Planetarion Forums

Weeks · 2 Mar 2005, 16:44

Suppose for one minute, whether you believed it before or not, everyone is equal. Then, for the first time, you converse with someone, and you find your opinions differ. You feel he is incorrect in his reasoning as he does not see things to way you do.

Would you now say the former equality is lost?

HAL-9000 · 2 Mar 2005, 16:46

It's all about whose perspective you are looking at it from. Chances are the other person feels that his opinions are better then yours. In his mind you are of a lower social standing. It would required an impartial third party to state who they feel to be correct in their views. Only now would the equality be lost. If the third party believes both views to be correct or both views to be wrong in their own rights, then the equality still stands.

Weeks · 2 Mar 2005, 16:48

I'm not concerned with perspectives.
It's actually a pretty simple question.

[edit] actually if you are going to look at this question using perspectives then I suppose it doesn't matter if the equality is there or not, as equality would be subjective. And then equality would only matter as a theoretical tool to make sure everyone 'plays together nicely'.

Marilyn Manson · 2 Mar 2005, 16:52

What do you mean by 'equal'? Are we talking intellectually?

Nodrog · 2 Mar 2005, 16:53

It depends how you are using the word 'equal'. Do you mean that all people should be treated identically by law? Then no. Or do you mean that everyone has different skills and they somehow 'average out'? Then no, since someone's poor reasoning could be balanced by their being a talented artist. Do you mean that all people are of equal intelligence (although this is incoherent)? Then yes, the fact that someone is a poor reasoner would imply, all other factors being constant, that they are less intelligent than others (assuming 'intelligent' is being used in its everyday way). However in reality "all other factors" could never be constant, and even the most intelligent of people can have false opinions as either a result of bad reasoning, or good reasoning from false premises.

Phil^ · 2 Mar 2005, 16:56

It would depend i guess on if you consider the opinions of a person to reflect what that person is.
Opinions will inevitably differ, just because you dont agree with them doesnt mean they cant be right as well.
Personally i`d judge a person for equality on their actions, rather then their opinions

Marilyn Manson · 2 Mar 2005, 17:02

Two people with the same set of facts and the same abilities can draw different conclusions.

I'm not really sure what you mean by the "former equality" ad it's suposed "loss" in this context.

Weeks · 2 Mar 2005, 17:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

It depends how you are using the word 'equal'. Do you mean that all people should be treated identically by law? Then no. Or do you mean that everyone has different skills and they somehow 'average out'? Then no, since someone's poor reasoning could be balanced by their being a talented artist. Do you mean that all people are of equal intelligence (although this is incoherent)? Then yes, the fact that someone is a poor reasoner would imply, all other factors being constant, that they are less intelligent than others (assuming 'intelligent' is being used in its everyday way). However in reality "all other factors" could never be constant, and even the most intelligent of people can have false opinions as either a result of bad reasoning, or good reasoning from false premises.

I was refering to equality in a 'you are as good as i am' kind of way, not in a legal, skills or intelligence way. Although even like this equality is hard to pin down, 'i am no better than you' is the best I can come up with.

Your use of the word poor is in a way what I was trying to get at. As, unless I'm misunderstanding you, if on a single subject someone does not come to the same conclusion as you their conclusion is in effect not as good as yours. My question was that as someone's conclusion is not as good as yours are you now 'better than them'?

Nodrog · 2 Mar 2005, 18:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weeks

I was refering to equality in a 'you are as good as i am' kind of way. Although even like this equality is hard to pin down, 'i am no better than you' is the best I can come up with

You're just substituting one undefined term for another - 'as good as I am' in what way? "No better than me" at what?

Quote:

Your use of the word poor is in a way what I was trying to get at. As, unless I'm misunderstanding you, if on a single subject someone does not come to the same conclusion as you their conclusion is in effect not as good as yours. My question was that as someone's conclusion is not as good as yours are you now 'better than them'?

What standard are you using to judge people? If you rate people based on how good they are at coming to conclusions then that would make you better than them. If not, then no

Once you define what you mean by equality, the answer to your question should become clear (and the answer will be different depending on how you are using the word).

Kurashima · 2 Mar 2005, 19:58

Think "Truman Show"
Think "You are Truman"

All arguments become really easy after that.

flapjack · 2 Mar 2005, 22:52

there is just no such thing as true equality. This is simply because every human is unique and thus every human is different.

It's a matter of treating everyone in the same, regardless of their opinions.

You sure picked a difficult subject to talk about though.

demiGOD · 3 Mar 2005, 00:22

i usually just let off a really loud fart in the middle of the argument to stall his way of reasoning, specially when i know i'm right -

Boogster · 3 Mar 2005, 09:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weeks

Suppose for one minute, whether you believed it before or not, everyone is equal. Then, for the first time, you converse with someone, and you find your opinions differ. You feel he is incorrect in his reasoning as he does not see things to way you do.

Would you now say the former equality is lost?

I don't think the question is answerable, to be honest. 'Equality' such as this would only be possible if both persons were perfect - and if they were, no such disagreement would be possible.
Does this reasoning make sense to anyone else?

Dante Hicks · 3 Mar 2005, 09:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weeks

Would you now say the former equality is lost?

No. Equality (or at least, how I use the word) has nothing to do with people's opinions.

Boogster · 3 Mar 2005, 09:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

No. Equality (or at least, how I use the word) has nothing to do with people's opinions.

Opinions on right and wrong?

Dante Hicks · 3 Mar 2005, 10:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boogster

Opinions on right and wrong?

I don't really understand what you mean here.

My idea of equality has nothing to do with people's opinions. If you think it's OK to murder small children that doesn't make you (in any sense) more or less equal (?) to anyone else. It is the actions I am interested in. Similarly if you think it's wrong to kill small kids but you do it anyway, well then it's still not your opinion I'm interested in.

Unless you meant something else.