People can never be regarded as equals

First of all welcome and i look forward to good arguments on both sides. That being said let me get on to business Pro asserts that people in society can never be regarded as equals, as doing so would essentially negate the purpose of such a policy. The purpose of such a principle is evident in the term equality. We want to treat everyone equally because we believe that uniformity would create a better society where everyone us respected equally as a human being and has equal opportunities. The flaw in such a reasoning is that this principle can only apply in an ideal world. In reality treating people as equals would be maintaining the status-quo, which is not built on the principles of equality. In the early 17th century, slavery began to rear its ugly head in North America and up until about 1964 after e advent of the Civil Right's Act, black people where technically considered second class citizens. We cannot address the inequalities created by the segregation, emasculation and economic deprivation which arose during the 400 or so years of slavery and segregation without helping those who were previously disadvantaged more than we would those who were advantaged (which is were affirmative action comes into play) This "unequal" treatment of people actually helps society function better A better example and one i am more familiar with as it is closer to home, well my home atleast, is the situation in South Africa prior to independence and post independence. As a result of apartheid (just to be fair i'll add a link, just in case you don't know what i'm on about- http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu...) Non Europeans where essentially disadvantaged economically, in terms of education, politically and socially. As such the government enacted a policy to address these issues. This policy essentially permits companies to employ Non-Europeans who were previously disadvantaged before considering an equally qualified individual who was advantaged prior to independence (similar to the U.S.A's affirmative action policy). When you look at it this is unequal treatment of people. However it serves to put these two hypothetical people on the same level of the playing field If equality was applied universally, the non-European in South Africa would continue to be in a subordinate socioeconomic position because of the basis of his/her disadvantaged background (he/she would not be afforded the same opportunities) Shifting away from race lets look at wealthy people and poor people. Regarding these two as equals in all sense would mean that they should be taxed equally. Let's assume person A earns 15000 a month and person B earns 1000 a month, if the tax system recognizes them as equals it would only fair if they were taxed equally. There are 2 choices in such a scenario, either we tax them of a certain amount (let's say 200 a month) or we tax them of 20% of their earning. 200 to person A wouldn't really affect his overall pay, whereas with person B that is a huge chunk of his salary and he may not be able to cope with such a huge loss. 20% to person A would be 3000 which again would still leave him with more than enough money to survive whereas the 20% (200) taxation on person B would not be such a minor scratch. Of course you could argue that tax brackets address that argument by taxing people in proportion to their earnings, but that is not equal treatment it amounts to adjusting the tax system in accordance to one's pay. If people should truly be regarded as equals why shouldn't they be taxed the exact same amount Now I look at the social aspect of it all. Should we treat those weaker as equals to those who are stronger. If we are to treat a disabled man as an equal we should not build ramps for them because what we would be doing is paying extra for their needs, which doesn't sound like equality to me Should we also treat prisoner's as equals to those who are free, if so shouldn't they be allowed to fully exercise their right to equal treatment, people in the outside world have the right to movement. If you are not in prison, you have the choice to go anywhere (within financial and physical limitations) you please. Whereas a prisoner who should supposedly be treated as an equal cannot, does that not then infringe on his dignity? By disallowing an "equal" person his/her right to movement, we are not respecting him/her as a person. Pro argues that in certain instances we need not treat people as equals, in certain instances we must limit one's right to equality in order for the betterment of society or for the protection of society (we must not treat prisoner's as equals because doing so would negate the whole purpose of punishing someone for committing a wrong. If we cannot punish someone for committing a wrong then our legal system would fall apart and society would follow)