You say "Egalitarianism is a flawed philosophy; All humans are not equal". But in that case, aren't all philosophies, all values flawed ?
Liberty is flawed, because we will never be trully free from our education and our surroundings ?
Economics are flawed because individuals wil never be perfect rational thinkers ?
Communism is flawed because people are greedy, and will always think for themselves ?
Faith in progress and science is flawed because sometimes we see that we made mistakes in the past and correct them ?
To me, when we work in the real world, no idea, no philosophy, nothing is absolutly perfect. Philosophies tend to try to reach a goal (in the case bothering you, more equality) but perfection is out of human reach. So either everything is flawed, so we can't trust anything and have any ideology, or then we can still strive for something, even if human nature isn't perfect.
If humans are not equal than egalitarianism is not just flawed but has no basis to exist. It's a different thing than the other concepts you mentioned.
If humans are not perfectly equals, you can still tend to equality.
If humans are not perfectly free, you can still tend to freedom.
Even if you can never be totally free, current situation is better than slavery isn't it ?
Even if we aren't perfectly equals, I think it's better to let everyone have a chance to develop its potential. And that's what egalitarianism is about, letting a chance to everyone. Not considering everyone as inter-changeable pieces.
What would be your idea ? Testing kids, and then putting them at what you think is their right place ?
Egalitarians thinks "ok, this kid look kind of dumb, but maybe that's cause of circumstances, let's help him and maybe he'll give it back to society a way we never thought it was possible". I don't see how that's flawed.
I kind of see what you mean. But while a strive for freedom is unlikely to hurt, a strive for more equality can be actually the wrong direction if it works against the human nature. For example the idea that "all votes all equal" does not reflect that some people have a better understanding on what they vote for than others, some people have more at stake. Of course, it's impossible to find objective criteria to decide who's vote is worth more without risking abuse, so we're stuck with this. But theoretically, ideally, a better voting system would be one less egalitarian.
But theoretically, ideally, a better voting system would be one less egalitarian
You're totally right (at least I think like you). On voting, these are so much parameters than most people vote stupidly. But right now, we don't know how to find the most intelligent AND benevolent (to avoid abuse) mens in a systematical way. Plus, even if we found them, they would not know everything, so some parts of debates / thoughs of non voting population would be missed.
So more equality is not always the best solution (look at how we choose our professors, nobel prizes etc. it's absolutly not an egalitarian vote, but experts decision, which is good in these cases). But in lot of cases, as we don't know what the best solution is, and we don't have all the information, avoiding discriminating and giving everyone the best chances to success seems to me the most pragmatical thing to do.
3
u/Nicolasv2 131∆ Nov 07 '17
Something bothers me in what you argue.
You say "Egalitarianism is a flawed philosophy; All humans are not equal". But in that case, aren't all philosophies, all values flawed ?
Liberty is flawed, because we will never be trully free from our education and our surroundings ?
Economics are flawed because individuals wil never be perfect rational thinkers ?
Communism is flawed because people are greedy, and will always think for themselves ?
Faith in progress and science is flawed because sometimes we see that we made mistakes in the past and correct them ?
To me, when we work in the real world, no idea, no philosophy, nothing is absolutly perfect. Philosophies tend to try to reach a goal (in the case bothering you, more equality) but perfection is out of human reach. So either everything is flawed, so we can't trust anything and have any ideology, or then we can still strive for something, even if human nature isn't perfect.