What is your experience with, or opinion of this?
Sheri, depends on how you define treat. If by treat you mean status, then no, it is not fair to treat everyone equally. Discrimination is essential to a productive society. The discrimination should be based on motivation, education, potential, abilities, knowledge, experience, or other meritorious factors (all of which essentially equal potential). Those with the greatest potential should be thrust to higher positions of status (creativity, productivity, and authority) to advance our species. Survival of the fittest really does have a role in our lives. We should NOT prop up the weaker links in our society by trying to treat them to equal status.
By the way, this dovetails into previous discussion on this forum. We don't treat same-sex marriage equal to traditional marriage because there is zero potential for procreation. I don't want to go through the entire argument again, but widespread same-sex marriage equals societal suicide, and should not be treated equally. We should discriminate for the good of our species.
Hi, I am glad to have your response.
I tend to hold the value of survival of the fittest myself. I have not solidly defined its perimeters though. It gets fuzzy at the point of, for example; I would be smart enough to seek medical attention for, as an example, a broken leg, but otherwise not smart enough or have the tools to set it correctly on my own. Without a correctly set leg, my work ability would drop, and so would my survival chances. So does that make me fit or unfit to survive? Hey, maybe that would be another good Discussion.
Thank-you for engaging in my conversation.
My head was nodding in agreement as I read your reply.
I also added a response to my Discussion topic.
Depending upon what kinds of behavior the word "treat" includes, treating everyone equally drains a society's resources.
I'm not talking eugenics; I'm talking about the vagaries of nature.
The news occasionally tells of efforts 1) to save every fetus our technology can save, and 2) to delay death until our technology fails.
I know of no newborn in my extended family who required other than the usual care at birth. My mom and dad both accepted their ends. They lived their lives, doing well what they saw as their duty--including making sure my sibs and I could do for ourselves, and when their health failed they were ready to go. Specifically, my dad ordered that "the tubes be removed".
I'm living my life much as they lived theirs. I don't want a doctor to see me as a challenge to her or his medical skills. This is all I mean.
On the other hand, I recently satirized Obamacare with a story modeled after a combination of Swift's A Modest Proposal and the more recent Soylent Green.
Thank-you for your input.
Your topics that you touch upon are things that I have thought about also.
Illness; to treat or not to treat, and when to give up treatment.
I added a replied to my own Discussion, take a look.
"I recently satirized Obamacare with a story modeled after a combination of Swift's A Modest Proposal and the more recent Soylent Green."
I wanna see that story! can you share it?
Combine these ideas:
Opening: Aging parents want to be with their offspring,
Body: Health care costs rise with age,
Costs will exceed what the aged can pay,
Their offspring can bake, broil, fry, stew, etc and enjoy them.
Close: The interests of all are protected. The aged are spared years of poor health; the taxpayers are spared the increasing costs, the offspring have their parents always with them.
I had to work at not laughing as I spoke of baking, broiling, etc.
I wanted to pose this topic idea without my input, then later state my viewpoint.
Equal is providing the same whatever (laws, education, parenting/household rules)
Fair is tailoring these to a person's needs:
Education wise: style of delivery of learning; slower or faster pace,
auditory or visual
Parenting wise: older brother gets to _______, because he is physically
and mentally ready for it
I feel that there are a variety situations where it is fair (and beneficial) to treat people unequally.
Related quotes for thought:
"In a democratic state, every man is equal to every other man, up to the point of exertion, and then every man is free to exert himself to do good or not, to grow nobly or foolishly." Quote is from the movie "The Human Comedy, " by William Saroyan. The teacher of Mickey Rooney's character said these lines.
* * * * * *
All of us do not have equal talent, but all of us should have an equal opportunity to develop our talent. John F. Kennedy.
* * * * * *
Key to Fairness: Pre-established rules, consistently applied. From Character Counts! workbook.
Clever, Sheri; you want us to walk out onto the plank. You will then decide whether to tip the plank.
Before I charge out onto the plank I will point out three items that will work to my disadvantage:
1) In your "I feel that there are a variety situations where it is fair (and beneficial) to treat people unequally" you followed the word "feel" with a thought, not a feeling. This is subtly deceptive.
2) Your "In a democratic state,...." doesn't describe the US of A. Here, on the days we go to the polls, we democratically choose our oligarchs.
3) A policy derived from Kennedy's words will win voters' support only when empathy no longer plays a part in their decisions.
That depends on what you mean by "treat" and how you define "equal". Probably your definition of "fairness" needs to be considered, too.
Sorry, but the question is too vague to be able to answer. I can think of examples to support both an answer of Yes, and one of No.
What are your definitions?
What has been an experience of yours of fair and equal?
Here is one of my experiences from when my daughter was younger.
In the 5th and 6th grade building, they had Neighborhoods, the school meticulously placed in each "neighborhood" a nearly equal portion of each group (race, wealth, intelligence level) and separated them from most of their previous school's (K-4th) classmates. No Child Left Behind was really kicking in.
Intelligence-wise, in these classes were kids who were well above average learners (8th grade reading levels) to well below average learners (2nd grade reading level), but not extremely special needs kids.
[My child learns at a rate faster than average.
I have worked with kids who learn slightly slower than the average, but learn it they do, if given the time.]
The teachers were struggling with teaching to all levels, while maintaining order of 25-28 kids in the room. Because of the high numbers, it was hard to pay attention to all the levels. The pace was too slow for the fast learners, too fast for the slow, and the average kids seem to get minimal attention because of the juggling act the teacher were doing.
As a parent and a para-educator I saw the teachers' stress levels rise, and the kids' quality not rise. Also, I feel it is not my child's job to be a "good example" all of the time, her job is to be the best student she can be.
To me: (and this is not absolute, nor absolute for all instances)
Equal is providing the educational basics to all.
Fair is delivering that education in a style and pace that the student needs.
I hope to communicate with you again some time, some topic.