/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10300497]

Kind of soft science, but what's the benefit of equality, many people (independent of political, social, financial factors) accept equality of everyone regardless of race/sex/... to be such a fundamental principle that it doesn't even need motivation, and resort to arguing only about how it should be implemented, but why? It's not a universal view in all cultures in history that everyone is equal, unlike values such as 'dont kill random people', which is almost completely universal, and has a clear benefit for the society as a whole.

Arguments I've heard are
>Imagine if people weren't equal and you were one of the oppressed people
Which is literally an appeal to emotion and can be used to justify anything (imagine if you were on death row, thus death penalty is wrong, for example)
>The recent increase in inequality has also caused an increase in unhappiness
No sources or further motivation are ever given on this

In memes: what's the evolutionary purposes of equality?

[Anonymous No.10300532]

>>10300497
kill. all. niggers.

[Anonymous No.10300534]

>>10300497
>many people (independent of political, social, financial factors) accept equality of everyone regardless of race/sex/
you've just grown up inside a particular ideological memescape so you don't see how it's an ideology and not a "fundamental principle". You just said yourself
>It's not a universal view in all cultures in history that everyone is equal
so, your premise is nonsense. You're unwittingly asking "why do people regurgitate platitudinous beliefs that aren't well reasoned" and the answer is virtue signalling to get agead

[Anonymous No.10300582]

>>10300497
yes liberal humanists raise their children to embrace liberalism and libertarianism

[Anonymous No.10300586]

>>10300497
>imagine if people weren't equal and you were..

You have to first establish why you were going to treat people unequally. In your terrible example we can establish why someone might be put on death row.

Now establish why women shouldn't deserve to vote? I think Rawls' veil of ignorance is a useful tool here to determine what we should do.

The problem with people that argue for what you argue is that they always include themselves as within the "in" group. So if we make a minimum IQ needed to vote, im sure you would include yourself. A minimum "health" to breed, i'm sure would include yourself. Not very rational.

[Anonymous No.10300640]

>>10300586
>The problem with people that argue for what you argue
You mean people that want reasoning behind believes instead of blind faith? What I Believe isn't even relavent to this. This type of knee jerk reaction to questioning why we should have equality of oh, you want a reason? You must be anti equality then! Is so immature.

I knew about Rawls theory, and while it at least tries to explain it, it ends up being equivalent to if I was disadvantaged, I'd be sad, and you need a more fundamental goal for this to work, such as maximising average happiness, but i can't think of a more fundamental criteria that would always be consistent with equality. In the maximise average happiness case e can imagine a highly unequal society that ends up with half the population extremely happy and half content.

>>10300534
So it's purely an ideology that can't be justified in any way? This is supported by a fuckton of people who call themselve sceptics, who value science above all else, would they hold believes with no evidence to this extent?