"All men (and women) are created equal ..." - Declaration of Independence
No. All human beings are not created equal. This statement is untrue, it does not account for the fact that all humans beings are born with a combination of genes (thanks chance!) that endow special abilities in some, and near fatal flaws in others. A child born with a hole in the hear is not equal to a perfectly healthy baby.
No. All human beings are not equal in their abilities. We have to accept this fact. There are some who are better at things than others. Some who will be better than others at everything that they do. There are a host of complex reasons for that, all that are not within the control of the human race as a whole. Social status, economic status and geographic locations play a huge role in the kind of abilities a human being develops. The question we should be asking ourselves is whether this natural inequality that exists in humans should translate to a feeling of natural superiority or empathetic pity for those with lesser ability? Both seem to be frowned upon by different groups of people today.
I wanted to make one thing very clear, none of my previous statements endorse an opinion that there are superior races. The link between race and genes has been debunked by the scientific community. Period. If I could device and experiment, I would expect the outcome to show the inequality in abilities is seen in both mixed race samples and samples that contain people of the same race. Not being equally able is a human trait that is not tainted by race, color or geographic location. The one aspect that needs to be taken into account in any such experiment is whether the sample set had the same/similar micro-environment and local circumstances.
The reason I got thinking on this topic is a recent conversation I had around affirmative action in the US and quotas in India. A majority of the people I have interacted with hold the view that there should be uniform processes and criteria defined for many things like admission to higher education institutions, social programs, employment programs, government benefits, and more. If human beings are truly unequal in their ability, then should there really be a uniform yardstick to measure all? To me it makes sense to evaluate eligibility in a relative sense before allocating a resource to a human being. That's fair. Given a set of equal circumstances, did I do better than the rest? Am I more deserving of this opportunity? Oh and before you go after me, I don't believe in the equal allocation of resources either (I am no socialist), but I do believe that the spread in the allocation of resources should be fair, or at least provide fairness in the opportunities in creates for human beings.
Not getting into the details of income inequality in this post, I will have write up my strong opinions on that topic in a different post soon, but would like to enumerate a bit about it. Income inequality I believe is a consequence, a tangible end result, of the fact that all human beings are not created equal. Circumstances, genetics, geographic location, the initial social and economic status of a family are all factors that determine the level of inequality in the ability of a human being to achieve. Income inequality is just one manifestation of the variances in these parameters.
The point that I would like my future self to remember, and hopefully pass on to others is that inequality exists, we have to learn to deal with it, and deal with it right. An empathetic view of inequality will help us come up with solutions that are fair and right. Accepting that inequality is real, probably natural, will help us come up with better solutions.
No. All human beings are not created equal. This statement is untrue, it does not account for the fact that all humans beings are born with a combination of genes (thanks chance!) that endow special abilities in some, and near fatal flaws in others. A child born with a hole in the hear is not equal to a perfectly healthy baby.
No. All human beings are not equal in their abilities. We have to accept this fact. There are some who are better at things than others. Some who will be better than others at everything that they do. There are a host of complex reasons for that, all that are not within the control of the human race as a whole. Social status, economic status and geographic locations play a huge role in the kind of abilities a human being develops. The question we should be asking ourselves is whether this natural inequality that exists in humans should translate to a feeling of natural superiority or empathetic pity for those with lesser ability? Both seem to be frowned upon by different groups of people today.
I wanted to make one thing very clear, none of my previous statements endorse an opinion that there are superior races. The link between race and genes has been debunked by the scientific community. Period. If I could device and experiment, I would expect the outcome to show the inequality in abilities is seen in both mixed race samples and samples that contain people of the same race. Not being equally able is a human trait that is not tainted by race, color or geographic location. The one aspect that needs to be taken into account in any such experiment is whether the sample set had the same/similar micro-environment and local circumstances.
The reason I got thinking on this topic is a recent conversation I had around affirmative action in the US and quotas in India. A majority of the people I have interacted with hold the view that there should be uniform processes and criteria defined for many things like admission to higher education institutions, social programs, employment programs, government benefits, and more. If human beings are truly unequal in their ability, then should there really be a uniform yardstick to measure all? To me it makes sense to evaluate eligibility in a relative sense before allocating a resource to a human being. That's fair. Given a set of equal circumstances, did I do better than the rest? Am I more deserving of this opportunity? Oh and before you go after me, I don't believe in the equal allocation of resources either (I am no socialist), but I do believe that the spread in the allocation of resources should be fair, or at least provide fairness in the opportunities in creates for human beings.
Not getting into the details of income inequality in this post, I will have write up my strong opinions on that topic in a different post soon, but would like to enumerate a bit about it. Income inequality I believe is a consequence, a tangible end result, of the fact that all human beings are not created equal. Circumstances, genetics, geographic location, the initial social and economic status of a family are all factors that determine the level of inequality in the ability of a human being to achieve. Income inequality is just one manifestation of the variances in these parameters.
The point that I would like my future self to remember, and hopefully pass on to others is that inequality exists, we have to learn to deal with it, and deal with it right. An empathetic view of inequality will help us come up with solutions that are fair and right. Accepting that inequality is real, probably natural, will help us come up with better solutions.
