Is equality a good objective

Hi there. Very interesting topic. As I understand them your arguments are: 1) Government cannot provide equality due to the natural differences between people. 2) It is fair to treat people differently because some have limitations that others don't. Let me know if I understood your points correctly. The first issue in this argument is to properly assess what is meant with equality. Commonly, equality is not meant to be synonymous with sameness. This is to say that the physical differences between people are evident, but that their worth as living beings is equal. This is to say, we are equal in worth, not in physical capacity. Your argument stems from the idea that physical capacity should correlate with each individual's worth. In such a sense, A person capable of many things is worth more and therefore not equal to one capable of only a few things. It follows from such a statement that capacity has intrinsic worth. It does not. The flaw in your argument is precisely the assumption of the intrinsic worth of capacity. It is perfectly common for people to dissagree as to the worth of one particular accomplishment. For instance, some may be swayed to believe that achieving the world record for the fastest one mile run is quite an acomplishment. Certainly, not many have the capacity to match that action. And yet, the argument could be made that all that person managed to accomplish was to run in circles for a brief period of time. Hardly an acomplishment when our perpective shifts. Another example would be that of a doctor saving lives for many years. One could argue that that person failed repetedly throughout his life, as every single person he saved will eventually die some time. Some take great pride in learning many languages while others have no interest in it. Accomplishment is subjective and so too, the worth of a particular capability is subjective. Your worth would increase and decrease to some or others based on their perceptions of the effects of your capabilities. From this point, it is sensible to understand that if something can be worthless to someone and priceless to the next, that worth is in fact subjective and as such, not intrinsic in any action or being. We are all intrinsically worth the same thing, which is nothing. Our equality therefore, stems from these humble beginnings. We are not worth more than others because objectively, no one is worth anything. Equality is the natural state of all existence. Now specifically to your points 1) Government cannot provide equality. Nor does it have to. Equality is intrinsic to existence. It need not be provided. it is in fact inescapable. 2) It is fair to treat others differently because some people are more capable than others Fairness is a complicated concept. What is fair to some may not be so to others. Also, as I've already established, the worth of capabilities is subjective. It would be reasonable to treat people differently in a practical physical way. Expecting a blind man to read a traditional print book would be difficult without brail (which is a special consideration). That said, that person's equality is untouched by the special considerations provided him because, once again, worth is subjective. As such, he might by my loving father, which also happens to be blind. Or I may be a photographer who finds his features useful for my art. The amount of ways in which a person can be capable and incapable are almost endless in variation. The worth of all parts of existence is the same. No objective worth. Equality is the natural state and so any treatment of others concerned with fairness must account for that. Now a word on the benefits of setting equality as an objective. Though worth is a subjective construct, it implies a fundamental equality that is key to understanding human endeavor. Humanity seeks to thrive as a species and understanding the role that equality plays in relation to our efforts is vital. To explain. Though it is true that some people will be at times more capable at certain endeavors than others, it is almost impossible to determine how one person might be useful to another. Think of a weak, decrepit person who inspires an artist which in turn inspires millions of people. Or a sickly grandmother who gives her affection and guidance to her granddaughter. Or a horrible criminal who's crime inspire someone else to become a great policeman. Because forseeing every conceivable way in which one person might be capable of achieving something (Deliberately or not) that others may consider worthwhile is fundamentally an insurmountable task, the simplest course of action is then to provide everyone with environments in which they can thrive. Equality, therefore, is applied practically by offering access to basic needs satisfaction as a way of right. In so far as all of us can potentially affect others in some way, and because those effects can be positive and are unpredictable, we are potentailly equal and worth the same considerations. Equal opportunity to thrive. Equal access, not to the same exact resources, but to whatever resources allow each individual person to thrive. To answer your opening question. Not only can there be equality, in reality, there can never be anything else. And as to the Quote Lincoln is not proposing fundamental inequality. He is stating that diminishing the cicumstances of those who are well is not the right way to appease those who are not. The point implied is not to weaken strong men, but to strenghten the weak. He believes the weak can become strong. Your quote does not help your argument.