What is better than equality?

realitykeeper

The problem with equality is that it has to be imposed. A better policy would be solidarity. The vast majority of people need to buy into a single narrative for the betterment of all.

I think for solidarity to happen, a country first needs a special kind of leadership. These leaders are a very rare breed. These leaders tend to earn their leadership often through shared universal suffrage with their people. They are often seen to be working for the people by taking immediate and direct action against corrupt individuals. They are the sort that will regularly pick up a spade and spend a day working alongside locals on community projects. These leaders set a good example.

Sadly, there have been precious few such leaders down through history. The early years of the third Reich would be one such example had it not sought to filter out non ethnic Germans but focused exclusively on building a better Germany.

Rwanda is a good example where the divisions of the past have been consigned to history and where a zero tolerance policy has ended corruption in a very public way. A massive 98% of the electorate voted for continuing with the reforms by granting their President another term in office. President Paul Kagame is often seen working with locals on community projects and unlike Enda Kenny`s starched speeches, Kagame tends to deliver thought provoking speeches that are generally not scripted and do not patronize the listeners. If fact he is sometimes mildly critical of the audience when he wants to change their attitudes.

The result is that people in Rwanda do not obsess about what the other guy is getting. People are focused on improving their own lives through work or study and by extension they know they are improving the country. That is solidarity and it kicks equality`s ass.

Jawgap

We should model ourselves on the Third Reich and/or Rwanda.......

......I'd be all for the first one as long as we get the cool uniforms

Btw, the Nazis weren't just about filtering "..... out non ethnic Germans but focused exclusively on building a better Germany" - their ideas on racial hygiene extended to killing those deemed 'unworthy of life' (including people suffering from schizophrenia, epilepsy etc) no matter how ethnically German they were!

And if you think the tribal dynamics that drive the Rwandan genocides have been consigned to history just because there hadn't been any violence, you need to read a bit more widely - political killings are still happening, press and political repression still practiced and terrorism is still being exported. In short, don't believe the hype!

For Reals

#Mod note#
Moved to a more appropriate forum. Closed as a courtesy to those Mods, should they wish to reopen.

Black Swan MOD note: Please read the Philosophy charter before posting.

Black Swan wrote: »

This forum is about discussing, interacting, learning, understanding, and debating philosophies. Those knowledgeable or new to the discussion of philosophy are welcome.

Forum Guidelines:

You are encouraged to elaborate upon or challenge a philosophical position, logic, significance, relevance, analytical method, context, interpretation, prediction, historical antecedents, empirical foundation, or comment by a poster, but you may not personally attack a poster; i.e., attack the post, not the poster.

Citing philosophers and their works in support of your position taken is greatly encouraged. Links are sometimes helpful too.

Torakx

Now that I've checked the definition for both equality and solidarity, I would lean more towards solidarity at first glance. But only until I actually conside this

Equality implies an equation of two or more things being balanced. Inferring a separation.
From the definition I found for equality:
2.
MATHEMATICS
a symbolic expression of the fact that two quantities are equal; an equation.

Interesting to note that for the definition for solidarity, a lot of communist examples were used from our recent history in Europe.

Which seems to imply that maybe a solidarity movement will turn to some form of communism and an equality movement to faschism/totalitarianism(according to some professors of psychology/philosophy).
We are currently on the equality train with no sign of stopping soon.

I think Slavoj Zizek stated that the reason all these gender and sexuality issues are used by politicians(political correctness), is to make sure people are apposing each other over issues that are rather trivial in nature, compared to economics or actual political power.
So I am not a fan of equality in this sense of course.
It seems a distraction and maybe a corruption of the word as well.
Why not just have human rights and go by age? Oops, that could be an issue already haha!
Not so easy ..

This is why I would choose solidarity without much thought.
But I suspect there will be many issues with solidarity as well.

I've been learning recently that absolute ideologies can be dangerous no matter the content.

Peregrinus

Doesn't the OP pose a false dichotomy? You don't have to choose between equality and solidarity; you can have both, surely?

Disposable1

Inequality works well. Just not for everybody. I enjoyed reading your posts. Thanks.

Black Swan

realitykeeper wrote: »

The problem with equality is that it has to be imposed. A better policy would be solidarity.

Equality and solidarity by definition were two different things, so to set them in opposition to each other appears to be a false dichotomy as suggested earlier by Peregrinus. Additionally, Jacques Derrida cautions about the nature of any dichotomy, where it tends to be an oversimplistic, nominal and mutually exclusive either/or comparison when the real world was by far multidimensional and more complex. Furthermore, Derrida suggested that dichotomies were often hierarchical, with one preferred over the other, which may result in confirmation bias.

realitykeeper wrote: »

The vast majority of people need to buy into a single narrative for the betterment of all.

If this suggests that we all march to the beat of a single drummer, count me out. Nature produces vast diversity, and the spirit and intent of such diversity methinks includes many "narratives" that may help the species survive the constantly changing environment. Furthermore, both theories and scientific methods suggest that we remain quite open to contrary evidence, and if a "single narrative" would restrict such openness to changing our "narratives" in accordance with new and contrary evidence, this may suggest that a "single narrative" may not be "for the betterment of all." This last point reminds me of when Henry David Thoreau had been criticized for changing his mind, when Thoreau replied that he had done so given new, contrary and convincing data.

realitykeeper wrote: »

Rwanda is a good example where the divisions of the past have been consigned to history and where a zero tolerance policy has ended corruption in a very public way. A massive 98% of the electorate voted for continuing with the reforms by granting their President another term in office.

Methinks that "A massive 98% of the electorate" voting for anything at that high a percentage level would be very suspect, and frankly incredible in a national democratic election.