On 'Equality'

Are all human beings 'equal'? Or is the proposed 'equality' of human beings, as we say, a 'useful fiction'? One dictionary definition of the word 'equality' is : sameness in quantity, measure, value or status. So when we declare all human beings to be 'equal' which type of sameness is it that we refer to?

It cannot obviously be a reference to sameness in physical quantity or measure, for all humans have different weights and heights. Nor can it really be that in 'value'. We might say that we equally value all human beings, but few of us actually live in accordance with this claim. The truth is that if we are Marxists, we would (tend to) value Marxists more highly than capitalists; if we are atheists, atheists more highly than the religious; if we are religious, the brethren of our religious tradition more highly than the rest. So it is not true, generally speaking, that we regard all human beings as having the same value. Finally, status. Surely all human beings do not have the same (social) status or (economic) privilege in this world; so this too cannot be used as a criterion for equality.

In what sense/s then are human beings said to be 'equal' to one another? I believe that there is no non-metaphysical answer to this question. By this mean that whatever answer we give to that question will ultimately depend on some metaphysical principle/s. Here are four examples :

(a) Human beings are 'equal' in the sense that human existence is the highest value in itself. Therefore, whoever is a human being, irrespective of his/her status, privilege, caste, creed, or religion, is worthy of respect. In other words, it is being claimed that there is an intrinsic value in being 'human', and therefore all human beings are equal in the sense of having this inherent value. This is a metaphysical reply since we are making the assumption that human existence is valuable in itself. There are, however, whether you like it or not, many who do not share this assumption. And here I am not referring just to psychopaths, misanthropists, misogynists, criminals, those who commit suicide, and the like. All debates over abortion, eugenics and euthanasia too ultimately boil down to this question : is human existence the highest value? Some would say yes, and some would say no.

(b) Human beings are 'equal' because all them are 'comrades' who have absolutely the same status/privilege/wealth and so on. This is the anarchist/nihilist definition of 'equality'. This too is a metaphysical reply since it assumes that the defining characteristics of human beings are entirely socio-economic in nature, so that human beings can be, so to speak, exhaustively reduced to the same set of socio-economic attributes, and equality among them thereby established.

(c) Human beings are 'equal' in the sense that they are all made in the 'image of God'. That is, since they are all children of the one (creator) God, they are all equally valuable. Along these lines, religions often talk about the 'infinite value' of the 'individual soul', and some of them forbid practices such as abortion. Once again, this is a metaphysical reply since it assumes the existence of a supra-spatiotemporal reality which is Personal, and has specific purposes for humanity. Consequently, this religious argument about human equality is located within a world-view that is thoroughly metaphysical. Most religions, however, do not claim that human beings should give up their wealth and throw it away to the poorer sections of society. (The only exception that I know to this rule is the Franciscan Order in Catholic Christianity : 'If you love God, sell everything you have and serve the poor'.) They would say, rather sophistically, that in 'the eyes of God' all human beings are equal in every manner, but that in this 'fallen' world there will always be some people who are better off than the others.

(d) Human beings are 'equal' in that they all have the formal capacity to try to fulfill the 'basic desires' in their lives, and initiate courses of actions that will lead them towards their proposed goals, and all of this without suffering any discrimination in a court of law on the grounds of race, gender or religion. This is again a metaphysical stance because it assumes that equality in the legal sense is a higher value than socio-economic equality. That is, according to this view-point, it is not necessary that human beings have, to put it bluntly, the same level of wealth to be called 'equal'. Consequently, a man with a salary of $100 and a woman with a salary of $ 10,000 will both be called 'equal' in a legal context.

How would I, then, understand the notion of 'equality' of human beings? I would accept certain aspects of each of the above four views, though my 'definition' of equality would be in rather different terms. I would say that all human beings are 'equal' in the sense that they all have the potentiality to experience suffering. To be sure, the manner in which they express their suffering and locate it within the wider context of their respective world-views will vary trans-culturally. Again, some people may be better suited to deal with their suffering than others; some may even claim that they have completely overcome suffering. Nevertheless, the potentiality for suffering remains, in some form or the other.

Definitions, of course, can be 'read' in various ways. A 'right-wing' reading of my definition would be : Yes, suffering is so intrinsic to the human condition that there is no point in trying to remove it; a 'left-wing' one would be : Yes, because all human beings have the potentiality to experience suffering, let us all try to remove one another's suffering.

There is, in other words, no 'deductive' logical jump from this definition to either 'reading'. I myself go with the 'left-wing' reading; though in order to explain the precise reasons for this, I shall need many more thoughts, many more words, many more silences, and, perhaps, many more sighs.