Equality May Lead To Banality?

[wenglund]

Since we are studying the D&C in Sunday School this year, it is likely that the topic of the United Order may get raised, which in turn may lead to discussions on equality.

There are also other LDS issues frequently discussed on this board that touch on the notion of equality, like SSM and Title IX, etc..

As such, I thought I would share here a powerful allegory posted by thesometimesaint in another thread, with the intent of discussing it here in ways that extend beyond what he or she intended:

wengland:

Say you have two children. One asks you for a banana, and the other asks for an apple. You give both an apple. You've treated them both exactly equally. However you have discriminated.

Wow! Excellent example! This is fantastic! It helps illustrate, to some extent, flaws in the thinking of those obsessed with equality. It not only illustrates that universal equality and non-discrimination is impossible, but also that striving for equality as the ultimate end can, at times, result in banality.

To see how, lets expand upon your example: suppose that one of my children's bodies was telling him he needs more fibber, and that is why he was asking for an apple; whereas my other child's body was telling her she was low on potassium, and that is why she asked for a banana. Treating the children quasi equally by giving them both an apple, not only discriminates as you suggest (some radical egalitarians might even assert that the discrimination was sexist since it was the son's request that was complied with), may inadvertently deny one of the children what her body really needs. Equality, in this instance, wasn't in, and may have worked against, everyone's best interest. Equality may result in banality.

I am so glad you brought this example up because I think that, in principle, it applies analogously to a number of pop cultural issue related to the LDS faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Buckeye]

"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?"

For me, the issue is best framed, not as whether things are equal, but whether they are good. If I had two sons who asked for bread and I gave them both a stone, that would be equal, but still wrong. Likewise, giving both an apple, when one asked for a banana would be wrong - provided that I had the means to provide a banana to the one who asked, and provided that a banana is good.

Extending this to SSM, the question is - and always will be - not whether things are equal, but whether SSM is good. Progress on that question is not made by messageboard disputes. It's made by inviting SS families into your home and getting to know them.

[Maidservant]

I have been turned off by the idea of 'equality' for a long time. I don't 'disagree' with it--I just find it is irrelevant in, at least, my way of thinking.

Rather, I expect to have the opportunity to be me--I expect to have the opportunity for (what I call) self-determination.

I want to determine the course of my life without making reference to what may be society's rules about my gender, my so-called race, my religion, my sexuality--I do not want society to be making rules about the determination of my course of life based on parameters like that. As a woman (for example), I don't need to be 'equal' [speaking of it as a paradigm irrelevancy not a disagreement]; what I need and expect is to be able to choose the course of my life without being told from a (god-less) society that I can't go down any given path because of my womanhood.

The banana-apple is a good example. Each person self-determined what they needed or wanted--apple or banana. Then they should go for it without being told that they MUST take the apple, even when they asked for the banana, because the RULE is--apples only for YOU, missy.

[wenglund]

"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?"

For me, the issue is best framed, not as whether things are equal, but whether they are good.

My sentiments exactly.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I have been turned off by the idea of 'equality' for a long time. I don't 'disagree' with it--I just find it is irrelevant in, at least, my way of thinking.

Rather, I expect to have the opportunity to be me--I expect to have the opportunity for (what I call) self-determination.

I want to determine the course of my life without making reference to what may be society's rules about my gender, my so-called race, my religion, my sexuality--I do not want society to be making rules about the determination of my course of life based on parameters like that. As a woman (for example), I don't need to be 'equal' [speaking of it as a paradigm irrelevancy not a disagreement]; what I need and expect is to be able to choose the course of my life without being told from a (god-less) society that I can't go down any given path because of my womanhood.

The banana-apple is a good example. Each person self-determined what they needed or wanted--apple or banana. Then they should go for it without being told that they MUST take the apple, even when they asked for the banana, because the RULE is--apples only for YOU, missy.

Nicely said!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

Good grief. Apparently some people don't know how to understand what equality really is.

When our Father treats each of us as we deserve, based on our own works, he will be treating all of us equally regardless of the blessings or cursings he gives to us, individually. Equal treatment is justice, regardless of how he goes about meting out justice, because justice is equality.

Now consider how this planet was created for all of us and how some people have taken it upon themselves to dole out whatever they think other people should have as their share.

Some earthly king says to one of his "subjects": I like you or what you did or can do for me, and to you I will give this really nice and big parcel of land. Enjoy! And then later he says to another one of his brothers or sisters who he considers to be subject to him and his rule: I don't like you at all since you're trying to tell me I'm not being fair to you by not giving you that same piece of land I just gave to that guy. Now he yells out: Off with his head! Or better yet, put him in jail and let him rot til he dies!(just because he doesn't like it when people don't agree with his rule in what he considers to be his kingdom!)

That king is just another one of our brothers, though. What makes him think he has the right to treat his other brothers or sisters any way he wants to treat them? What mindset is he operating under? What makes him think any piece of land is his to give away, period, when this planet was created for all of us to enjoy. He doesn't have the right to try to spread things around only as he sees fit. Or if he does everybody else in his kingdom was involved in giving that power to him and they have just as much power to take it away from him if they want to.

In most earthly governments we have some people who act like they are our rulers, whether or not they have been ordained to that power by God. People who think they have the right to impose taxes and fines based on what they decide while considering themselves to be doing things the way God would do things. There are some in favor of what they call a "free economy", which doesn't really involve the "free" exchange goods and services, and some others are more like a dictatorship where one person or group of people impose how they think things should be done on everyone else. No where is there a government on Earth with their citizens doing things the way they should be done, other than in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but even we don't always do things as we should.

This planet needs a serious wake up call and I'm looking forward to our Lord coming back to establish things the way they should be.

[The Nehor]

Economic equality is not banal. Banality comes from a horde of identical iterations of the same individual. Instead Christ made Us members (organs) with different functions. Evil is banal. The more you sink the more alike you become. The higher you rise the more individual you are.

[thesometimesaint]

Economic equality is not banal. Banality comes from a horde of identical iterations of the same individual. Instead Christ made Us members (organs) with different functions. Evil is banal. The more you sink the more alike you become. The higher you rise the more individual you are.

I've never argued for a literal economic equality. But something is seriously wrong when someone has 10,000 lunches and the person next to him goes hungry.

[Ahab]

I've never argued for a literal economic equality. But something is seriously wrong when someone has 10,000 lunches and the person next to him goes hungry.

Unless maybe the person with 10,000 lunches is going to be giving 9999 of them to other people. Maybe.

But how did that person end up getting all of them instead of them being given out to those 10,000 people individually? How did that get to be part of the program? Maybe it makes sense to do that, for some reason, but then again maybe it doesn't. Maybe all we need is someone or some group to look over the system and overhaul it if it doesn't work as fair as it could be.

But who are we going to choose to do that? And who is going to oversee those who oversee that? And on up, and up? How do we choose who to put in charge of the program(s) to make sure they're all run fairly?

But then what do we do if those with the power to oversee the system now find some way to keep themselves in power, regardless of any protests from anyone else. There are some people now who oversee the economic systems, at various levels, and things are still not fair for everybody on this planet. Maybe what we need is for everybody to be involved, instead of giving that power to a smaller minority.

But what if some people don't really care if it's fair or not, as long as they can get what they want?

Or what if some people don't want to go to war over the way things are on this planet? You know it would be a battle, don't cha.

[RobertAC]

I have been turned off by the idea of 'equality' for a long time. I don't 'disagree' with it--I just find it is irrelevant in, at least, my way of thinking.

Rather, I expect to have the opportunity to be me--I expect to have the opportunity for (what I call) self-determination.

I want to determine the course of my life without making reference to what may be society's rules about my gender, my so-called race, my religion, my sexuality--I do not want society to be making rules about the determination of my course of life based on parameters like that. As a woman (for example), I don't need to be 'equal' [speaking of it as a paradigm irrelevancy not a disagreement]; what I need and expect is to be able to choose the course of my life without being told from a (god-less) society that I can't go down any given path because of my womanhood.

The banana-apple is a good example. Each person self-determined what they needed or wanted--apple or banana. Then they should go for it without being told that they MUST take the apple, even when they asked for the banana, because the RULE is--apples only for YOU, missy.

I tend to agree. Framing civil rights issues as ones about "equality" miss the point to a great extent. We are not physically, intellectually, or economically equal. In my mind, the issue is about who has the the power of self-determination and who does not.

[slamarwi]

I believe the term we should be discussing is equitable not equal.

[wenglund]

I am enjoying the comments thus far, and I am asking myself whether I should agree with them equally or equitably, and if so whether that would underscore my point.

Whatever the case, if you still have doubts that equality MAY lead to banality, imagine what it would be like were we to treat everyone equally in terms of drivers licenses, voting, consumption of controlled substances like alcohol and tobacco, business contracts, etc. In other words, what would it be like if a one-year-old had equal rights to drive a car as a 30-year-old?

The point being, some times discrimination and equality make very good sense, and if our focus is on equality or equability, it may lead to banality, so rather than working towards equality, we should be working towards what is in everyone's best interest.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

I believe we should seek equality under law. Meaning I held to the same standards of conduct as you are when we come before a magistrate of the law.

BTW; There is no right to driver on the public roads and highways. It is a privilege granted by the state. The requirements are pretty easy for a typical 16 year old to meet. However my kids waited till they were 18 to get their drivers license. (Their choice)

[Wanderer7]

I am enjoying the comments thus far, and I am asking myself whether I should agree with them equally or equitably, and if so whether that would underscore my point.

Whatever the case, if you still have doubts that equality MAY lead to banality, imagine what it would be like were we to treat everyone equally in terms of drivers licenses, voting, consumption of controlled substances like alcohol and tobacco, business contracts, etc. In other words, what would it be like if a one-year-old had equal rights to drive a car as a 30-year-old?

The point being, some times discrimination and equality make very good sense, and if our focus is on equality or equability, it may lead to banality, so rather than working towards equality, we should be working towards what is in everyone's best interest.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Here's a video of what would happen if we had equality. PS-it's a full length episode. Hope you love Lucy.

http://www.cbs.com/shows/i_love_lucy/video/1892292621/i-love-lucy-equal-rights

[wenglund]

Extending this to SSM, the question is - and always will be - not whether things are equal, but whether SSM is good. Progress on that question is not made by message board disputes. It's made by inviting SS families into your home and getting to know them.

You raise a good point that I wish to consider further, though since I have taken a vow of silence regarding SS issues, I will have to approach from a different angle and look at it in terms of other moral issues like abortion, adultery, etc.

If it is reasonably determined that it is in the best interest of society, or to society's best good, to legal distinguish between and treat adultery different from marital fidelity, this doesn't necessarily mean that, on balance, we should should view adulterers as entirely bad or necessarily treat them bad. If we invite them into our homes we might discoverer that they are often very delightful people who are doing a lot of good.

We may also invite people who have had abortions into our homes, and find they are very happy and productive citizens, though this doesn't necessarily mean that we should view abortions as good and that we as a society should equally promote abortions as childbirth.

Furthermore, we might have friends who smoke pot, who are mellow and charming and funny when they come into our homes. Does this mean that marijuana is good and should be promoted by the government?

The point being, when determining what is in society's best interest, or what is "good," social interactions in our homes may not be the optimal or solely the best means of assessment.

Even still, whether we share o not other people's morals and values, or whether we agree or disagree in terms of public policies in relation to those morals and values, that doesn't mean we can't view those we disagree with as, on balance, good or that we shouldn't treat them good.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I believe we should seek equality under law. Meaning I held to the same standards of conduct as you are when we come before a magistrate of the law.

BTW; There is no right to driver on the public roads and highways. It is a privilege granted by the state. The requirements are pretty easy for a typical 16 year old to meet. However my kids waited till they were 18 to get their drivers license. (Their choice)

I don't wish to argue the alleged semantic differences between legal rights and privileges (as if they may be mutually exclusive) because it will likely detract from the point.

It is indisputable that in the cases I mentioned, children are being treated unequally and discriminated against under the law.

However, this is actually a good thing, and in everyone's best interest. To treat children equally under those laws, would lead to banality.

This, in part, is why "equality" ought not be our primary objective, but instead it should be best interest and progress.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[BCSpace]

Since we are studying the D&C in Sunday School this year, it is likely that the topic of the United Order may get raised, which in turn may lead to discussions on equality.

The doctrine on equality is clear vis a vis the Law of Consecration. From the official doctrine on it in my siggy:

The expressions in the revelations describing the portion or stewardship as “equal” (D&C 51:3; see also D&C 70:14) does not mean equality in the sense that all are exactly the same. President J. Reuben Clark Jr. explained: “One of the places in which some of the brethren are going astray is this: There is continuous reference in the revelations to equality among the brethren, but I think you will find only one place where that equality is really described, though it is referred to in other revelations. That revelation (D. & C. 51:3) affirms that every man is to be ‘equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.’ (See also D. & C. 82:17; 78:5–6.) Obviously, this is not a case of ‘dead level’ equality. It is ‘equality’ that will vary as much as the man’s circumstances, his family, his wants and needs may vary.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1942, p. 55.)

The word equal is frequently used in the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants: “In … temporal things you shall be equal” (D&C 70:14); “for if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things” (D&C 78:6); “appoint unto this people their portions, every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs” (D&C 51:3). The Lord gave His definition of the term equal: “And you are to be equal, or in other words, you are to have equal claims on the properties, for the benefit of managing the concerns of your stewardships, every man according to his wants and his needs, inasmuch as his wants are just” (D&C 82:17).

Equal claims by all members in the covenant were upon the common property or resources for the administering of stewardships. Through these mutually shared rights or claims all became “alike” (D&C 51:9) or, in other words, had equal standing. The procedure for determining whose claim should be satisfied was established through the approval and consent of all who participated in the order (see D&C 104:70–71).

[Nathair/|\]

provided that a banana is good.

Edited March 2, 2013 by Nathair

[Maidservant]

but instead it should be best interest and progress.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I personally consider these to be minefields as well, mainly because we have to ask who will be determining the best interest and the progress.

I also think it makes a difference about what arena we are talking about. In fact, what arena are you meaning, as to the OP? As thesometimessaint implied, being 'equal before the law' is different than being 'equal'. I think there may be a difference between being 'equal before unending beauracratic agency law' and being 'equal before the basic constitutional laws'.

From our position in history, in many ways we have the luxury of forgetting that, for just one example, in the far past, the testimony in court of women and other races did not have 'equal' weight to other men. So to seek for redress for equality before the law is an amazing journey we have taken. But perhaps, now, we have new tensions and new questions and need new answers and new words and new thoughts connected to our words.

[bcuzbcuz]

Equality may result in banality.

Shouldn't that be: Equality may result in bananality?

[Jude2]

"....But how did that person end up getting all of them instead of them being given out to those 10,000 people individually?..."

Most of them worked for it.

"But who are we going to choose to do that? And who is going to oversee those who oversee that? And on up, and up? How do we choose who to put in charge of the program(s) to make sure they're all run fairly?"

Christ, until men come unto Christ it won't happen, that's the whole message of the Book of Mormon.

[bcuzbcuz]

Since we are studying the D&C in Sunday School this year, it is likely that the topic of the United Order may get raised, which in turn may lead to discussions on equality.

There are also other LDS issues frequently discussed on this board that touch on the notion of equality, like SSM and Title IX, etc..

As such, I thought I would share here a powerful allegory posted by thesometimesaint in another thread, with the intent of discussing it here in ways that extend beyond what he or she intended:

Wow! Excellent example! This is fantastic! It helps illustrate, to some extent, flaws in the thinking of those obsessed with equality. It not only illustrates that universal equality and non-discrimination is impossible, but also that striving for equality as the ultimate end can, at times, result in banality.

To see how, lets expand upon your example: suppose that one of my children's bodies was telling him he needs more fibber, and that is why he was asking for an apple; whereas my other child's body was telling her she was low on potassium, and that is why she asked for a banana. Treating the children quasi equally by giving them both an apple, not only discriminates as you suggest (some radical egalitarians might even assert that the discrimination was sexist since it was the son's request that was complied with), may inadvertently deny one of the children what her body really needs. Equality, in this instance, wasn't in, and may have worked against, everyone's best interest. Equality may result in banality.

I am so glad you brought this example up because I think that, in principle, it applies analogously to a number of pop cultural issue related to the LDS faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What do you see as the disadvantages to society for equal pay for equal work?

[thesometimesaint]

What do you see as the disadvantages to society for equal pay for equal work?

[wenglund]

I personally consider these to be minefields as well, mainly because we have to ask who will be determining the best interest and the progress.

If we, individually, are able to determine for ourselves, however we see fit, what is in our best interest and what constitutes progress, how is that problematic.

And, even if we, collectively, come to some shared belief about what is in our best interest and what is progress, how is that problematic?

I also think it makes a difference about what arena we are talking about. In fact, what arena are you meaning, as to the OP? As thesometimessaint implied, being 'equal before the law' is different than being 'equal'. I think there may be a difference between being 'equal before unending beauracratic agency law' and being 'equal before the basic constitutional laws'.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that equality never good. I believe there are times and circumstances where it is very good.

What I am suggesting, however, is that in those cases where equality is good, I submit that it is good not for equality sake (i.e. not because equality was the desired end), but because equality in those cases is in our best interest and progress.

From our position in history, in many ways we have the luxury of forgetting that, for just one example, in the far past, the testimony in court of women and other races did not have 'equal' weight to other men. So to seek for redress for equality before the law is an amazing journey we have taken. But perhaps, now, we have new tensions and new questions and need new answers and new words and new thoughts connected to our words.

I agree that our country has benefited from and progressed by equalizing in the several ways you have suggested. However, again I would submit that this is NOT for equality sake, but because it was beneficial and progressive to do so. One of the criticism I have of the civil rights movement and the women's movement, and other movements that have followed in their wake, is that the emphasis has been placed on equality, which in turn has lead to not a few asinine public policies, like school busing and Title IX (more on this later), To me, these asinine public policies could have been avoided were instead of equality the objective, it would have been the two objectives I proposed. We, as a society, limit ourselves when we business and legislative decisions are based on the color of people's skin or sex or ethnicity or religion, etc., rather than on the content of their character and their proven abilities.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Shouldn't that be: Equality may result in bananality?

That too...

Thanks, -Wade Englund