Is Everyone Equal?

2010-03-11

No, there are vast differences between human beings, height, intellect, temper, strength and so on, so we are not equal in that sense. But we have to treat everyone equal because the alternative is worse. So in a sense if we treat everyone equal, everyone is equal. This is by no means a proof that everyone is equal or consistent, quite to the contrary. Modern science has shown that our physiology is far more fluent then previously assumed. People with permanent brain damage have regained functions thought forever lost. So the human brain and body has an incredible potential of recovery and too break limits, set by us.

What this means is that every human being has an immeasurable potential hidden inside, even so most of us do not utilize this. By now treating people differently on a basis of their current abilities, behaviour or whatever, we deny those individuals the possibility to utilize these potentials, so the basis of treating people equal is not on the basis of actual phenomena that these people exhibit, but rather because denial of this would inhibit freedom of each and every individual. 

Freedom in this sense is in no means only bound to positive actions. Freedom in itself means the right to do everything, including hurting other people for example. This is where political theory comes in to control the actions of individuals to ensure that the individual freedom do not infringe on other peoples freedom. I mean political theory in the broadest sense, the ensuring of social cohesion by whatever means. So now we have two opposing premises individual freedom and the greater good. These are by no way mutually exclusive, but they can be in particular cases. 

In particular situations where the individual freedom infringes on the greater good, it is morally permissible to restrict an individual’s personal freedom. I am referring to cases of murder or other actions that do harm. However this is by no means a doctrine that is to be followed in each and every case, like the utilitarian doctrine says. I much rather think that each and every situation has to be judged individually. If by that we cannot reach a coherent political theory, then so be it. I do not believe that such coherent political theory is out of reach, but I do suppose that it is far different from most of the current political or moral theories. This is founded in a scientific materialism and the evolutionary background of our existence. 

Human beings have, I believe, an inherent moral code. A moral standard that is common to our species, this moral code is evolved during the course of our evolution. Pre modern man, when he lived in the plains of Africa survived by cooperation. This is self evident if we compare our physiology to other animals that lived at the same time. We for an example are not as fast as a predator, we do not have a highly evolved sense of smell, our eyes are very sharp but compared to these of an hawk, they lose out. In general can we say that in all our physical abilities we are inferior to animals.

But how do we explain the success of the human species than? There are a few things in what humans are superior to animals, one of these is cooperation. In order for cooperation to succeed there has to be certain rules of conduct that must be followed. These are different to what task is to be achieved. 

But cooperation alone is not sufficient to be an explanation to our success, because some social insects beat us easy with the level of cooperation between its individuals.

So what it is that makes us special? We have language and the ability to learn. Why learning is important is almost self-evident, because it allows us to recreate actions in numerous occasions in the future that will be beneficiary to us then. 

Language on the other hand is something, at least to the extent that humans have it, something unique in the animal kingdom. Language allows us to convey difficult pieces of information in a short an intelligible way. It is easy to see the benefits when we put it in particular situations, humans are not only able to warn other humans of danger, we can specify the kind of danger, thereby increasing the ability to deal with the upcoming danger. 

How is this, now connected to our moral and politics philosophies and that all humans should be treated equal? 

Since I presume the basis of our moral judgment to be in our evolutionary past, I assume that our moral values are based on handling situations in these surrounding. Cooperation had proved beneficial for the survival of humans, so they adjusted to function in groups. This adjusting is what lays the foundation for our moral standards. 

The problem now arises when we get faced with modern situations to these old moral values. I believe that the moral standards are capable to handle these new circumstances, because they have survived so far so there is nothing that speaks against them not being able to handle the new situations. But I do believe the reasoning of the moral standards to be different from what we think they are, since they are not based on logical thinking, but merely an evolutionary process. This means not that they are illogical or inferior; it just means they arose differently. 

So if we want to build a society which is desirable by all human beings, we have to take the origin of our moral values in consideration and how they relate to the modern problems we get faced daily. So I believe a synthesis of our moral values, logical reasoning and individual freedom is what is makes the foundation for this future. 

(Note: I take the greater good synonymous with what is evolutionary best for our species.)

Treating all people equal is a perfect example of this synthesis of our natural moral values, logical reasoning and individual freedom.

// Kuma