The Principle of Equality

Chapter Two: The Principle of Equality (from the Case for the Equitable Society — unpublished)

The concept of equality is an elusive one, though it may seem as intuitive as the idea of drinking when thirsty. Philosophers have examined equality since Plato, who favored separate but equal classes of citizens, among whom there would be a Philosopher-Ruler caste who would be responsible for any leadership required. Voltaire indicated that men could only truly be equal with regard to rights, and any attempt to go further and discuss equality with respect to power was futile given the clearly unequal apportionment of skill. Rousseau, perhaps the most extreme of the enlightenment thinkers, suggested that man should be reduced to his natural state, as that was the only state in which true equality could be realized since as soon as we are able to think, we are able to ‘size up’ each other, and subject each other to unequal expectations. Enlightenment thinkers were clearly interested in equality. They managed to spur many revolutions with their distributed works, and successfully dismantled the mantra of divine right.

But they could not fight human instinct. In the modern world, we have replaced our divine right with an affluent one. The affluent right of world leaders to rule is unmistakably present — all one needs to do is examine the wealth of the families of the top world leaders to see that there is a significant accumulation of wealth in our political circles. Further, at least in the United States, it is perfectly legal for affluent individuals to use their affluence for political clout, which then increases their affluence, and such a cycle continues. In other countries, such behavior is equally apparent and legal.

We have largely failed to internalize the notion of equality or enforce it to any great degree, or we would never have allowed such a thing to happen. If the concept of equality was ubiquitous, how is it that we can see such inequality persist across seemingly every nation on the planet? How is it that every self-designated group reserves to itself specialized treatment at the misfortune or exclusion of others? We couldn’t.

The nebulous nature of the concept of equality makes it possible to pick and choose what aspect of existence should receive the equality treatment. Individuals use the concept of equality as the ceiling of their expectations. Inequality manifests in various forms in a clandestine way. For example, assume that all individuals can equally compete for a job, and have the potential to be rewarded for their job performance with pay. That may be a sufficient application of equality for some. An individual may never seek equality with regard to the level of pay that they receive. In the United States, where it is considered poor manners to discuss finances, then the individual is at a disadvantage with regards to the quality of the information afforded to them about pay, and may never think to ask about equal pay.

The absence of knowledge that one is being treated unequally does not justify the unequal treatment.

If we truly, as individuals, internalize the concept of equality and build our world based on this concept from our individual interactions to our social institutions to our governments, then there necessarily falls an ethical code of behavior, and a consistent governmental approach, that benefits all. Such an approach dissolves necessarily and completely the affluent right of kings, recognizing it as the inequality that it is. It is with this mentality that we introduce the core principle of human equality.

The Principle of Human Equality is the foundational understanding that the overwhelming majority of human beings have, at birth, a similar potential for interpreting, understanding, and impacting the world and therefore should be treated equally by each other and by the society in which they are members.

A lot is packed into the above definition, so let’s explore it. The principle is foundational because it is the basis of the majority of the following explorations. We shall often refer to this as the First Principle for this reason. First Principle is interchangeable with the Principle of Human Equality and is also interchangeable with equality in the contexts used in this text.

The overwhelming majority concept acknowledges that human capability is spread over a normal curve, so not all humans can operate at the same capacity in all things. This is important, so we must think it through. One way to think about it is to examine any known human task. At birth, and with proper training, we acknowledge that the majority of world children have the capability to accomplish that task with appropriate grooming, as defined by the normal curve. There will be, of course, outliers who are able to complete the task exceptionally well, and those who are unable to complete the task at all. Similar in concept to Locke’s Tabula Raza, accepting such a truth means that it is impossible to predict at birth what an individual may accomplish in a lifetime.

Can we really say that all humans are created equal? No, of course not. Humans continually adapt to their environment physically, and so on the physical level, there will be those who are better adapted for specific regions or conditions than others. With the fluid evolution of technology shifting the post-industrial landscape, even those who have adapted well for many years may find that their adaptations trap them in a less-desirable life. That is to say that the environment may change, and so even that class of individuals who find themselves to be the ‘fittest’ at one moment, may not even be able to survive the next.

Most human ability exists on the normal curve, so there is substantial variation in terms of ability. As such, the artificial concept of race has no bearing on capability in either physical or intellectual capability. That is, the normal curve exists and is similar for all races regarding physical or intellectual capability generally. Regional differences aside due to environmental shaping, the genetic drivers for human cognition haven’t changed in over 50,000 years, so we can be reasonably sure that from a cognitive perspective, humans alive today are generally equal in capability from the moment of conception since there clearly has been little reason to modify intellectual capability. 

With regard to the differences in physical traits that may be based on inheritance, lineage, or regional environment, modern technology has lowered the impact of physical fitness by providing tools to create moderate climates (such as air conditioning) and overcome physical limitations (such as weapons). Human cognition minimizes the impact of human physiology, and therefore physical traits are less important now than at other times in history. So if there is a definitive distinction, it would be in cognitive ability which is generally very difficult to determine and may actually change over time.

Therefore, in today’s world, measured by today’s standards, and using today’s technology, humans are for all practical purposes equal. This is true throughout most of the modern age. Prior to that, humans kept other humans as slaves, and so the actual science becomes difficult as rational beings attempted to promote themselves through pseudoscience like Eugenics, thus confusing the scientific lexicon. Many still draw mistaking conclusions from debunked Eugenics texts today.

Even knowing that all humans are equal in capability, many fail to completely understand the implications of what such equality means. In-group peers often fail to extend the concept of equality to others who are not part of their group. Interpersonal violence demonstrates such a lack of understanding, but nothing drives the point home as well as war. In order for one reasonable group of humans to kill another group of humans, they must reduce in their minds the targets of their violence to sub-humans, and therefore, unequal.

Whether the suffering is a long, slow death of malnutrition or a quick death by an atomic blast, the necessary step we must take is to reduce the other to sub-human in our minds. This applies equally to warfare as to artificial scarcity, one of the causes thereof.

An equitable society must ensure that others are equal, and therefore prevent this dehumanization.

To continue, see the next chapter where we use these foundational concepts to further the argument for an equitable society in Another Argument for an Equitable Society (available 1/18/2023).

This essay is part of a series. Search on the tag “equitable society” for related essays. The evolution of society should always be pushing forward, always toward the most equitable solution for us all. There is a way forward that doesn’t involve violence, but it may involve a reimagining of the world we must create together.