Equality?

September 25, 2018 Sociocultural Issues No Comments

Everybody knows we live in a world of huge inequality. Indeed. But inequality in what? Where lies importance? Thus, in what should we strive for more equality?

In money?

Thus: in the currency that can be traded for any other ‘goods’: a car, a house, even a wife in (many men’s) imagination?

A strict focus on money would make an urge for ‘equality’ also a surge for objectified materialism. Even ‘the other wife’ becomes objectified, materialism-ated.

Is that OK to you?

Not to me. At one time, it struck me deeply when working as a doctor for less money-privileged patients. Then at times of election, huge numbers just voted for own money and against other people, principles, anything… Money makes the world go around till everything stops, doesn’t it.

So, striving for monetized equality?

Sure, with realistic moderation.

An already more to-the-point general currency: status.

In a world where money = status, the difference is not obvious. One ‘does it’ without thinking: the person with money can ‘boss around’ the person without. If this ‘bossing around’ is not done, it’s felt as a gift.

Which then again is OK! It’s nice to give and it’s nice to receive. A real gift is given wholeheartedly. It’s a person giving a piece of himself to another person.

A real gift is not a deal, in any way.

Equal-worthiness

In my view, equality should be about status indeed. Not the one that is money or -related status, but the one that is related to ‘human (end) value’. [see: ‘Being of Value’]

We all deserve that status, although this is obviously not easy to achieve in vivo… Best is to start giving it to yourself. Paradoxically, this is of course the only way to achieve real status and yet it’s also the ‘most difficult way’ unless one is in the game of self-deception.

Different people, different statuses

Again, so obvious.

And yet people massively turn the other way.

Deep down, we – probably naturally – manage status as for instance the thing needed for erotic success. It’s as if we (humans) just cannot help it. We need status to have a workable environment that looks more or less like the present.

Then, we could change environment.

In the future, we will, as we have done in the past.

Should we then strive for an environment prone to utmost equality?

Which equality?

Equal-worthiness would probably be most correct, but very fuzzy.

Or: we might ‘forget’ equality altogether. See where that leads to… In my view, we should then all the more strive for worthiness and happiness, such things, in which then again money and status may play their roles, not in an urge for equality but for end-result…

Eventually, people should be able to make their own self-worthiness

but they (we) definitely need a lot of support in this.

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

Lisa and the Near Future of Work

This is about what Lisa can mean to the workplace in the next decade or two. Introductory An overarching theme in all this is meaningfulness. A ‘job’ should have as a first goal to make people happy (a natural consequence of meaningfulness). People with a job that makes them happy will be creative and productive. Read the full article…

Lisa’s Essential Changes

Essential changes are so fundamental that they trigger unforeseen secondary changes that are also essential. One can see a chain of changes in which Lisa takes part, impacting multiple domains with profound transformative power in each. This blog presents several examples. Central to this is the ability to spread Compassion widely as a catalyst across Read the full article…

Against Reductionism

Science is about a search for simplification. The danger is an oversimplification — reductionism. In this text, I use the term ‘reductionism’ as a synonym for the oversimplification we are discussing. Parsimoniousness That’s the highbrow term for the above genuine search. In the philosophy of science, it is seen as one of science’s ultimate goals. Read the full article…

Translate »