In your opinion, are concepts such as "All men are created equal" a philosophy or a self evident truth??

Try “all men are created equal under the law” and it works better.

I think men aren’t created and definitely not equal.

That notion is a flatant insult to all those that find put they got the short end of the stick on that deal.

So ‘all men are created equal’ to me is neither a philosophy nor a truth… It’s nonsense.

Now a philosophy that says that ‘all men should be having equal rights under equal circumstances’... That’s a philosophy I could support.

There are no self-evident truths. Nor are truth and philosophy mutually exclusive. That aside, ‘all men are created equal’ comes out of a particular history in the West and may mean something else now, depending on who you are asking. If you’re asking me, I would of course replace ‘men’ with ‘people’ and created with ‘should be treated.’

I agree with you @Simone_De_Beauvoir and I tried to edit, but it locked right after posting.

All men should be all mankind.

What about women?

Don’t get all semantic on me guys.

@whitenoise, “all men should be having equal rights under equal circumstances’... ” That brings up the question of unequal circumstances. Doesn’t that pose a problem?

It’s a noble sentiment, but a “self-evident” truth is one that is so clear to any reasonable observer that there is no need to establish it from more basic truths. Given that the same men who endorsed this statement went on to craft a document that did not by any means consider all men equal, it can’t have been all that self-evident.

@Dutchess_III I contend that semantics always matter more than people think. In fact, the words used specifically, say in the constitution, to explain exactly who is meant by the phrase that includes ‘men are created equal,’ are quite telling. Because the line actually mean white men with property, using any other words masked reality.

Philosophy.

All men are men. This is self evident. It is when we try to define what a man is that some men fit the definition better than others.

I don’t think it’s a truth at all. I think everyone should have the same rights as everyone else, but we are not all born equal. Some are born into poverty, or with disabilities, there are children born every minute whose fate is to slowly starve to death within their first few weeks of life. The world is not fair and we’re not all dealt an equal hand to play with. We are subject to chance and random happenings. We just have to learn to bluff and play the best we can with what we’ve got.

The philosophy is a good ideal, but it’s a utopian thought, not one that could ever be true in reality.

But it’s a good foundation to fight from, to try and make it a reality @downtide. Even if we can never really succeed.

“I’ve been having a very civilized discussion on another thread…”

Before I go off all medieval on yo’ ass I would like to know what you are implying by this statement???

This is social, right? Yep? Ok then

Kill, kill, kill, kill.

@whitenoise Is a “flatant insult” somewhere between a blatant one and a flatulent one?

LOL! “I fart in your general direction!” is what it means. Very obscure reference to Monty there.

All men are created equal but that where all similarities ends.

The Idea behind the creation of the man is that they are endowed with the capacity to create themselves,.

…..And that is where all the differences begin.

This is a continued discussion from this thread.

I’ll ask here where I left off there…
______________

1+1=2 is self evident because no one can prove otherwise.

Equal creation is self evident because no one can prove otherwise.

Other than your subjective opinion on the matter, what is the difference?

“If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves.”

Thomas Day

We’re not all equal, because I am better than you.

^^^ settled then ^^^

The majority disagrees with you @Blackberry, so it doesn’t matter what you think! We will vaporize you!

I’m with @Blackberry
Under the law maybe…in real life, not a chance.
I am the funniest and smartest person I know…what does that tell you? haha
No, not my ego, the cold, hard facts of trying to find other golden needles in the haystack of humanity.
Thank god for fluther, or I’d go insane dealing with the everyday crowd. lol

No, I have never accepted that. There are too many physical and mental differences to even pretend there is any sort of equality.

The differences you point to are cultural influences @YARNLADY.

Can someone answer my question please…

1+1=2 is self evident because no one can prove otherwise.

Equal creation is self evident because no one can prove otherwise.

Other than your subjective opinion on the matter, what is the difference?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies By that standard “God exists” would be a self-evident truth.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Yes, of course, it IS true.
From a biological and evolutionary standpoint. We are all in the same human family and we all are equal in that regard, as we all, also, deserve equal treatment regardless of the myriad differences.

It is a philosophy.

All men are not created equal (that is my philosophy anyway) and for sure some are more well endowed, with rights, that others.

It was a bit of puffery put into the declaration of independence that seemed self evident in the light of recent thinkers such as Locke etc. Prior to the invention of agriculture nobody talked about inalienable rights because they truly were self evident. Then with agriculture came about 10000 years of serfdom and privledge of the leading few that became the new self evident. So when the framers talked about self evident they were talking about something they hoped to make self self evident. In many parts of the world still equal rights are so far from self evident.

I don’t know why this always happens in a conversation about this particular topic but equality in terms of abilities/skills gets collapsed with equality before the law or being able to access rights. Obviously, people are not equal insofar as they are not the same but they ought to be treated equally before the law and they ought to have access to basic rights that others have in society.

^@Simone_De_Beauvoir Thank you. That says it quite succinctly.^

@rojo BA-HAHAHA!!

“By that standard “God exists” would be a self-evident truth.”

Not at all @thorninmud. Because both the math and the equality can be tested to satisfy a hypothesis about them. Both tests are predictable, repeatable, and falsifiable.

Take one hundred babies from every ethnicity. Provide them identical circumstances for upbringing. Will one ethnicity be any more or less equal than another?

If answer is no, then we conclude that is a self evident truth every bit as valid as 1+1=2 until someone proves otherwise.

Remember, science is a game of inference… not proof. We can only infer truth, or prove otherwise.

Lot’s of folks here are giving their subjective opinions about equality, but totally avoiding giving reasons for their opinions. Self Evident Truth is NOT not supported upon a subjective opinion.

Good opinions, are supported by Self Evident Truth… not the other way around.
_________

Answer please…
What universal benefit is your opinion if not supported by a universal self evident truth?

It is both self-evident and a philosophy.

Where I come from we simply call it a good way of looking at things.

now who wants a beer?

It is not a self evident truth. It is a decision made by society.

Self evident things are never discussed. They don’t need to be. That someone is discussing something with reasonable room for disagreement means it is, by definition, not self evident.

@drhat77, good answer! Like, “Did you know that if you jump off the roof of the house you could get hurt?”

“Did you know if someone chases you with a knife, you could get stabbed?”

Nobody would even respond except to maybe say, “Duh.’

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies
It is a philosophy.

All men are not created equal (that is my philosophy anyway) and for sure some are more well endowed, with rights, that others.

This is an a universal self evident truth.

@Blondesjon Me! Me! meeeeee!

It is 5:37. I’m going home.

Self evident truths must be discussed when they are denied. @drhat77

@rojo Your statement of rights is dependent upon their geographic or socioeconomic status at time of birth. Your statement does not address creation.

The question here is about being “created equally”. Not born into equal societies.

“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.”

Is it? And Is it? And is he?

@real I figured that out. That’s why I added the caveat “with reasonable room for disagreement”. If someone denies a self evident truth for ulterior motives that’s not a discussion anyone is going to win.

—^^^ I’d only marry for money if the guy were impotent as well.
Pre-imp. agreement. ;-)

You can win the logic @drhat77. Perhaps not the convert. But the logic is a trophy to continue the discussion with more civilized humans. This is how “ulterior motives” are uncovered.

Humans are not “created.” All humans are conceived equally. For all intents and purposes, we’re all identical, physically. As @drhat77 said, that’s not even worth discussing because it’s so self evident.

Funny thing that word… “conceived”. It suggests powers of thought were involved.

I’d argue that YES, all men are created equal, is a self evident, natural truth…
why? because we are all created. as are every other animal and plant. we are all created. equal. Yes, some of us eat other ones. And some of us are stronger, some are weaker. But the one being eaten is no worse than the one eating. Any “hierarchy” is a human constructed concept. There is no inherent SUPERIORITY or INFERIORITY in anything created. THOSE are human imposed concepts. Thus, any hierarchical system, is a philosophy imposed on the nature of things which is an equal neutrality.

It is self evident, until one begins to equivocate on the word equal.

The original governing principle was “All men are identical in their fundamental nature”
This was to counter the notion that Kings were superior by nature of their birth.

The current vote getter is, “all men should get the same stuff, no matter how stupid they are”.

Big difference.

No, conceived means a sperm met an egg. Often “thinking” is the last thing that’s going on at that time.

Haha @josie. LOL!

@adr “SUPERIORITY or INFERIORITY… THOSE are human imposed concepts.”

There you have it. Nature is equal. Inequality is the man made concept.

How do you figure nature is equal? Nature isn’t anything other than what it is. You’re attributing human ideals to nature.

@Dutchess_III “Humans are not “created.” All humans are conceived…”

Main Entry: conceive
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: create
emphasis mine

con·ceive
1.
become pregnant with (a child).
“she was conceived when her father was 49”
2.
form or devise (a plan or idea) in the mind.
“the dam project was originally conceived in 1977”

@Dutchess_III “How do you figure nature is equal?”

I’m glad you said “figure”. That means an equation can be formed. I’ve provided a testable, predictable, repeatable, and falsifiable hypotheses to you a half dozen times now. You’ve yet to address it. It is now your turn to figure.

Well, I assumed they used the word “create” as a stand in for conceived, anyway. “Create” is more poetical.

I used the term “figure” loosely, as in “What makes you think nature is equal?” which is not a mathematical or scientific statement. No need to attach more importance to it than that.

You keep carrying on about hypothesis. This isn’t science. It’s philosophy. It’s opinion and thoughts.

This is the first acknowledgement of a hypothesis you’ve offered. Thank you.

Now that we have one, it is science, not philosophy.

I suppose the situation that they are born in makes them more equal than others.

No, it doesn’t @DWW25921. It makes them luckier, not superior.

@Dutchess_III I guess my hint of sarcasm fell on deaf ears… Of course, you are correct.

Sry @DWW25921! Still getting to know you!

OK. My hypothesis is that humans have codified many of the natural instincts that ALL LIVING THINGS HAVE into laws and rights, but those laws and rights only apply to humans, not to other animals, like cows and goats. Therefore, the laws and rights themselves are not inalienable “rights.” “Rights” are a concept. If they were natural, and self evident, those rights would apply to all living things the way instincts do. But they don’t. So it’s a philosophy that only applies to humans, and in the minds of many, only to some select humans.

To talk about equality implies that there is something to measure. As far as nature is concerned, I think you could make a strong case that natural selection is all about inequality. An organism is “created” with characteristics that will prove to be either advantageous or disadvantageous to survival. The measurement is survival. Not much else matters, and humans aren’t exempt. That’s not something that men made up

You get a very different take on the question of intrinsic equality if you introduce the idea of a “fundamental nature” that all humans have. Now there’s the possibility that every human can have an equal value just on the basis of being human; that kernel of “humanness” becomes the gold standard of worth, and we all have it in equal measure.

Now, is there really such a thing as this “fundamental nature”, this human essence? Maybe that’s just something we made up. Maybe equality is the human invention, not inequality. I would suggest the possibility that whether or not such an inherently worthy fundamental human nature objectively exists, things work better when our institutions take it as a fact. Conversely, things go horribly when our institutions assume inequality.

So I understand Jefferson’s assertion to really be saying that on a practical level, we’re going to act as if this is the objective truth, because this will be more conducive to the general well-being than assuming inequality.

@Dutchess_III We could even take that further by saying it’s ok to run over a opossum but not a cat. I believe most people would go along with that. We seem to have a hierarchy of animals that please us the most to the least. It’s kind of psychopathic if you think about it. I hit a deer a few years back and I was more worried about my car than killing a deer. Would I have felt the same way if it was a pretty horse? Why can’t we all just be like Steve Irvin and love everything?

Great answer @thorninmud.

But I thought for a second you said “gerbil” well-being.

My bad.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I caught that too! :)

@Dutchess_III … the laws and rights themselves are not inalienable “rights.”

Not inalienable means they are alienable… able to be transferred to new ownership.

I don’t know of any way that I can transfer my rights to the ownership of a cow. Sounds fun trying. But I just don’t think the cow has the what-for-all to appreciate human levels of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Not at least until we had a talk with the wolves and bears.

All men are created equal and then upon their creation they become something other than equal depending on the gestation process, their parents, their ethnicity, their culture, the politics of the time they are born into etc. etc.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

I am late to the party. 1+1=1.

Let a = 1 and b = 1.

Therefore a = b, by substitution.

If two numbers are equal, then their squares are equal, too:

a^2 = b^2.

Now subtract b^2 from both sides (if an equation is true, then if
you subtract the same thing from both sides, the result is also
a true equation) so

a^2 – b^2 = 0.

Now the lefthand side of the equation is a form known as “the
difference of two squares” and can be factored into (a-b)*(a+b).
If you don’t believe me, then try multiplying it out carefully,
and you will see that it’s correct. So:

(a-b)*(a+b) = 0.

Now if you have an equation, you can divide both sides by the same
thing, right? Let’s divide by (a-b), so we get:

(a-b)*(a+b) / (a-b) = 0/(a-b).

On the lefthand side, the (a-b)/(a-b) simplifies to 1, right?
and the righthand side simplifies to 0, right? So we get:

1*(a+b) = 0,

and since 1* anything = that same anything, then we have:

(a+b) = 0.

But a = 1 and b = 1, so:

1 + 1 = 0, or 2 = 0.

Now let’s divide both sides by 2, and we get:

1 = 0.

Then we add 1 to both sides, and we get what your programming
teacher said, namely:

1 + 1 = 1.

I cribbed this proof. I can find other ones proving you wrong if you want.

Truth holds up to scrutiny.

What is the sum of a+b equal?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Exactly. The wolf can’t talk it over with the goats. Humans can, and do. We talk. We hypothesis. We say “What if….” But that isn’t science. It’s philosophy.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies do you mean what do they equal? I just gave you a proof that they equal 1. I can give you a proof that they equal zero as well, and 1.999999 (repeating).

Some of us are equal to carrots and other root vegetables. Some of us are moderately evolved, above a turnip, much below a goose. lol
Some of us are amoebas, some bacteria, some strange mutant viruses, some cute little mud skippers, brainless but harmless. haha
Some are stealthy rats and others zen like cranes.

Some of us are dolphins, some dogs, some aardvarks. and some are catfish and eels.
All with according social skill.
Such is the diversity of the man animal . ;-P

<——Not a mathematician.

@Imadethisupwithnoforethought

What is the sum of a+b? Not what do they equal. What is the sum? As soon as you make 1 equal anything you like (a and b), to fit your specific purpose, then you have proven that 1 can equal anything. But what is the sum of a+b?

And most specifically, would you describe your formulas as self evident?

@Dutchess_III “We talk. We hypothesis.”

Hypothesizing is not reducible to talking. Neither is philosophizing. They can each be specific and unique types of talking. But talking isn’t even required.

The fact that one can hypothesize, and formulate a predictable, repeatable, falsifiable test, then that theory lands firmly into the science camp. I have provided that for you. You even did it yourself. Were you philosophizing, or hypothesizing? Your statement did begin with “my hypothesis”.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I get you sincerely.

You are the type of person who does not understand math, yet you quote it to support your theories of ultimate truth. No need for us to discuss it further.

I am the type of person who thinks very little is self evident, and the men who chose to write about “Self-evident” truths understood they were being radical as they wrote it.

What is the sum of a+b?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies You are grasping at what straw now?

Just wanting an honest answer to an honest question.

What is the sum of a+b?

Would you describe your formulas as “self evident”?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies The Sum of A+B is fluid. As I have told you. I can use logic to argue around you that you cannot refute to prove they are anything.

You have told me 1+1=2. I have told you I can make them anything you would like. You argue Self-evident truth. I tell you it is fluid, and I can prove it. You keep asking me to prove you correct, when you are wrong.

If by your formula, a=1 and b=1, then what is the sum of a+b?

Or make them a and b equal anything you like. Just tell me what the sum would be based upon your own criteria.

I never asked you to prove I was correct.

Try the formula above with them equal 1. Or any number you like. That is why I provided the proof. a=1 or a=1000. That is how algebra works. Then follow the steps.

In the above proof, a+b=1.

I want to be clear on this.

When 1 equals 1, then the sum of 1 plus 1 is 2.

But when a and b equals 1, then the sum of a plus b is 1.

Do I have this correct?

Yes. In that proof. But I can give you others, because, there is no such thing as self evidence. If you want, I can show you that 1 and .9 repeating are the same thing.

No no I believe you. No argument here.

Would you argue that when initial conditions of absolutes are changed to be whatever we want, then we can make proofs to demonstrate anything we want?

Of course I believe that there are no self evident truths. Because there are only things we want to believe.

That didn’t really answer my question. Let me take another avenue.

Do you believe there is such a thing as absolutes? Is one an absolute?

And before we get diverted from that, if one is an absolute, then would you argue that when initial conditions of absolutes are changed to be whatever we want, then we can make proofs to demonstrate anything we want?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies no, I do not.

I understand, however, you may think you do. And you initially based your argument on math, which you admit you don’t really understand. You are going to switch arguments to philosophy, which, if I poke a whole in, you are going to claim you do not really understand.

At what point do you pause and question if you know the truth? Or are we just arguing for your entertainment?

If you don’t believe in absolutes, then what are you basing your formulas upon?

Are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Are you doing that thing were an ex-boyfrriend keeps calling with nothing new over and over when they have been dumped?

Did you not suggest in your previous post that I ”...pause and question…”?
Let me repeat a few you continually avoid, and ask some new ones. I’m all ears.
______

If you don’t believe in absolutes, then what are you basing your formulas upon?
______

Are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes?
______

And since you don’t believe in absolutes… then I’ll ask the same question without the word.

Would you argue that when initial conditions… are changed to be whatever we want, then we can make proofs to demonstrate anything we want?
______

and finally…

If we can make proofs to demonstrate anything we want, and there are no absolutes, then what benefit do the proofs provide?

In fact, how can we call them proofs at all?

@rojo

:) GA. Typing on an iPhone is great, but it gets me into these kinds of trouble. :)