Rules: Whether yes or no, state the metric you're using, and why that metric is valid/justified/important. This is my thinking so far (warning: long): [spoiler] "Equality" does not mean "everyone is satisfied and accepted by one an another." Equality has a very rigid mathematical definition, one that is extremely difficult to satisfy when viewing the natural world, depending on how you view it. For example, one could argue that equality is the norm, as there are trillions upon trillions upon trillions... ...upon trillions of identical atoms/isotopes in this universe. That said, looking at it another way, the individual kinetic energy of those atoms is going to be just so slightly variable between each, to the point that it seems any measure of "equality" is a useful estimate, and nothing more. And if position/time is taken into account, how would we categorize two different objects if they occupied the same space at the same energy at the same time? Equality may be intuitive in mathematics and our thinking, but it doesn't seem that the world we live in shares this concept. When we've defined humans as "equal" before, we've usually had to use a supernatural agent to justify this. The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal by a creator. While the metric by which this equality is measured isn't specified, it can be inferred that the fact that the creator made them is meant to be taken as proof. Likewise, modern "social justice" movements in the west cite human rights and human dignity. Human rights and human dignity don't exist outside our minds; the harshness of this planet and our surrounding solar system should be proof enough of that. A prehistoric man mortally wounded by a bear couldn't save himself by ranting about dignity to the heavens, much as a soldier in a fox hole isn't going to save himself by throwing copies of the Geneva Convention at the enemy. We made up those concepts because they facilitate cooperation, but their basis isn't logical, let alone objective. So when we look at modern humans, we see a huge disparity in appearance, capabilities, productiveness, etc. How in the world could anyone argue that they're equal? Now some use this to justify concepts such as Eugenics. Clearly if no one is equal to begin with, then there is nothing morally wrong with only selecting the best traits, right? Well unfortunately for those promoting this mindset, there is still an element of magical thinking (analogous to that used to justify human rights) in their belief, namely that they can determine what is "best." That can't be done without clairvoyance. Take for example the genetic affliction known as sickle cell anemia. By most standards, this would be considered a disadvantage. There are a host of health complications with it, including a significantly reduced average life-time compared to similar individuals without it. How in the world did something like this get selected? Turns out that the sickle cell mutation actually inhibits the spread of malaria. In the regions where this is common, this mutation was selected because those without it tended to die of malaria at rates high enough to offset the apparent disadvantages brought by sickle-cell. To put it simply, the undoing of eugenics is genetics (and evolution) itself; we can't know what's going to be best tomorrow. In a world increasingly filled with antibiotic resistant "super-bugs," this concept may enter into the public's consciousness sooner rather than later. What I'm left to conclude from this is that human beings are not equal by any logical metric, but that's not inherently a bad thing. But should humans be viewed as unequal by their governments/societies? Well, the first thing to realize is that they already are seen as unequal in virtually everything you'd call a civilization, and again this isn't inherently a bad thing. You don't want a fry-cook working on nuclear bombs "just because he's human" for instance. I think most people would agree that the specialization people are able to pursue thanks to society is one of the reasons we've developed so much. You're not going to be designing super computers if the entire citizenry just works in the field all day. I think I'm going to wrap this up and just get to the question of the day: Does this justify the privileges that come with some positions? Well, I could take the easy way out and argue that any "justifications" either way are just as subjective as human rights, and in fact I've pretty much spent the rest of this ramble building the case for that, but I'll put in a tiny bit more effort. The real question being asked is: Should our institutions reflect humanity? Which is a silly thing to ask, because what else would they reflect? I'm kind of stuck here at the moment, because no matter how I go about it, any answer to these last two questions becomes subjective. Our governments and societies "should" be what we choose, but they already are. If you go along with it, even begrudgingly, you've accepted that it's better for you to do so than any other alternative. Every now and then our societies diverge too far from what the majority of people want, and we have revolution. I can't make a logical argument in this area, but I feel like I've shown that neither can the "social justice" folks. [/spoiler]