TED Conversations

Adonis Mata

This conversation is closed.

Actual Equality

It is a bright line rule when talking about equality for everyone. Any entity that is considered a human should have the exact same rights as all persons respective to their age e.g., age limit to go to war.

In other words, you have to pick either everyone is equal in all aspects of life or there should be discrimination to certain groups.

So what I propose must happen in order to have actual equality for every person is to abolish laws that are gender/race/sexual orientation specific. As long as these laws, for better or worse, exist it will be impossible for there to be "Actual Equality" for every person.

Share:
  • thumb
    Jun 13 2011: Yes, the conviction that it were possible to reduce racism by introducing *more* racism is so utterly absurd that I can hardly believe anyone can honestly fall for it. The same applies to sexism and other superficial criteria, of course. The problem is that many people are unwilling to put the individual above the group. Here in Germany it is not the standing of the individual that is important, but the standing of the group. From such a socialist viewpoint, it seems perfectly logical to commit injustice to the individual for the greater good. So to avoid miscommunication, one should be very clear what kind of "equality" one is talking about. The term is understood in vastly different meanings from different perspectives.

    By the way, you wrote an interesting sentence: "Any entity that is considered a human should have the exact same rights as all persons." Why did you not write: "Any entity considered a person should have the same rights as all persons?" This hints at the controversial issue of speciesism.

    And how far are we willing to go when it comes to giving up sexism? For example, a famous Monty Python sketch ridicules the idea to fight for men's right to have babies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c . And yet this is an important remark: Any legal regulation regarding pregnancies should not speak of women, but of pregnants. Even if there were a 100% correlation - which is not the case due to transsexuals -, there would be no reason to focus on the sex of the pregnant person instead of the pregnancy. So this was already a valid criticism before transsexuals were legally recognized.

    And even TED is not free from it. It proudly declares here http://www.ted.com/pages/185 that it significantly increased the number of women. Why is there no statement about the number of redheads or blue-eyeds? Because some superficial criteria are considered relevant and others are not. Yet I wonder what income gaps exist between people of different haircolors...
    • thumb
      Jun 14 2011: I did not intend to bring speciesism into this debate, but I am glad that what I wrote hints at it because of the simple fact that species that are not human do belong in this debate.

      This debate concerns only humans.

      Concerning your statement about the law pertaining to pregnancy, I agree that there is "...no reason to focus on the sex of the pregnant person instead of the pregnancy." This is the context I am speaking of when I say 'actual equality,' as my proposition is for all laws to not mention gender/race and to abolish laws that are laws simply to distinguish gender.

      In the U.S. there is a law, Title IX, that on paper seems like a good idea but in terms of actual equality, I view it as telling women they are inferior. Title IX deals with sports in universities, private and public, and separates gender into two distinct classes. It is unbearable that something as trivial as sports and games cannot be fixed to give every human the exact same rights. I believe that every person should have the same right as any other person to compete for a position and play for the same team regardless of gender. This can be a very simple starting point to start giving every human actual equality.
      • thumb
        Jun 15 2011: I'm sorry, do you mean that this debate concerns only humans or that species that are not human do belong in this debate? You wrote both, and to me that seems contradicting *confused*

        The attempt to overcome sexism - and segregation is an expression of that - will not be easier than overcoming racism. Now it shouldn't surprise anyone here if I say that racism is not based on rational arguments. At best it tries to hide behind pseudo-scientific pretenses, but its heart is the simple drive to uphold clear ingroup-outgroup-differentiations. If there were a way to eliminate the longing for "Us vs. them" thinking out of human minds, we could establish actual equality by tomorrow. But since that is impossible, we probably have to take the same way as the anti-racism movement: Gradually accustoming people to the dissolution of this distinctition until they accept it. The problem is that this took hundreds, possibly thousands of years regarding racism, and even today we still haven't reached the goal.

        You call equality in sport a "very simple starting point". I can't quite share your optimism; instead I believe that this will be possible only near the end of the struggle for equality, and that it will be far from being simple to get there. But I agree that this will be an important step for our progress towards actual equality.