so, i had this assignment in english class, to comment on the following quote:<<what makes equality such a difficult subject is that we only want it with our superiors>>(henry becque). the whole point seemed to be agreeing on the fact that indeed we do look for being equals with those above us, and oh, how lousy that made us feel. my only question here is…so what’s the problem?
i don’t believe people are born as equals. i don’t believe we ever are equals with anyone. some are born in europe or the u.s. , others in middle africa. some come from higher social environments, some are mere some junkey’s kid. needless to say, i am convinced that we should, as humans, at least have equal rights. but we don’t.
in addition, we dare to grow up. from this point forward, we are done talking about any sort of equality – but again, i don’t really see the problem here. some are keen on math, others would rather fancy a good book. some may prefer to like nothing, others to like everything. to a certain extent, some may have no problem with having nothing, others want it all. so no, we are not at all equals.
moreover, as far as i’m concerned, i find no valuable argument for desiring equality with my inferiors. i do have, obviously, respect for them as individuals, but it seems to me that one should always look forward. the whole point in life is evolving, and that can only be done by moving from good to better, not the other way around. nevertheless, one should always take into account the fact that what goes around, comes around. we couldn’t have equaled our superiors if they hadn’t let us. likewise, though we should not agree to being equals with inferiors, we do have the moral obligation of allowing them to be with us, as long as they deserve it.
to put it briefly yes, we do want equality with our superiors. and that, from where i stand, is nothing but a way of improving.
simplicate 
Ziggy Stardust said,
March 12, 2009 at 12:31 pm
You’re probably right if you look at things the way you’ve framed them, but you might consider the strong posibility that what your teacher meant to say by that quote is more of a “share the wealth” statement. That is: we’d always like to have what people above us socially have, but are unwilling to share what we have with the ones below us.
Of course, you might be inclined to ask yourself why you’d want to do that, if you are of the opinion that people deserve what they get – so if I have more, that must mean I’m a better person than someone who doesn’t. However, surely you do not agree with that, since you’ve pointed out clearly that it does make a big difference if you’re born in Africa or in the U.S. So then, clearly, plain luck is a huge factor in potential success.
Now, recognizing as we did that what separates one from one’s social inferiors is first of all luck (compare orphan kids with kids in a healthy middle class family, kids born in Uganda with kids born in France, etc.), it then follows that we need to recognize that we are not as special as we thought we were. We were mostly lucky. Hence, it really could have been us among the less fortunate. Therefore, in recognition of that fact, we should share what we have in abundance, with those in need. It might be that we’ll be in their place and they in ours someday, and we should set a good example now. “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”
Of course, this is all about social equality – if you take equality to mean that we’re all just as smart, good-looking, capable in any field, etc., then, of course, you’re right in your post. We’re not, and we should aim as high as we can. But for everyone “as high as we can” is a very limiting concept – the environment is always extremely powerful, and an orphan from Jegalia will most likely not become president of the U.S., regardless of his IQ and determination.
meisie said,
March 12, 2009 at 9:07 pm
For sure we are not equal and this is the beauty in life. The main think is that we have to respect everybody, even s/he is in a lower layer of society and never forget to look in that direction. I also think that this “below/ upper us” is a matter of values. Some people consider that having money and a big statement bank put them in a upper place, but other consider that even they have a lot money what makes them better is the compassion and help that they give to others. So, I think it’s a matter of how each person is defining s/he’s values and how s/he is defining their own way of structure in life.
Ghimpele said,
March 12, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Hey guys, I think you are both right: Ziggy: one should share definetely wealth with less fortunate people. And, Simplicate: absolutely, one should look always forward and dare for more.
My reading of the post is translating “equal” with “identical”. And here I agree: we are not identical. We have different ideas, dreams; we have different skills and even different “luck”. Being different, …. we are not equal.
Nice blogging simplicate, keep-up the good work 🙂
Ziggy Stardust said,
March 13, 2009 at 2:36 am
It simply can’t be that the assignment equated “equal” with “identical” – we’re all different, if for nothing else, because of our fingerprints. This being an obvious truism, I doubt that we should presume to offend the man behind the quote by thinking he would go to any lengths to express such a simple concept.
The different dreams theory also doesn’t seem to hold much water. If I want to be an airplane engineer and you want to be a painter then we can’t talk about superiors and inferiors at all. How do you compare such different aspirations?
Thus, we should be talking about wealth, in it’s various forms: money, knowledge, and so on – which in turn translates into social standing. Now, we’re working with concepts generic enough that they can be applied to all of us, thus making the concept of equality (by being able to compare each of us to everyone else) viable and non-trivial. Now, we can compare a fireman to a computer programmer, in terms of how many friends each one has, how much money they make, how skilled each of them is in his profession (on a scale of 1 to 10, for example), and so on.
And since wealth does not only mean money, sharing it with “inferiors” (what an UGLY word!) can mean free legal advice from lawyers, free software from computer programmers, and so on. Whatever wealth one can spare for his fellow man.
Meghan said,
March 13, 2009 at 12:38 pm
well, talking about equality shifted the disscussion toward concepts as wealth, free sharing (of whatever you may think about), equal opportunity and so on.
right, we are not equal, and thank’s nature for this! we are diverse, we think, feel and desire differently and that’s what makes us so special and life worth living it. imagine what a grey and dull world would be if we would all be equal. and even so, if equality would be possible, this couldn’t be a permanent phase, because the whole universe is in a state of permanent movement which keeps the equilibrium between parts. the utopic equality would be a state of social death as well as the cease of brownian movement is equal with universal death.
a more interesting debate i think we may have if we try to define what “superiors” means. Equal with superiors… hm… interesting! with whom?
Ziggy Stardust said,
March 13, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Again, I don’t think the discussion “shifted” to those topics, I believe that since it is so obvious that we are all different in so many different ways, equality MUST mean, in this case, something that makes sense – otherwise we’ve just proven that the quote is meaningless.
But when the teacher assigns work, it is assumed that the task makes sense. Would you consider telling your boss that your assigned task doesn’t make sense because you don’t agree with the wording and expect a bonus? Surely, there must be a way in which we can talk about humans as being equal.
I would also like to point out that proof by analogy is fraud if you want to use logic in an argument. Arguments such as “life is like a frying pan”, or “particles move all the time in the universe, and it’s just like the attributes of a human being that contribute to the concept of equality” – they are not logically sound.
As a counter example, all blank DVD-ROMs made by Verbatim are equal and will stay equal for their whole lifetimes regardless of the rivers that flow on Earth.
As for the gray and dull world, I don’t have to imagine it, I’ve inhabited it as a Romanian citizen for a number of years. But not even there did anyone claim that we are all equal as far as dreams, looks and intelligence goes. For those who remember, there wasn’t actually much difference between the structure of power in a generic classroom of Romanian pioneers and the structure of power in a generic contemporary private commercial company: you’d have group and detachment “commanders” among the pupils (lower/middle management), the teacher/principal (upper management); and for a pupil, being group or detachment commander was taught to be a step up the respect/power ladder. People weren’t really expected to be equal back then – just united for a common overriding goal, and obedient.