As a rule evolution creates inequality, not only among biological beings but also in societies. The division of labor was the prerequisite of the evolution of modern societies that is inequality per se as compared to stone age tribal life with hunters and gatherers sharing all their goods. Agriculture and livestock farming nol only require different workload but also produce different returns that further varies by changing weather conditions and pests creating a permanent fluctuation in inequality and tensions a society has to cope with to maintain stability.
Regardless the obvious tendency of societies to become more heterogeneous and unequal, there are also tendencies to propagate equality as in this post to which a gave the following comment:
- principle of declining marginal utility
These are the terms I had to consult a dictionary for in order to understand this post. I admit, I’m not a native English speaker, still it is a relatively long list compared to other even philosopher’s blogs.
I hope you don’t take offense in it, but I only want to illustrate how difficult it is to avoid jargon you are particular familiar with.
The other assertion laid out over several paragraphs is that you oppose racial and sexual discrimination and even favor affirmative action. Guessing from your name, you probably suffered such discrimination and would benefit from affirmative action, so this point of view is probably also tainted with personal experiences.
There is nothing wrong with that. As a rule that can be deduced from Fauceir Theory there is no such thing as an independent or impartial observer. Every perception is an information transfer between fauceirs and both fauceirs will change after that information transfer due to imprecision and resource consumption. In more colloquial words, a man after seeing a picture, hearing a voice, experiencing a situation, and so on will never be the same again.
Finally, the main flaw in Singer’s book  (as far as I understand from your post) is that INequality is the goal of evolution. Examples that evolution created inequality are countless and commonplace. That human societies propagate equality is an other sub-process of evolution which is driven by ideology and therefore not perceivable as such by those engrained.
Replace ideology by the more general term, a fauceir’s drive for inner stability, and you will find the same tendency to create uniformity in other social compounds, an ant colony for instance and a group of soldiers. As laid out in some earlier post humans as biological beings are no more at the top of the evolutionary pyramid on this planet. This place is occupied by social fauceirs now for which human individuals play the role as slaves only, and as such they have to suffer their society’s, master fauceir’s, pressure for uniformity, consequently.
- Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 3. Aufl. (Cambridge University Press, 2011).
This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.