DIALOGUE ON 'EQUALITY
A - All men are equal, regardless of sex, race, language, religion, political opinion, conditions personal and social.
B - Not true. Men are all different. In diversity is the richness of humanity. I'm not sure you can come and say that males are the same as females, or that the Swiss are the same as Nigeria. Whites are different from the blacks and yellows. You can not say that there are differences of race, unless one does not put dark glasses so that we show the same, different colors of skin.
A - How can you talk about sunglasses? Maybe you need dark glasses to give dignity to people.
And what would the difference? The color of the skin. It seems to me that you exaggerate a bit when considering the skin and in considering the man, not to pay attention to his thought, his dignity as a person of his rights.
B - No, you're that much attention to the provision of equal dignity, do not want to see the differences. Do you want to deny that a Chinese characteristics, needs and habits different from English? Or do you think a man of men have the same desires, the same ambitions of a woman? You can not deny the evidence of the difference. There exists the rich and the poor. It is always the poor poorer and the rich richer. Equality is a theory, the difference is the reality.
A - So you'd be down to earth, and I would live in an ideal world, or better to run following a dream impossible. The reality is perhaps a little different from that appearance that you mix with reality. Of course everyone is different, but every human being has the same dignity and the same value in the eyes of human law that the law of God Certainly God has created man and woman, but made them different because we were privileged to belong to one or the other sex.
B - So, I'll come to say that man can be a mother. But you do not realize that touches on the ridiculous?
A - I do not think. I'm not denying the differences, I am saying that equality is not a theory or rather an ideal only, but the reality to be taken into account.
B - And how does this prove your reality? There are two things: either you deny the evidence, or think of something that is not seen.
A - Maybe what you do not appear obvious to you does not exist, and this is the flaw in your reasoning. You will attack only the evidence, and if so why, you should deny the existence of everything that you do not is obvious: even the thoughts that you do not know, even places that do not see, even micro-organisms or viruses.
B - what have organisms? I see them quietly, with the microscope! And even viruses!
A - equality not enough, however, the microscope, it takes your mind!
B - Okay, we admit that there is equality, you can not deny the diversity. And you then, to defeat such diversity, what would you propose? Equality, as the distribution? Perhaps as gasoline, you put the distributors of equality in the streets! Or what would you do?
A - Sure, your idea of \u200b\u200bequality of distribution would seem interesting. But it seems to me more concerned, that is an idea only to prove that what I claim is absurd. So, reasoning by contradiction, would you put equality in containers, packing, because you can more easily and distribute evenly. But I'm not talking about something absurd, but of reality. All men are equal, because they carry the same capacity of thought and action.
B - but not the reality. If men are different, because it was created, and we can not change the reality in our piacimento.Se we were all equal, all commands, and life with others is impossible. The old adage "too many chiefs" may not tell you anything?
A - Order or obey are two ways of behaving, but not express differences. Would you tell me who might one day command differs from those who obey the same day? They could not change the role the next day?
But perhaps in this command or to obey is the gist of your argument: you do not admit equality, because it brings havoc in your order, where there are people who should command and others must obey. But have you tried to see clearly what is based on your line of thinking? You still want to maintain privileges, and anything that can alter this your safety, you deny it.
B - Of course I am not infallible, if that's the meaning of your reasoning, but the difference between men is not my invention, but a finding of a reality that can be at any time, verified.
A - And I check too many things. Perhaps you would tell me that men are born different from each other? All are designed the same way, and all born in the same way. And to live, all men without distinction, have the same needs, to feed your body to grow and fight disease. And all the men die.
All people breathe air. All of them have thought. And everyone has their own inner life.
All men enjoy and suffer, enhance and despair. And on their desires, pleasures, sorrows, their life is based. In I find these things equal and verification. It 's true that there is the rich and the poor, but both are equal in their dignity as human beings, to be part of the human family, or, if you will, before God
B - But your is a leveling, a kind of approval, and I think your point of view, wanting to cancel or canceling existing differences between men, without the vision of the life of the liveliness that is proper. Is it not true that the difference between the rich and the poor was created a competition that makes life more delicious, more flavorful? And if these differences vanish in theory, there would be no danger of a flattening, lack of stimuli, targets?
A - This danger, which you hints, I do not see it.
I see quite the opposite. I see that on behalf of the differences and privileges, you mess of every principle of justice, and that the gap between the rich and the poor always tend to increase, which is always the poor poorer and the rich richer, as you said already. And on this approach to justice, or injustice, we brought the box, I would like. Equality, as I demonstrated to have you, there is a reality from which one can not ignore. The men have equal dignity for both the company faced And this must lead to God mean that men should be equal before the law of man, and the society for its survival, must be based on justice as a principle sacred and inviolable, so that conflicts arise among its members not overcome and that everyone makes to avoid justice by themselves. And on this new journey I invite you, because if you theorise about the diversity, will be very difficult for you to reconcile it with any form of civil life, which is not based on oppression of the strong over the weak.
B - But competition is part of life and it is clear that those who have more resources can better fight and have superiority. It arises from the difference competition. Perhaps you would like to delete this race, this fight continues, in the name of a principle?
A - That life is a struggle, do not deny it at all.
If anything, I express indignation at the inequalities and privileges that are to be maintained, in spite of the progress of civilized life. I can not let you passively accept injustices and that nothing is done to combat them, indeed that they are favored, even in the name of the sacred principles of freedom. And here's you who started attacking a principle to give force to something that in itself does not force other than that of injustice.
B - How do you say it is unfair and offensive. It is not true I am staunch defender of privilege and injustice. I tried to talk it clear that we are not necessarily made from the same mold and that this is the reality.
A - And where does the difference of the mold? Perhaps the earth, the mud, their different qualities?
If you are religious and accept the creation, I can not understand this story of the mold. If you believe in evolution, then admit that all in the same way we derive from other species, perhaps even before the monkeys and fish. And maybe you want me to say that because all derive from the fish, it is right that we continue the tradition that the big fish eats the smaller one.
0 comments:
Post a Comment