# Non-equality

[Note: This is a contender for material to be used for the work "Abandoning Equality". You will have to compare this with the other version or write the whole thing afresh]

[Keywords: 'editing notes', 'taboo', 'tabula rasa', 'measurement', 'language', 'intro', 'method', 'species equality']

[editing notes]

Use the idea of telling the story first, and bringing about a pleasant result. Then after that, revisit what made the result possible, thus combining summarization with transparency and conclusion.

[thesis]

Main points in the thesis.

People are quite similar to each other, especially when compared with most of everything we encounter in the universe. By mass alone, almost nothing in the universe is anything like a human, except for another human. The next closest thing to humans are members of the same (family?) Chimps, Bonobos, and Gorillas. Likewise, if we compare the rest of the material in the universe to these three species, we will find that virtually nothing exists which is as similar to them as us.

When speaking within the context of humanity, there is still incredible diversisty. This diversity is worthy of celebration, and is not so great that it justifies any large variation of treatment in terms of basic needs (to be discussed later), but where there is variation, there are differences. These differences, if measured, will confirm inequality and not equality. From a holistic perspective, it is hard to avoid the fact that all people are unique, and therefore unequal to each other. Luckily we do not require strict equality to justify the political reforms of the past several centuries, although historically theorists have attempted to ground it in terms of a kind of foundational equality coming from our creator, or from birth. Neither perspective is tenable, and we must recognize that these movements are better founded on other factors than the ones which we started with.

In this book, I avoid use fo the word 'equality', as it is too unsystematic, and has too much emotional assocations attached to it. I follow my normal pattern of substitution, detailed description, and multiple translation, when I feel I need to grab for the term. I believe the reader will find not so much is lost as is gained in such a procedure.

The idea of equality very definitely results in vagueness, and is the source of some foolish paradoxes which people find difficult to avoid. There is the view that no person can have a quality superior to another because they are 'equal'. I find this to be an absurdity that is best removed if we realize that people actually are not equal in the first place, and in the second place, that such inequalities will result in differential valuation which we will find as prefereable or not, depending on various circumstances. Much on this point will be discussed later. 

Like many other concepts which have not been systematically developed, it has come to cover too many associations, and it is hard to know when one is properly using it. For this purpose, I dispose of it in favor of translations which convey the same ideas, only without the vagueness and apparent falsity. I will follow this same pattern throughout the text wherever there is a concept that is an obstacle to progress. I find that a synonym, description, or accurate translation is almost always needed to solve problems which hinge on individual concepts, and it shouldn't come as a surprise that we need to find other ways to convey the same information if there is any kind of misunderstanding. I think 'equality' greatly tends towards misunderstanding. 

From this point on, I discuss everything in terms of specifics, and relative inequality, unless I'm speaking of two things which are very low complexity and truly are like 'copies' of one another, or else I'm talking about theoretical or applied mathematics, where equality actually involves a comparison of values which are the same. 
If I discuss equality at all, it is relation to the technical usage, in actually comparing mathematical formulae and values, or formulas of mathematics and physics. I may say that two elements have equal atomic weight, or that two men have equal distributions from their stock investments. I will not be found to discuss equalities between complex objects, like animals or people, where as a rule equality is rare.

People are similar in that they are categorized together for their resemblance under the same species, but they are nevertheless unequal from each other on almost any measure. Among humans there are great similarities, but there is also great variation, and wherever we find diversity we find inequality (or else we would not know there was any diversity). 

For all that has been achieved under the slogan of equality, the concept fails us when we attempt to achieve precision and clarity in moral-political conversation. It is the purpose of this chapter to clarify the concept for future moral argumentation. The term will be case aside, under the assumption that 'equality' is a technical term of limited scope, that commonly distracts from the purpose of precise analysis. As a rule, relative inequality is the norm, and the term is best substituted with specifics and descriptions which do not fail to capture the truth. Almost any sentence that employs the word 'equal' in an ethical context is false or vague, and I find it very important to avoid it.

There is much to value in the political ideology and moral perspective wrapped up in equality, but overall hardly any comment which makes use of the term is true. I hold that most comparisons are better understood in terms of specific measures, which almost always reflect relative inequality, and hardly ever actual equality. I have found that 'equality' serves to distract and confuse more than it clarifies, and it positively blocks progress in much conversation about morality. For this reason I take the time to explain why I dodge the term regularly, in favor of specifics of comparison. 

I'm not prepared to argue one way or another if we are better off or not if 'equality' as a political ideology were to cease to exist. There is good reason to think it is a good rallying point for important change, and that it could not serve to function as it has historically without being the vague slogan it actually is. So I do not wish to say I would completely eliminate all usage. Instead I say that it should be discarded whenever there is risk of distraction or there is any need for precision in political or moral conversation.

One of the great obstacles to an understanding of morality, at least in America, is the blocking concept of equality. 

[taboo]

Any sophisticated intellect must come to know the taboos of surounding society intimately. Propelled by curiousity, profound minds discover those questions which tend to evince the most discomfort in others. It should not be surprising that the the study of moralit should touch on taboos of a society, given that such taboos exist as a reaction to moral considerations. 
Strictly speaking, discussion of equality is not a taboo. However, questioning it is highly likely to evoke a negative and reflexive response, and any topic which hints that people are somehow unequal is likely to take an unwanted detour into conversations about equality.

Although I hold that there is much that is of value in the continuing social movement towards equality, I think the accurate view is that inequality is the norm, and that the ideology of equality has a negative impact on critical thought. In this section I discuss when it is reasonable to rely on the concept, and when it is preferable to be more precise and speak of relative inequality instead. 

 The fastest path to learning of taboos is to ask every question that comes to mind, and list the questions that prompt the uncomfortable reactions. Personal development requires a thorough understanding of human strengths and human weaknesses, and the study of taboos is a good place to look to learn about human weakness especially. To come to understand a taboo, awareness of the taboo is needed first, then an understanding of the intrumentality of the taboo, and the side effects. Equality is the great Democratic taboo. Conversation in America frequently touches equality, and there are norms of communication surrounding it. One finds it a part of almost any conversation regarding minority groups, and it is written into law and into the original decalaration of Independence in the United States.

The taboo surrounding "human equality" is the first hint that it is actually false. That it is taboo, is also a signal that it is not well understood, since it probably does not recieve genuine probing. All taboos have their side effects, and although equality is useful, I don't think all is lost by acknowledging the shortcomings

[intro concerning language]

One must not expect one's language to remain unchanged after laborious self modification that comes with self improvement and moral transformation. In the course of our discussion here we will abandon some concepts in favor of others. We will transform our use of evaluative concepts. We will use see some shortcomings in our language and look for solutions. Over time I have found that concepts themselves are obstacles. It is always what we are trying to capture or convey that is important. We need to be prepared to use many translations to capture our ideas.

What does the person who fully understands morality act like? Would this person rise above the concepts? Everyday artfulness in expression? Would this person cling to particular concepts or discard one's the utility is passed or lost? If we look to Buddhist literature, we see that it is the meaning that matters, and the Buddha is willing to cast words away if they present as obstacles to understanding. Any method is employed for the purpose of communication.

A highly verbal master or ethics would be a master of clarity and would coin words and phrases for the occasion, and resist attempts of those that don't know from trying to tie them down.

We could not expect at the end of our journey to talk in the same way as in the beginning. We would see the inadequacy of our old concepts and see also that we cannot remake the public language afresh-- not for our private purposes, and not in our lifetimes. Instead we speak with new confidence, with a new posture. Our own words are less important, less effective, and fleeting. Situations are less and more important. Dualizations are seen as symptoms. Language as a symptom, and our toos are defects, especially when employed by common people. Humanity is infected permanently, with various defects which I aggregate as the "shortcomings of humanity." Our lives are never free from them, but we can attain greater freedom through our knowledge of them. Here we begin with the shortcomings of language, with emphasis on concepts of special importance to moral discourse. We will not use any formal logic in this book, as natural language can do what I require, but we must cleanse it and proceed carefully.

The student of logic and science sees after not long the difficulty of uttering true sentences. Since words and sentences are highly general, they always carry extra associations, synonyms, and so on to confuse or lose points. The lay person speaks in almost a stream of falsity, which preserves just enough truth to not prove fatal. The aware speaker knows one must expect to speak falsley and self correct-- not speak perpetual truth. The goal is to maintain perpetual truth preservation, decrease vagueness, expect to change the way one speaks, to avoid dualisms and hierarchies or at least use them more correctly. One has to see that the words most available to the mind are not the best for conveying the information. They are merely what spew from the brain without much effort or reflection.

The human mind and language is diseased, and we all limp around like cripples, all thinking we walk rightly. The person who sees this may be unable to show others the crookedness and weakness of their movements, and himself, being forever a cripple, can only learn to smooth the movements. The smart man merely has the potential to be less crippled-- some take the crippled walk to new lows. The one who learns of this defect of language sees that he is crippled and may be unable to show to others, who are too stubborn or stupid to understand. Thus at the end of this book there are no promises of complete moral advancement. I can show some illusions and some ways to cope. I do think one gains clarity of vision in this process, but there is no guarantee that one will use their new and improved vision rightly. When one sees some truth intuitively it does not follow that our current language is to the task of explaining it with complete truth or that it is comprehensible to the uninitiated.

The student of logic and accurate language finds the difficulty of writing almost any sentence in a satisfyingly truthful way. Vagueness and falsity abounds in our most careful phraseology, and laborious editing is nearly always required. The exacting philosopher shares the wordsmith's burden of choosing the right mode of expression, from distilled selection, to capture and communicate ideas with truth and livliness. Sometimes prose, sometimes poetrie, sometimes pictures, and lists. In the end our creation is tainted, short sighted, and artistically limited. The quick decisions and personal limits taint our work.

In our journey towards moral clarity we must expect our language to change in enexpected ways, and we will not speak in the end as in the beginning. The first change comes with awareness of ever present defects in comon speech, and of the most pervasive errors and methods of correction. Second is to slowly attempt to self-correct, and to see the limits of self-correction. Finally, one sees the impossibility of lasting or full correction, and all we can hope for is to continually treat our symptoms. There is no cure for our ailments. We see the boundaries of language itself, and to some degree cast it aside. One finds that no moment of speaking is cling-worthy. Language itself is diseased and perpetual confusion is a symptom. We learn how to cope with it and bandage it, but find that we can never correct it in others.

Here I discuss specific concepts I find to be special obstacles to clear moral deliberation. Beyond the purpose of clearing the path of weeds and obstructions, I wish to exhibit a class of linguistic problems with are invisible to most speakers, and show the severity and social unresolvability. After showing the problem exists and importance of correction, I employ a few strategies for correting the issue. This is self-correction, and should not be considered a special cure. The techniques themselves are more important than any specific concept corrected. The methods provide insight into other conceptual problems, and point out ways to rectify-- this is no exhaustive list of problematic concepts, but those I find require attention in order to move on with clear-headed conversation.

In the course of our discussion I will highlight ever presetn human shortcomings, which we will encounter all our lives. Awareness of these shortcomings and some corrective measures goes very far in providing moral clarity. The first section focuses on problems of language, primarily with evaluative concepts. Later we will treat of other shortcomings involving behavior, habit, desire, physiology, and many others. It would be a mistake to think any chapter is solely about what its title conveys. The title shows the necessary step in the one purpose of the book, but I feel all the small steps and tangents in our course are as important as the result. The result itself offers less for personal transformation than the steps throughout. This book is a moral story containing many morals along the way.

I am a writer of a tangential nature, seeing many associations which bear on a topic, and trying to address them all. If I do not distill my thoughts after recording, I risk losing the patience of people who are not interested in undersanding such diverse relationships.

[method and language shortcoming]

Th purpose of each secton is not merely to clarify. The purpose goes beyond clarification of concepts to a useful and simple procedure which we will find useful throughout. The procedure itself is over great importance because of wide applicability, and because it creates the ability to even see issues, and is the cause of my original detection that something was wrong and required correction. Aspects which are important are truth preseration, vagueness, need for flexibility, need for change/learning, sensitivity to dualisms, hierarchies, and weaknesses of modes of categorization, awareness that first thoughts are merely the most available, not necessarilty the most pertinent, and that first solutions require rework or revision.


[language, thursday, August 21, 2014]
Linguistics and conceptual issues can seem overly focused and pedantic at time of discussion, but once one is primed about the issue it is suddenly noticeable everywhere. We are subjected to all kinds of stimulus relating to concepts like equality with great frequency. It reminds me of when you first learn the name of a type of tree. Suddenly, that tree is everpresent. Where there are many trees, you notice the tree you just learned of. They were always there by the millions of course, but only now are you aware of them, and attend to them. In the same way, we are surrounded by major conceptual obstacles that we cannot see, but once we learn of them they become a common irritant. Learning of such things brings continual sadness about the state of the world, but happiness for not being a part of it completely.

[tabula rasa]
Jefferson's word choice may also lend itself to this interpretation, as he says it is self evident that we are created equal - but not that we are or always remain equal. It does seem this matches tabula rasa philosophy handed down to us from John Locke and others. There is no special complexity to the "tabula rasa" - all it says is that people are "blank slates" from birth. At some point there may have been some visual appeal, where slates would all be taken to be exactly the same. Following this metaphor, we are to think that all babies have equal value at birth.

[measurement and surface equality]
In any comparison, where there is a fine gradation in measurement, as with a continuum, equality is hard to find. In manufacturing, the less precise the equipment we have, the greater the difference between, supposedly equal/interchangeable parts. Nowadays even as manufacturing reaches for the highest levels of precision, to the point where visual and tactile differences become imperceptible, there are yet differences - as there are in the physical differences of "identical" twins. Thus any two things we find, adn even the things we create, which are supposedly equal, in length , size, weight, color, consistency, and so on, quite indefinitely... and find on close examination to be unequal on almost all points. And this is why, even in the smallest things, discriminating buyers still distinguish between purportedly equivalent things, and seek to have the oen with the just the right combination of qualities. Note we rarely really expect complete equality, which is why I must, to remain truthful, explain the domain of criteria of equality such as height, weight, color, etc...

[Equality limited to simple cases. Complex cases creates too many variables for variation]
Inequality like this is plain enough in simple isolated things, while still more evident in complex things composed of those many simple parts. The differences betwen items of many parts is compounded manifold in a car with all parts of supposed quality, we can begin to see many differences, by being able to find fault with, and also the introduction of fittings, seals and combinations produced through workmanship (itself less precise) or yet more manufacturing to bring parts together.

[Artifacts of exact precision are not equal]
Even in works of great precision, such as computer circuits and processors, there is still a need for quality control by tests using statistical sampling. Manufacturers are quite aware that even their best designs and processes result in defective parts out of the range of acceptibility (and idea itself which assumes inequality).

This point is not true only of length, width, height, but any form of measure with fine gradations will produce an illusion of equality by liminiting the specificity. If all we test for is yellow, green, and blue, two differing chile peppers may seem equally red. If we have measure only to the precision of inches, men approximately 6 feet are equal height. We are merely fooling ourselves by the imprecision of our instruments and our conventions into thinking it is actual equality. And in reality, this may be the only kind of equality we can hope for, since with more precision we will find inequality. Equality becomes an approximate thing, which truly admits of degrees. Thinking otherwise is to think that any two objects can be measured exactly and a perfect equality can be found. This alone should be enough to show that equality is a matter of degree, and even if a case of perfect equality existed, we would never know it, due to limits of our tools and senses. There are genuine scientific conventions which have been investigated time and time again. and the ultimate need of confirmation of measurement using human perception.

Before I said equality is difficult where there are fine gradations. In reality, we set the gradation, not nature, so we choose when it is convenient enough to have equality. Or we choose *when* we want equality to exist.

I say all this and yet admit that the term equality is of use, in cases of convenience in measurement, in mathematics, where exactness is possible through definitions, and in chemistry, where we find elements which seem to have exactly the same size, weights and parts (even here they do not have the same positions and state.

Also, in matters where we purposefully limit the exactness of measurement, it can be useful to say two things are equal. Example, in photography we may say that two photos maay be black and white, or color. All photos are one or the other. At the decision points, boundaries, it might be hard to say, but nevertheless we say all are one or the other for simplicity. E.g. a photo taken which turns out to include no color as a natural occurrence-- would that be a color photo? So it could be a matter of "was collor allowed in by the camera? These are genuine scientific concerns which have to be investigated time and time again. It involves the limits of instrumental precision, and the ultimate word of confirmation of measurment, using human perception.

One can only confirm equality by using finer measurments, and at the point where we are limited in our ability to confirm, we cannot say "here we have reached true equality" but merely, here we have reached our limit to test. We must assume that equality never exists, outside the precision which we have allowed or are constrained to use for comparison.

Critical point - does it even make sense to say that two things are equal in this scenario? When there is virtually no variety and everything is either-or, equal becomes a fairly useless concept. It is less deceptive to say it is one thing or another, but avoid any claims to equality. I think the use of equality which arises from categorization is more likely to confuse the speaker into thinking in terms of global equality. After all, a thing either is or is not in a particular category, and so if it belongs, they are "equal" right. It is no coincidence that the term "categorical" is also used to mean "absolute", and categorization itself, in all its power, has the weak point of leading one to believe the categories are as fine edged or important as one thinks, for many categories where it is unjustifiable. The answer, unequivocally is no. Two things do not become the same as one another by belonging to the same category. In this case, we just say "same." Conversationally, not so useful, but in the rules of math, equality is useful even here, since math has to work in both kinds of situations. [1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1] != [2,2,2,2,2,2,2]. [1,14,11,20,7,19,16] != [2,20,44,33,42], and they wouldn't be equal by virtue of both "having" 20 as a property. Where pools admit of more numbers, equality is hard to find, but where we limit the pool it becomes easier. Thus even here equality is a something we construct, and not available in nature. Similarity exists in nature but strict equality does not.

When we think we've found two equal things, we should, as a check of our corretness, see if we've somehow limited our pool of numbers, quantity of criterion, or specificity of measurement. We do this automatically when we are fixated on just one aspect of comparison-- and arguments on "sameness" or "equality" are not uncommon where each participant has different pieces of the comparison in view. In my experience, on such occasions, each perspective is true where limited to their domain of fixation.

Two colors may be equal to the color blind, but that would be because they have a limited set of criteria to work with, and a complete lack of measurement capacity on one domain. Two things "look the same" or "same enough" but in reality are different. Usually equality is a matter of "same enough", for the tools that we have and our level of interest. We generally gloss over slight inequalities and dissimilarities. It is more unusual to be exacting.

[species equality]
Some will say that we are all equal because we are all "people" or because we are all "human." Putting aside the fact that very few people really held to this idea, in mind or in action, until less than 30 years ago (or really even now), since slaves, blacks, women, and extranationals, or even those outside our community were considered inherently lower, on some crude unspecified mode of composition. and putting aside all the domains of measurement of any variation or gradation, like height, weight, color, strength, intelligence, talent in any domain, athleticism, monetary worth, etc-- it is no wonder that people point to species membership as the source of equality, for such variation we find between people. This, it turns out, is a perfect example of the error of critically limiting criteria, since we set aside all those measures where we find differenes above. And we will also see that we are greatly limiting our specificity of measurement. In short we commit all the errors mentioned at the openenig of our section.

The first question that one must ask, which weldom would get asked because it seems to obvious, is what is human and what is not. Because first and foremost we must clearly define black from white, before we can discuss with accuracy. As it turns out it is simple to distinguish visually in practice, but people have difficulty finding the real meaning in practice. Terms like "species" and "homo-sapiens" are actually technical terms which have been clarified only after much work by many scientists. Since it is easy for us to recognize different species and can separate humans from non-humans, we take this point for granted, and we are liable to err in times of analysis. If one wishes to claim that people are all equal because of common humanity, one must have a pretty good idea of what humanity means, and the points where the concept is limited.

But before we move on I must mention one proviso-- even if we said that everyone is equal in that they are all human, that doesn't mean there is global equality between peopl on this point. All the variation we see would still exist. Instead, we would be equal in some way that matters to us, as especially important to some purpose, which very often we have not specified (nothing has been specified usually *but* equality). And if that is the case, we need not think "equality" so important-- it is merely an abstract term in itself, and only seem to have value it does because of our association with contexts we think equal treatment is important. Thus we could just say "we are all human" instead, and in that case we are asserting something tangible and actually true and verifiable. This would be
more precise, and wouldn't abuse a technical term, as if equality only concerned this on thing when speaking of people. It has a non-descript effect that we have the urge only to use "equal" with respect to people, and never unequal, forgetting that they are merely mathematical terms which should not have any attitudinal prejudice attached to them. This is why I prefer to recognize inequality as the norm, because then one's views and attitudes have greater connection with the actual state of fairs than some idealized unreal state. I have no special need to be "equal" to anyone and I prefer the precision that comes with admitting I'm unequal to others on almost all points. Nevertheless, for various political and legal purposes I do prefer roughly equivalent treatment under the law (that's all anyone actually gets).

Remember to discuss that what is of interest is not equality exactly - but a levelling of the playing field, to  account for natural inequality which is so palpable. And also some facts of life which are universal to all animal life. Also talk about how conversations on equality push us into the narrow focus, and narrow imagination, where we forget the obvious, that there is so much variety and stark inequality, which is most obvious to people who are unequal on the "lacking" side. The rich are as involved in inequality as everyone else, but benefit from the perception since it throws a mask over their advantages, and protects them from losing what they have or suffering some penalty.


[list of errors]
There are many errors involved, but here are the most prominent:
1. Unjustified focus on just a few possible pieces.
2. Specificity of measure. Erring on the side of non-specificity.
3. Generalization to wholes without justification.
4. Not stating (or not knowing) the actual equality involved. This is the first sign that the view is inherited, or that a taboo is involved.
5. Subsequent discounting of the relevance of actual inequality on other measures. Since there is belief in equality as a whole, one can become blind to important differences when they are relevant to other conversations/decisisons.
6. Not knowing if equality is based on a single property or multiple shared properties. Beyond oversimplification to pure assumption. (not even a simplification of equality to a single factor, but simply thinking the word "equal" applies.
7. No work. The people who spout out equality have rarely much evidence.
8. Not actually meaningful anyhow.
9. Excess belief in categories


[analysis of language not pedantic]

Who brings the precision. Who brings the range and scope. Who has surveyed at the greatest heights and the peered the probe at the lowest depths? Everywhere there are people who pretend to quality advice, and high moral understanding, but so few offer precision and detail which allows for genuine counterfactual. People hide in vagueness, and keep room for evasiveness. I wish to bring what I can in clarity and transparency. Find my errors, show me where I am wrong. I will share my method and my results. I write this so that it is not a work of mere opinion.

People seem to be limited in terms of the weaknesses of concepts. There is no concept which does not present problems in various situations of argumentation, and one must expect to trace the history of a term, the various usages, any fuzziness in the term, range of applicability and, more importantly, *inapplicability*. How specific is it. Is it suitable for argumentation as is, or do we need to abandon it or be more specific. Do people cling to it for any special reason? These are the types of considerations which are always present in argumentation.

Imagine if throughout your whole life, you've been confused because of the way you use language. Many of your problems were only problems because you have a broken vocabulary, only you never noticed. Fights you had with friends and family were due to mutual misunderstanding of common wrds. Puzzles and confusions which you thought were baffling, aren't difficult problems at all, but the way you use language prevents you from finding the answers you seek. You frequently argue with others, without being entirely certain how you ended up in disagreement, and you aren't certain how to resolve it. I can't pretend that all of your moral difficulties will be solved with some fixes to the way you use language, because life is complex and we are always meeting new people we don't understand, and situations which we never anticipated. However, I do find that much of our perplexity is due to confusions about language. Humans have to live with many common shortcomings, and we will cover many in this book in addition to shortcomings of language. But language has to come first. There would be no book here if it did not contain language, and since that is our primary indispensible tool for this discussion, the very first thing we need to do is resolve some linguistic errors which are the cause of many headaches and time consuming puzzles, which are exceedingly simple once the solution is known. There are logical and conceptual issues we need to cover, but the conceptual issues are vitally important, and must precede logical issues. Logical usage tends to be bland and boring, so I will spare the reader an in depth treatment in one place, but instead will pepper logical principles throughout the book as needed.

My favorite methods for finding clarity in argumentation is to translate ideas multiple times, using different terminology to see if the idea retains its power. Specificity to combat vagueness or excess generality. One must be willing to delve into the details. Abandonment of words which people cling to, or hold with special weight. There is no word which cannot be forever abandoned for a synonym or new term which does not have that same emotional association. As a rule, I seek to never infuse a term with too much meaning that I cannot utterly destroy it and replace it with another word. Clinging to concepts is a step down the path to mental rigidity and dogma.

Thesis: We cannot cling to the idea that all people are equal without involving ourselves in puzzles and miscommunications that are difficult to correct. We must separate our vision of of how we want the world to be, from how it actually is-- and see that although we want people to be 'equal' in various ways, in nature equality is rare. Equality is vitally important where basic human rights are concerned, and we create rules which are supposed to equalize people in special ways, which never fully succeed but come close. Equality is the result of equalization-- it is the result of human ingenuity and invention. Understanding pervasive inequality makes the world more clear, and this knowledge is useful not only because a veil is removed and we can see what is underneath, but because it is a clear example of a distinct human shortcoming. The number of human shortcomings is truly daunting. To see the extent of the problem, as we will see later on, is more important than fixing a handful of common conceptual problems. In everyday life, the erroneous and confusing use of "equal" will soon be very apparent to you, and you will be primed to notice it in all situations you did not notice it before. It is an ever present life problem-- an issue of innumerable issues which you'll discover the solution for, but you will not be able to correct it even a slim portion of the times you encounter it.

Nowadays it is difficult to find a person, who when the discussion of equality arises, will not parrot the saying that all people are equal. Human equality has reached the state of verbal dogma in the United States, despite continuous speech and action to the contrary in most situations. It has reached the point where people are truly unable to explain why they believe it to be true, and people actively avoid skeptical conversation about it. Taboo shrouds equality, and under the right conditions, one is absolutely required to state that no person is better than any other. In heated dispute, it must be admitted if continued argument is to be avoided. When condescension is suspected, the required response is to deny inequality, or break the taboo for the single occasion. It is fair to say that human equality has reached a state of dogma that is risky to question.

In situations where critical discussion is allowed, I find that it is simple to force the admission that people cannot be considered completely equal to one another. I think that once people really look closely at what they are saying when they claim people are equal, they can see that it is actually false, and can do so without abandoning the important political philosophy that stands behind the claim. There are massive benefits to a widespread belief in human equality, but the language employed serves to confuse and block progress on other topics of great importance. "Equality" is not the only problematic concept for moral reasoning, and is just the first in a long list that we will discuss in this book. I think it is a good starting point for discussion of other problematic concepts, because the analysis employed here is clear, and easily repeatable elsewhere. Once the major problem concepts are clarified, much argumentation can be avoided-- and not merely for moral disputes, but for miscommunication in everyday conversation.

These views on language are constantly put to the test, to the extent that I have high conviction about these points. It reveals the shallowness of people's conceptions, and provides the clarity required for solid conversation. I use the methodology nearly everyday to great advantage.

[Problems with Equality]
-Inequality is all around us-- when we are young, we are perpetually confronted with it. It is hard for us to admit at times, hard for us to not decry at others. We want fairness, we want what others have, or MORE than others have. Inequality is the deep and hard truth behind the drive to equalization. Many great philosophies stand on top of a profound sense of inequality, and a desire to correct it. Others have a profound understanding of inequality, the a desire to recognize and adapt to it, or even further it.
-Application. stated in a non specific way
-Equality requires valuation. I've encountered people who think it is value neutral, but it is not.
-It is about impossible to find any way two things are equal
-The problem compounds with complexity.
-Equality is used for "same" but no two things are the same.
-There are helpful ways for thinking people are the same, and there are categories which contain most or all people, but we need to remember that this doesn't make people the same globally. We might say they have the same property.
-Even people who are "identical" are not equal
-Humans are not equal to each other.
-"Equality" does not clarify things
-Equality isn't as useful as inequality
-When confusion crops up, it helps to break things into pieces. Equality makes this process difficult, because it assumes the parts are not worth looking closely at.
-It is socially harmful. Calling people equal conceals harmful inequality.
-People don't actually believe it
-In normal situations, people believe they are superior. Claims of offense that someone things they are "better than anyone else" is actually grounds for the complainer to feel superior. It is used as a tool to stand high above others.
-Internalizing the improved version of the concept increases the likelihood of reacting appropriately to inequality. Even in conversation with supposed equals it is useful to see where they might have special strengths and advantages, special areas of expertise and so on. You'll have a better idea of when to yield to them, and when to keep quite and learn from them. They might then appear to be sources of valuable information and traits to emulate. When people are seen in this manner, friendship is easier, because one can spot virtues and forgive other imperfections. It also helps one see the truly undesirable traits in other people. Pretending people are equal can mask important differences that one should be very perceptive about.
-Accurate perspective. Equal opportunities are seen as corrective policies. Equal opportunity does not actually exist, which is why it is there. Equal wages for labor does not exist. This is why the rules are in place. Equal protection under the law doesn't exist. However measures are taken to attempt to make things equal. As a system ages, people are able to find ways to manipulate the system to be self-serving. So additional measures or alterations must be taken to retain equaliztion.


[Conclusion]
The conversation about equality is more to show the nature of the concept and proper usage than to go into depth about social inequality as a personal or public issue. The critical point involves the language. Language can conceal as much as it can elucidate. "People are equal" conceals more than it reveals. There is sensibility contained, but one must know where and how it is sensible. When comparing people, inequality is ever present, and real equality is hard to find.

One can see that terminology cannot be corrected at the level of small social groups. This is a change for education in general, but since it is taboo to discuss, I wouldn't expect changes anytime soon. Beyond the topic of equality is the topic of evaluative concepts in general and their misapplication. Problems exists with virtually all of the evaluative concepts, and once this is seen, it becomse clear that the world is truly infected with bugs built into language. One purpose of this book is to point out the major bugs and some cures.

I for one care little for common objections to these criticisms of equality. Many shortcomings of humankind can be distilled to a single maxim, to be willing to see the complexity underlying things. Concepts give rise to feeling of "oneness" and "wholeness" of things, which can then give rise to the view that these wholes are equivalent, merely because they fall under the same concept. When we see two apples of the same type from the same farm, the illusion starts with calling them both "apples". In a market where much fuit is visible, one is led to think that the apples are all the same, by clearly discerning between "apples" and "bananas" and "tomatoes" and so on. Yet still, the apples are not equal to each other, which is why people do not grab them blindly when they select which ones to purchase. Classification is useful, but one has to see that it does not imply all members of a category are all the same or equal, but that they have sufficient similarity to group them together. One should be willing to see through the conepts to the natural objects when reasoning about moral issues. People are like apples; they are merely similar enough to group together, and the similarity is never enough to ignore the many ways they are not equal to each other. Clear thinking dictates splitting concepts and making appropriate distinctions wherever necessary. Forming distinctions is hard for people in practice, and is a major reason why people can't get to the right specifics. Equality is an excellent case in point, because the things which are supposedly "equal" can only be explained precisely by looking at the great variety of inequalities. We need to be willing to compare dimensions of an object first to determine if they are equal to begin with. To state that two things are equal is decide for more than we are justified.


[Relation to environment]
The other issue is that it is not merely the characteristics of people that forms the interest of equality, but that they do not stand in equal relations to the world as other people. I think valuation of relations is as important to evaluation of the objects. For simplicity we can think of relations as properties of the objects themselves, although this is not the only way to think of it. A rich man might go to a bank, and although he was as blank a slate as the next man in the bank, he can get a large loan with ease. The difference isn't merely a difference in the man, but the various relationships the man has with the outside world. The kinds of relations that any individual will have is largely fixed at birth. We are to imagine babies in space when we think they are all "equal". Since babies require oxygen, we know this is not true. To be a baby in some places means standing in proper geographic relations with a governing body which then confers "citizenship", and not all "citizenships" are equal, which is why worldwide most wish they were born in another nation.


[Paradoxes]
The true farce of "human equality" becomes apparent as one compares humans at different stages of life. One does not look to a baby as a test for human equality any more than one should to a zygote. One does not compare plants by their seeds alone.  There isn't a single measure we can construct, that will show that two people are equivalent at anything at much of anything at all.
