We all like the sound of equality, and for the most part we honor the notion of legal equality as the bedrock of a sane and fair world. Nevertheless, a billion and one inequalities always impinge on our efforts at equality, and it’s hard to know by what just standard we might ever affirm one entity’s legal inequality-one might say, legal superiority-over another.
Legal superiority is more inevitable than it might appear at first glance. Consider what would happen if, for instance, children were granted total legal equality with adults. Or, consider what is happening in Britain and elsewhere as traditional Islam comes into conflict with a native culture of more liberal values-where the two cultures cannot coexist, each culture is tempted to assert its legal superiority-but by what standard? The question of legal superiority can be seen again in considering the conflicts which arise between humanity and other species-by what standard do we assert our profound dominion over our fellow creatures?
In light of the above, I propose the following definition of “legal superiority”:
That entity is superior which by its nature and actions can enable the most other entities to survive*.
From this principle at least three corollaries follow:
That species is superior which by its nature and actions can enable the most other species to survive.
Likewise, that culture is superior which by its nature and actions can enable the most other cultures to survive.
Likewise, that individual is superior which by its nature and actions can enable the most other individuals to survive.
This is the principle which allows a lover of all species to understand in what sense humanity can be called superior to other species.
It is the principle which allows a lover of all cultures to understand in what sense a free society can be called superior to other cultures.
It is the principle which allows a lover of all human beings to understand in what sense an expert can be called superior to one who is ignorant, in what sense an adult can be called superior to a child.
Note that this principle lies in direct contrast with a more ancient and satanic principle which defines an entity as superior if that entity by its nature and actions can destroy the most other entities.
*Survive: live indefinitely; live forever.
This strikes me as similar to something I remember from Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. That survival of the fittest isn’t about simple competition. That the “fittest” competition is judged by how well one, an individual, a species, a culture, can co-exist, co-habitate. It also makes me think of the Cryptinomicon, where, explicitly stated, adaptability is the key to continued survival.
[...] unlike perhaps ants, antelope, and lions, thrive only when we reach beyond selfishness and adopt a standard which embraces diversity as much as it embraces harmony. (This same principle holds true as much for how we treat our selves’ own components as for [...]
[...] while also achieving oneness. Beyond that, might I also suggest we employ an understanding of true superiority (as vs. the satanic kind), as a second rule of order by which to orchestrate our [...]