|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Oct 14, 2020 11:20:24 GMT
Does anyone have any thoughts on the concept of equality? It seems conservatives are often willing to cede this ideal to liberals/progressives, and even to repudiate. I'm not sure if this is wise. At the same time I struggle to formulate a workable definition of it, outside of the religious context.
We can say everyone is equal in dignity but what does this mean and how is it actionable?
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Oct 14, 2020 19:51:35 GMT
Does anyone have any thoughts on the concept of equality? It seems conservatives are often willing to cede this ideal to liberals/progressives, and even to repudiate. I'm not sure if this is wise. At the same time I struggle to formulate a workable definition of it, outside of the religious context. We can say everyone is equal in dignity but what does this mean and how is it actionable? It's been a refuge for scoundrels for many a year and been one of the causes of the death of millions from the French Revolution up to the present time. Many used it as a revolutionary slogan knowing that they could not deliver on it. They just ended up creating a new elite with a lumpen mass of plebs who were equal in the greyness that was on offer and at the same time lost many of their liberties to the tyranny and control that is needed to 'enforce' equality. Nobody ever really attempts to define equality, probably because it cannot exist in human affairs. Our individual desires, abilities, talents, moods, aspirations, mental and physical attributes, financial means and many more personal attributes are in a state of constant flux and are therefore not quantifiable for any fixed measure or calculation of equity. I think the best we can do is say that people are to be treated equally by the State, in that we are all entitled to be treated equally before the law and also to be able to have equal access to the opportunities of the state, such as being treated fairly when applying for jobs. I would prefer we look at addressing some of the excesses of capitalism such as getting rid of the bonus culture, less use of overseas cheap labour and getting multinationals to pay all their taxes. We would be better attacking the curse of consumerism where people are encouraged to spend on products that they don't need and get themselves into debt. In other words make society more equitable. For example is it right to give everyone above 18 years of age £2000 per month? If I sit around drinking and watching TV all day and my neighbour is working every hour he can to run a small business and employ people, should we still both get the same £2000 per month? If there was to be some gradation of wages to reflect the worth and effort of extra work, then the principle of strict equality of outcome collapses and we're back to rewarding hard work again. It's just human nature for some to work harder or have more talent than others. Unless humans become machines, total equality of outcome is impossible and therefore unfair to use it as a revolutionary slogan.
|
|
|
Post by hilary on Oct 15, 2020 14:33:51 GMT
Does anyone have any thoughts on the concept of equality? It seems conservatives are often willing to cede this ideal to liberals/progressives, and even to repudiate. I'm not sure if this is wise. At the same time I struggle to formulate a workable definition of it, outside of the religious context. We can say everyone is equal in dignity but what does this mean and how is it actionable? I heard a piece on the radio about transgender women playing on women's rugby teams - I think the RFU in Britain is allowing them to play on women's teams. Just had a look at the IRFU policy. Those who transition from female to male may compete in the male competitions subject to standard player consents. Those who transition from male to female have to have their testosterone levels tested regularly. It looks like they have put a good bit of work into the policy. I wonder how it works and if it's used much in practice. The Guardian reports that women say growing up male gives a man an advantage over women when it comes to rugby.
|
|
|
Post by cato on Oct 15, 2020 16:21:13 GMT
Does anyone have any thoughts on the concept of equality? It seems conservatives are often willing to cede this ideal to liberals/progressives, and even to repudiate. I'm not sure if this is wise. At the same time I struggle to formulate a workable definition of it, outside of the religious context. We can say everyone is equal in dignity but what does this mean and how is it actionable? Your reference to the religious context of Equality is key. Like many secular concepts we take for granted equality is grounded in Judeo-Christian concepts in this case the former Jewish rabbi St Paul. Tom Hollanders Dominion deals with this, usually unacknowledged, cultural legacy of Christendom for the now secular west. Hollander didn't acknowledge a previous book by Larry Siedentop "Inventing the Individual . The origin of Western Liberalism " which deals with the theological and Christian philosophy behind modern liberalism in great detail and is well worth a look . When you deny the fundamentals of Christian belief and practice but maintain some of its carefully worked out principles devoid of those fundamentals your principles are on rather shaky territory. We are equal nowadays not because of our equal dignity as divinely created human beings but because 1789 or the UN charter says so. Or more often because some state funded lobby group says so usually while restricting your right to question or express an alternative view. Conservatives have not been fans of Equality historically. A negative part of that is conservatives have backed the old order against reform and progress. More positively conservatives are being more honest in calling out some of the hum bug surrounding the modern cult of the ideological incense surrounding "Equality". In reality much of life is unfair and we do not choose our life circumstances or when we are born. Some are more beautiful , taller, smarter, happier , more successful charismatic, pleasant , altruistic etc etc That's the way things are. Those advantages are massive and cannot be wished , legislated away or redistributed. It's part of being human. Beyond an equality before the law ( which is relative. Poorer people can't normal access civil law or expensive barristers) and when being taxed ( again relative if you have clever accountants) we like to pretend we are all equal , that we have no class structure in Ireland and that somehow we dwell in a Republic of equals. It's a broadly positive ideal as is the notion of John Major's Classless society but great crimes have been committed in its name throughout the ages. There wasn't much Liberty Equality and fraternity shown to the Catholics of the Vendee or the populations resisting French military aggression. That's a pattern that those who express scepticism over Equality regularly experience.
|
|
|
Post by hilary on Oct 15, 2020 18:40:17 GMT
I don't like it when the readings at mass or some prayers are changed to be "inclusive". There was one recently that was distracting and differed from the Magnificat that I was following. The way I see it is that a man is taking it on himself (because ultimately such a change would have to be approved by the priest I suppose) to change something that has been acceptable up to now. I never thought that "mankind" didn't include women and it is different from "all", say, as that could include the animals I always think! I suppose priests have parishioners including women who want to "modernise" things and it's probably a minefield in fairness to them. I noticed Pope Francis is calling for women to be more involved in the church but that clericalism among the laity should be avoided. I'm not sure whether he is in favour of this "inclusive" changing of words but he'll have to come up with a new word for fraternity if he is - it's used a lot in a letter I think he co-wrote with a Muslim leader last year.
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Oct 15, 2020 23:26:53 GMT
Does anyone have any thoughts on the concept of equality? It seems conservatives are often willing to cede this ideal to liberals/progressives, and even to repudiate. I'm not sure if this is wise. At the same time I struggle to formulate a workable definition of it, outside of the religious context. We can say everyone is equal in dignity but what does this mean and how is it actionable? Like everything else, the pendulum can swing too far either way. There's an interesting example in the Democratic Labour Party (Australia)- in the 70's or thereabouts it became illegal to pay female workers less money for the same work in Australia. Although it was possibly Whitlam,the most left-wing of the country's leaders who endorsed this, it was the 100% pro-life, pro-family DLP, most of whose members have always been Catholic, who first made this a policy. Their continued but diminutive existence years after the death of their founder, long after getting elected to seats became an improbability for them, could set a precedent for similar Irish groups who are adapting to a slightly newer secularism?
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Oct 18, 2020 14:38:30 GMT
Here is a paragraph from George Orwell's 'The Road to Wigan Pier'. He is talking about Socialists' failings to make Socialism attractive. He contrasts it to Fascism as these were the 2 main protagonists in 1937 when this was written. The interesting thing about Orwell here is that he sees the essence of Socialism as Justice and Liberty. He does not seem to be caught up in the obsessive ideology of systematic equality.
Now although I don't agree with much of Orwell, his brand of socialism is a lot more palatable than that of our our current left/liberal ideologues. Generally speaking most conservatives would have no bother with the concepts of justice and liberty (although there could be disagreements on what foundation they are built on).
I sometimes think that 'equality' is made a paramount ideology by those who wish to cause destruction. If equality (of outcome) is an impossibility, considering how different we all are as flawed humans, then malicious people know that equality will never be achieved; this gives them a constant source of ammunition for fomenting disquiet and unease, with a view to overturning stable societies when these societies are at a low ebb.
Here's Orwell's paragraph:
Socialists have, so to speak, presented their case wrong side foremost. They have
never made it sufficiently clear that the essential aims of Socialism
are justice and liberty. With their eyes glued to economic facts, they
have proceeded on the assumption that man has no soul, and explicitly or
implicitly they have set up the goal of a materialistic Utopia. As a
result Fascism has been able to play upon every instinct that revolts
against hedonism and a cheap conception of 'progress'. It [Fascism] has been able
to pose as the upholder of the European tradition, and to appeal to
Christian belief, to patriotism, and to the military virtues. It is far
worse than useless to write Fascism off as 'mass sadism', or some easy
phrase of that kind. If you pretend that it is merely an aberration
which will presently pass off of its own accord, you are dreaming a
dream from which you will awake when somebody coshes you with a rubber
truncheon. The only possible course is to examine the Fascist case,
grasp that there is something to be said for it, and then make it clear
to the world that whatever good Fascism contains is also implicit in
Socialism.
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Oct 19, 2020 11:19:58 GMT
The 20s and 30s increasingly demand attention. Even belated revisit would pay off in terms of recognition. "Anything can happen" and Fascism vs Socialism then is not entirely unlike what lies behind today if one were only to cut off the thick major segments of mainstream society of a better kind in between. What we have taken for granted, however unlikely, can easily be lost in moves unmarked and by slippery slopes. Not necessarily by those tired ideologies themselves, since none would hardly have the attraction it takes to overrule other ideas anymore. Change into totalitarian mode could possibly only go technologically, via the compulsive mass manipulations we suffer at the moment, and more of the worse is apparently to come. So rather by a void in the nothingness of "modernist" politics as the monolith. Not a hybrid fascistoid Socialism per se but something composed like The New Unknown more likely.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Oct 19, 2020 20:03:53 GMT
The 20s and 30s increasingly demand attention. Even belated revisit would pay off in terms of recognition. "Anything can happen" and Fascism vs Socialism then is not entirely unlike what lies behind today if one were only to cut off the thick major segments of mainstream society of a better kind in between. What we have taken for granted, however unlikely, can easily be lost in moves unmarked and by slippery slopes. Not necessarily by those tired ideologies themselves, since none would hardly have the attraction it takes to overrule other ideas anymore. Change into totalitarian mode could possibly only go technologically, via the compulsive mass manipulations we suffer at the moment, and more of the worse is apparently to come. So rather by a void in the nothingness of "modernist" politics as the monolith. Not a hybrid fascistoid Socialism per se but something composed like The New Unknown more likely. In the same book Orwell rails against the blind progress of scientists and technicians where he says that we are likely to eventually end up like the 'brain in the bottle'. Even then in the 1930s no-one was protesting. The public, Orwell states, have a vague feeling that much of the progress isn't doing us any good, but everyone has got so used to material progress that they simply accept without question what comes next. There is a connection between the pursuit of material equality and technological progress. That connection is called making people less human, dehumanising mankind. The ultimate dehumanising is in death. In death we are finally equal. So the closer we are to the state of death the more equal we become. In other words, by dehumanising people they become more like the ant in the ant hill and the cog in the machine. So, the multinationals view us as consumers, herd animals that can be manipulated into categories, have our insecurities exploited by advertisement and propaganda. Governments and media create fear to manipulate us. Scientists and technicians create artificial intelligence to do our thinking. They also track our movements and activities via phones and the day isn't too far off when we will have microchips implanted in our bodies. As a population we are also dehumanised by being depressed in a secular meaningless society. Then medications for depression and anxiety are needed and the pharma companies are more than happy to supply. Meanwhile more of the population become dependent and stupefied. Quite literally the socialist regimes of USSR and China took this connection to its end and killed upwards of 100 million people in the pursuit of equality. I doubt if most equality fanatics have the idea of death uppermost in their minds when they talk of equality. But it is surprisingly present just below the surface. The Marx and Trotsky types have all at one time recognised the need for large numbers of people to die to achieve their aims. They were quite comfortable with that. Most high ranking Green and environmental leaders admit that the population needs to be greatly reduced (not them of course). Abortion and euthanasia are there too. Many of the student Antifa types seem to be the dehumanised self hating urban rootless types who hit out at human tradition and virtue. So its no surprise that, at least on a theoretic level, the impossible pursuit of equality can be tied to the idea of some sort of personal and societal extinction. The more we kill and dehumanise people the closer we get to the morbid equality. To make us more machine like achieves two things. First we are easily controlled by the elite who wish to rule the automata. And second, we are less and less human, more robotic and in a sense more equal in our dumbed down state, but ultimately closer to the state of death, just a brain in a bottle.
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Oct 19, 2020 20:47:21 GMT
Change into totalitarian mode could possibly only go technologically, and more of the worse is apparently to come. "modernist" politics as the monolith. Not a hybrid fascistoid Socialism per se but something composed like The New Unknown more likely. the 'brain in the bottle'. so used to material progress that they simply accept without question what comes next. There is a connection between the pursuit of material equality and technological progress. That connection is called making people less human, dehumanising mankind. the more equal we become. Quite literally the socialist regimes of USSR and China took this connection to its end I doubt if most equality fanatics have the idea of death uppermost in their minds when they talk of equality. But it is surprisingly present just below the surface. The Marx and Trotsky types have all at one time recognised the need for large numbers of people to die to achieve their aims. They were quite comfortable with that. Most high ranking Green and environmental leaders admit that the population needs to be greatly reduced (not them of course). Abortion and euthanasia are there too. Many of the student Antifa types seem to be the dehumanised self hating urban rootless types who hit out at human tradition and virtue. The more we kill and dehumanise people the closer we get to the morbid equality. Gloomy prospects indeed. Somehow mutated versions of The Red Disease (institutionalised immorality?) has been spread all over the West without much of a contest in fighting it back by the previous (once mainstream) upholders of "Life and Love". Not many Western leaders defends virtue as in tradition, Christian social doctrine, common sense, prudence and sanity. Sadly the net result is a given: lack of culture together. No material wealth can ever do what life is about. 1+1 is 2, not billions, trillions, phantasillions, tomorrow as well. When and where did the old school Real Conservatives go back into privacy instead of pushing politics, leaving the world as is was and more or less selling out and letting go even up to the "errors of Russia" taking over the whole worldy sty? Were we much too spoiled by the earlier generations achievements? Equality may prove a good reference point for the whole gamut of present propaganda. If the tide turns against the Globalist/socialist business sooner than expected, this dumbed down *culture of death equality* may be one of the first lies to be dropped? Even if it will take generations to build a free world, any small measure of humble honesty or conversion could be greeted any day as a long overdue yet yearned for and soaring sign of surprise.
|
|