Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Yes,Frchne Fluffy language removed (and?)) – “All are equal” – it is about equality.�
The alternative is not admitting that some people are better at singing and others are better at running. And the recognition that there are subhumans, humans, superhumans; “by what criteria, it doesn't matter.
That is, if people are equal, the law is the same for everyone. And if they are unequal, then there are serfs and barons; Sechin here in court-HOW??! “Do you like it?” I don't think so at all. – Well, those who are also “no”, and insist on such a social structure, when people are equal in their rights.
And I would add one more aspect: equality in the right to respect. This is rather not a legal, but such an operational thing. It is easier to build normal personal and business relationships when, regardless of social status, “background”, etc., you respect both yourself and the other. The famous “I'm OK – you're OK”, “I'm OK – you're OK”. You can be above me on the social ladder, to earn much more than me, to be the master of his classes, and I'm going to see, to recognize, to show respect for experience, status, merit; but as a person, I'm not below and not above you, and I will also show in our communication. – Well, God forbid, but no one is immune from a prison cell and a zone. Try not to respect those around you… or myself.
All people, without exception, are initially equal to each other in all respects. No community of people, however large, is equal to humanity if it allows the exclusion of at least one individual from its membership for one or another general reason. There are no objective criteria for comparing people to each other. Everything that people do to each other, inventing these or other comparisons – a Spanish shame, unworthy of a society that calls itself humanity.
The potential is not immediately revealed. And even not always in the right conditions. But equal environments and opportunities give society a better chance of unlocking these energies. If only education was not so formal, but with interactive feedback. Not everyone needs to memorize unnecessary theorems, some have a completely different memory device. But educational programs generally equalize society below the average. I think that even in developed countries, less than 5% of using the specifics of different types of people is effective now.
For the first time we can see the manifestation of such ideas during the Great French Revolution ,it was there that the mantra about equal rights,freedoms,and in general about universal equality appeared.But as we know,it remained only in ideas,since after the Jacobins seized power (a left-wing radical party), people began to be equal only at the guillotine, and in subsequent “left” revolutions (in the world) under the auspices of “freedom,equality and fraternity”, a strict dictatorship, repression, famine appeared, and a certain group of people gained control over everything.
If we are talking about life, then yes-people are not equal to each other in terms of their diversity. Moreover, here you can add not only external signs, but also internal, so to speak, spiritual ones. All are different, with periodic similarity.�
But if we are talking about death, absolutely everyone is equal before it. So that… where did it come from?
From the point of view!