Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Equalism and Egalitarianism

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2014 7:29:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Let us use this to discuss equalism in both the philosophical part and the ethical part. Please try to remember which you are discussing to make sure there is no confusion between debaters.

A brief run down, for anyone not entirely familiar. Philosophical equalism is the belief that all humans are of equal fundamental worth. This, by itself does not make any moral "should" or "ought" claims. Ethical equalism takes it to the next step, that because we are all of equal fundamental worth, that all ought to be given (or allowed) equal rights, and equal protection under the law.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2014 8:08:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/13/2014 7:29:42 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Let us use this to discuss equalism in both the philosophical part and the ethical part. Please try to remember which you are discussing to make sure there is no confusion between debaters.

A brief run down, for anyone not entirely familiar. Philosophical equalism is the belief that all humans are of equal fundamental worth. This, by itself does not make any moral "should" or "ought" claims. Ethical equalism takes it to the next step, that because we are all of equal fundamental worth, that all ought to be given (or allowed) equal rights, and equal protection under the law.

Is it possible to adhere to philosophical equalism but not ethical equalism? If so, then what exactly would the belief be called?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2014 8:12:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/13/2014 8:08:51 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/13/2014 7:29:42 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Let us use this to discuss equalism in both the philosophical part and the ethical part. Please try to remember which you are discussing to make sure there is no confusion between debaters.

A brief run down, for anyone not entirely familiar. Philosophical equalism is the belief that all humans are of equal fundamental worth. This, by itself does not make any moral "should" or "ought" claims. Ethical equalism takes it to the next step, that because we are all of equal fundamental worth, that all ought to be given (or allowed) equal rights, and equal protection under the law.

Is it possible to adhere to philosophical equalism but not ethical equalism? If so, then what exactly would the belief be called?

The belief would be called philosophical equalism.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2014 8:17:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/13/2014 8:12:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/13/2014 8:08:51 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/13/2014 7:29:42 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Let us use this to discuss equalism in both the philosophical part and the ethical part. Please try to remember which you are discussing to make sure there is no confusion between debaters.

A brief run down, for anyone not entirely familiar. Philosophical equalism is the belief that all humans are of equal fundamental worth. This, by itself does not make any moral "should" or "ought" claims. Ethical equalism takes it to the next step, that because we are all of equal fundamental worth, that all ought to be given (or allowed) equal rights, and equal protection under the law.

Is it possible to adhere to philosophical equalism but not ethical equalism? If so, then what exactly would the belief be called?

The belief would be called philosophical equalism.

Okay

I realize it was a stupid question, but it seems like an inherent contradiction to follow one but not the other. This is why I asked the question.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2014 8:21:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/13/2014 8:17:08 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/13/2014 8:12:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/13/2014 8:08:51 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/13/2014 7:29:42 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Let us use this to discuss equalism in both the philosophical part and the ethical part. Please try to remember which you are discussing to make sure there is no confusion between debaters.

A brief run down, for anyone not entirely familiar. Philosophical equalism is the belief that all humans are of equal fundamental worth. This, by itself does not make any moral "should" or "ought" claims. Ethical equalism takes it to the next step, that because we are all of equal fundamental worth, that all ought to be given (or allowed) equal rights, and equal protection under the law.

Is it possible to adhere to philosophical equalism but not ethical equalism? If so, then what exactly would the belief be called?

The belief would be called philosophical equalism.

Okay

I realize it was a stupid question, but it seems like an inherent contradiction to follow one but not the other. This is why I asked the question.

It's not. You can be in favor of philosophical equalism but not ethical equalism if, for instance, you subscribe to a utilitarian ethical calculus under which giving certain people certain rights does not maximize utility. You can be in favor of ethical equalism but not philosphical equalism if you deem, for pragmatist reasons, that equality is better than any viable alternative, but don't think people are of inherently equal value.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2014 8:23:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/13/2014 8:17:08 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/13/2014 8:12:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/13/2014 8:08:51 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/13/2014 7:29:42 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Let us use this to discuss equalism in both the philosophical part and the ethical part. Please try to remember which you are discussing to make sure there is no confusion between debaters.

A brief run down, for anyone not entirely familiar. Philosophical equalism is the belief that all humans are of equal fundamental worth. This, by itself does not make any moral "should" or "ought" claims. Ethical equalism takes it to the next step, that because we are all of equal fundamental worth, that all ought to be given (or allowed) equal rights, and equal protection under the law.

Is it possible to adhere to philosophical equalism but not ethical equalism? If so, then what exactly would the belief be called?

The belief would be called philosophical equalism.

Okay

I realize it was a stupid question, but it seems like an inherent contradiction to follow one but not the other. This is why I asked the question.

That's the "is-ought" problem with ethics. I can say "we all have equal fundamental worth" but that rights should be given on a measuring stick other than "worth."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2014 8:24:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/13/2014 8:21:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/13/2014 8:17:08 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/13/2014 8:12:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 5/13/2014 8:08:51 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/13/2014 7:29:42 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Let us use this to discuss equalism in both the philosophical part and the ethical part. Please try to remember which you are discussing to make sure there is no confusion between debaters.

A brief run down, for anyone not entirely familiar. Philosophical equalism is the belief that all humans are of equal fundamental worth. This, by itself does not make any moral "should" or "ought" claims. Ethical equalism takes it to the next step, that because we are all of equal fundamental worth, that all ought to be given (or allowed) equal rights, and equal protection under the law.

Is it possible to adhere to philosophical equalism but not ethical equalism? If so, then what exactly would the belief be called?

The belief would be called philosophical equalism.

Okay

I realize it was a stupid question, but it seems like an inherent contradiction to follow one but not the other. This is why I asked the question.

It's not. You can be in favor of philosophical equalism but not ethical equalism if, for instance, you subscribe to a utilitarian ethical calculus under which giving certain people certain rights does not maximize utility. You can be in favor of ethical equalism but not philosphical equalism if you deem, for pragmatist reasons, that equality is better than any viable alternative, but don't think people are of inherently equal value.

Thank you. This is what I was wondering about. Although it's still odd to me and I disagree, I can at least see how it would be possible for an individual to adhere to one belief while rejecting the other.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2014 8:25:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Personally, I'm neither. Though I believe that it is a noble belief that is a positive force for the world. So, while I don't subscribe to it, I believe that those who do are beneficial to society.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2014 8:28:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/13/2014 8:25:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Personally, I'm neither. Though I believe that it is a noble belief that is a positive force for the world. So, while I don't subscribe to it, I believe that those who do are beneficial to society.

If I may ask, do you believe that all humans are simply born with different forms of fundamental worth, or do you believe that an individual's actions can change that amount of worth (e.g. if I kill someone, my "worth" as a human being drops)? Or do you believe something entirely different?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2014 8:30:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/13/2014 8:28:28 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 5/13/2014 8:25:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Personally, I'm neither. Though I believe that it is a noble belief that is a positive force for the world. So, while I don't subscribe to it, I believe that those who do are beneficial to society.

If I may ask, do you believe that all humans are simply born with different forms of fundamental worth, or do you believe that an individual's actions can change that amount of worth (e.g. if I kill someone, my "worth" as a human being drops)? Or do you believe something entirely different?

I don't believe in any fundamental worth. Though you could argue that I believe we are all equal with "no fundamental worth" but that seems semantics and is not really in line with the rest of the general principles.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2014 8:41:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think I'm both. Human attributes -positive or negative- are not ends, but means to ends. If a right does not apply to everyone, then it is a privilege, not a right.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2014 9:36:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/13/2014 7:29:42 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Let us use this to discuss equalism in both the philosophical part and the ethical part. Please try to remember which you are discussing to make sure there is no confusion between debaters.

A brief run down, for anyone not entirely familiar. Philosophical equalism is the belief that all humans are of equal fundamental worth. This, by itself does not make any moral "should" or "ought" claims. Ethical equalism takes it to the next step, that because we are all of equal fundamental worth, that all ought to be given (or allowed) equal rights, and equal protection under the law.

"Worth" by what standard? To what end is a human being valuable as compared to?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Mike_10-4
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 10:04:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/13/2014 7:29:42 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Let us use this to discuss equalism in both the philosophical part and the ethical part. Please try to remember which you are discussing to make sure there is no confusion between debaters.

A brief run down, for anyone not entirely familiar. Philosophical equalism is the belief that all humans are of equal fundamental worth. This, by itself does not make any moral "should" or "ought" claims. Ethical equalism takes it to the next step, that because we are all of equal fundamental worth, that all ought to be given (or allowed) equal rights, and equal protection under the law.

According to the following, all life has the same Unalienable Rights and these Rights are part of the physical Laws of Nature not man-made.

http://www.bookdaily.com...
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2014 9:36:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/13/2014 7:29:42 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Let us use this to discuss equalism in both the philosophical part and the ethical part. Please try to remember which you are discussing to make sure there is no confusion between debaters.

A brief run down, for anyone not entirely familiar. Philosophical equalism is the belief that all humans are of equal fundamental worth. This, by itself does not make any moral "should" or "ought" claims. Ethical equalism takes it to the next step, that because we are all of equal fundamental worth, that all ought to be given (or allowed) equal rights, and equal protection under the law.

I believe inherent worth is in the individual, and it's this worth, the individual holds, that he, or she, uses to appraise his, or her, world. I don't believe the world has worth, in and of itself, yet is a product of consciousness; and, I don't believe the appraiser distributes worth equally, in the philosophical or ethical sense. If all value were equal, there would be no variables.