All individual human persons stand equal in foundational humanity and equal in contribution to the animal population of planet Earth, by just one human each. The human species features a host of standard consistencies and common traits. Each human’s contributions to natural raw material resources by way of environmental impact, exertions of effort, and output contribution of byproducts is absolutely equal in basic interactive potential, with no human’s basic effects or lasting aftereffects considered inferior or superior in Nature.
Ethically, this view focusing on commonalities between all humans is the proper approach in regarding each of us in cases when a governing legal system (or organizational policy system) becomes involved to either make standing legal codes with power to establish daily norms for widespread citizenship, or power to potentially defend or compensate an individual from infractions by others, and/or power to potentially penalize an individual for their past behaviors’ possible repeat offense risks to others, by way of potentially imposing unusual restrictions upon that offending individual’s rights and liberties.
This stubborn equality stance is key to lessening risks of legislation establishing status of daily norms that once enacted could create an environment of preferential treatment of chosen groups or chosen ways unfairly causing detrimental effects on those of other groups or differing ways of living. This equality stance also reasonably respects the human rights of often unpopular offenders when legally challenged, and mitigates risks of legal system and penal system abuses against offenders.
Any government or organizational policy system can only intend and execute functions conceptually ethically, by way reasonably making it such that all judging and acting upon citizens employs and abides by this viewing of each human to be in equal standing when under any scrutiny. Also, abiding by this ethic is best fostered by placing priority on high fidelity and little room for error invested in the vision behind the rules, while otherwise aware of much error in maintenance and execution of procedural functions. Attempting to place rigid demands on the ensuing structure and letter of the word that are the resultant of legal code legislation and organizational policy making is pragmatically fighting for the impossible, and can taint the intent, vision, and spirit guiding the entire process. Additionally, placing such rigid demands on the ensuing structure can blind operations designers to the need for final word procedures to have built in reaction potential to just such inevitable error and inadequacy that come with all encoding systems. Thus, a more robust set of fallbacks and checks and balances would more likely flow out of operations designs if promoting tight fidelity to the heart and spirit behind it all, rather than counting entirely too much on operating norms and functional procedures to write themselves in an unwise over-investment in methodology rather than in vision.
Government forces, legal forces, and organizational policy forces might best adhere to using this equality view of each citizen or organization member, as this view provides the benefits of a sensitivity to potential hitherto unconsidered effects on individual citizens and groups of citizens by repeatedly readjusting the generic filter when studying unique individual cases that might occur, affording a way to survey possible nuances affecting reasonably fair impact when implementing the details of legal codes having effects on many citizens, and so drafted in response to apparent need for large scale management.
The equality view of each citizen might best be adhered to when governing forces manage escalated or challenged conflicts arising between citizens. In such legal or policy cases where individuals are pitted personally against other individuals, the equality view works to create a filter between personality human interest aspects to each person’s real life and the reactions and sentiments of governing or otherwise presiding officials involved personally in discussions, to guide detachment policies so that discernable and manageable criteria can be well used administratively, for process flow to regulate disengaging and reengaging with naturally occurring social interplay on the part of governing officials with citizens, moderating and managing between the fostering of a reasonably human and humane touch to legal and governmental proceedings thus allowing for social factors, and good procedural switching mindset and view to that of generic equal regard with impartial stance. The equality view of one human by another involves an awkward unique standoff and impersonal abstraction by the viewer, which differs greatly from intimate personal value felt or placed socially between individuals in daily living.
The equality stance is best wise to promote both sides of the regard for individuals, and guide switching from particular individual character back to generic equality as one human, in favor of the merits of both, actually. The dynamic is awkward to consider and reconcile, and seemingly inconsistent, at first consideration.
Worth to Nature stands stubbornly neutral, levelling, and coldly impersonal, and feels cumbersome to adopt in viewing the notions of other individuals, even when merely mentally considering the issues philosophically. Value or worth between individuals in social camaraderie and relationship flexes full of dynamically changing just bias and conditionality, but if expressed in a manner that is not unreasonably unfair to others liberties and rights, as is most often the case in daily life among families, coworkers, friends, affiliates, and associates, this personal right to act on personal life fair biases and preferences as to who to spend time with and pursue association with is key to free will and liberty in its essence.
The standard for ethical government view of equal citizenship and the standard for everyday person-to-person free living are nearly polar opposites. It is somewhat ironic that the equality view is used in governmental and legal considerations and proceedings exactly for the support, promotion and defense of each citizen’s reasonable and fair latitude, liberty, access, right, and freedom from hindrance, in his or her naturally personally fairly custom-biased pursuits of activities and interactions, allowing each individual person to act on attractions, whims, preferences, and dreams that stand free to be very particular, by nature selfish as well as often giving, and not at all beholden to any enforced neutralization of his or her energies being aimed otherwise selectively and with favor aimed freely, in daily personal social capacity not of governmental or legal responsibility.
Viewing humans as equal, and viewing humans as warm unique humane characters, both have place and merit, and matters of context, population scope, and impact scale are involved in selecting which view of human worth to work with, judge resolutions to conflicts significant enough to prompt contest over them, and also individual social personal valuations and preferences interplayed between people, of varied unspoken criteria or measures involved in regarding and approaching other individuals in interplay, in the heart of each person involved in dynamic relationships. I put forth that individual liberty should be upheld such that an individual may be reasonably free to engage in preferred treatment of chosen others in his or her social relationships, and that absent of any unreasonable negative impact on the lives and liberties of others, he or she should go unhindered and not coerced in any way in his or her preferential treatment of favored persons and maintenance of favored social arrangements.
From this follows that governments should fall back to this view of equality, whenever a particular person’s liberties or rights are legally at stake of infraction by another or group forces, or penalization involving loss of liberty by governmental or organizational policy recourse, whether being defended or under prosecution. Each human has equal natural rights of way impact in interactions with others and undeniable potential to demand those rights of way be considered if in conflict or debate.
Classic Liberty theory development of issues of human natural rights takes basis and beginnings in obvious and boring assessments of what can physically be done between people in ungoverned small population situations, honoring realities pragmatically, and in defiance of any theoretical arguments of how behavior ought to be. The more abstractly derived ethical factors to natural rights are approached by liberty theories with an effort to keep derivations or abstractions based on and consistent with natural physical realities and manifest ways of nature, rather than idealized or dreamed up constructs.
A characteristic of classic liberty social contract theory was that in situations when a person became legally judged with risk of having ones life and liberties curtailed, then natural rights were to be viewed as absolutely equal in worth ingrained into each human, regardless and independent of individual uniqueness, skill, popularity, justifiability, station, or suitability to specific task. This lean to prefer equal regard, treatment, or judgment is fundamental to liberty social contract theories, and carries a distaste for elevating anyone above another when it involves fundamentals and basic individual worth. Concerning issues having major consequences on peoples’ lives, if there is to be error with risk of being somewhat unfair in honoring contentions between individuals or groups, it is considered better to err away from judging on merit and character, and return when in doubt to a basic ethical value of raw humanity, thus addressing such in its basic, raw, and equal form. This legal approach is stalwart and consistent for centuries of historically, and differs entirely from the individual character judgments it defends for individuals in their private, vocational, social, and commercial trade lives, so that people can exert independent rights to choose others for social involvement voluntarily and as preferred, allowing fully for personal bias in personal relationships.
To some classic social contract theory, each individual human has a property of membership with and relationship with all of Creation. Free thinking held that Creation was viewed in a context that was independent of religious doctrine implications, much like merely stating the word Nature in keeping with modern usage. The term Creation does not necessarily imply a focus on long ago beginnings of things, but instead points to the here and now, each human continually changing in concert with Creation, and also being created anew and fresh as affected nonstop by each passing moment, ever being created onward by Creation. Attitudes toward Creation such as atheistic views on nature, regarding Creation as limited to the apparent routine forces of science and the physical, were not seen or taken as any affront to the notion of Creation, and were viewed as fair alternatives, in no way diminishing the theoretical importance and beauty attributed to Creation. References to Creation, such as a framework in the U.S. Declaration of Independence that presents a co-supporting triad of derivations to put forth the inalienability of natural human rights, also maintains neutrality religiously and allows each individual in his or her personal version of a given religion to wonder or assert independently as to what elements of the mundane or theologically mysterious can be considered when beholding within oneself the notion of all Creation, as it continually creates onward each person by air, food, beverage, light, sound, warmth, moisture, and contact.
Equal humans share a standard state of humanity. This state of humanity is a beautiful common thread which holds a mold of one species. Of alternative beauty in common is how individuality and personal character nuance vary with such great uniqueness imbued in each member of humanity. Yet no human is so unique as to be as tall as a large oak tree, or to look and leap like a frog. Hence: equality.