Legal discrimination of women

[Adrian II]

Interesting stuff: the UN Human Rights Commissioner has published a report (http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/laws_that_discriminate_against_women.pdf) on legal discrimination of women.

At least 53 UN member states do not legally sanction marital rape and related domestic violence against women. Without looking into the report, bloggers and newspaper commentators assume that nearly all of those states must be muslim.

Not so.

Among the worst offenders (both legally and in practice) are nations that are predominantly Christian (South Korea, Kenya, Ghana, DR Congo, Ecuador, Mozambique, Angola, Nicaragua, Haiti), Hindu (India, Nepal), ‘mixed’ (Lebanon, Tanzania, Nigeria, Malaysia) or ‘other’ (Madagascar).

The report also highlights legal loopholes. Many constitutions pay lipservice to gender equality, but nonetheless prioritize personal (religious) law over equality law.

Other issues are hidden in the legal small print, such as the minimum age for marriage. This is often much lower for girls than for boys, based on religious precepts or tradition. As a consequence, girls are married off at a young age which severely restricts their development and independence.

When it comes to ‘early marriage’ numbers, the authors quote a chart composed in 2005 by the International Planned Parenthood Federation. It shows that the worst practices are mostly in Africa, the poorest continent, and the very worst countries are also among the very poorest in the world, regardless of religion: Niger, Bangladesh, Nicaragua.

We can not ignore the anti-feminine bias in muslim tradition, but it appears that there are more ‘religions of peace’ than just Islam. When it comes to legal discrimination of women, poverty seems to be the major determinant. Followed by strong religious traditions as such, not restricted to one denomination or even to monotheism.

Whoda thunk, eh? :wink3:

[Fragony]

Domestic rape, tricky, how to get the numbers. Now would a woman in a fundie country like Iran or Pakistan go to the police, would they listen, would it be smart. If the point is that not enough is being done ok but sounds a bit like wrapping the math around the conclusion to me.

[Adrian II]

Domestic rape, tricky, how to get the numbers.I think you didna read properly, me lad.

With regard to domestic rape they refer only to laws, not numbers.

When it comes to numbers, they refer to the IPPF report which is based on official marriage statistics, not statistics on domestic violence.

So no bogus numbers, no statistical hocus pocus. So sorry.

[Fragony]

Ya sorry my bad, was confusing it with some other report on domestic violence, mea culpa.

[Leet Eriksson]

even if you remove religion entirely it all falls to the inherent difference between men and women, they look different so they must be treated differently.

This has been going on since the stone age, and will not change in our lifetimes most likely.

[Viking]

even if you remove religion entirely it all falls to the inherent difference between men and women, they look different so they must be treated differently.

This has been going on since the stone age, and will not change in our lifetimes most likely.

Different treatment does not equal discrimination. With religions "removed" the path to rational thinking is opened and the religious dogmas about discriminating women disappears. It is primarily secularisation that has led to todays equality between men and women in the Western societies.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Different treatment does not equal discrimination. With religions "removed" the path to rational thinking is opened and the religious dogmas about discriminating women disappears. It is primarily secularisation that has led to todays equality between men and women in the Western societies.

Not really true, because the inequalities are a product of the scoial systems not the religions. Yes, religions can inshrine such prejudice but they can also be erercised against it. Secularisation did not lead to equality in Europe, industrialisation and rising standards of living did. Secularism was primarily a product of the last century after the two World Wars. It's a very modern idea and from the looks of things it might be stalling because young people here have grown up in Thrachurite/New Labour Britain and increasingly they are rejecting the rather vacuous and relativistic moral stance of the political and intellectual elite.

If you take a look at the countries Adrian lists you'll find they are all outside the West and are either Third World or only recently developing. Their societies have yet to come to terms with what began here two centuries ago, but which has only really taken off in the last fifty years.

[Viking]

Not really true, because the inequalities are a product of the scoial systems not the religions. Yes, religions can inshrine such prejudice but they can also be erercised against it. Secularisation did not lead to equality in Europe, industrialisation and rising standards of living did. Secularism was primarily a product of the last century after the two World Wars. It's a very modern idea and from the looks of things it might be stalling because young people here have grown up in Thrachurite/New Labour Britain and increasingly they are rejecting the rather vacuous and relativistic moral stance of the political and intellectual elite.

If you take a look at the countries Adrian lists you'll find they are all outside the West and are either Third World or only recently developing. Their societies have yet to come to terms with what began here two centuries ago, but which has only really taken off in the last fifty years.

Yeah, but you have to look were these social systems stem from. And as we know, in earlier times religion meant more in everyday life and the interpretations of the holy texts of the day had much more to say. LE seems to be suggesting that discriminating women lies in the human nature. Methinks you rather need someone to stand up and suggest it, typically as a part of a greater context, and get alot of followers for it in order for it to happen.

[HoreTore]

Not really true, because the inequalities are a product of the scoial systems not the religions. Yes, religions can inshrine such prejudice but they can also be erercised against it. Secularisation did not lead to equality in Europe, industrialisation and rising standards of living did. Secularism was primarily a product of the last century after the two World Wars. It's a very modern idea and from the looks of things it might be stalling because young people here have grown up in Thrachurite/New Labour Britain and increasingly they are rejecting the rather vacuous and relativistic moral stance of the political and intellectual elite.

If you take a look at the countries Adrian lists you'll find they are all outside the West and are either Third World or only recently developing. Their societies have yet to come to terms with what began here two centuries ago, but which has only really taken off in the last fifty years.

Then how do you explain South Korea?

[Husar]

So all those drunkards beating up their women are religious people?
Makes you wonder which religion supports people in drinking themselves senseless. Could never happen with more secularism and atheism of course. The final solution is found! :idea2:

[Viking]

So all those drunkards beating up their women are religious people?
Makes you wonder which religion supports people in drinking themselves senseless. Could never happen with more secularism and atheism of course. The final solution is found! :idea2:

Well, you could say that an important cause of it would be an underlying disrespect for women, and that it is cultural (methinks the impact of one's own culture is greater than what one like to think). And where did this particular bit of culture originate? Europe was christened for about a thousand years ago; any pre-Christian culture is for the most part eradicated. Saying that, not attempting to create a scape goat.

[Tribesman]

Well goodness gracious , great balls of fire , I have it from the highschool confidential that there do be a whole lotta shakin going on .
Now some of them cold heart who talk about us , wanna make us break up.
So baby bye bye I'll make it up to you when you are sweet little sixteen .:inquisitive:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, you could say that an important cause of it would be an underlying disrespect for women, and that it is cultural (methinks the impact of one's own culture is greater than what one like to think). And where did this particular bit of culture originate? Europe was christened for about a thousand years ago; any pre-Christian culture is for the most part eradicated. Saying that, not attempting to create a scape goat.

Wait - you're trying to say that drunken people beating their wives is a result of Christianity? How can you even link the two? How can you say that beating your wife while drunk is a result of religion and culture, instead of, you know, the alcohol?

:idea2:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yeah, but you have to look were these social systems stem from. And as we know, in earlier times religion meant more in everyday life and the interpretations of the holy texts of the day had much more to say. LE seems to be suggesting that discriminating women lies in the human nature. Methinks you rather need someone to stand up and suggest it, typically as a part of a greater context, and get alot of followers for it in order for it to happen.

You're seeing the religious laws as the cause, not the result. In most comunities the religion is the first form of law and it is used to enshrine cultural norms. If a society has a prejudice against women that becomes written into the religion. In settled cultures, for fairly obvious reasons, the men do the building, fighting and hunting. Then they start doing the decision making because the women stay in the village while the men go out and risk their necks. That gets worked into the religion. It's the same accross the Classical World, which is where Christianity comes from. Things might have been better among the Gauls for women but homosexuals were ritually drowned, so I'm afraid we don't have a "noble savage" culture in our past.


Then how do you explain South Korea?

Different cultural norms, arising in a different part of the world which has then had Christianity superimposed on top of it.


Well, you could say that an important cause of it would be an underlying disrespect for women, and that it is cultural (methinks the impact of one's own culture is greater than what one like to think). And where did this particular bit of culture originate? Europe was christened for about a thousand years ago; any pre-Christian culture is for the most part eradicated. Saying that, not attempting to create a scape goat.

Firstly, Europe was largely Christian 1,500 years ago at least and Christianity in Europe goes back further than that. In any case the Romans and Greeks were well known for beating their women folk, things got better in the Middle Ages and then took a dive during the renaissance but they did so because of power-politics, religion was just the excuse.

Religion is always the excuse.

[Papewaio]

We can not ignore the anti-feminine bias in muslim tradition, but it appears that there are more ‘religions of peace’ than just Islam. When it comes to legal discrimination of women, poverty seems to be the major determinant. Followed by strong religious traditions as such, not restricted to one denomination or even to monotheism.

That education and poverty are interwined. And those who are least educated will look for the answers they can use.

[HoreTore]

Different cultural norms, arising in a different part of the world which has then had Christianity superimposed on top of it.

But then what about Japan?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But then what about Japan?

What exactly about it?

[Viking]

Wait - you're trying to say that drunken people beating their wives is a result of Christianity? How can you even link the two? How can you say that beating your wife while drunk is a result of religion and culture, instead of, you know, the alcohol?

:idea2:

Well to my knowledge, alcohol does not create its own social norms in people; deeper feelings are let out.



You're seeing the religious laws as the cause, not the result. In most communities the religion is the first form of law and it is used to enshrine cultural norms. If a society has a prejudice against women that becomes written into the religion. In settled cultures, for fairly obvious reasons, the men do the building, fighting and hunting. Then they start doing the decision making because the women stay in the village while the men go out and risk their necks. That gets worked into the religion. It's the same across the Classical World, which is where Christianity comes from. Things might have been better among the Gauls for women but homosexuals were ritually drowned, so I'm afraid we don't have a "noble savage" culture in our past.

Well this religion expanded it's borders quite substantially and so could have replaced less discriminating cultures. When Christianity replaced Norse Mythology, women could no longer lead religious ceremonies et cetera. Point being that most of the modern discrimination could ultimately for the greatest part stem from a certain set of books. Not too much of a strong point, but my argumentation regarding this was in response to what seemed like a justification for to continue with any discriminating practises still on going, because humanity would disrespect women regardless of society; which is wrong.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

With religions "removed" the path to rational thinking is opened
Greatest :daisy: of the century.
.

[Viking]

It meant in that context that one do not have to consider a prejudice to begin with. Are there any reason why women should not be allowed to lead meetings? Organisations? Are there any reason at all for these claims? Through empiricism one can close in on truth.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well this religion expanded it's borders quite substantially and so could have replaced less discriminating cultures. When Christianity replaced Norse Mythology, women could no longer lead religious ceremonies et cetera.

This is a very bad example, because the Norse lacked a priestly cast like the Celtic Druid. I'm not aware of many Norse ceremonies, the only one that springs to mind is the ritual strangulation and hanging of dead men as a sacrifice to Odin, though I suppose there is also the "Blood Eagle" where the ribcage is ripped open. In any case I don't recall a specific form for worship of the Aesir or Vanir.


Point being that most of the modern discrimination could ultimately for the greatest part stem from a certain set of books. Not too much of a strong point, but my argumentation regarding this was in response to what seemed like a justification for to continue with any discriminating practises still on going, because humanity would disrespect women regardless of society; which is wrong.

Your point is bad, because discrimination is a product of the developement of the society common to almost all cultures at a certain stage. I've already given you the reasoning. Men do the fighting, so they make the decisions, while the women stay at home. when the whole tribe is on the move the women share more of the risks and usually have more of a say.

Greek, Roman, Semetic, Persian, Celtic, Iberian... all these ancient cultures discriminated to one level or another, the Greeks were worst followed by the Romans and the less settled and orderd the culture the better things are for women. The same thing happens in the Middle Ages, as society puts itself back together things get worse for women.

Your thesis seems to be that but for religion things would have been better for women but if you look at women's rights movements they are rarely rooted in secularism, and the prejudice is seen in every culture.

That in no wise makes it right but but blaming "ignorant" or "evil" religion is an exercise in historical revisionism. As the Bishop of Rochester said recently, Christianity fosters a belief in equality because we are all God's children.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It meant in that context that one do not have to consider a prejudice to begin with. Are there any reason why women should not be allowed to lead meetings? Organisations? Are there any reason at all for these claims? Through empiricism one can close in on truth.

Actually, through empiricism alone people are absolutely unequal and probably shouldn't even be treated as such.

[Husar]

It meant in that context that one do not have to consider a prejudice to begin with. Are there any reason why women should not be allowed to lead meetings? Organisations? Are there any reason at all for these claims? Through empiricism one can close in on truth.
Of course, everyone thinks his lovely hobby will one day bring world peace if all the other stupids would just start loving it as much as she/he does. ~;)

[naut]

So all those drunkards beating up their women are religious people?
Haha, yeh, it makes you wonder why Ireland isn't on the list... :rolleyes:

[Viking]

This is a very bad example, because the Norse lacked a priestly cast like the Celtic Druid. I'm not aware of many Norse ceremonies, the only one that springs to mind is the ritual strangulation and hanging of dead men as a sacrifice to Odin, though I suppose there is also the "Blood Eagle" where the ribcage is ripped open. In any case I don't recall a specific form for worship of the Aesir or Vanir.

I was citating my history book which I consider a fairly reliable source.

I found this on Wikipedia as an example: Völva.




Your point is bad, because discrimination is a product of the developement of the society common to almost all cultures at a certain stage. I've already given you the reasoning. Men do the fighting, so they make the decisions, while the women stay at home. when the whole tribe is on the move the women share more of the risks and usually have more of a say.

Seeing that not at all all societies have been equally discriminating to women, it should be perfectly valid. Not at all all societies need to tak the same path.


Your thesis seems to be that but for religion things would have been better for women but if you look at women's rights movements they are rarely rooted in secularism, and the prejudice is seen in every culture.

Yes, but the cultural prejudice has it's roots in somewhere. I do not think the societies would be better for women without religions, no (if such a thing is even possible for the first tribes/socities). If something is viewed as heresy and that "preaching" it could lead to death, it'd certainly slow down any process.




Actually, through empiricism alone people are absolutely unequal and probably shouldn't even be treated as such.

Absolutely so. Men cannot give birth to babies (ignoring silly claims from a certain topic), only women can; they must thus be treated unequally in that aspect. What other aspects should they be treated different in though, apart from the obvious? I'm not sure to which you're referring.

[ajaxfetish]

Seeing that not at all all societies have been equally discriminating to women, it should be perfectly valid.
Not all Christian societies have been equally discriminating to women, either. Or all religious societies for that matter, either.


Absolutely so. Men cannot give birth to babies (ignoring silly claims from a certain topic), only women can; they must thus be treated unequally in that aspect. What other aspects should they be treated different in though, apart from the obvious? I'm not sure to which you're referring.
Not all people are equally tall. Not all people are equally strong. Not all people are equally intelligent. Not all people are equally coordinated. Not all people are equally graceful. Not all people are equally creative. Not all people are equally charismatic. Shall I go on?

Ajax

[Viking]

Not all people are equally tall. Not all people are equally strong. Not all people are equally intelligent. Not all people are equally coordinated. Not all people are equally graceful. Not all people are equally creative. Not all people are equally charismatic. Shall I go on?

Ajax


And in what ways should they, seemingly politically incorrect, be treated different?

[Husar]

Haha, yeh, it makes you wonder why Ireland isn't on the list... :rolleyes:
Yeah, they're so religious they even used to kill people of other denominations.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Not all people are equally tall. Not all people are equally strong. Not all people are equally intelligent. Not all people are equally coordinated. Not all people are equally graceful. Not all people are equally creative. Not all people are equally charismatic. Shall I go on?
Ajax

Exactly - people are equal in the eyes of God, If there was no God, how could they be?

[Adrian II]

Funny how this thread has narrowed down to a peeing contest over religion. Whereas poverty seems to be the most important determinant of legal and factual discimination of women. Is it because poverty compounds existing legal and social (including religious) obstacles for women?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Funny how this thread has narrowed down to a peeing contest over religion. Whereas poverty seems to be the most important determinant of legal and factual discimination of women. Is it because poverty compounds existing legal and social (including religious) obstacles for women?

You're initial post was about Religion. As a known and avowed atheist - you made the discussion primarily about religion. I'm sure it is understandable that the conversation would further revolve around that topic.

Any conversation about religion with people who actually believe in their own becomes a peeing contest.

[Adrian II]

You're initial post was about Religion. As a known and avowed atheist - you made the discussion primarily about religion. I'm sure it is understandable that the conversation would further revolve around that topic.

Any conversation about religion with people who actually believe in their own becomes a peeing contest.I think your post indirectly answers my question.

No, my original post was about legal discrimination of women and the false assumption that Islam was mainly to blame for that. In fact, as I wrote, the report shows that religion as such (any denomination) takes second place after poverty as an obvious determinant.

Maybe the fact that religion is mentioned in a post is enough for some members to assume that it is about religion, even if said post explicitly denies this.

[Vladimir]

Funny how this thread has narrowed down to a peeing contest over religion. Whereas poverty seems to be the most important determinant of legal and factual discimination of women. Is it because poverty compounds existing legal and social (including religious) obstacles for women?


It's the Backroom Certainty Principle. All threads will eventually devolve into religious, firearm...or something else disputes, can't remember.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You're thinking of abortion.

Anyway, I'm personnally fed up with religion being blamed for all the social problems throughout history. Especially given the secular hellhole I live in.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
You're not alone. :end:
.

[ajaxfetish]

And in what ways should they, seemingly politically incorrect, be treated different?
Your original contention was that empiricism should allow us to close in on the truth, the truth presumably being that all people should be treated equally. Tuff's response was that the assumption that all people should be treated equally is entirely separate from empiricism, and is a value judgment, whether its origins are in religion or a secular human ethic.

Empirically we find innumerable differences between individuals. It is not logical to assume that because people are different, they should be treated the same. If your empiricist schema were utilitarian, I imagine the strong people should be given tasks requiring strength, the charismatic should be leaders, the creative artists, and so on. If the schema were more opportunist, the smartest and strongest would simply be in charge and tell others what to do. This is not equal treatment. It is a separate, and ethical, impulse that everyone should receive equal treatment. And one which, at least in terms of gender, seems more prevalent in prosperous and developed societies than in more poor and primitive ones (with a possible exception for nonsedentary cultures, as previously referenced).

Ajax

[Papewaio]

I don't believe in equality because we are the same (we aren't).
I believe in equality for the same actions.

Being paid the same based on the market regardless of ones sex, race or religion for the exact same output.

Having the same justice regardless of ones sex, race or religion for the exact same crime.

Equal rights for equal actions.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't believe in equality because we are the same (we aren't).
I believe in equality for the same actions.

Being paid the same based on the market regardless of ones sex, race or religion for the exact same output.

Having the same justice regardless of ones sex, race or religion for the exact same crime.

Equal rights for equal actions.

It is either based on a superlative or it is a fleeting ideology (secular "ethics"). It clashes with reality and is rarely practiced to boot. No two people do the same job and the market is dictated by too many things to start giving out its own equal wages. Who do you know that is paid at the same rate as their co-workers? I am paid an extra 7k for doing a crappier job where I'm am because I fought for it harder for it in the interview.

Equality is a religious idea that is incompatible with a secular utilitarian society. I've read books on secular ethics - they add up more poorly than religious arguements to me. But that's just me - a salesman with a bachelors in history.

[Papewaio]

Would you be comfortable buying something at a store and going up to a counter and then they look at you and go. Well dude, since you are a dude its 20% extra.

I think that we can all agree that ideally people should be treated the same based on their actions. The reality will always be different and randomised. What it should not be is stratified by sex, race or religion.

BTW

I am paid an extra 7k for doing a crappier job where I'm am because I fought for it harder for it in the interview.

Shows that your actions were different and a different outcome occurred.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Would you be comfortable buying something at a store and going up to a counter and then they look at you and go. Well dude, since you are a dude its 20% extra.

I think that we can all agree that ideally people should be treated the same based on their actions. The reality will always be different and randomised. What it should not be is stratified by sex, race or religion.

BTW


Shows that your actions were different and a different outcome occurred.

Why shouldn't it be stratified by race, sex or religion? Just because it is the flavor of the week (an admittedly long week), the historical rule is otherwise. In fact, many people might not like to be paid the same for the same job. They might get around the equal pay dogma with neat tricks like complimenting the boss, having a penis, reciting the Koran the most professionally, having the lightest skin in the office, etc. Why shouldn't those things get you more money? Details and personality make the difference in pay in the real world, maybe not in the secular egalitarian fantasy world, though.

[seireikhaan]

Why shouldn't it be stratified by race, sex or religion? Just because it is the flavor of the week (an admittedly long week), the historical rule is otherwise. In fact, many people might not like to be paid the same for the same job. They might get around the equal pay dogma with neat tricks like complimenting the boss, having a penis, reciting the Koran the most professionally, having the lightest skin in the office, etc. Why shouldn't those things get you more money? Details and personality make the difference in pay in the real world, maybe not in the secular egalitarian fantasy world, though.
:jawdrop: Tell me that was a joke, Tuff.

[ICantSpellDawg]

:jawdrop: Tell me that was a joke, Tuff.

1/2

I just don't see how you (not you, anyone) can legitimately defend egalitarianism from a secular point of view unless you (not you) are lazy or weak - or if you think you are a white knight. I get the theory, but the reality is that some people are better than others and will earn more for the same job.

Religion makes men equal. Without it, men are obviously not equal - unless you are misleading yourself for a greater good (which tends to be derived from religious understandings whether you like it or not).

I believe in secular morality only as the half-life of religious ethics that haven't completely died out yet.

[Viking]

Your original contention was that empiricism should allow us to close in on the truth, the truth presumably being that all people should be treated equally. Tuff's response was that the assumption that all people should be treated equally is entirely separate from empiricism, and is a value judgment, whether its origins are in religion or a secular human ethic.


I don't see how it could be interpreted that empiricism should lead us to that people are equal, that is certainly not empiricism. In the context I wrote it, it merely suggested that instead of just saying "women do worse as leaders compared to men" and stick to it, one should test the hypothesis and see if it is true. That is empiricism.



Empirically we find innumerable differences between individuals. It is not logical to assume that because people are different, they should be treated the same. If your empiricist schema were utilitarian, I imagine the strong people should be given tasks requiring strength, the charismatic should be leaders, the creative artists, and so on. If the schema were more opportunist, the smartest and strongest would simply be in charge and tell others what to do. This is not equal treatment. It is a separate, and ethical, impulse that everyone should receive equal treatment. And one which, at least in terms of gender, seems more prevalent in prosperous and developed societies than in more poor and primitive ones (with a possible exception for nonsedentary cultures, as previously referenced).

Ajax

But most differences are irrelevant in most contexts. Some people got blue eyes, others brown and some green or grey. It has zero impact on how people should be treated. However, when you are going to find the best person for a job, you do not treat them all equally, you judge them by their qualifications. Here, empiricism enters the stage. One could treat them unequally not only based on their qualifications, but also because of their skin colour, gender et cetera. For 100 years ago, a "coloured" man running as a a president candidate would haven been ridiculed by most. Yet today it is possible; and by what other means than more or less empiric methods has it become so?



If your empiricist schema were utilitarian, I imagine the strong people should be given tasks requiring strength, the charismatic should be leaders, the creative artists, and so on. If the schema were more opportunist, the smartest and strongest would simply be in charge and tell others what to do. This is not equal treatment. It is a separate, and ethical, impulse that everyone should receive equal treatment.

That doesn't only sound utilitarian, but also authoritarian; and it implies that the best society for everyone is the one where the smartest are in charge, but why would it be so? I don't see how that is empiric, as what one define as the best society is semantics in many ways.



Religion makes men equal. Without it, men are obviously not equal - unless you are misleading yourself for a greater good (which tends to be derived from religious understandings whether you like it or not).

That is not at all true. It highly depends on how one interpret the wholy texts. Apparently, the afro-American were not equal to other men until the late 20th century.

[HoreTore]

1/2

I just don't see how you (not you, anyone) can legitimately defend egalitarianism from a secular point of view unless you (not you) are lazy or weak - or if you think you are a white knight. I get the theory, but the reality is that some people are better than others and will earn more for the same job.

Religion makes men equal. Without it, men are obviously not equal - unless you are misleading yourself for a greater good (which tends to be derived from religious understandings whether you like it or not).

I believe in secular morality only as the half-life of religious ethics that haven't completely died out yet.

Like I've said before, Tuff, you would benefit from reading some leftie propaganda. You'll find a dozen reasons as to why people are equal and should be treated equally. And none of them bear even a hint of religion...

And no, I don't mean Leninist madness, try steering towards some contemporary socialist/socioliberal thinkers...

[Kralizec]

1/2

I just don't see how you (not you, anyone) can legitimately defend egalitarianism from a secular point of view unless you (not you) are lazy or weak - or if you think you are a white knight. I get the theory, but the reality is that some people are better than others and will earn more for the same job.

Religion makes men equal. Without it, men are obviously not equal - unless you are misleading yourself for a greater good (which tends to be derived from religious understandings whether you like it or not).

I believe in secular morality only as the half-life of religious ethics that haven't completely died out yet.

Reward based on merit. You get raised and educated, after wich you succeed or fail depending on your effort and ability, or lack thereof. This is not only the fair way to go, but also the most sensible from an economic perspective.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Like I've said before, Tuff, you would benefit from reading some leftie propaganda. You'll find a dozen reasons as to why people are equal and should be treated equally. And none of them bear even a hint of religion...


Like what?

[ajaxfetish]

I don't see how it could be interpreted that empiricism should lead us to that people are equal, that is certainly not empiricism.
Looking back through your posts in the thread, it is clear that I misinterpreted your meaning. You have my apologies. Let me just say that while empiricism may lead us to treat people differently without necessarily being discriminatory, it does not preclude discrimination. We have in addition to it an ethical framework which tells us everyone deserves equal rights and opportunities in spite of some of the natural ingroup/outgroup lines we face.

Ajax

[Viking]

Looking back through your posts in the thread, it is clear that I misinterpreted your meaning. You have my apologies. Let me just say that while empiricism may lead us to treat people differently without necessarily being discriminatory, it does not preclude discrimination. We have in addition to it an ethical framework which tells us everyone deserves equal rights and opportunities in spite of some of the natural ingroup/outgroup lines we face.

Ajax

:bow:

I can agree to that to a certain extent.

[HoreTore]

Like what?

Well, let's see...

First off, how does one determine how people should be treated, who gets the special treatment?

Should you determine it by birth? Inheritance? Merit?

Birth would be the most ridiculous, ie. the caste system. That doesn't even attempt to judge a persons qualifications.

Hereditary privileges makes a bit more sense, but it is essentially the same stuff as the caste system.

So we're left with merit. I guess that was what you were aiming at in the first place, right? A meritocracy is of course a great idea? But while we judge by how much a person has achieved, how can we know how much they will achieve in the future? Two examples...

1. Donald Trump, 1989. A bankrupt loser. If you were to judge him by merit, you'd have him work as the village idiot. 2008, Donald Trump is among the richest people of the world again.

2. A drug-addict. Well, 10 years ago he was an addict. At that time, he was "scum", and in the society you envision, he probably wouldn't even be alive. In this society, however, he fought back his addiction, and now runs his own business, hiring ex-addicts like himself. Last time I heard about his company, he had 15 employees. I'd estimate that he's making somewhere around 100.000 USD a year. But who knew that 10 years ago?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Two examples...

The problem is that these examples are the exception rather than the rule. Even in a system with hereditary power or inheritance, powerful figures can still arise.

[HoreTore]

The problem is that these examples are the exception rather than the rule.

I beg to differ. Most of the super-rich guys in this country have next to no education and worker backgrounds. For example:

* Olav Thon - 20 billion in 2007 - a farmers son. Originally supposed to study, but didn't.
* Kjell Inge Røkke - 19.8 billion in 2007 - Uneducated fisherman
* Svein Erik Bakke - deceased, fortune unknown, but he was one of the tops - A former school outcast. Started working at the age of 17.
* John Fredriksen - 55,5 billion - Uneducated with worker background.
* Odd Reitan - 15 billion - worker background, though educated at a trade school

[Kralizec]

I think there might be a small difference between people who grew up poor and people who squandered their life thsu far by becoming drug addicts...

[HoreTore]

I think there might be a small difference between people who grew up poor and people who squandered their life thsu far by becoming drug addicts...

Take a look at my second example. Or the current president of the united states.

People can change. And we have absolutely no way of knowing who will contribute the most to society in the future. The drug addict may clean up and start a million dollar business, the industrial tycoon may be spend 10 years in the slammer for ruining his company by tax fraud or similar. Thus, it's in our own interest to make sure that everyone has equal opportunities.