Equality Vs Equality: 

On the Meaning of a Word...

There seem to be two separate competing ideas to describe equality in the public sphere. It is strange watching two groups calling for what essentially sounds like the same thing, but who are at great odds with each other. Why then is there such confusion? Often times a word may have more than one meaning. Such ambiguities in the definition of a word are often at the center of our social conflict. While understanding the differences in the meanings of a word may not change our opinion, it may give us a greater understanding of what is being presented. Let us look at the two separate competing ideas for the word equality in American society and philosophy. The first type of equality will be regarded as equality of opportunity, whereas the second will be regarded as equality of outcome.

Let’s start first with equality of opportunity. This type of the equality was the one in which the founding fathers of America were describing when they wrote the Constitution. Their writings on the subject and their own actions are significantly clear. They did not believe in equality of outcome but in a “natural aristocracy” where the most talented individuals (among white heteosexual men) would lead the rest, given that the playing field was equal. They acknowledged differences in human behavior and the outcomes of those behaviors. Motivation, outlook, culture, and talent. Most of which they believed had a basis in biology. Since most people had experience at that time with farming and husbandry, they saw and relied on the benefits of good breeding, and understood the consequences if biology was ignored. Most people today who hold the equality of opportunity stance seem to have these outlooks as well. Though there does now seem to be a high level of dissonance in regards with biology in the modern equality of opportunity camp with environmental remedies being espoused quite often to fix any number of social ills. 

Equality of outcome is the second group. This ideology appears to resonate with many people today. After all, who other then a bigoted person would not want to see equality of outcome? This type of egalitarianism is what communist theory was built on. It is the idea that all differences in outcome are purely the result of environment. Individual’s choices, motivation, culture, age, and biology has nothing to do with inequality. Communist egalitarian philosophy which calls for the equality of outcome has never been achieved in the history of the world. Even when enforced, equality of outcome never took place, and the worlds greatest atrocities took place in its stead. The philosophy is, in essence, anti-nature. This philosophy, not to be mistaken for a theory, is built on abstract people in an abstract thought process with no basis in reality.

There seems to lie a fundamental difference in the outlook of the world we inhabit between individuals who espouse equality of outcome, and those of equality of opportunity. Those who chose equality of outcome seem to see themselves as being on the “side of the angels.” Taking what they perceive as the moral position and building their philosophy around it. Those in the equality of outcome camp appear to have the “fatalist” outlook. They see that inequality is the result of the natural world in which we inhabit and in the diverse hierarchies created by nature, using the inequality of nature as their premise from which to build their philosophy. 

Since natural diversity is itself the cause of these inequalities, we cannot hope to ever rectify them. Diversity is the basis for inequality in any society. Promotion of diversity leads to greater inequality, not less. Looking at the etymology of the word, we see that it is derived from the words “different” or “differences.” It is odd how those who champion equality of outcome would be the ones who most promote diversity. Herein lies the dissonance of those who hold the equality of outcome definition. In many ways they are no different then the Christians of the middle ages who cried heretic at those who objected to their theological interpretations of biblical scripture. Accusations of “hater,” “bigot,” “racist,” and “heretic” are all ad homonyms that have been hurled at dissidents who break taboos and poke holes in the logic of those who see themselves on the side of the angels. Such dogmatism is nothing new, and no dogma has ever rolled over and died without a fight. 

Cosmotheism's premise is based on nature. Since we acknowledge the inequality derived from the natural world in which we live, we accept the fatalist viewpoint. We meet nature on her terms, not our. The inability to do as such is a public admission of immaturity. A sign to our fellow man that we are incompetent in our reasoning and unfit for positions of authority or influence. So before we close, allow me to introduce this meme as a final reminder of this lesson.

                                            Follow us on Twitter, Tumbler, or Facebook!