Philosophy Discussion Forums

This topic is about the December 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, A Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir by Dr.Ghoulem Berrah

I dream of the day when I can give a bowl of rice to each citizen of China before they go to sleep.

                    - Mao Zedong -


Dr. Ghoulem Berrah believed that above thinking, the attitude of being a servant leader, of chairman Mao brought China to where it stands today among the economically powerful nations.

Poverty is an issue that the world should somehow get rid of, and there is no argument about that. When everyone have their basic needs, everyone will be equal.

But as far as I believe the differences and the problems have led people to thrive more, research more, to experiment more, and ultimately to make the world a better place. People try to be skilled and earn to overcome poverty. But if equality is guaranteed, I feel like there will be no further motivation to grow more and achieve more.

What are your opinions about this concept?

Sushan wrote: ↑December 7th, 2021, 12:32 am This topic is about the December 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, A Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir by Dr.Ghoulem Berrah

I dream of the day when I can give a bowl of rice to each citizen of China before they go to sleep.

                    - Mao Zedong -


Dr. Ghoulem Berrah believed that above thinking, the attitude of being a servant leader, of chairman Mao brought China to where it stands today among the economically powerful nations.

Poverty is an issue that the world should somehow get rid of, and there is no argument about that. When everyone have their basic needs, everyone will be equal.

But as far as I believe the differences and the problems have led people to thrive more, research more, to experiment more, and ultimately to make the world a better place. People try to be skilled and earn to overcome poverty. But if equality is guaranteed, I feel like there will be no further motivation to grow more and achieve more.

What are your opinions about this concept?

Most would not use your red statement as their understanding of "equal".

I agree with a minimum level of clean air, water and food, shelter, clothing, education, security and healthcare to be available to everyone, regardless. But I also agree that the natural competitiveness in the human psyche should have an outlet and this outlet should be linked to a differential reward system. This will lead to unequal outcomes and wealth, which I am totally OK with.

Or put another way, I believe opportunity should be equal but outcomes should not be regulated.

The reason this concept is so confusing is that Abrahamic Religion can’t understand how nature works. My pagan religion and science teaches me there’s dual forces - fire and water, warrior and nurturer, etc. we’re not all the same. But balance must keep us in basic needs.

@Sushan
Perhaps, it is best not to worry too much about ' no further motivation' if people were treated equally because the point of achieving equality may be remote. Also, the entire concept of equality is ambiguous because it could mean that people are treated identically and. It would probably be a very hazy area if it meant that everyone was treated as though they were identical, with no regard to the spectrum of differences. It may be that understanding of equality may need to allow for the spectrum of physical and other differences in order to assure underlying principles of fair treatment for all, and respecting each person for their individual attributes and unique qualities. The points where this understanding of 'equality' is achieved may be rare moments and many may challenge that particular picture of equality meaning it may be more of an ethical ideal. In reality, life consists of so much unfairness, based on competitiveness and inequalities..

LuckyR wrote: ↑December 7th, 2021, 3:09 am

Sushan wrote: ↑December 7th, 2021, 12:32 am This topic is about the December 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, A Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir by Dr.Ghoulem Berrah

I dream of the day when I can give a bowl of rice to each citizen of China before they go to sleep.

                    - Mao Zedong -


Dr. Ghoulem Berrah believed that above thinking, the attitude of being a servant leader, of chairman Mao brought China to where it stands today among the economically powerful nations.

Poverty is an issue that the world should somehow get rid of, and there is no argument about that. When everyone have their basic needs, everyone will be equal.

But as far as I believe the differences and the problems have led people to thrive more, research more, to experiment more, and ultimately to make the world a better place. People try to be skilled and earn to overcome poverty. But if equality is guaranteed, I feel like there will be no further motivation to grow more and achieve more.

What are your opinions about this concept?

Most would not use your red statement as their understanding of "equal".

I agree with a minimum level of clean air, water and food, shelter, clothing, education, security and healthcare to be available to everyone, regardless. But I also agree that the natural competitiveness in the human psyche should have an outlet and this outlet should be linked to a differential reward system. This will lead to unequal outcomes and wealth, which I am totally OK with.

Or put another way, I believe opportunity should be equal but outcomes should not be regulated.

Equality can have different meanings. Having similar rights, similar acceptance, similar opportunities, and many more can be taken as equal. And it is in human nature to expect more when we already have something.

And yes, many say that opportunities should be the same. But all humans are not same. Some are strong while some are intelligent. So the opportunities should be appropriate and relevant according to the abilities that they possess. If some superior power decide to give equal opportunities to all human beings, some will be satisfied when some are not.

Sushan wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 1:17 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑December 7th, 2021, 3:09 am

Sushan wrote: ↑December 7th, 2021, 12:32 am This topic is about the December 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, A Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir by Dr.Ghoulem Berrah

I dream of the day when I can give a bowl of rice to each citizen of China before they go to sleep.

                    - Mao Zedong -


Dr. Ghoulem Berrah believed that above thinking, the attitude of being a servant leader, of chairman Mao brought China to where it stands today among the economically powerful nations.

Poverty is an issue that the world should somehow get rid of, and there is no argument about that. When everyone have their basic needs, everyone will be equal.

But as far as I believe the differences and the problems have led people to thrive more, research more, to experiment more, and ultimately to make the world a better place. People try to be skilled and earn to overcome poverty. But if equality is guaranteed, I feel like there will be no further motivation to grow more and achieve more.

What are your opinions about this concept?

Most would not use your red statement as their understanding of "equal".

I agree with a minimum level of clean air, water and food, shelter, clothing, education, security and healthcare to be available to everyone, regardless. But I also agree that the natural competitiveness in the human psyche should have an outlet and this outlet should be linked to a differential reward system. This will lead to unequal outcomes and wealth, which I am totally OK with.

Or put another way, I believe opportunity should be equal but outcomes should not be regulated.

Equality can have different meanings. Having similar rights, similar acceptance, similar opportunities, and many more can be taken as equal. And it is in human nature to expect more when we already have something.

And yes, many say that opportunities should be the same. But all humans are not same. Some are strong while some are intelligent. So the opportunities should be appropriate and relevant according to the abilities that they possess. If some superior power decide to give equal opportunities to all human beings, some will be satisfied when some are not.

Very true. Folks with unequally advantageous positions are commonly hostile to equal opportunities.

Sushan wrote: ↑December 7th, 2021, 12:32 am This topic is about the December 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, A Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir by Dr.Ghoulem Berrah

I dream of the day when I can give a bowl of rice to each citizen of China before they go to sleep.

                    - Mao Zedong -


Dr. Ghoulem Berrah believed that above thinking, the attitude of being a servant leader, of chairman Mao brought China to where it stands today among the economically powerful nations.

Poverty is an issue that the world should somehow get rid of, and there is no argument about that. When everyone have their basic needs, everyone will be equal.

But as far as I believe the differences and the problems have led people to thrive more, research more, to experiment more, and ultimately to make the world a better place. People try to be skilled and earn to overcome poverty. But if equality is guaranteed, I feel like there will be no further motivation to grow more and achieve more.

What are your opinions about this concept?

Humans consume all manner of resources that ultimately originate from our planet (plus incoming energy, in the form of radiation, from the Sun). The reservoir of resources is finite, and it isn't just humans who need to partake of it to survive. So not everyone can have as much as they want. There isn't enough for that. The 'pie' is of finite and limited size.

In this sense, 'equality' is something of a necessity. So should all humans be equal? Yes, in the sense I have just described.

LuckyR wrote: ↑December 7th, 2021, 3:09 am
Most would not use your red statement as their understanding of "equal".

I agree with a minimum level of clean air, water and food, shelter, clothing, education, security and healthcare to be available to everyone, regardless. But I also agree that the natural competitiveness in the human psyche should have an outlet and this outlet should be linked to a differential reward system. This will lead to unequal outcomes and wealth, which I am totally OK with.

Or put another way, I believe opportunity should be equal but outcomes should not be regulated.

Well said. Sushan's 'equal' is narrowly defined as equal in asset and income level, as Chairman Mao's is in the subsistence in a bowl of race. If such is the context, I would agree that everyone should be equal, when equal means no poverty, period.

Opportunity should be equal. Outcome can never be regulated. That different outcome may arise from different ability is a given. It is a fallacy to state that better opportunity should be given to a better person.

Sushan wrote: ↑December 7th, 2021, 12:32 am This topic is about the December 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, A Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir by Dr.Ghoulem Berrah

I dream of the day when I can give a bowl of rice to each citizen of China before they go to sleep.

                    - Mao Zedong -


Dr. Ghoulem Berrah believed that above thinking, the attitude of being a servant leader, of chairman Mao brought China to where it stands today among the economically powerful nations.

Then Dr. Berrah is blind. What brought China to its current economic prowess was its abandonment of Marxist nonsense and Maoist tyranny and embrace of the elements of a free market.

gad-fly wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 12:44 pm
Opportunity should be equal. Outcome can never be regulated. That different outcome may arise from different ability is a given. It is a fallacy to state that better opportunity should be given to a better person.

Opportunities are not "given" by anyone to anyone. They appear automatically, as a result of the natural assets one possesses, and the skills, talents, experience, imagination, and ambition one demonstrates. An employer may give you a job, but it was your demonstrated talents, experience, and motivations that created the opportunity.

GE Morton wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 1:51 pm

gad-fly wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 12:44 pm
Opportunity should be equal. Outcome can never be regulated. That different outcome may arise from different ability is a given. It is a fallacy to state that better opportunity should be given to a better person.

Opportunities are not "given" by anyone to anyone. They appear automatically, as a result of the natural assets one possesses, and the skills, talents, experience, imagination, and ambition one demonstrates. An employer may give you a job, but it was your demonstrated talents, experience, and motivations that created the opportunity.

Opportunities are rarely given, but they are commonly taken away or limited.

You seem to be unfamiliar with the common practice of giving jobs to inferior family members. As well as "red lining" in the real estate market.

LuckyR wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 1:55 pm
Opportunities are rarely given, but they are commonly taken away or limited.

You seem to be unfamiliar with the common practice of giving jobs to inferior family members. As well as "red lining" in the real estate market.

Oh, I agree. But removing those impediments will get you nowhere close to equalizing opportunity. Since the factors I mentioned cannot be equalized, the opportunities which ensue from them can't either.

LuckyR wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 1:55 pm

GE Morton wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 1:51 pm

gad-fly wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 12:44 pm
Opportunity should be equal. Outcome can never be regulated. That different outcome may arise from different ability is a given. It is a fallacy to state that better opportunity should be given to a better person.

Opportunities are not "given" by anyone to anyone. They appear automatically, as a result of the natural assets one possesses, and the skills, talents, experience, imagination, and ambition one demonstrates. An employer may give you a job, but it was your demonstrated talents, experience, and motivations that created the opportunity.

Opportunities are rarely given, but they are commonly taken away or limited.

You seem to be unfamiliar with the common practice of giving jobs to inferior family members. As well as "red lining" in the real estate market.

Opportunity SHOULD be equal, between man and woman, black and white, and so on. Whether it is given equally or not is another issue. To some degree, we have all experienced discrimination which should not be.

What is red lining?

gad-fly wrote: ↑December 8th, 2021, 7:56 pm
Opportunity SHOULD be equal, between man and woman, black and white, and so on. Whether it is given equally or not is another issue. To some degree, we have all experienced discrimination which should not be.

But it won't be, whether there is race/sex/etc. discrimination or not.

What is red lining?

That was a widespread practice among real estate mortgage lenders to draw red lines around certain neighborhoods on a city map to indicate where the lender would not make loans. The red-lined areas were usually minority neighborhoods, but sometime an area was red-lined just because most of the housing within it was sub-standard.

Slavedevice wrote: ↑December 7th, 2021, 8:07 am The reason this concept is so confusing is that Abrahamic Religion can’t understand how nature works. My pagan religion and science teaches me there’s dual forces - fire and water, warrior and nurturer, etc. we’re not all the same. But balance must keep us in basic needs.

Humans are inherently different. In addition there is gender difference as well. So the capabilities differ in various areas. Yet humans are so keen on getting equal rights. Women riot for equal acceptance as men. Poor people rebel for socialism. And at the same time all humans have same basic needs. But the logistic ddistribution is not equal, and it seems unjust. Yes, the whole concept is confusing.