• Hi guest! As you can see, the new Wizard Forums has been revived, and we are glad to have you visiting our site! However, it would be really helpful, both to you and us, if you registered on our website! Registering allows you to see all posts, and make posts yourself, which would be great if you could share your knowledge and opinions with us! You could also make posts to ask questions!

[TV Shows] An Unusual Netflix Project: Four Seasons of Occult LGBT Drama

Discussions about TV Shows...

Nembra

Acolyte
Joined
Jul 28, 2026
Messages
319
Reaction score
268
Awards
4
I think you're not saying that equality always comes from personal hatred or jealousy, /but that once equality becomes the goal, it can lead to wanting to get rid of differences simply because they're differences..
But that isn't necessarily envy. I think we can value equality based on things like dignity or equal rights, without wanting to make everyone equal in all situations.
Probably the real disagreement, then, is if equality cann be a fundamental value and not just a tool of justice.
I'm not sure it can't be yet, but I think I see what you mean now.
You're listing all those humanitarian ideas, but none of them actually cares about valuing equality. You don't actually value equal rights because they are equal. You value them because you believe they are good for the individuals. The goal of feeding people is to save them from starvation, not to make the distribution of food more equal across society. In other words if you value equality because of some other things then you actually, fundamentally value those things and equality is just a mean to an end - valuable conditionally, only as a tool.

It requires attention what does it mean for something to be a fundamental value. It means that it is being pursued without any further reason, treated as an axiom of morality - a good in itself. When equality is a fundamental value of a given ethical system, then being good requires making other people equal to each other not to make them happier or the society functioning more effectively - only to satisfy one's own moral claims.
 

Eldros

Zealot
Joined
Aug 10, 2026
Messages
123
Reaction score
152
Awards
2
You're listing all those humanitarian ideas, but none of them actually cares about valuing equality. You don't actually value equal rights because they are equal. You value them because you believe they are good for the individuals. The goal of feeding people is to save them from starvation, not to make the distribution of food more equal across society. In other words if you value equality because of some other things then you actually, fundamentally value those things and equality is just a mean to an end - valuable conditionally, only as a tool.

It requires attention what does it mean for something to be a fundamental value. It means that it is being pursued without any further reason, treated as an axiom of morality - a good in itself. When equality is a fundamental value of a given ethical system, then being good requires making other people equal to each other not to make them happier or the society functioning more effectively - only to satisfy one's own moral claims.
I think I see what you mean now - you're talking about equality being valuable in itself, rather than just being a way of protecting people's rights, dignity, or happiness. That creates the question of what part is equal, and it could end up in balancing things without much reason.
But it doesn't have to be envy. Perhaps someone simply does not see those differences as having moral value and doesn't feel hatred toward others who benefit from them..
I guess that's probably where we actually disagree. I'm still not sure if equality can be something we value in itself, or if it always has to be grounded in something ellse.
Post automatically merged:

Also, talking now about the TV series, I guess Rachel Weisz or Rachel McAdams could easily slip back into roles like
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
for a Netflix series.

 
Top