Do atheists fake egalitarianism?

[Heywood]

Lets assume for a moment that egalitarianism is optimal human behavior.  Why would it be optimal behavior?  One answer and perhaps the best answer is because genders, ethnicity, and sexual orientations are all actually equivalent.  If this is true it implies the existence of a God because an unconscious nature simply wouldn't care to create them as such. 

Nature doesn't care one way or another.  Are you seriously arguing that genders et al. that are deserving of equal treatment cannot evolve naturally.  We are evolved to be a social species.  We depend upon one another for the benefit of the whole.  In that situation it would be reasonable that, regardless of whatever inequalities may exist, by granting everyone equivalent opportunity, we are maximizing the utility of our resources.  Your mistake is in presuming that egalitarianism postulates that the different classes are the same, rather than that they should be treated the same.  If that is your understanding of what it means to be egalitarian, then no, I'm not egalitarian.  I think you have a defective understanding of the word.

Bolded by me
"Deserving of equal treatment" is an assumption.  An unconscious non intelligent Nature does not evolve assumptions.  If it is a fact that genders et al are deserving of equal treatment then the occurrence of such a fact is more likely the result of a meddling of an intellect rather than random happenstance.

[Cato]

"Deserving of equal treatment" is an assumption.  An unconscious non intelligent Nature does not evolve assumptions.  If it is a fact that genders et al are deserving of equal treatment then the occurrence of such a fact is more likely the result of a meddling of an intellect rather than random happenstance.

Yeah, human intellect.

[Pyrrho]

I'm actually not sure how a theist can be an egalitarian. You have to get past a lot of "kill people for being different" before you finally get to a part that says love your neighbor and enemy, that isn't even original or unique to the bible. It's just the classic glossing over the majority of the old testament, while trying to keep some bits that they like.

Such as the ten commandments, where even in that women are put in the same category as livestock. Also the part that demands discrimination against homosexuals.

What prompted this thread is in a previous thread I made the argument that homosexuality is not equivalent to heterosexuality.  I made a rational argument for that position and the only refutation I could come up for it(since you guys all failed to refute it) is that perhaps God created them both to be equivalent.  

Like most or all of you, I usually treat different genders, ethnicity, sexual orientations as equivalent in my day to day real world activities. However I'm really just going through the motions.  I'm a fake egalitarian.

Lets assume for a moment that egalitarianism is optimal human behavior.  Why would it be optimal behavior?  One answer and perhaps the best answer is because genders, ethnicity, and sexual orientations are all actually equivalent.  If this is true it implies the existence of a God because an unconscious nature simply wouldn't care to create them as such. 

Here, perhaps, is the essential part eluding you.  To make the concepts easy to understand, let us consider a specific example.  Suppose I own a factory, and I make cars.  Now, what matters for me when hiring a worker, if I want the best cars, are things that relate to making cars.  Whether my workers are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or whatever their sexuality, has nothing to do with making cars, and so it is irrelevant to whether I should be hiring a person or not.  Likewise with race and ethnicity and gender.  I am not having my workers use penises in the construction of the cars, so it makes no difference for making cars whether my workers have penises or not.  So none of the things irrelevant to making cars should be used in deciding who to hire.  So, for making cars, differences in sexuality and race and gender really are equal, because they have nothing whatever to do with making cars.  (That is to say, those qualities are all equally irrelevant to making cars, and consequently ought not be considered in the hiring process.)

Of course, the things that are relevant to making cars do matter, and so I should pay attention to those things.  Thus, someone who is unreliable and never shows up on time, is someone I should probably fire, as they are not making cars when they are not at the factory.  If I require someone to use a wrench to tighten a nut, the person I hire must be able to use a wrench appropriately.  Etc.


Now, let us think further about those irrelevant things for my car factory.  Suppose I were to discriminate against black people and never hire any black people.  That would mean that instead of selecting the best workers, I am using irrelevant criteria for hiring people, which is likely to mean that I will not always be getting the best workers available.  So this is not smart for me.  Also, of course, it is unfair to those against whom I am discriminating, as they now have fewer options for making a living, so it hurts them as well.  Additionally, it is bad for my customers, because inferior workers are likely to be slower (thus driving up the cost to make the car and therefore the price of it), and also more likely to make mistakes, giving the customer an inferior product.  Additionally, it affects people who don't buy my car if they are defective, as a brake problem could cause one of my customers to kill someone else on the street.   Thus, it is bad if I discriminate based on things irrelevant to making cars, both for myself, and for others, and is consequently a legitimate concern for society.

There is nothing magical about any of this.  It is (or should be) just plain common sense.

[Esquilax]

Nature doesn't care one way or another.  Are you seriously arguing that genders et al. that are deserving of equal treatment cannot evolve naturally.  We are evolved to be a social species.  We depend upon one another for the benefit of the whole.  In that situation it would be reasonable that, regardless of whatever inequalities may exist, by granting everyone equivalent opportunity, we are maximizing the utility of our resources.  Your mistake is in presuming that egalitarianism postulates that the different classes are the same, rather than that they should be treated the same.  If that is your understanding of what it means to be egalitarian, then no, I'm not egalitarian.  I think you have a defective understanding of the word.

Bolded by me
"Deserving of equal treatment" is an assumption.  An unconscious non intelligent Nature does not evolve assumptions.  If it is a fact that genders et al are deserving of equal treatment then the occurrence of such a fact is more likely the result of a meddling of an intellect rather than random happenstance.

Again, they are not separate categories, from a biological standpoint; they are genetically near identical. You are looking at two examples of the same category and acting all confused: "Why are these two things from the same category similar? Must be god, right? Things from a common category can't be from that category without space magic!"

I know you're ignoring me, because you're an intellectual coward and, frankly, entirely dishonest, but there it is. You certainly cannot, from this point on, continue with this line of argumentation without it being a lie, because the evidence against your sophistic nonsense has been available ever since. Enjoy fire bombing your own credibility due to your inability to ever admit that you're wrong.

[Heywood]

"Deserving of equal treatment" is an assumption.  An unconscious non intelligent Nature does not evolve assumptions.  If it is a fact that genders et al are deserving of equal treatment then the occurrence of such a fact is more likely the result of a meddling of an intellect rather than random happenstance.

Yeah, human intellect.

Human intellect in Iran has deemed gays to be lessor human beings.  Is it a fact then that in Iran, gays are lessor human beings because their society deems it so?  If it is the intellect of society which determines what is equivalent and what isn't, then you can't really criticize another society when they don't treat gays equally.  If it is simply universally true that gender et al should be treated equally, the intellect which decided that must be greater than the intellect of human societies.

[Angrboda]

Nature doesn't care one way or another.  Are you seriously arguing that genders et al. that are deserving of equal treatment cannot evolve naturally.  We are evolved to be a social species.  We depend upon one another for the benefit of the whole.  In that situation it would be reasonable that, regardless of whatever inequalities may exist, by granting everyone equivalent opportunity, we are maximizing the utility of our resources.  Your mistake is in presuming that egalitarianism postulates that the different classes are the same, rather than that they should be treated the same.  If that is your understanding of what it means to be egalitarian, then no, I'm not egalitarian.  I think you have a defective understanding of the word.

Bolded by me
"Deserving of equal treatment" is an assumption.  An unconscious non intelligent Nature does not evolve assumptions.  If it is a fact that genders et al are deserving of equal treatment then the occurrence of such a fact is more likely the result of a meddling of an intellect rather than random happenstance.

And as I pointed out, nature evolved us as a social species, and it is the requirements of prospering as a social species which lead to the choice of egalitarianism. The meddling intellect evolved in such a way that this is the most profitable meddling. Our intellect didn't choose to make us a social species; we evolved that trait. The rest is contingent upon us having evolved to be a social species. No, egalitarianism didn't evolve as a free standing attribute, but even if it had, you've given no reason why it couldn't. You're strawmanning evolution by calling it mere happenstance; evolution works under the constraints of natural selection. You're misrepresenting that the alternative to your god theory is mere randomness; it isn't. We evolved our social nature as a response to the contingencies presented by the environment we evolved in, in relation to our phenotype. It wasn't "random happenstance."

[Heywood]

Bolded by me
"Deserving of equal treatment" is an assumption.  An unconscious non intelligent Nature does not evolve assumptions.  If it is a fact that genders et al are deserving of equal treatment then the occurrence of such a fact is more likely the result of a meddling of an intellect rather than random happenstance.

And as I pointed out, nature evolved us as a social species, and it is the requirements of prospering as a social species which lead to the choice of egalitarianism.  The meddling intellect evolved in such a way that this is the most profitable meddling.  Our intellect didn't choose to make us a social species; we evolved that trait.  The rest is contingent upon us having evolved to be a social species.  No, egalitarianism didn't evolve as a free standing attribute, but even if it had, you've given no reason why it couldn't.  You're strawmanning evolution by calling it mere happenstance; evolution works under the constraints of natural selection.  You're misrepresenting that the alternative to your god theory is mere randomness; it isn't.  We evolved our social nature as a response to the contingencies presented by the environment we evolved in, in relation to our phenotype.  It wasn't "random happenstance."

Egalitarianism is a recent modern phenomena.  It is not something we evolved.  It is an assumption that certain human societies accept and other human societies reject.  If it is but a choice and not a universal truth, then there is nothing wrong with a society deciding gays are lessor human beings or women shouldn't vote.

[Jenny A]

For an theist egalitarianism is an easy concept to accept.  People should be treated the same because God created them as equals. However if there is no God then there really isn't any rational reason to actually believe that all the different races, genders, or sexual orientations are actually equivalent.  There might be rational reasons to pretend the are equivalent....social harmony and such...but is there rational reason to believe they are actually equivalent?  It is simply too much of a stretch to think that nature, as a matter of happenstance, made all these things equivalent.

Oh my, let's start with some basic definitions shall we?

Egalitarianism is not based on the assumption that all people are created with strength, height, intelligence, longevity, attractiveness, fertility, speed, endurance, will power, creativity, or any other trait you can name. Whether created by god (not proven) or nature people are not equal in any of those traits. Even twins are not exactly the same in such traits. I've never met anyone who seriously thought people are equal in such a way.

Egalitarianism is a reaction to the notion that some people should have more rights and higher status because who their parents were or some other arbitrary trait such as skin color, sex, sexual preference. In practice this leads to statements like "all men are equal before the law." It is not a godly notion. The divine right of kings, is a religious notion. Many, many religions have declared that the king was the king because god said so. The Judeo Christian god makes many distinctions on the basis of such arbitrary traits. As early as Genesis he chose one nation over all others. He chose men over women, and the first born of the first wife over all other sons. Following Jesus, the Christian god embraced all nations but still left out women, slaves, and others in the equal rights stakes.

Egalitarianism is a secular, not an atheist movement. It began as a political movement whose rallying cry was that all people should be treated equally under the same circumstances, i.e. under the law. It's in the U.S. Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." But the idea was not original to the founding fathers. That idea has been expanded to hiring practices as well. It's basic fairness, and there's no pretense about it. People who behave the same should be treated the same. Ability and industry should be rewarded the same regardless of gender or skin color.

Egalitarianism did not mean that everyone will end up equal in status, wealth, or happiness, or that everyone should have an equal right under the law to attain status and wealth based upon their mere existence. However, some socialists and/or communists would take the idea one step further and suggest that all economic outcomes should be the same regardless of ability. I wouldn't go so far as that.

In any case, egalitarianism is simply an outgrowth of the basic concept of fairness.

---

So like Chad, you're just basically faking egalitarianism.  You don't really believe people, races, genders, and sexual orientations are all equivalent do you?

I don't believe all people are equivalent no.  But I've seen no evidence of general racial inequality in abilities not adequately explained by culture and economic circumstances.  The sexes certainly are not equivalent.  I can and have given birth and I think that little skill is beyond you.  And on average women are not as strong as men, but we live longer.  And so on.  But some women are stronger than most men, and should be allowed to use that strength if they want to.

Lets suppose for a minute that the average white person is about 15 IQ points less bright than the average black person and able to lift 15 pounds less than the average black person.  Does that mean that a black man with an IQ of 105 should be given more opportunities than a white man with an IQ of 145? An egalitarian would say no. You see egalitarianism assumes we look at individuals and what those individuals can and do accomplish, not at races, sexes, or other such groups.

[Heywood]

For an theist egalitarianism is an easy concept to accept.  People should be treated the same because God created them as equals. However if there is no God then there really isn't any rational reason to actually believe that all the different races, genders, or sexual orientations are actually equivalent.  There might be rational reasons to pretend the are equivalent....social harmony and such...but is there rational reason to believe they are actually equivalent?  It is simply too much of a stretch to think that nature, as a matter of happenstance, made all these things equivalent.

Oh my, let's start with some basic definitions shall we?

Egalitarianism is not based on the assumption that all people are created with strength, height, intelligence, longevity, attractiveness, fertility, speed, endurance, will power, creativity, or any other trait you can name.  Whether created by god (no proven) or nature people are not equal in any of those traits. Even twins are no exactly the same in such traits.  I've never met anyone who seriously thought people are equal in such a way.

Egalitarianism is a reaction to the notion that some people should have more rights and higher status because who their parents were or some other arbitrary trait such as skin color, sex, sexual preference.  In practice this leads to statements like "all men are equal before the law."  It is not a godly notion.  The divine right of kings, is a religious notion.  Many, many religions have declared that the king was the god because god said so.  The Judeo Christian god makes many distinctions on the basis of such arbitrary traits.  As early as Genesis he chose one nation over all others. He chose men over women, and the first born of the first wife over all other sons.  Following Jesus, the Christian god embraced all nations but still left out women, slaves, and others in the equal rights stakes.

Egalitarianism is a secular, not an atheist movement.  It began as a political movement whose rallying cry was that all people should be treated equally under the same circumstances, i.e. under the law.  It's in the U.S. Declaration of Independence:  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." But the idea was not original to the founding fathers.  That idea has been expanded to hiring practices as well.  It's basic fairness, and there's no pretense about it.  People who behave the same should be treated the same.  Ability and industry should be rewarded the same regardless of gender or skin color.  

Egalitarianism did not mean that everyone will end up equal is status, wealth, or happiness, or that everyone should have an equal right under the law to attain status and wealth based upon what they actually do or don't do.  However, some socialists and/or communists would take the idea one step further and suggest that all economic outcomes should be the same regardless of ability.  I wouldn't go so far as that.

In any case, egalitarianism is simply an outgrowth of the basic concept of fairness.

The Declaration of Independence suggests that egalitarianism is more than a political movement.....that it is a brute fact of nature established by God and not some choice made by society. 

[Jenny A]

I don't hold an egalitarian position.  For instance I see no reason why men in general can't be better leaders than women or women in general can't be better leaders than men.

It's possible that in general men are better leaders than women.  I'd like to see some evidence first though.  But, in fairness, what does it matter when we are looking to appoint a person from a particular group of candidates to a position of leadership?  The best leader should get the job, even if they are an anomaly among their gender.