According to a recent article in The New Yorker, there is a great deal of difficulty and confusion with the concept of equality, both as to whether people are inherently equal and how they should be treated. This post attempts to supply some clarity.
First there’s the question of whether, indeed, all men are created equal, as it states in the Declaration of Independence. The author cites polls that show that a large number of Americans believe that statement to be false. The author believes in the inherent equality of all people but can’t put his finger on where that assessment comes from. He doesn’t find any of the philosophical answers satisfying. And religious-based answers run up against the problem of how unequally people are treated in life, the worst example being the holocaust.
The answer to this first question is spiritual, not religious or philosophical. The mystical traditions of all three Abrahamic faiths, as well as Buddhism and Hinduism, teach that we are all born with the divine/Buddha essence inside us, that we are therefore inherently good. This is what it means to be human. It does not matter whether one is born into a rich family or a poor one, whether one is born with beauty or disfigured, whether one is born with an intact brain or with brain malfunctions. So while in one sense, we are obviously not born equally, in a deeper sense we are all born equals. Not only are we born equals spiritually, we all have this spiritual equality in us until the day we die. Unless we forsake our humanity and turn to evil, to the devil for support.
The problem is what happens to us once we are born. From the moment we leave our mother’s womb, we are beset by an environment which is often hostile, sometimes friendly, but one which virtually never provides the infant with the nurturing that he needs. No matter how committed the parent, it is almost impossible not to fall short, so great are the needs of the child. We all experience trauma in our formative years, the only question is its severity. This creates an insecurity which only grows with time and life experiences. It is this that forms our ego-mind, with its emotions, judgments, cravings, and attachments. It is this that causes our suffering.
The other thing that happens to us once we are born, is that we are all treated differently. Whatever innate talent a child has … and all children, even those who have malfunctioning brains, have some innate talent … is either left to lie fallow and rot, is supported and burnished to a high luster, or something in between. There is no shortage of people who are inherently beautiful or smart but because they were repeatedly called ugly or dumb by their parents have assumed that self-perspective.
And so the differences/inequality that we were born with or born into morph exponentially into a population characterized by extreme inequality on many measures. The concept of equality, even deep equality, seems a farce to many.
The second question is how do you treat people who are so different. Even Donald Trump is quoted in the article as supporting the concept that the law applies to all equally. But that is an easy answer, The harder question regarding the law is whether it should take into account the fact that we are different, unequal, and even why we are the way we are. In order to be truly egalitarian, must the law be applied, or written, to account for this difference/inequality?
That gets to the meaning of egalitarian. As is often the case, it means different things to different people. But to me, dealing with each person equally is not egalitarian; that just reinforces inequality. Egalitarianism must take into account our factual inequality. Egalitarian refers to equality of opportunity, how each person is dealt with. For example, equal opportunity in education. To me this means that because children in poor inner city areas come to school so deficient in skills compared to children in more affluent neighborhoods, school funding provided by the state must account for this inequality; poor schools must be given far greater funding and talent. What the child does with this opportunity is his or her responsibility, but the state has then met its responsibility to provide true equal opportunity.
This is just one example, but the same thought process applies in all areas. The Declaration of Independence says that “to secure these Rights, governments are instituted.” It is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness … not their attainment … that is the responsibility of government. Government, through laws and regulations, must provide the structure that provides equal opportunity. The actualization of that opportunity is the responsibility of the individual.
But lets say that having provided everyone with true equal opportunity, some people fail through no “fault" of their own. For example, some people will fall into homelessness because of the loss of a job. A definition: “fault” is something one has control over; if there is no real control, there can be no blame, no fault. Depending on the situation, one may need to accept responsibility, but not guilt.
Because we all have traumas which impact how we respond to the opportunities presented to us, that leave us without the free will to act in our best interests … we are virtually programmed by our past … these trauma create situations and reactions for which we are not at fault, and so government has the responsibility to provide us again with equal opportunity.
Bottom line, we are indeed all created equal spiritually. The world or genetics may have done a number on us, but we still deserve to be treated as human beings. As for how we should be treated, egalitarianism requires that we be treated differently in consideration of our status in life so that we all end up with true equal opportunity to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. That is the responsibility of the state. What we make of that opportunity is our responsibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment