People are different. Equality is general fine when we’re talking about equal opportunities for all. Basically, so people can make their own mistakes and figure out what path suits them better from moment to moment. Some choices taken will shut off others, so no oath is the same and some will simply luck out.

As for answering your questions directly I cannot do so honestly because I think they’re based on beliefs/views I don’t hold, fully understand and/or agree with.

For instance, I’m not quite sure why you’d equate ‘happiness’ with a ‘genius’. A better intellect, education or artistic disposition doesn’t make someone ‘happier’ even though they may very well be successful. I know this is an obvious point and probably why you didn’t address it, but it ties into the scheme of ‘equal’ and ‘individual’.

Hope there is something there you were probing for.

I meant the comparison to question if someone deserves spoils for exhibiting genius that was attributed partially to their ideological circumstances. It wasn't intended to mean that genius would in some way lead to happiness. That is just in part, some other part might be a result of a will to power, as opposed to a natural gravity to power, at least from my individual centered perspective; but the fact that the power they can achieve comes at a very particular cost, and not simply a universal cost, is an essential element. Though culturally, it is frequently the case where callings such as doctors, lawyers, and such are considered to be 'higher' choices in themselves, there is a strong feeling to question the absolute validity of this.

As for answering your questions directly I cannot do so honestly because I think they’re based on beliefs/views I don’t hold, fully understand and/or agree with

This is the heart of my question, so to speak, that this equation is in part ideological. In my own personal experience, the gesture has always been that even the unintelligent and incapable deserve their form of happiness. Here I could refer to numerous examples but take the Hollywood film 'Ratatouille' for example. The clumsy dim-witted sous chef gains fame by imitating the genius of a rat. He desires so much for it to be true that he tells others it was his own genius. In the end he reaches the realization of his own equity with the rat's genius; the rat who was ironically born not capable of using its genius. But increasingly, I suppose due to the greater ease with which certain results can be achieved with technology, this concept is breaking down. But is it something we still wish to believe in the West?

I would say the concept of you, or someone else for that matter, starting to judge who deserves what in life might be a very dangerous path. ;) i.e. Nazism, communism, etc.
So a much better and freer approach would be not to place any artificial boundaries in front of people's pursue of happiness and let them go their own way. Understanding that their achievements would vary wildly due to all sort of reasons.

This sounds nice in ideality, but how can one remove all mediation from a universal rule in the way you suggest? Aren't we forgetting that our own concepts of aptitude commands our actions that take place free from universally imposed rules as well, which is where comes the need for consideration of it?

Not sure I understand what you say. :) You might want to make it simple, so common folks can grasp your ideas, too. )

Regardless of whether we choose to be involved or not the individual pursuit of happiness will be limited by universal thought, just not the universally imposed rules of a state. So I take your response to mean that this sort of determination of the limit of equality is not personally important to you. Considering a more controversial case, imagine that the state were forcing employees who were less intellectually inclined to be accepted into certain jobs in such a high number that this were interfering with your own ability to find work. Wouldn't the circumstance of those not having to invest in themselves the mental effort while achieving the same results bother you? Or take the reverse, where the workplace were so consumed by a need for mental effort that your job were essentially determined at birth with no guiding will to choose it at all.

Please see that the examples are not intended as an expression of my personal belief of what should occur in this situation. Suppose that the reason individuals in their non-intellectually demanding jobs had the idea that to compete with you for your job would be to have an overall 'happier' life, I think this type of broad notion would end up affecting your individual life in a negative way. Or that you were being bred for intellect like a cow so that you could attain this happiness with no real effort at all.

Wouldn't the circumstance of those not having to invest in themselves the mental effort while achieving the same results bother you? — kudos

My believe would be that people should be hired based on their ability to perform the job, not some diversity quotas or any other job unrelated merits.

It's not just western. All around the world certain jobs have higher prestige - doctors and lawyers usually being up there.

The other question sounds to me like asking if we deserve to be alive. It's not relevant as far as I can see when it comes to intelligence, talent and opportunity.

That's how I see it.

The FACTS OF LIFE:

Individuals may be considered "equal" as a political stance, but in practical terms, they are not. Each person lands somewhere on continua of mental, emotional, physical, and social features (like wealth, or location). Different features lead to varying results. Some people will have much better experiences in life than others. Different political and social systems allow for more, or less, flexibility in individuals' pursuit of goals.

Progressive, liberal thinking disapproves of larger differences in outcomes, especially when associated with ethnicity, gender, or race. Thinking that is less progressive or liberal tends to be more tolerant of differing outcomes.

One may want an egalitarian society where there is equality of opportunity and outcomes for everyone, but how the hell do we socially engineer this desired good? I used to think that such an achievement was possible in American society, but I've abandoned that idea.

For one thing, the roots of inequality (across the board) are quite deep and have enduring consequences. To quote Jesus out of context, "I tell you, that to every one who has will more be given; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. — Luke 19:26".

Industrial, capitalist societies are highly productive machines, and one of their products is inequality -- by design. The economic system is designed to concentrate wealth, and when wealth is piled up in one place, poverty (absolute or relative) will be piled up in other places.

Hence, enduring inequality.

It's not just western. All around the world certain jobs have higher prestige - doctors and lawyers usually being up there.

Of course this makes perfect sense that there be social structures that favour certain occupations over others. I don't want to confine ourselves to just the topic of employment, this is a broader point that I think reaches through other 'rituals,' as I suppose you could call them to borrow a term from cultural studies. I refer to it as a ritual because it functions to transfer values that are accomplished in purified practise. The success of the intelligent and the benefits are in part due to the role-playing of intelligence and feelings of superiority that come with it. The ritual of a certain cross-section of Western society brings with it certain high-ideas about individual worth that counter-acts this relationship of domination. This discussion could then I suppose be seen as a vying for power between camps even though it reflects attitudes based on what is valuable and worthwhile.

The intelligent, powerful, talented, social, etc. are qualities that can and are endowed to a large extent in-absolutely; one who is intelligent is not intelligent purely against someone unintelligent, but at the most overreaching level they are intelligent for itself. The unintelligent individual through modifications of their circumstances could be made equally or more intelligent without any necessary benefit except the significance of the ritual of intelligence and it's purposes.

The FACTS OF LIFE:

Oh ok, I hope this is PG-rated.

Some people will have much better experiences in life than others.

I am glad you said this, because it points to exactly what we're discussing. Yes we can observe this to be the case, but should we really believe this? Yes, we can clearly see that in our observation of these phenomena we can serve to alter existence. But I'm not sure if we should really believe it. When we believe so strongly in the better circumstance of the 'less fortunate' we turn it into expectation and eventual reality.

We set out to make the poor person rich, rather than really improve the poor person's existence so that our determination of them as 'poor' no longer has negative value. We might follow this logic to train more doctors and less garbage collectors as opposed to making a garbage collectors life equally the product of a rational will.

Equality means that every single human life values exactly the same.
If I was an alien visiting Earth I wouldn't give a fuck for more or less clever people. I would see them just as we humans see bees or elephants. Just like one common species.
We are all different, not superior than others, not inferior than others.
That means that the right thing would be all human beings to have the same rights and chances in their lives. To start from a common base(even if it might never happen).

For some reason you consider intellectual, clever, successful people as superior. For me it's totally wrong. They are just "superior" in THAT specific field(iq or education or whatever). There are other hundreds of fields that might be "inferior" than others. That says nothing except the obvious. That we are just different and nothing else.

Plus for some reason that I can't follow, you consider them as potential happier persons too. Happiness is another issue and for sure education and iq aren't enough at all for someone to be happy. The factors for it are much more complicating and depend from many other things.

In my daily experience there are common references to the familiar adage of 'all men and women are created equal.' — kudos

Here's a more complete quote from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -

This language is clear - All people are created equal. All people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. We're not equal in height, wealth, strength, or any other physical or social measure. We are all equal in moral value. That leaves open the question of how differences in social standing, race, genetics, physical ability, birth and other such factors will be addressed. What is fair? Does society need to be fair?

This language is clear - All people are created equal. All people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. We're not equal in height, wealth, strength, or any other physical or social measure. We are all equal in moral value.

This is a good point. I really want to stay off the topic of the 'Creator' ideology but I don't see any other option since you have now gone there. Though some may disagree, as far as I'm concerned there is clear Judeo-Christian ideological baggage in this idea of being endowed by a Creator with unalienable rights and liberties. I am here drawing a little from an online document from Maureen Heath, which can be found here:

https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/1053063/Heath_georgetown_0076D_14011.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Running closely with the theme of this thesis, in the modern West I see us as dividing spirituality and civil liberty into distinct categories while at the same time expressing both of these in culture and in our psyche in a language of a uniquely Euro-centric individualism, one that developed hand-in-hand with the proliferation of Christianity in Europe over the past two thousand years. This severance of the notion of civil freedoms at the level of the individual to me is like reading an academic article without the citations; freed from its context while remaining knee deep in it.

This is not to say that the declaration of independence is in some way inferior. I think it's an excellent expression of freedom and a well tuned piece of writing that speaks succinctly for a wide range of interests and beliefs. There is a line right before your quote that reads "We hold these truths to be self-evident," which I personally interpret to mean that what they were striving for they hoped to be more than just technical equality in law alone, but that each individual would make it their mission in their private life because it is something that they all already believe in. The notion of the Creator overarching their secular life being included in this implicit and shared standard of right and wrong.

In the time of the founding fathers, this self-evidence drew from a society where a belief that the love of their Creator was enough to live a respectable and worthwhile life; after all, in the Bible Christ himself dies for the sins of others. This seems to me to contain a further extension of the idea of civil liberty that is truncated in modern life: that even the plight of torture and death can be endured if we have a certain faith in ourselves and each other. I am not especially religious, but I find this idea inspiring and worthwhile.

I guess the part that this notion of liberty misses is the mission for caring about your fellow man or woman as well, and that this is also good for yourself. An equality of caring I guess it would resemble, though it may sound corny, is a missing link with the modern equality of wealth and employment and so forth.

Though some may disagree, as far as I'm concerned there is clear Judeo-Christian ideological baggage in this idea of being endowed by a Creator with unalienable rights and liberties. — kudos

Thomas Jefferson was not a theist; at best he was a deist. And of course there is Judeo-Christian baggage attached to the idea of "creator". Western civilization (and American culture) are loaded with Judeo-Christian baggage--much of it well-worth preserving. (You capitalized 'Creator'; are you carrying Judeo-Christian baggage?)

Jefferson could have referenced 'nature' as the source of our equality; or some philosopher, or something else--executive fiat, maybe. Rhetorically, 'creator' is still the best choice, given past and current contexts.

Just because Jefferson used a term associated with religion is no reason to quibble. The man who talked about god-endowed equality also was a slave owner who, in the end, did not free his slaves. But contradictions don't invalidate the ideas of the man. Nobody is free of hypocrisy or contradictions.

But I'm not sure if we should really believe it. When we believe so strongly in the better circumstance of the 'less fortunate' we turn it into expectation and eventual reality. — kudos

I'm not sure whether you said what you meant to say. Clarify, please.

More recently, the idea came to mind about individualism in general, and how one individual can be superior to another in intellect or performance. — kudos

I think it's more complex. I've met my share of prodigiously talented and wealthy men and women. Most of them were driven, anxious types and sometimes dreadful people - with obnoxious personalities, disliked or feared by their colleagues, children and spouse. I don't think we can say ipso facto that a conspicuously clever and wealthy person is better or even happier. I have also known many ordinary and poor people who are more readily able to experience great joy and connection with others and be free in ways that many wealthy couldn't imagine.

Determining whose life is 'better' is a multifactorial equation and largely subjective.

Just because Jefferson used a term associated with religion is no reason to quibble.

...just because they used certain words is no reason to believe that they really meant them you mean?

Jefferson could have referenced 'nature' as the source of our equality; or some philosopher, or something else--executive fiat, maybe. Rhetorically, 'creator' is still the best choice, given past and current contexts.

how are you proving that another completely different word could be substituted into the sentence? How do the words nature, philosophers, and Fiat mean the same thing?

I'm not sure whether you said what you meant to say. Clarify, please.

I meant to say what I said. In retrospect it would have flowed better to use the reverse but it still makes sense. You could just as well say something like,"When we believe so strongly in the worse circumstance of the 'less fortunate' we turn it into expectation and eventual reality." It seems reasonable that one effective way to ensure continued domination is to convince the dominated that they should expect dominance.

The equality of persons as persons does not refer to their capacity or lack thereof. The idea is that, as a person, you are just like other persons, no matter the circumstances one finds oneself within.

That perspective is not concerned with what is properly allotted to people according to circumstances or merit.

Yes thank you, and there is a good reason why one might think this way; in the 'equality' of others at the value level. It is not solely original to you, but in part the environment around us also leads us to think this way. I have seen that in some cultures they don't as much have this view that the poor or dim-witted are happy or equal-valued, and they tend to be less so where that is the case. I don't think this to be something that always existed chronologically either, but something we sometimes take for granted in modern times.

Judeo-Christian ideological baggage — kudos

The Declaration of Independence was written almost 250 years ago by people steeped in the western traditions of culture, including Christianity. What language do you expect them to use. Thomas Jefferson may not have been a theist, but he knew the correct way to say what he wanted to say in the language of those who would read what was written. And it wasn't just him. The Declaration was signed by more than 50 delegates. Most of them probably were theists.

I guess Jefferson was not a theist. I'm not either, but I can't think of any better way to say what needed to be said. There are unalienable rights that are built into the structure of the universe. Say that how you want. "Endowed by their Creator," works fine for me. That's a lofty statement of principle, but that's not how it really works. What works is people making a commitment to making sure those rights are manifested. That's what the Declaration is - a declaration of commitment to principles.

I see it as irrelevant if Jefferson himself believed personally and individually in a G-d. The basis of the matter is there is nothing evidently binding the liberal idea to religion, but we can then not easily conclude that these two are fully separate and distinct.

You seem to consider it an accident that there are themes and references in the writing that refer explicitly to a Creator. There is still undeniably something implicit in the writing that implies religious ideas and contingencies. For instance, the concept of liberty itself. Why should we have had this idea without carrying along with it a notion that we were each a valued individual with a personal internal relationship with G-d, each deserving as such a right to our own freedom of will? Before this notion much of the West lived in a state that was a great deal less centred around freedom of private individual desires and choice and a little more deterministic, wouldn’t you agree? I think if you didn’t you’d be a little out of step with the commonly held vision of what the lifestyles of antiquity were like.

Please note that this is not an idea original to me that I’m now discussing with you.

I don't think this to be something that always existed chronologically either, but something we sometimes take for granted in modern times. — kudos

Of course there is also a centuries long tradition of philosophers, spiritual searchers and mystics taking on on a life of poverty, often turning their back on fortunes or refusing to earn money.

I see it as irrelevant if Jefferson himself believed personally and individually in a G-d. The basis of the matter is there is nothing evidently binding the liberal idea to religion, but we can then not easily conclude that these two are fully separate and distinct.

You seem to consider it an accident that there are themes and references in the writing that refer explicitly to a Creator. There is still undeniably something implicit in the writing that implies religious ideas and contingencies. For instance, the concept of liberty itself. Why should we have had this idea without carrying along with it a notion that we were each a valued individual with a personal internal relationship with G-d, each deserving as such a right to our own freedom of will? Before this notion much of the West lived in a state that was a great deal less centred around freedom of private individual desires and choice and a little more deterministic, wouldn’t you agree? I think if you didn’t you’d be a little out of step with the commonly held vision of what the lifestyles of antiquity were like. — kudos

I don't think you can separate religion and human and civil rights. Did Christianity cause the drive for rights to liberty and self-government? Probably to a certain extent. They certainly are intertwined in the political evolution of the west. I don't think this contradicts anything you have written.

You seem to consider it an accident that there are themes and references in the writing that refer explicitly to a Creator. — kudos

I don't agree that there is any accident or that I suggested there was one.

Individualism places the locus of cultivation in the individual himself. So despite the general societal views of what is considered success and happiness, the individual may still consider himself far more successful and happier than others, regardless of his lot in life.

It's not clear where you're going with this. (And given that you have a banana where there should be a sickel, it's even further unclear.)

How seriously do you think we should take the 'rat race' of the natural world? — kudos

So, to try to make all this more concise:
Do you think that a system like the caste system they have in India, or the classist system in Europe are good, or bad?
Do you find that the upper class should despise the lower classes, and the lower classes should internalize that contempt, considering it righteous?

An equality of caring I guess it would resemble, though it may sound corny, is a missing link with the modern equality of wealth and employment and so forth. — kudos

And you think that this is good, or bad?

Bringing this back to the original topic, if when we consider all men and women to be equal in terms of civil liberty and simultaneously assent to an implicit notion of an extended spiritual equality on which this is based, I just can't help but find this situation so utterly absurd and dysfunctional. Eighty percent of non-religious individuals of Western-European culture you would ask about this - in my urban living area at least - would decry the Judeo-Christian moral set and fully maintain the order of the other at the same time. Surely there must be some type of explanation for this change, which I'm not fully gasping. Is it expressly social, political, technological, anthropological, etc.?

From my own observation the West seems to be in this sort of transition process moving from cultural institutions and structures of individual life derived from these 'unclean' histories to a sort of ideologically automated version. Another way of putting it would be tying up the histories into a type of self-sustaining loop that negates the full extent of their intended meaning but still allows them to survive in a symbolic form through practice. This is done in such a way that over time they would almost certainly become deteriorated and lost or at least alienated from their original meaning.

Am I alone in observing it this way? I don't want to sound overly cynical here, but there doesn't seem to be any light way of putting it. Perhaps Putin was right when he said 'Liberalism is obsolete' we in the West are doomed to having these customs and practices eventually become arbitrary until someone has an equally arbitrary idea or they are abruptly ended by war.

Do you think that a system like the caste system they have in India, or the classist system in Europe are good, or bad?
Do you find that the upper class should despise the lower classes, and the lower classes should internalize that contempt, considering it righteous?

I'm of the opinion that even though there's no clear dividing line between philosophy, sociology, and politics, it is usually a bad idea to have self-proclaimed philosophers abusing their ideas and intellectual authority by telling people what to do to too great an extent. There are some difficulties, but also some necessities, that arise when extending our seemingly objective system of judgement onto others. The same goes for other fields too such as mathematics, science, physics, and biology; if you had specialists in these fields determining how we lived our lives we'd all be living a pretty crummy existence.

Bringing this back to the original topic, if when we consider all men and women to be equal in terms of civil liberty and simultaneously assent to an implicit notion of an extended spiritual equality on which this is based, I just can't help but find this situation so utterly absurd and dysfunctional. — kudos

Why absurd and dysfunctional?

People love to be bossy, they love to at least attempt to rule over others. And to assume that others want to be ruled.