Is it right to believe some people are superior to others?
It is often said that everyone is equal and that no one is superior nor inferior to another person. I find this really insulting to genuises and thinkers such as Einstein who used their bright intellect and hard work to change the world. I think some people have more weaknesses than others.
I heard in many places that everyone has the same value and everyone can either easily be replaced or is just as hardly replaceable. Is this not a self-delusion of importance? It just seems so untrue, especially within the naturally rigid mechanisms of society. I believe some people are, by definition, more replaceable than others—a button pusher is more replaceable than an inventor. A person that works for someone is, within the economical spectrums of society, nothing without that someone who employs him, and so is the employer—this is the definition of slavery, but there are many employees and a few employers. This should be a sociological fact. There are many people who push buttons, but very few that make them. You are not as important as an inventor just because you help him push buttons. Heck, he is the reason why you push buttons in the first place.
Am I correct here?
- D1218Lv 54 weeks ago
Yes, it is. And no offense but it's true! Why do you think some people dislike themselves or have no confidence.
- PaulLv 71 month ago
Obviously some people are superior to others, in education, intellect, physical strength, health, and dozens of other ways. But that doesn't mean that more gifted people have greater worth, or more right to be treated fairly and kindly. All people are equal in that regard.
- Anonymous1 month ago
Yes. Some people contribute to society. Others can be just lazy bums
- AnonymousLv 41 month ago
Back in the 70's a guy had a record where he talked/recited a poem (deep sexy voice) The poem is Desiderata. It mentions that even the dull and ignorant have something to contribute. And it's true. NO ONE is 'better' - some people have just had more opportunities.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- BoboLv 71 month ago
The difference is individual character. Good character is superior to poor character. Individual character traits are voluntary--honesty, responsibility, integrity, self-control, etc. are the foundation for superior character. Dishonesty, irresponsibility, sloth, drug/alcohol abuse, etc. are the foundation of poor character. Every living sole has the capability to have good character. Those with good character fare better in life as they make the effort to develop their individual knowledge, skills, and abilities which in turn benefit society. People with poor character typically make no effort in life, work at unskilled jobs, and contribute less to society. So the answer to your question is--yes.
- 1 month ago
I AM superior in some ways. For example, I have a tested IQ in the top tenth of the top percentile of the population.
HOWEVER - I did nothing to earn that. It's like having red hair or freckles - both admirable qualities, but unearned.
A better question might be - why are some methods for determining superiority considered acceptable and others are not - why does no-one get bent out of shape if I were to be taller (5-4 in RL, so perhaps not taller), but when I suggest some superiority based on intelligence, it starts a shitfest. Both are unearned characteristics.
- JocelyneLv 51 month ago
I think that it is a mistake to say that some people are superior to others or that their lives are more worthwhile. This attitude leads to racism, hate and war. If we can make connections despite not liking some people the world would be transformed towards a better life for all.
The true value of a person should be that they help, not harm others.
- JORGE NLv 71 month ago
An astronaut is far superior to me just due to the way they manage their health alone. No doubt about it. Imagine trying to go to the space station in the shape I am in? I wouldn't make it. I am clearly far inferior in so many ways. And scientific proof exists now to prove it if I have any doubts.
- A.J.Lv 71 month ago
"Superior" is the wrong word. You can say an individual has certain accomplishments and abilities better than others. There are many types of intelligence. There are many traits and characteristics. We are born with different genes and propensities. We are born with different advantages of wealth and household by family. Built into your argument is that family wealth is allowed to be contained and passed on. You can look carefully at individuals and think how much they accomplish on their own, and how much is solely connected to be handed wealth. How much is because of opportunities given by family or an inequitable world.
There is a truth that we are not born with the same genetics, parents, social order, or teaching. What happens in the details of the question if children were raised equally and wealth was not owned by individuals. There would still be individuals with more abilities and characteristics better than others, but the inequalities would be far lower. How much is taught, and how much is in-born, and how much is given to a child or adult? How did that owner of the business get to his/her position? Being born into a rich family does not make a person superior.
- Anonymous1 month ago
people is people, all the same inside ...............................