7/30/2019 human equality

1/2

1. what does the phrase all humans are equal mean to you?

2. moral personality is the basis of human equality. why does singer object this?

do you agree with Rawls or Singer?

3. equal consideration of interest

Explain this principle- what type of interest are to be considered equally?

Ans:-

Peter Singer's principle of equal consideration of interests can be understood as follows. For any

entity that has interests, these interests must be taken as equally morally important with the similar

interests of another entity. An example will help illustrate this principle. Imagine you have to deliver an

electric shock to one of two strangers, George or Fred. The shock will cause an equal amount of pain

in each person. According to Singer, both George and Fred have an interest in avoiding pain.

Furthermore, according to Singer's principle, George's and Fred's interest in not feeling pain must be

considered equally one does not take precedence over the other. Thus, all else being equal, it does

not matter morally to whom you deliver the shock. Or, put another way, you ought to make the

decision of who to shock through the flipping of a coin. Interests of both individuals are to beconsidered equally, where in both individuals benefit equally.

How does this principle rule out racism, sexism and discriminations on grounds of

disability.

Ans:- This principle considers interests of individuals equally, it considers everyone as equal no

matter what his/her race or sex is. So it rule outs racism, sexism and discriminations on grounds of

disability.

what are the egalitarian implications

Ans:-

Egalitarianism, which claims only to want an 'equality' in end results, hates the exceptional man who,

through his own mental effort, achieves that which others cannot... In an attempt to 'dumb down' all

students to the lowest common denominator, today's educators no longer promote excellence and

students of superior ability... Imagine the followingAcademy Awardceremony. There are no awards

for best picture or best actor. Instead, every picture gets a certificate and every actor receives a prize.

That is not an awards ceremony, you say? So it isn't. But it is an egalitarian's dream -- and an

achiever's torment. Talent and ability create inequality... To rectify this supposed injustice, we are toldto sacrifice the able to the unable. Egalitarianism demands the punishment and envy of anyone who

is better than someone else at anything. We must tear down the competent and the strong -- raze

them to the level of the incompetent and the weak... What would happen to aThomas Edisontoday?

If he survived school with his mind intact, he would be shackled by government regulators. His wealth

would be confiscated by the IRS. He would be accused of 'unfair competition' for inventing so many

more products than his competitors.

can anyone of us can really give equal considerations to equal welfare of our family

and welfare of strangers.

Ans:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_downhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_downhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_downhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Awardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Awardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Awardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edisonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edisonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edisonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edisonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Awardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumb_down

7/30/2019 human equality

2/2

No. For anyone of us family is much more important than a stranger rather i would say its the most

imp. Part of ones life. So when it comes to choosing between welfare of family & welfare of stranger

i would choose welfare of my family.

4. Singer argues that biological differences in race to gender should play no role in relations to

equal consideration of interest

On what basis does he make this argument?

shouldnt defences be taken into account?

Do we eliminate diversity and difference in the name of equality?

5. so equality of opportunity is not an attractive ideal, it rewards the lucky, who inherent these

attributes that allow them to pursue interesting lucrative careersit penalizes unlucky, whose genes make it very hard for them to achieve similar success do

you agree?

6. is it realistic to aim at a society that rewards people according to their needs rather than IQ,

aggression and other inherited attributes?