The Giver question

I don't think people are all equal in this society. The Giver isn't. And weren't there elders or something that made decisions for everyone? They wouldn't be equal either.
So really the idea of everyone being "equal" in this type of society is hypocritical.

The concept of equality can go either way. It depends on what you mean. Equal rights, yes. Definitely good. Equal opportunities, obviously.
But equally restricted to mediocre lives is bad bad bad.
Without incentives or opportunities to exceed, everyone is equally poor, stupid, and motivated to do accomplish nothing. Like further science, technology, and medicine.

You can be equal without sacrificing individuality. They are not mutually exclusive. Equality in society is a good thing.

I think completly equal would be bad. No one would really have personalities, would they?

In the case of this book, I would say it's bad. In their quest for "equality," they remove everything, both good and bad that gives someone their individual personality, resulting in an emotionless Stepford society that will casually discard you if you disrupt their so-called perfect order.

I believe that there are some cases where being equal is ok but I agree with "Tifphani"...being COMPLETELY equal would mean that we wouldn't have personalities. I enjoy everybody's personalities. if we were all equal then we wouldn't be able to be having this conversations. well, depending on how far equal goes. we don't have equal thoughts and that is something that I value. I think that we should all be able to have our own separate opinions and our own separate lives.

I wouldn't say it's bad or good. Complete equality is nothing. it's just boring, everyone will be a different version of the same being. it's just like perfection, also boring, nothing more to change, nothing more to do, everything will play out the way it should. nothing will happen. everything will just exist, every century, generation,decade, year and day will only just be repetition of the one before. everything will just be.

I don't think the quest here is for equality - I think the intention was to try to protect everyone from things that could hurt them, emotionally, physically, psychologically - the problem with that, of course, is that it also takes away everything that can bring pleasure. The one case where humanity seems to break through for everyone is the fact that everyone seems to have had the rules broken so that they know how to ride a bicycle before receiving their own bike.

From a a Utopian view if all things were equal everything would be cherry pie and ice cream. In this book they did not so much desire equality but rather commonality or sameness. If everything was common or similar then it would some how free and create a utopian society. It is diversity which creates beauty and frees from the prison of mediocrity or the mundane.

To answer your question there could never be complete equality. We need balance to survive. There must be poor as well as rich. There must be those whom lead and those whom follow. Our entire world exist because of balance in nature. while I do believe we should all have equal opportunities and freedoms I do think its is a perfectly utopian ideal that our world or livelihood could exist if there was perfect equality.

I think that it would be ideal if everyone was equal, but to be equal in a world where no one can see color or feel anything, just to be equal, is wrong. The world is not a perfect place, and therefore some people will never feel equal to others. But as long as we are striving for equality, we will be okay.

I agree with Neil in that you can be equal without sacrificing individuality.

I would say that as portrayed by the book, it's actually a good thing. They've eliminated poverty, disease, war, famine, discrimination, and a host of other banes of the human existence. If the price of that is a loss of personal potential, then that's a price I think it would be worth paying.

As Neil said, equality and individuality are not mutually exclusive. I think this book is less about equality, and more about the destruction of the individual. Very few things set the citizens apart, unless you take in their jobs, their names, and some personality traits.

I think the book is also about totalitarianism, in a sense, because you have a community where the member's lives are completely controlled and monitored.

Equality is something very different (and very broad) and when you discuss it, it really needs to be contextualised. Are we talking about equal rights; equal respect; equality of opportunity; equality of outcome; equality of condition; racial equality; economic equality; or political equality?

There most certainly can be complete equality in terms of race, respect, and opportunity but the others listed above are far more complex theories. For example, complete economic equality (lets just stick with income and resources here) is a farcical theory on many levels; even Marx didn't vouch for a completely equal distribution of resources, as many are led to believe. But I believe there could be a 'more' equal distribution of income and resources in society, but never completely equal.

Being completely equal is unnatural, that is, it's not to be found anywhere in nature. There may be tradeoffs and balances but completely equal...not natural.

I find it too be unnatural...and a little more on the bad side. What the giver practically is, (don't mean to offend anyone)is an extremely liberal form of government taken to the max. Everybody in the world "can't" be equal, it just isn't the way we were mean to be, and I don't think we should change that.