It would be both nice and convenient if the answer to the question of whether or not we are equal were a simple "yes." However, that will not stand up to scrutiny, even to the most liberal of minds. Ultimately, the answer is "no," we are not equal except that we each are only one person. Once we get beyond that similarity, the differences begin indiscriminately.
Sometimes, though, the differences are discriminatory. We would all like to think that we are either exempt from the possibility of discrimination, or that our discrimination is more justifiable than other discriminations, but it is still discrimination.
There is truth in measuring things in degrees or in amounts, and some discrimination is more justifiable than other discriminations. To wit: it is more justifiable to discriminate against people with disabilities if the disability means they cannot fulfill the needs for the job, like lifting or climbing requirements, than it is to discriminate against them because they don't fit the image of the company.
And here is where the important differences start to take shape.
Most people will presume that the intention for me to mention the two types of discrimination was to say one that was justifiable, and one that was not justifiable. Most people may even consider the two descriptions and make that conclusion.
However, if enough people are polled, there will be a few who will agree that there are differences in degrees and levels of justification, but that both are either still justifiable or that neither are justifiable. There will even begin to be some who don't care, if that is an option.
Even among the people who are the best at anything, some will be better than others, and some will be better than others some days and not on other days.
Some people can solve puzzles, and some people can create puzzles. Some people can calculate solutions, and some people draw straight lines and then quit when they hit predictable obstacles. Some people jump fences, and some people build gates.
No two people are the same, but the question was not are we the same; the question was are we equal?
We are in the way that we are all the same. We are equal in that we are individual people, no two of whom are the same. We are equal for any purpose of measuring the number of individuals, but from there the only thing that is the same about us is that we are all different from one another.
The question then is, when are we individual people with equal rights, and when are we unique individuals with varying capabilities? An even bigger question is who gets to tell us? Is the right to decide when discrimination is and is not justifiable an individual right, or does it require regulation due to abuse of individuals exercising their rights? Do we individually get to vote on it and dictate it upon others?
I don't know the answers to these questions, and that is fine. The questions are more about challenging our moral compasses than about getting the answers correct. I don't even think there are correct answers. Rather, I think there are various perspectives that will determine what the social attitude is through a bell curve. The social norm will only show us how the opinions of people line up popularly and not necessarily what the truth is. Truth will also not care about popular opinion, nor will it adjust for it.
What that means is that when the popular opinion is found to be untrue, and those who opposed the popular opinion but were right about the truth were considered scoundrels, is that the scoundrels were right.
Now comes one of those really important moments again. Does society adjust its opinion to that of those who were once thought scoundrels but who were right, or do the individuals who were wrong and popular decide that staying together is better than being right?
Ultimately, we are equal only in the way that we are equal, and that is as unique individuals who are each different from one another. Once we get past that one quality we have equally, the differences we bring to the table can be used either artistically to create and construct, or argumentatively to draw lines and polarize. Will that make us more equal or less equal, or will our inequalities remain the same?
In sonic terms, repeating the same thing because it was heard is an echo. If two or more people are doing it in time, the result is amplification. However, when not treated as equals, and with the freedom to make the best sound we each can make, the blending of voices can be harmonious.
* * * * *
Other posts you may enjoy:
The Problem With Knowing It All
Is Not Caring Anymore a Mental Health Issue?
Firing My Shrink
A Depressing Tale of Empathy
Welcome to My Nightmare