Interesting stuff, although I think your original question suffers from a concise definition of what you mean by 'better'. Morally better? Athletically? Socially?
Let's suppose you mean better in the sense of being 'morally upright'. Your conclusion that 'no one is better than anyone else' is highly debatable. I consider myself better than many people and not out of conceit. I see you for example, as being better than Hitler or a paedophile. In a sense, while human exceptionalism may be fuelled by ego, there is a sense of peace that comes with doing the right thing. And if that means me considering myself morally better than other people, I'll take that in stride. I also think as an upside that when we look at certain people as being exceptional or of higher moral standards than others, there's a natural tendency to aspire to those standards. MLK, Mandela, Florence Nightingale, Helen Keller—and a host of other exceptional people who inspired many are testament to the merits of human exceptionalism.
As I said in the article, it is not my place to decide what is right or wrong for anyone. My focus is on empathy, being able to visualize the unique circumstances other people are going through and act out of kindness towards them. So it's a relational thing and as such, "better" doesn't need extra qualifiers because it doesn't matter what the qualifiers are.
Furthermore, putting people on pedestals is I believe a truly unfortunate feature of our society. One, because those individuals are almost always giants with clay feet. Should the course of history take a turn that doesn't favour their memory, they crumble. Two, because if they are seen as exceptions to the rule, I don't think they serve as inspirations in that capacity. Instead, those who would choose to go a less than savory route would think to themselves "After all, I'm not Mandela/Florence Nightingale." Seeing them as ordinary people who chose empathy and kindness as much as they could serves a far better purpose, I believe.
Your morals are a human construct, and therefore, culturally relative. They are a product of your conditioning and of the value system your subconscious is built on. And this, is what makes it highly debatable and questionable. What seems right to you only appears that way because of your environment and nurturing. If you had been raised in a different condition, you'd definitely see things differently. That includes pedophilia and even mass murder.
There's a story of a dragon that was attacking a village. The people screamed out, "monster, monster!" And the dragon looked behind, searching for the monster. It is afterall, a condition of monsters that they do not realize what they are.
In your words, "In a sense, while human exceptionalism may be fuelled by ego, there is a sense of peace that comes with doing the right thing".
I find any definition of the"right thing" debatable as it is relative and not absolute. This begs the question; "what is truly right and what is truly wrong?" I guess we'll never know.
From time to time, my natural human condition - ego, has me thinking I am better than some, but I try to be as understanding and empathetic as possible, because I know we are all products of our environment.
Thank you for your comment, especially the story of the dragon. It really does drive home how relative things are and how much we are the product of our socialization and circumstances.
As for an absolute right and absolute wrong, I don't think they exist. The oriental concept of Ying and Yang depicts this well I think, by showing that even in the good, there is the capacity for evil and even in the evil, there is the presence of good. Even the "worst" people have those they care for and who care for them.
Interesting stuff, although I think your original question suffers from a concise definition of what you mean by 'better'. Morally better? Athletically? Socially?
Let's suppose you mean better in the sense of being 'morally upright'. Your conclusion that 'no one is better than anyone else' is highly debatable. I consider myself better than many people and not out of conceit. I see you for example, as being better than Hitler or a paedophile. In a sense, while human exceptionalism may be fuelled by ego, there is a sense of peace that comes with doing the right thing. And if that means me considering myself morally better than other people, I'll take that in stride. I also think as an upside that when we look at certain people as being exceptional or of higher moral standards than others, there's a natural tendency to aspire to those standards. MLK, Mandela, Florence Nightingale, Helen Keller—and a host of other exceptional people who inspired many are testament to the merits of human exceptionalism.
As I said in the article, it is not my place to decide what is right or wrong for anyone. My focus is on empathy, being able to visualize the unique circumstances other people are going through and act out of kindness towards them. So it's a relational thing and as such, "better" doesn't need extra qualifiers because it doesn't matter what the qualifiers are.
Furthermore, putting people on pedestals is I believe a truly unfortunate feature of our society. One, because those individuals are almost always giants with clay feet. Should the course of history take a turn that doesn't favour their memory, they crumble. Two, because if they are seen as exceptions to the rule, I don't think they serve as inspirations in that capacity. Instead, those who would choose to go a less than savory route would think to themselves "After all, I'm not Mandela/Florence Nightingale." Seeing them as ordinary people who chose empathy and kindness as much as they could serves a far better purpose, I believe.
Your morals are a human construct, and therefore, culturally relative. They are a product of your conditioning and of the value system your subconscious is built on. And this, is what makes it highly debatable and questionable. What seems right to you only appears that way because of your environment and nurturing. If you had been raised in a different condition, you'd definitely see things differently. That includes pedophilia and even mass murder.
There's a story of a dragon that was attacking a village. The people screamed out, "monster, monster!" And the dragon looked behind, searching for the monster. It is afterall, a condition of monsters that they do not realize what they are.
In your words, "In a sense, while human exceptionalism may be fuelled by ego, there is a sense of peace that comes with doing the right thing".
I find any definition of the"right thing" debatable as it is relative and not absolute. This begs the question; "what is truly right and what is truly wrong?" I guess we'll never know.
From time to time, my natural human condition - ego, has me thinking I am better than some, but I try to be as understanding and empathetic as possible, because I know we are all products of our environment.
Thank you for your comment, especially the story of the dragon. It really does drive home how relative things are and how much we are the product of our socialization and circumstances.
As for an absolute right and absolute wrong, I don't think they exist. The oriental concept of Ying and Yang depicts this well I think, by showing that even in the good, there is the capacity for evil and even in the evil, there is the presence of good. Even the "worst" people have those they care for and who care for them.