think anywhere near the level on which we do. This is a fundamental difference.

Law does not give rights, but sometimes recognizes rights, and gives those rights it recognizes the force of law.

I should only point out the many people like Terri Shiavo without the brains a bat would brag on to show you consciousness has little reference to rights. The main characteristic of common law was that it had the assent of those who made it and swore to uphold, and to enforce it. It was tied to the community, the commons, the commoners who once took and held England by force of arms and held it as free men. The commons were each man's right, equally. As a concept, common law does not spring from the philosophical, and metaphysical conclusion of human equality by creation from God. Rather, common law is a shared inheritance of common people who were equals first as a tribe, or nation, and then equals by contract in a common endeavor, which in the case of English common law comes from the Norse, or Danes who nearly took the whole of England. Do you have some better facts, or just unsupported conclusions?

[LostSoul3412]

Fido wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: We can be considered equal, if, and only if, we are equal under the law.

Without that, then we can never be equals.

Law is a form and a formality. Genetic equality is fact. Because of our obedience, out of necessity, of the common law of genetic relationships, we have been able to maintain our genetic humanity- our equality as humans -even while separated by many thousands of years, and while continents apart.

Law protects inequality much more than it defends equality. Western law, even while based in many respects upon a metaphysical equality has always recognized inequality of wealth and positions as granted by God. The King's peace was always considered of greater value than the peace of peasants.

Unfortunately genetic equality means nothing in the wake of common law.

Also, I agree that the law is not a standard of equality, but it is the only determining factor if we are truly equals. We can be equals in existance, but if we are unequal in society, then we are not equal.

[Numb]

"We are all created equal, but some are more equal then others." -Animal Farm

[Fido]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Fido wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: We can be considered equal, if, and only if, we are equal under the law.

Without that, then we can never be equals.

Law is a form and a formality. Genetic equality is fact. Because of our obedience, out of necessity, of the common law of genetic relationships, we have been able to maintain our genetic humanity- our equality as humans -even while separated by many thousands of years, and while continents apart.

Law protects inequality much more than it defends equality. Western law, even while based in many respects upon a metaphysical equality has always recognized inequality of wealth and positions as granted by God. The King's peace was always considered of greater value than the peace of peasants.

Unfortunately genetic equality means nothing in the wake of common law.

Also, I agree that the law is not a standard of equality, but it is the only determining factor if we are truly equals. We can be equals in existance, but if we are unequal in society, then we are not equal.

If you look at one form of common law, of the sort that governs common areas associated with many real estate developments you will find them referred to as covenants. Now, real estate is not the only place we have covenants, as marriage is another form of covenant. But, the point each of these covenant have in common is that people must be free to pledge. We know it is easier to accept a pledge from some one of our own nationality, or family. In fact we do it all the time. And in this same sense marriage is a covenant, not only between two people, but two families as well. The law enforces only what the people agree to. The law determines nothing in the sense of equality, and only enforces what is commonly accepted, that people are not equal. It would really pay for you to understand the ways our thoughts on rights have been evolving. We still have many people in this world living with the same conception of rights we had past a thousand years ago.