Is equality of all persons merely a Western conceit?

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Equality of all persons is an idea I had drummed into me very early on, by a couple of parents who are very passionate activists for social justice. When I made my way out into the big bad USA, I didn't find everybody I met shared this value, and I've always found unequivocal, sarcasm-free shows of "I'm better than you" pretty offensive. It's just always seemed obvious to me that people refraining from treating other people as beneath them was just the sensible thing to do. But enough people I met in the US agreed with me on this that I could feel pretty smug.

Then I went to Japan when I was 16. The place fucked with my head, as it does most people from overseas who go to live there. It struck me with utter clarity the other night, while on a headful of LSD, what chafed me so badly about the Japanese: they are a highly successful and self-determining people who are hard to resist respecting, but who by and large don't evince a value for the equality of all people. It was a very "everything you know is wrong" sort of feeling, in essence a crisis of faith.

Then I visited a bunch of other countries, most of them non-Western. I noticed certain types of hierarchies in each of these, with common shows of callousness to people lower. These types of behaviors stood out to me because they struck me as behaviors that wouldn't fly in the US.

But as I soon discovered when I moved back to the US, this place isn't devoid of oppressive hierarchies by a long shot. My first instinct is to follow this up with but these can be opted out of more readily in the US than in most non-Western countries. But could this perception just be a result of my own cultural bias? In other words, could it be just a function of the fact that the US is my home culture, and I can navigate within it and negotiate with it in ways I can't other cultures? Can people from almost everywhere find ways to demand equality, within at least their local social circles, in their home cultures?

Equality of all people, I've learned, is a cornerstone ideal of Western peoples. Like all ideals it's not achieved nearly as often as it's striven for. But it's held in high esteem regardless. Could the same be true in most non-Western cultures too, in a way that we don't readily notice due to our limited perspective? Could it be that it's merely the form that failing to living up to this would-be universal value takes, that varies between cultures and causes us mutual repulsion? Or is this value simply not at all universal?

I've also had the pleasure of visiting Israel, another country that left a very mixed taste in my mouth on a moral level. It seems to me it's a case of two peoples who have many on either side with a deep seated sense that they are absolutely better and more human than the other. An interesting twist in the situation is that fact that many on one side are undeniably Western culturally, and carry in their hearts the Western flavor of the ideal of all people being fundamentally equal and dignified. I felt a great sense of cognitive dissonance in Israel, between an ancient sense of specialness and a seasoned logical argument for the danger of feeling special.

The implications of the answer to this question are not small. Because if equality of all people is merely a Western conceit, then one of two things must be true:
1) It's not a value worth promoting outside of the West, because it's just not needed there.
2) Western society truly is one of the fairest on Earth, and for this reason the steamrolling of non-Western values by Western ones is a good thing.

And frankly, I'd rather continue to think both of these are ridiculous.

 

[freddy47]

The idea that everybody is equal is a dream. Its a good dream and I wish it was true but it isn't and it never will be. There will always be someone smarter than you, richer, more successful, and more attractive. Asking all of mankind to forgo those differences and treat everybody equally is unrealistic.

In Asia especially because of Confucianism and Confucian ideas there is a sense that everybody has their "place" and have to act appropriately according to their "place". There is an old saying in Japan and that is "the nail that sticks out will get hammered down." The west needs to stop pushing their morals unto everybody else as it often doesn't work. Confucian ideas should not be confused as being oppressive however although it can be twisted into an oppressive ideology. Confucius stressed loyalty and etiquette and morality above all else and at its core is humanism.

 

[L2R]

funny, i had this "debate" with my chinese wife just an hour ago. no time to go into detail, but ultimately she asserted that she agrees with the theory she heard saying that you should raise girls rich (spoiling them) and raise boys poor (training and discipline). The rationality is that the boys become harder workers and greater achievers and the girls are more selective of higher calibre husbands when they're older.

i disagreed.

a good example of the difficulty of this marriage. when i have more time, i'll read the above posts.

 

[hiphophippy]

funny, i had this "debate" with my chinese wife just an hour ago. no time to go into detail, but ultimately she asserted that she agrees with the theory she heard saying that you should raise girls rich (spoiling them) and raise boys poor (training and discipline). The rationality is that the boys become harder workers and greater achievers and the girls are more selective of higher calibre husbands when they're older.

i disagreed.

a good example of the difficulty of this marriage. when i have more time, i'll read the above posts.

Beat their asses is one thing I hope you can both agree on.

 

[L2R]

"Have you ever tried simply turning off the TV, sitting down with your children, and hitting them?"

if it's good enough for bender, it's good enough for me

 

[freddy47]

^I always preferred the alternate universe version of Bender.

I laughed so hard when he said "Bite my glorious Golden ass!"

 

[L2R]

the show has many such brilliant moments. love it.

 

[freddy47]

^Indeed it does. What do you think of the new episodes? I like them but some of my friends seem to think its lost something.

 

[L2R]

i've liked them more than most blers. i honestly don't think they lost anything. even the original set of series took a few viewing to reach full appreciation. the movie length episodes might have lost a little, in terms of pace and structure, but despite this, they weren't bad. better move this convo to the futurama thread in f&tv.

 

[panic in paradise]

... Seems here in the west, or USA for example, the most common perspective of oneness or singularity is presented in an 'Us or Them' type format - or deserving others.

Where as in the east, or India for example they have "Atman", and there share of civil-wars,
but in general, what is taught by the culture and its history is encompassed and derived from a realization
of oneness and cultural/environmental unity.


Studying eastern and western astrology, its funny to me that how in general according to others interpretations, in the east if you have a chart with well placed planets, you will heal people -
in the west, you will entertain people...

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

the theory she heard saying that you should raise girls rich (spoiling them) and raise boys poor (training and discipline). The rationality is that the boys become harder workers and greater achievers and the girls are more selective of higher calibre husbands when they're older.

Wow. Just... wow.
Whose theory is this? Not only who came up with it, but what types of people buy into it?

I never could stand spoiled princesses, and I'll be damned if my daughters will become them. Also related to the theme of this thread, I'm not a huge fan of raising kids of opposite genders with opposite values on really anything. All of my kids will be "raised poor", as your wife put it -- they'll know the value of hard work, discipline, mastery, and frugality. Raising a daughter to be a princess is just going to get her preyed upon by rich jerks who want a temporary trophy wife. Teach her moderation and a healthy self-confidence without arrogance or entitlement, and she'll be in a better position to choose a man, because she'll be independent woman who actually doesn't need any man to take care of her.

 

[psood0nym]

I think the popular western notion of equality of "men" as a value is conflated with the value of equality of basic rights under the law. I'm not sure when the Constitution (which seems to be the document codifying this value) was written anything more than that was intended to be asserted.

Douglas Hofstadter came up with an informal, sort of tongue and cheek way, to assign a quantitative value to human life: the Huneker. It has something to do with the degree of self-relflexive processing a person's mind does, so as to make one person's intensity of consciousness greater than another's (and therefore, presumably, their magnitude of suffering/happiness/etc). It's based on the intuitive understanding we all demonstrate when we judge a bacteria "lower" in value than a mosquito, which is lower than a lizard, lower than a rat, etc. on up through humans, where a baby is lower than Shakespeare. Hofstadter gives the average person a 100 Huneker level of awareness, whereas Beethoven or Goethe might be 400 Huneker souls. But would humanity trade four average people's lives for one Einstein? I doubt it, I'm inclined to say one Isaac Newton is worth a few thousand normal people, as awful as that feels to say. It's not a linear comparison (it's not really even measurable outside of maybe taking a statistical average of informed human judgment of a person) due to the rarity of 400 Huneker people, but it's an idea. But what if Newton never published on univeral gravitation, just had the idea and experienced life with the understanding? Is his consciousness still as valuable? The Huneker measure seems to assert so.

 

[CrackAndScrabble]

I think your making a huge false dichotomy with your question at the end but I see your point.

I agree that Western ideas of equality tend to be more romantic than other culture regions. That doesn't mean its worthless to promote though. Western governments are based on very libertarian principles. Eastern countries usually have a government that is much more reflective of societal standards. Westerners have much more lofty expectations of their governments.

 

[L2R]

Wow. Just... wow.
Whose theory is this? Not only who came up with it, but what types of people buy into it?

I never could stand spoiled princesses, and I'll be damned if my daughters will become them. Also related to the theme of this thread, I'm not a huge fan of raising kids of opposite genders with opposite values on really anything. All of my kids will be "raised poor", as your wife put it -- they'll know the value of hard work, discipline, mastery, and frugality. Raising a daughter to be a princess is just going to get her preyed upon by rich jerks who want a temporary trophy wife. Teach her moderation and a healthy self-confidence without arrogance or entitlement, and she'll be in a better position to choose a man, because she'll be independent woman who actually doesn't need any man to take care of her.

oh i agree, and am so friggin thankful our first is a boy. my endeavours for equality amongst just the two of us hits the snag in that, unlike raising her to my equal, it is effectively lowering her to it. this chinese mentality is pretty widespread, i recall seeing a couple with matching shirts, paraphrasing the male's shirt said "i make the money" and the female's "i spend the money". ugh. i don't remember the exact phrases but they were as literal as that.
divides my cultural zero

 

[Bucklecroft Rudy]

I think that the question is deceptive insofar as when put in a social context it implies that people ought to be somehow ranked like cattle. I can appreciate that in the old hypo scenarios with a doctor and a serial rapist tied to train tracks - rescue one the question is valid, but in terms of the way we relate to people and even the way that the administration serves the society it governs a person's talents accomplishments etc should not factor in. Point is as things are there are enough resources to satisfy everyone's needs. 70% wealth distributed amongst 2% of the global populations reeks of the basest corruption - its unacceptable. Decapitate the pyramid and allow the wealth to be parcelled out in equal measure and questions of "equality" really become meaningless. Everyone has a bite at the cherry, everyone is free to enjoy what life has to offer without constant fear for survival.
At the moment the world operates on the assumption that some people are more important than others i.e. the western world has earned its place and deserves to be the exploiter of other nations.

 

[L2R]

mdoa, sorry it took this long to actually read your op.

there's a common misunderstanding of the western tradition of equality. its roots, as you noted, was in the liberal ideas of justice. hence a universal equality meant a universal moral equality. you know, "in the eyes of god, we are created equal" is a direct reference to one's creation into sin/guilt/etc.

the mistake comes in the interpretation of the words to mean an equal capacity. yeah, this is rubbish. physical limits vary and thus you see only people of certain body types performing professionally in certain sports. i will never dunk a basketball, sadly.

this can extend to systems which embrace class systems too. in the west, we are raised with the idea that there are no classes, simply because we can vote. this denial of what is clear in human nature, that is you support and promote that which you know, is widespread. sure, there are anti-discimination laws in effect but they only band-aid the situation. we have not conquered it, and i doubt we ever can. other places have embraced the "this is your lot in life, make the most of it" than we have. it makes sense. rather than wasting time whinging about what place you were born in, a fact which can not be changed, you work with it. i guess this may tie into the note in another thread about cultures which encourage unrealistic desires.

we ARE morally equal
we ARE NOT physically equal
we ARE NOT socially equal

the bandaid solutions to social inequality found in the west are cheap alternatives to real solutions found in the east. they give a false sense of justice so no further efforts are required, but then the gap grows insatiably. in the east, the recognition of poverty means the governments are required to maintain active assistance in bringing the bottom half up. after all, a healthy and prosperous lower class is benefitial to all.

 

[ninjadanslarbretabar]

1) It's not a value worth promoting outside of the West, because it's just not needed there.
2) Western society truly is one of the fairest on Earth, and for this reason the steamrolling of non-Western values by Western ones is a good thing.

its evolution, is evolution a good or a bad thing ?
you dont need to promote it, its gonna promote itself, it doesnt mater if its not needed
whoever is on top will influence whoever is around, good or bad, needed or not
and whatever is around will influence whats on top, so if the western world has being on top lately then its gonna have being accumulating more influences, which gives it a evolutionary edge
it aint about being more fair as much as it is about being more evolved
(and i dont mean that in a "superior" way, like i said first "is evolution a good or a bad thing ")
evolution just makes things more complex and due to that; new ways of organizing things arises

the idea of equal rights (and not the idea that everyone is equal or else we wouldnt have prisons and wars but that everyone deserve a equal chance no mater how rich your are or what bloodline you belong too or how tall and pretty and famous you are or whatever else...)
the idea of equal rights simply brings more competition to the table, monopoly and monarchy dont bring as much evolution (change), a lack of change aint good if you are competing against other nation, the idea of equal right is self serving, it pushed equality on the inside but puts you above other nations on the outside because you become better at competing against them since you allow more people to compete against each other within the system
so the system gives more to its participant because its participant gives more to the system, the system gets stronger as the participant gets stronger, and thats self serving despite having the possibility of being dressed up as altruism
its like the excuses that some country makes by proclaiming that their goal is to free the people and bring them democracy, its just a way to make more money by incorporating them into your already installed system that you control which will inevitably put them at the bottom, tho that does give them equal opportunity to make it despite starting at the bottom

we have alphas, betas...omegas and that aint equality, everyone is gonna end up with a different rank, but a system that allows the aphas to be dethroned at all time by anyone thinking he might do a better job whatever rank he is from makes up for a stronger system with more chance of survival (or quality of life) as a whole
and that aint merely a western conceit its pretty universal
but the western world have being on the forefront of that concept because it was(is) the alpha male, and it got on top by allowing itself (the system) to be destabilize, so fuck Marie Antoinette and up with their heads !! and fuck the British and their tea this is AMERICA !! and fuck slavery because those slaves dont buy enough stuff because they have no money to buy stuff so lets give those ford employe a better salary so that they can buy the cars they are building...
what goes around comes around, you give more to receive more and if you dont theyll take it away from you because the system needs to grow, it needs to evolve, its evolution...

so im going with option 2

"2) Western society truly is one of the fairest on Earth, and for this reason the steamrolling of non-Western values by Western ones is a good thing."

except that its as fair(on the inside) as its unfair (on the outside)
and there is as much integration of non-western value as there is disintegration
its like music: blues, jazz, samba, rumba, cumbia... are not african or european genre of music, they are distinctively a hybridization of both
it made for better music imo since it creates the possibility of a greater realm of diversity
and the western world is pretty damn extensive in his diversity, it aint a exclusively white european male thing anymore, it is becoming a international culture the same way english as become the international language that we can all use, thats what we do on this board, its good to connect using a language we can all understand
and it doesnt mater if we dont dress up the way we use to in the 50s or 500 years ago, we change on the inside and on the outside but we still can remain ourself no mater what we wear or what language we talk, so it aint bad if you see a mcdonals popping out in some foreign land because it means that at the same time a sushi shop will pop up in some western land, or some indian cuisine place or middle eastern...
western and non-western value all comes down to being human value
the dominant male eats more meat because he brings more meat
the dominant culture will by default impose its values but in return everyone (as a whole) can benefit

 

[pofacedhoe]

^Indeed it does. What do you think of the new episodes? I like them but some of my friends seem to think its lost something.

the first new series was good but the last lot were really unfunny and just devoid of the wit of the original

 

[B9]

I thought about this when it was first posted.
Equality of all humans is a real thing.
We all have an equal chance at getting lucky ? enough to feel that delusional conceit you speak of.
It's an unequal world with unequal resources even down to our physical forms we are unequal.
The question is are we unequal on a deeper level - is there even a deeper level?

 

[Help?!?!]

I don't understand why people waste time trying to think their better than anyone. Anyone with intelligence would have to spend a large amount of time examining each person and their personality/other traits to see, if they are indeed better than said person. No one does this however so most of the time people who think their better than others, either have had yet to get reality shoved in their face by another person or are just egotistical fools. People who think their better than others are usually the lowest class of being, to me their simple jokes that most people could easily take if they really tried. I guess at the end of the day it comes down to me not understanding, simply what the point of being better than another is. Whimsical things like having knowledge i'm better than others has never done much for me, in fact it usually just makes me feel odd unless I have actually literally proven beyond doubt that I am better than someone in some field, but then its just knowledge, a fact, not a prize or token. So I guess since thought is not enough to sustain my being I just am unable to comprehend the benefit of these sorts of thoughts. Its a waste of time and when it comes down to it, is rarely important if ever even proven. So to me in the end its just another human born fallacy. I suppose way back when sizing prey up was important but not so much today IMO.