Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was contemplating life the other day, and a stunning revelation hit me; the vast majority of people who play Warhammer are intellectuals, myself among them. So, when I was posed my debate question and wanted alternate opinions, my first thought was that the people of dakka would have something to say; Time for a mini-debate!

Rules; "Are all humans created equal"
State whether you are for or against this statement, then branch into your argument. Keep it civil, and arguing from either a philosophical or scientific perspective is acceptable. Real-world examples are acceptable, but NO RACISM/SEXISM/ANTI-SEMITISM. Also, I may steal any arguments that I think are acceptable, and use them in my actual debate.

AGAINST
To kick things off, I believe that all human beings were not created equal, as it is impossible to fairly measure one person's talents against another's, without 'equal' becoming a matter of opinion and personal bias. I do not believe that people were created superior or inferior, merely that each personality is so individual, that they are impossible to compare. Agree or disagree as you will, and post your arguments.

All humans are born equal, but people don't like being equal if they can be superior instead.

From that, I take it that you define birth as the point of creation? Fair enough. My question is, can you prove that they are born equal? How can we be sure that one child does not have different thought patterns to another child? Should we take their physical state into account? How can that be measured without some form of bias?

Try to be post-specific, and build on your own arguments whilst rebutting your opponents, and realise that this is not a personal attack.

Just stating my thoughts, dude. I've long since given up arguing on the internet.

According to the UN Declaration of Rights yes, but in actuality not.

Orwell has it right: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

You prove that yourself. Even the rules to this debate show a bias. Let me quote:

State whether you are for or against this statement, then branch into your argument. Keep it civil, and arguing from either a philosophical or scientific perspective is acceptable. Real-world examples are acceptable, but NO RACISM/SEXISM/ANTI-SEMITISM. Also, I may steal any arguments that I think are acceptable, and use them in my actual debate.

You have already highlighted the needed text in caps. No racism and sexism makes sense. but no anti-semitism? That is covered under racism, unless you want to make a special case for Jews.

Many do and do not see it wrong. they remember such words as 'holocaust' and 'pogrom' forgetting that in many cases they refer to others in addition to Jews.

Consequently peoplle misremember history and are encouraged to do so. One people group become special victims of history and gain as a result special levity of action in the present.

The moves to remove mention of other minorities suffering from holocaust memorial and the lack of ethical rights advocacy from Israel are connected, but with 'anti-semitism' being a special case this is overlooked to the point that whole people groups, namely Arabs, but possibly others are dehumanised to some way in turn.

This is ironic as in a literal way Arabs are semitic too.

You see Gutrip a subconscious bias is built in through conditioned media and education. The very terms of the debate show that at some level some people think we should not all be equal and implant exceptions into the broader culture to be picked up unwittingly.

With a little trhouht you could have either removed anti-semitism or added or 'negativity to any people or relgious groups'. But both don't seem right dont they. To remove it seems incomplete, to add to it seems superfluous unless worded well. Bias is inherent to our make up in other ways too, but this is as good an answwer as any to pre-conditioning, and comes up alarmingly frequently in those who think are preaching equality but are not.

I know, thats fine . I'm just looking for an intellectual discussion, and trying to promote talk. Anyone got any views?

I'd certainly like to think we are all equal, I mean we all at one point were apes that crawled out of the ocean right?

I often get accused of being a skinhead, liking Metal and wearing a toque and a old army jacket with band logos laced into it.

From a biological, chemical, or physical standpoint the answer is plainly no. You only need to find a person taller, or shorter than you for proof.

However, such statements are rarely made outside of an ethical context. In that sense it simply relates to the idea that people should be given the chance to demonstrate their character; thereby eliminating things like race, and ethnicity as valid determiners with respect to the worth of an individual.

Very good Orlanth- that bias occurred as I am Jewish and was attempting to be as politically correct as possible, and Judaism is a religion as opposed to a race. To amend, I will revert to simplicity itself and ask people to exercise their rationality and remain civil at all times. Cultural bias is largely unavoidable in today's society, and in an attempt to encompass all of the bases, our efforts are sometimes misinterpreted. But thank you for alerting me, as know it can be amended.

You've asked a difficult question OP; whilst I cannot come to a definite conclusion, here are my thoughts.

When we are born, we al have the same basic thought patterns: eat, sleep, defecate. Im not certain how we can be 'sure' but I dare say there have been studies conducted which demonstrate this. This suggests equality at birth.
As for physical traits, there are clearly some humans born with a natural disadvantage (such as asthma), suggesting that humans are born unequally.

So, IMO we are all born equal.

The manner of our upbringing from this point on however is what determines our 'intelligence'. Clearly a child with access to the best resources will develop a greater intellectual intelligence than a child in a third-world country with few resources.

Thus, humans develop unequally due to their surroundings.

However the development of emotional intelligence is more difficult to explain. Both humans with access to extensive resources, and those without can develop equally, suggesting that humans are indeed equal.


In conclusion, there is evidence for both sides of the argument, and it becomes difficult to make a definitive judgement. To me it seems that the majority of humans are created with the same potential, but their development is what results in the huge variety of abilities you see at adulthood.

Editeded because I can't spell

No,throughout the history many people thought of themselves as superiror which then caused many wars,conflicts etc...

An interesting argument that I heard is that, from a religious point of view, we are all equals before the eyes of god. It is very interesting how, throughout the ages, a child is the epitome of innocence. Somewhat ironic that the question demands that we argue equality at the moment of (in theory) utmost purity.

My original point comes down to the question, do you need to be identical to be equals? It is immeasurable without being identical, but before the eyes of god, we are considered to be equals. If he can overlook all of our faults, and talents, and say that we are no less or more than each other, then perhaps we truly are? I would ask any married dakkites, do you love each of your children equally? Are they equals to you? Please discuss.

Also note, I keep my original view on the matter, this is just intellectual wood to the fire of discussion.

Warboss Gutrip wrote:Very good Orlanth- that bias occurred as I am Jewish and was attempting to be as politically correct as possible, and Judaism is a religion as opposed to a race. To amend, I will revert to simplicity itself and ask people to exercise their rationality and remain civil at all times. Cultural bias is largely unavoidable in today's society, and in an attempt to encompass all of the bases, our efforts are sometimes misinterpreted. But thank you for alerting me, as know it can be amended.

Let your original comment stand, just remember that these debates do not start from true parity, just as our judgment itself is imperfect.

Inherent bias is not guarantee of discrimination, it makes some forms of discrimination harder to detect and counter for. We must be practical in our answers if we are to make use of good doctrine. Once aware of the problem we can account for it quietly each to our own. We all have our bias, pointing out one persons, no matter how commonplace the sentiment behind it or the conditioning, is not fair. This a pointer to all of us really because we all have exceptions we include or include to account for our accustomed comforts.

If all people are not created equal then it is perfectly acceptable to exterminate Hutus/Tutsis/Jews/Muslims/Christians/Communists/Capitalist Running Dogs/Hindus/Armenians/Chechnians or any recognisable group that some power elite might take a dislike to.

There are people who want to do down some other ethnic group. They would like to use arguments like "Obviously everyone isn't born with the same intelligence" as a way to undermine the core principle of Human Rights.

Damn, this is a philosophical Pandora's Box you've opened up here, Gutrip.

When do you start measuring equality?

At birth? Then no. Some are born with deformites even in the womb, inheriting diseases or genetic traits before even being given the chance to start. Or even another curse that forever marks a child as unwanted or less-favoured. Their gender.

In their upbringing? Still, the answer is no. What country were they raised in? How rich were their parents? What school did they go to? The answers to these questions determine what opportunities you had, when compared to others.

In your life? Well, no. What about sheer dumb luck? Why was it that this man survived the car crash while his brother in the passenger seat did not? Why did one man make his fortune on the stock market, and the other lose it? In this sense, luck can be both a great equalizer or in-equalizer.

In death? Perhaps. Rich or poor, the plain simple fact is that we all die. (Notwithstanding certain biblical exceptions, which can be either be ignored as disputable or admitted as notable oddities) Sooner or later we stop breathing, and no matter the circumstances it's going to happen sooner or later. In this sense, death is a true equalizer in the most ultimate way. Unless there's an afterlife. Which then mucks stuff up even further.

With that morbid point aside, I'll finish with a lovely quote from a certain Monty Python film.

Some Guy on a Cross Sang wrote: You come into this world with nothing, you leave this world with nothing. What have you lost? Nothing!

There's also the little issue of fate. But I'm not going to get stuck into that right now.

Of course they arent, for example, i am far more awesome than most people.

But unfortunately, while mattyrm is gifted in awesomeness, he is sadly lacking the brains department. Is this, perhaps, a form of quality in itself?

Of course we aren't born equal. Athletes prove that, not everyone, no matter how hard they train could ever match top athletes. Some people are born with unique skills such as De Vinci.

Shakespeare is a wonderful example, his entire family is illiterate and he received nothing more than a basic education, yet he has produced many amazing works, still recognized this day.

Many people who have studied their whole lives have not come close.

Natural ability FTW!

Humans are certainly not born equal , there is nothing that is born equal. However the idea of been equal is necessary to maintain order.

If anything , all things are born into a balance.
Thats the only thing we can have.

Short answer: No.
Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo,

Warboss Gutrip wrote:An interesting argument that I heard is that, from a religious point of view, we are all equals before the eyes of god. It is very interesting how, throughout the ages, a child is the epitome of innocence. Somewhat ironic that the question demands that we argue equality at the moment of (in theory) utmost purity.

My original point comes down to the question, do you need to be identical to be equals? It is immeasurable without being identical, but before the eyes of god, we are considered to be equals. If he can overlook all of our faults, and talents, and say that we are no less or more than each other, then perhaps we truly are? I would ask any married dakkites, do you love each of your children equally? Are they equals to you? Please discuss.

Also note, I keep my original view on the matter, this is just intellectual wood to the fire of discussion.

Offcourse we are all equal in the eyes of god. Just as all the ants in a ant colony look equal to us. But we are not equal to each other at all. You have the male female genders to start with to state the most obvious thing. And also any form of debate would be impossible if we were all equal. We would all agree on the topic.

So this debate is proof itzelf that we arent equal

Grtz
L.D.

A lot of you are missing the point.

It is clear that all humans are not born with the same dimensions, weight and prospects in life.

That is so perfectly obvious that the point does not need a debate.

The key to "All created equal" or "All equal before God" is to do with people's standing as equals in terms of human dignity and justice.

I think on average people are born equal. But you do have the off shut that are gifted or not gifted(birth defects). I think what changes it is the enviroment the person grows up in and what they choose to do with what they have. I do beleive though that there is a difference between Intelligence and educated. Intelligence is your natural smarts where educated is what you learn.

To re-focus;

The debate is that all humans arecreated equal. As such, I would ask that we focus upon that point, as it is already established that all humans do not have the same opportunities at the end of life/will end up in different, uncomparable positions.

To give the those who believe that all humans are created equal some room, I would ask that you speak of the point that you define as "created" and build upon your argument from there.

Thanks!

Who are you asking?

I'm not clear whether you are asking the 'Yes' side to expand on their position, or the 'No' side to redefine their position with respect to the 'Yes' side's point.

Both. I am very interested in both side and I would appreciate elaboration with respect to the question.

People are not born equal. While there is a great similarity between all humans (give that as a whole, our DNA is roughly the same between population groupings), there is still gross variation between individuals. Some are more "gifted" than others; some have detrimental deviations from the norm (or "defects") which can cause disease, disabilities, etc which makes the individual less able than the average human being is supposed to be.

That said, KK's point regards legal, social and ethical equality is more difficult to answer. How far from the human "norm" no longer warrants the individual as being classified as requiring human "rights" as accorded (supposedly) all human beings? And what portion of the spectrum of human normality does one take as the baseline for normality?

I would argue that anyone who is descended from the human genetic line should be accorded rights equal to anyone else born from that line (at least, until they do something that requires the limiting or removing of certain of their "rights" - such as criminals loosing their "right" to freedom of movement and action for the duration of their punishment).

In this respect, everyone should be born equal.

I think we are born equally. Then through differing conditioning we end up being different, and there fore creates more equal/unequal people. I mean really, whos to say that some rich politician that makes important decisions, is better then the average guy that works 60 hours a week at a shop, or even a poor bum that lives in an alley. It really depends on how you look at it to judge who is higher up "everyone is equal" chain. Sure the politician has lots of money, and makes decisions for the masses, but how many politicians do you know of, that are strait as an arrow, always makes the best choices and doesnt just plainly screw over the people he is suppose to work for? How many aids do they have to sleep with behind their wives back so on and so on.
So by that thinking, would he rate lower now because he isnt an honest person? Would the 60 hour a week shop worker now take his rank, but still be over the bum? What if the shop worker, the back bone of the country, was a hardcore racist? And had a few skeletons in his closet? What if when he were younger he would rape and beat random women from the races of which he hated, and was never caught? So now is he equal to the others? Or did he too fall farther down the chain of equals. So now the bum, his only real problem is, he got screwed from the shop job he worked at for years, mainly because his foremen, the hardcore racist, hated the fact he was a person of non white background. Tried his hardest not to lose everything he had, but because of the laws the politician put in place for bribes, basically screws this bum, and now he lives in the streets.
Sure its a bit OTT but it depends on how you look at things to see if they really are equal or not.
Politician, labourer, bum. High powered, hard worker, bum. Dishonest, racist, bum? Did I make my point?

Personally i do not believe all humans are equal as I am a firm follower of natural selection, Harsh as it sounds those who cannot survive in the wild are automatically inferior to those that can and the only way to test this is to put said person in said wild.