"Equal" is a mathematical concept: do people need to be the same to be equal?

Question

(Two plus two) equals (four)

Different, yet of equal worth.

Black man - white man

Different, yet of equal worth.

Muslim woman - Catholic woman

Different, yet of equal worth.

Man - Woman

Different, yet of equal worth.

Why is this concept so difficult for some people to grasp?

Answer 1

well if it comes to people's mind.. there wont be terrorism...

Answer 2

"(Two plus two) equals (four)

Different, yet of equal worth."

This is the funniest false analogy I see very often when it comes to being equal. Where is it from, because this is not the first time I have seen it. Do they falsely teach it in the Social Sciences like this?

In mathematical theory or Logic, it is exactly the same. No different. Exact. Equal/Exact.

The other things you're talking about are considered Social Equality... equal opportunity to be specific... so logically: opportunity(a) = opportunity(b)   with group 'a' and group 'b'... which is still exactly equal. "=" means exactly the same.... with social equality referring to EXACTLY the same opportunity(or Exactly the same worth in your example)

Answer 3

Only bigots are confused by equality.  It's clear what that means: Legal protections for unalienable rights and equal opportunity.  What bigots have a problem with is the concept of "Hallmark vs. Parity".  A hallmark is a stamp of "purity".  In bigot-dom, whomever is dominating gets to decide who is "pure".  Only those who are "pure" or "chosen" or match the subjective criteria for the times of "real human" get to have legal protections for their unalienable rights.  Other people who do not meet the "criteria" are not "real humans", hallmark humans, they have either no soul or an inferior soul, like lower lifeforms, and therefore can "righteously" be exploited, enslaved, consumed and otherwise oppressed.  

For example, the Catholic Church has long debated if women have "souls" and although deciding that they probably do, like dogs do maybe, to this day women cannot become ordained in that misoyngistic religion because of lingering qualms about if their souls are actually "fully connected" to God like men's souls are.  lol  Another example is handicapped people who are considered "defective" by many, especially conservatives and Republicans in the U.S. who visciously opposed the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Entire social systems can arise wrapped around morbid egotistical hallmark notions of which "body" is the "correct" body or "default" body and everyone else who does not match the criteria for that "correct" body can just make-do.   For example, although millions of Americans with disabilities worked and payed taxes, bigots screamed bloody foul when a movement began to make sidewalks and curbs wheelchair friendly.  The "defectives" would just have to make-do, is what the conservatives and Republicans said back then, for real.  But wait.  Wouldn't our society be stronger if we used taxes to make sloping curbs that EVERYONE could use and that would help more Americans get to work rather than use everyone's taxes, including the taxes of Americans with disabilities, to make sidewalks that only the "correct" hallmark body could use?  

Men have hallmark issues about their bodies as being the "correct" body and women have to make-do.  The common male "superiority" rant seen here is that women are not physically strong enough to meet "male" fitness standards.  And, according to the Logic of the Bigots, if women cannot meet male fitness "perfection" and hallmark standards, they then cannot be firefighters, soldiers, law enforcement officers, etc.  Nonsense.  Women function just fine in any profession except the freak show gorilla-on-steroids so-called "sports".  In the U.S., no entity allows it's workers to lift more than 50-75 pounds without special training and equipment anyway.  We've been off the "muscle" hallmark for over a hundred years. The premise of bigoted anti-women sentiment in this matter is if women do not meet male sameness hallmarks, then women should not have equal rights.  lol.

Another example of hallmark "purity" and "perfection" notions of human bodies is "Potty Parity".  Men designed society with public toileting facilities that accomodate male bodily functions best.  Women need more toilets because our bodily functions are "different", not "imperfect", and we shouldn't have to make-do.  Potty Parity is an excellent example of people who are not the "same" but have equal rights in how we structure our society to better accomodate all of us and not just the "hallmark" male body.  Feminist restructurings of society have only begun in this regard and those changes that will better accomodate women will make society stronger.

Answer 4

This is precisely why we should be talking about equity instead of equality.

Answer 5

No, they do not have to be the same.

Created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all men have the same nature and the same origin. Redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, all are called to participate in the same divine beatitude: all therefore enjoy an equal dignity.

The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it:

Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of s*x, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design.

For more information, see Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 1934 and following: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3s...

With love in Christ.

Answer 6

The issue is that the Equal Rights Amendment would have prevented the "greater rights" and "more privileges" that the whiners here are always screeching about feminists wanting.  It shouldn't have been necessary to write the concept of equality into the laws, but it was.  

Answer 7

The concept is equal rights under law.

People should have the same protections, we shouldn't make laws to force people into being equal.

Answer 8

I raise my cup to you raisin.  Equal does not mean the same.  I do not want to be a man, I want to be a woman and still be equal.  Man or woman, none of us are the "same", each is different and special.

Mast, my response is, life ain't fair so as long as the non-fairness is equal then that is fine.

Answer 9

ah I've heard this one before.

Equal doesn't mean same just as equal doesn't mean fair.

Your response?

anyways where are you going with this. I agree with the logic but I don't understand how it validates the importance of equality? Can you explain perhaps?

edit: and my response to that mystery is what is equality worth if it wasn't created through fairness?

@ patois.. "Women need more toilets because our bodily functions are "different", not "imperfect", and we shouldn't have to make-do."

Yea it could be equitable (fair) that they have more toilets, not equal. I think you've made the mistake of including equity within equality.

The two are conflicting concepts and equality is actually just a gauge to when things are level.

The equality you describe is your brand nothing more..

I do accept parity to a limited extent, equal pay however isn't fair without equal production value so again "equality" is a loaded concept

But yea no one should be valued less based on what group they belong to since that's totally arbitrary and groups aren't homogenous, but the fact is we do discriminate on individuals since they are different and comparable, some are of more worth its that simple.

Answer 10

Wrong; for instance, discrimination, what you fail to see is that discrimination does not always encompass black against white, Muslim against Catholic,and, or man against woman.  I, for example discriminate against most women coming to my home, because I don't want to bother with their gossiping nonsense.  You are forgetting the fine lines. We are only worth that what we earn; no one is exactly the same in any thing; although, they may share similarities.  We all have different finger prints, and yes, that has to be counted.  I believe you are looking for a utopia.  There is so much hidden between the lines in most utopias.  Those who oppose in even the minutes of ways are usually systematically got rid of; just so the scheme of things go their way.