Equality is simple a product of the concrete social evolution in particular systems. This fact is nowadays accepted by majority of scholar experts (but not in common opinion).
In fact the admission of equality between humans determines the acceptance of a fungibility criteria,since equality means that anyone “counts” as everyone else, giving the impression of a judgment value (both in quantity and quality), as an individuality could be weights and at the same time diminishes each individual peculiarity, drowning them in a common “broth” in which live the fundaments of Humanity (as onthologic category). And in this broth (the kernel of human being) there is the fundament of self recognitions as humans and so as equals.
So, talking about equality means accept they have a common fingerprint inside and that anyone with his individuality is only the dress in which this fingerprint is the body and that this kernel is outside from the disposition of single human because belongs to all humanity,and not the opposite.
And what is this common heritage? Merely biological? Obviously, no. It 's the morphological trait to determine philosophy (and legal consequences) of equality? Could be. But this'll open the view to infinite theoretical discussions on AI evolutions if at one time could be human morphs. But not is so. The common heritage is seen in the “common sense”, often associated to a transcendent “natural law” based on religious morality or human rights (it depends from interpreters background).This metaphysical legal construction on the surface seem to help the weakest, but in reality often are a weapon to oppress single individuals.
In fact equality principle penetrates with another cornerstone of human evolution: democracy (that implies formal equality),that means accept majority principle as fundament of law production and accept (and follow) majority rules. Great!!! the only problem is: what'd happen if majority, would use formal equality to destroy freedom of frustrate value that for someone are important. Considering the impossibility to coercive methods to prevent abuse of majority in name of equality (and democracy and that majority decision are ever to be imposed to minority, or obviously the opposite).
For example,someone say that life is a value not available for single choices while for other single freedom on his body is the fundament of human rights and the paradigm of equality(if we are at the samelevel you cannot decide for me,it doesnt matter if you are one or 100.000,you are a mylevel in high so cannot overthrown me).
Generally, if we accept equality we accept majority decision that descend from this and so the answer to previous question is the one, because majority will could seen as a single ball opposite to thousand of marbles and so is majority that impose human value and equality principlebecomethe instrument of lossof freedom (and sometimes even more) of single that cannot impose their vision.
And then, what is the definition of majority? The majority of a single country?or of a state inside the country? The majority of worldwide believers even if are minority in a single country? What else? Look for example to what's happening in middle East, where bodies of Islam Palestinian masses are used as weapon against Israeli borders: life destroyed to destroy other life and if all would be equals in a unify Israelo-palestinian country what yould be the limit of majority muslims against people who not believe in the same rules, or the opposite now in Israel? If equality means that no one is taller than the other and so no matter the number of people who believe a thing, equality is the same life, but if equality means at one side that there is a common sense inside (and single choices cannot modify it...) and on the other side that majority means more reason also with coercive methods this is not equality,is lack of freedom.
For this reason,maybe could be better talk about “parification” in differences, and let to majority only decisions that don't modify the “real persons” status both in positive and negative way and have as fundament concrete countries while the acceptance of values outside individuals change the acceptance of laws as freedom sward to protect singles decisions (that don't damage other persons) from power,and not to impose them decision coming from outside, it doesn't matter if from God, of majority, or market or human right declaration
WGHXKEYUX4AW
No comments:
Post a Comment