The current generation and the immediately previous one has been brainwashed with the word "equality". Whenever used, this word is immediately understood as a lofty goal and a moral imperative; something that must be accomplished. But, do you really understand where is this notion coming from? What does it really mean? Today, we are going to explore this fallacy. Let's being from the beginning.
PHILOSOPHICAL THEORY
Philosophy literally means "love of wisdom". It is the art (we can't call it science) of thinking. Philosophy is very relevant to our daily lives because every single political and economic system that exists today is rooted in one or another philosophical theory. That's correct. They are not "truths" but theories. As in un–proved and un–provable. Your life is being controlled by systems that have never been proved, cannot be proven and yet, they are widely used. Of course, you don't see the philosophical layer underneath the daily political and economic events, but it is there and you can find it if you dig deep enough.
As philosophy is at the very basic of what control us, it would be a good idea to take a quick peek and see if its concepts are solid or not.
PHILOSOPHICAL AMBIGUITY
As any philosophical theory cannot be proven, a philosopher's job is to present arguments for or against one or another. The best arguments win and a given theory is adopted by a majority of people. However, the arguments that philosophers are presenting are inductive, not deductive ones. There is large difference between them.
Deductive arguments are scientific arguments which use Aristotelian Logic. Deductive arguments are unquestionable. For example, mathematics works on deductive arguments.
Inductive arguments, on the other hand, are simply best guesses. Some are good (some even really good), but none of them can ever be unquestionable. There is never, ever a definitive answer; a fundamental discovery, an un–changing truth.
Therefore all philosophical theories are simply best guesses which are adopted by a majority of people simply because their arguments are better than the arguments of other theories.
Let's us be redundant. There are no true philosophical theories. Period.
MORAL PHILOSOPHY
Philosophy is separated into branches. One branch attempts to answer the question: What are Good and Evil? This branch of philosophy is called Ethical or Moral Philosophy. Its scholars attempt to define what is good or evil and once this is defined, discover the rules a person should abide by in order to have or create more good and less evil.
Contrary to popular belief, contrary to how at least two generations of people have been brainwashed, there is no uniform concept of what is good or evil! There are many philosophical theories in this branch, some with significant differences; actually, some have diametrically opposing views of what is good and what is evil. Let's take a look at some of them:
Objectivism: it believes that morality is objective and good is to follow a "natural law" which could be God–inspired or provided or not.
Intersubjectivism: it believes that morality is subjective (there is no natural law), although people can agree on what is good and what is evil.
Subjectivism: it believes that morality is subjective (there is no natural law) and people can never agree on what is good and what is evil because morality depends on different situations, perspectives, etc.
Nihilism: it believes that no moral principles exist (there is no such thing as good or evil).
As you can see, there are a large number of types of moral philosophies. Each type has, in turn, many sub-branches. Moral philosophy is indeed on of the most prolific branches of philosophy.
This reality is clear: according to philosophy there is no single, valid, definitive and ultimate definition of what is good and evil. Only opinions exist.
In this article, we are interested in Intersubjectivism because among their key sub–branches we find Egalitarism, Utilitarianism and Contractarianism.
EGALITARISM
As you may have seen, we had to dig deep into philosophy just to arrive to our topic of the day: Egalitarism.
This theory (and let us emphasize it again, it is only a theory); is of the opinion that equality between people is good and in–equality is evil.
There are many sub–branches of this sub–branch, which essentially study the question to what degree should people be treated equally?
The strongest proposition is that for us to be moral (and hence good) we must treat people equally to the absolute greatest extent and in such manner as to guarantee that everybody has the same amount of goods and services. Examples of such goods and services are welfare, income, wealth, resources and opportunities.
If this sounds familiar, is because it is. It's called Communism and we know how well it did in real life.
That's right. Today's politicians are using the philosophical argument which gave origin to communism, in their PR speeches and to justify "social" policies. Does this provide you with a warm and fuzzy feeling? Thought so.
Of course, there are other versions of egalitarism affecting different areas of our lives.
Economic egalitarism
It dictates that people should have equal economic outcomes or equal economic opportunities.
Equal economic outcomes means equal prosperity and from a governmental point of view, it implies anywhere from communism down to price fixing. Again, we know how well this works.
Equal economic opportunities means that government should not discriminate against people or hinder opportunities. But no government does this. On the contrary; all governments discriminate (anywhere from racial profiling to immigration) and all government interfere heavily with the free market.
Political egalitarism
It recommends that people should have the same rights. But rights are negotiated between people. Rights are simply a sub-set of liberties. We choose not to exercise some liberties to enable co–existence. As such, which liberties we voluntarily choose to abstain from depends of the people we are trying to co–exist with. Governments, on the other hand, take the approach that:
They are the supreme authority to define which rights we have and which ones we do not have.
They base this action on deeply flawed Social Contracts (see Social Contracts Are A Scam).
So, yes, from a governmental point of view, we all have the same "theoretical" rights, it's just that we don't get to define what those rights may be… which is a ridiculous contradiction in terms!
It's like Henry Ford said "People can have the Model T in any color – so long as it's black". In this case, you can have any right you want, as long as it's what the government says that you can have.
Summary
Egalitarism is a philosophical theory that either does not work or it is ignored by governments and politicians. They promote such policies explicitly and with intent because they sound good. Take from rich people (who do not need more riches) and give to the poor (this is, you and us). In essence, they are preaching the forceful transference of wealth from rich to poor people. They also abrogate for the arbitrary restriction of rights. This is what egalitarism or "equality" looks like in practice. Politicians take things out of context and use only whatever will increase votes while ignoring the rest and labeling the whole package as "moral" or "ethical" by referring such acts to a Philosophical Theory that says otherwise and nobody bothers reading about.
INEQUALITY
Contrary to what common sense would suggest on the surface, it is in–equality what creates wealth and prosperity. We are all different. We all have different talents, different points of view and different wishes. Trying to limit people in what they can do based on the fact that we need to be equal is to doom us to economic failure.
For example, what would have happened if the US government would have told Steve Jobs (the former Apple CEO): look Steve, your idea of an iPod and iPad are good, but sorry, you can't have the resources to manufacture them because then we would have to give every person the same resources. Though luck.
Inequality is what makes entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs are the true engine of economic development. These are the people that see what nobody sees: a niche in the market. In other words, a good or service that people want but nobody is providing. These are the people that take the initiative, put the labor and risk their money to get you a better life through better goods and services and choices.
It was inequality what differentiated us from monkeys when we first evolved from them. We were different in a better way. It is inequality what drives the markets because we all want different things and have different means and points of view. Communists tried to deny it. Why do you think that most communist cities are all gray? Because inequality was seen as dissent. Communists expected all people to conform and as such, they provided only one product per market need. For example, why would you ever want to have building's paint of a different color than gray?
Inequality is what drives competition. Different people see different ways to make money in similar products and services, hence competing against each other.
In the end, inequality is best expressed as George Bernard Shaw said it "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
CONCLUSION
The concept of equality as used by politicians is intellectual fraud, plain and simple. They continue to use this concept because it sounds good, but in the end, it is nothing more than yet another vote maximization strategy. It happens to be a useful political tool and therefore it is bent out of shape until unrecognizable. Equality is as moral or as little moral as any other philosophical ethical theory. Equality is not the proverbial provider of wealth, prosperity and wellbeing but a hindrance to them.
How you choose to approach this topic is up to you now, since our job here is done.
Note: please see the Glossary if you are unfamiliar with certain words.
