As the sub description contains the word "egalitarian", which I translated as "promoting equality", I have been wondering if and what kind of equality can be considered a good objective:

  • Equality as in "all humans are essentially clones". This is obviously false. It is clear, at a bare minimum, that those whom we categorize as "biologically female" have the biological disposition to give birth, while those who count as "biologically male" do not. It is also statistically evident that men are on average taller and stronger, and it would be pretty absurd to assume that other differences do not exist just because we cannot measure them as clearly.
  • Equality of outcome. This is doomed to failure, as it contradicts the survival strategies of the human species. One may criticize the "disposability of men", but it is a matter of fact that women are the bottleneck when it comes to reproduction. This is especially true when considering the low birth rates in developed countries. And even with the best affirmative action, we have to accept that pregnancy and nursing are kind of in the way of doing other things.
  • Equality of opportunity. This probably sounds nice, especially to those who lean towards libertarianism. But is it really? "OK, you didn't get the job, so now you're losing your house and you can't afford healthcare. But at least you had the same chance as everyone else, eh?" This probably does not help you. Also, it is pretty unclear what "equal opportunity" means in the first place. Should we just treat everybody the same? Should we compensate for certain disadvantages? Should we do so on a group or an individual basis? In the end, this concept loses pretty much all meaning to me.

If two indistinguishable people are in exactly the same situation, it is clear that they should be treated equally – but this is the trivial case. What if the only personal thing you know about them is that one is a woman and the other one is a man? Think again if they should be treated the same in all situations. What if one has a disability?

One good rule might sound like: "Don't do unfair discrimination." But what is unfair? If you're running a business and you refuse to hire a pregnant woman, this seems pretty unfair, socially speaking. But our economic system is based on maximizing profits, so maybe you're just doing what you are supposed to do. Talking about the draft, the situation is now a lot different than it was in the pre-nuclear area, but if you were a leader and you wanted your tribe to be the one that survived, you would send the men to fight, not the women, even if that was unfair.

In a lot of cases, "equality" is certainly something to thrive for, but the more I think about it, the more my ideal of ethical behavior shifts away from "equality" and towards: "Treat everyone as best as you can, taking into account all your information about the situation and the individual person." This is certainly pretty unsatisfying as it does not give any specific advice and it does not have a catchy name, but I think it is what we should thrive for.