Egalitarianism vs. Envy or Egalitarianism based on envy

At a cultural level, egalitarian theories have developed in sophistication and acceptance during the past two hundred years. Among the notable broadly egalitarian philosophies are socialism, communism, anarchism, left-libertarianism, and progressivism, all of which propound economic, political, and legal egalitarianism, respectively. Several egalitarian ideas enjoy wide support among intellectuals and in the general populations of many countries. Whether any of these ideas have been significantly implemented in practice, however, remains a controversial question.
One argument is that liberalism provides democracy with the experience of civic reformism. Without it, democracy loses any tie - argumentative or practical - to a coherent design of public policy endeavoring to provide the resources for the realization of democratic citizenship. For instance, some argue that modern representative democracy is a realization of political egalitarianism, while others believe that, in reality, most political power still resides in the hands of a ruling class, rather than in the hands of the people.

Envy may be defined as an emotion that occurs when a person lacks another's (perceived) superior quality, achievement, or possession and either desires it or wishes that the other lacked it.
Envy can also derive from a sense of low self-esteem that results from an upward social comparison threatening a person's self image: another person has something that the envier considers to be important to have. If the other person is perceived to be similar to the envier, the aroused envy will be particularly intense, because it signals to the envier that it just as well could have been he or she who had the desired object.
Bertrand Russell said envy was one of the most potent causes of unhappiness. It is a universal and most unfortunate aspect of human nature because not only is the envious person rendered unhappy by his envy, but also wishes to inflict misfortune on others. Although envy is generally seen as something negative, Russell also believed that envy was a driving force behind the movement towards democracy and must be endured in order to achieve a more just social system.

When juxtaposed I feel that without a doubt the social convention and invention of egalitarianism is a last, most powerful effort to avoid envy.

Given that egalitarianism is meant to provide equal opportunities to everyone, why is it so central in governmental thinking? More precisely, can government exist in an egalitarian society?

Vegetarianism is hard if you eat meat!

As the son of a devout and zealous vegetarian I've been exposed to the lifestyle for many years. 18 in fact. Up until I was 18 I was a strong follower of Kashrut (kosher law in Judaism) and had little option to eat a large amount of meat. From birth to the age of seven I was a vegetarian so I have a slightly more intimate understanding than I would otherwise have were I never a vegetarian. However, since being 18 I have experimented with various foods of which a large portion is new meats, pork included.
After the last article and discussion on moral justification and necessity of meat in the human diet I debated with myself and decided to try to be a vegetarian again to see if I felt any different or any worse, etc. After four days of strict vegetarianism utilizing the likes of Quorn products and veggie stir fry with little to no fat to cook with, and other BM inducing foods I was forced to cave, whether due to my weak will or dietary needs. My body yearned for that hamburger and as soon as the opportunity arose where meat was one of fewer options I gave in and got the burger and MAN did it taste good!
I couldn't ave possibly predicted how difficult it would be to wean myself off of meat especially as I have been a veggie before. If people don't really need to eat meat why does it seem to be such an intrinsic hard to shake habit?

Response to Abigal Lindamood

This is a response to the question what makes an issue socially taboo, thus difficult to discuss in society?
The answer is in the question. Society makes things taboo or dangerous to talk about. Many times I have the conversation with my friends as to whether or not I feel "awkward" and I answer the same way every time. I say that I never feel awkward, but I understand that whatever it is I may be talking about can make those I am talking to, uncomfortable. Thus, the subject, whatever it may be, becomes a touchy subject.
When discussing anything with my parents I know, through years of training, what is appropriate to say and what isn't. However, these things, whether it be the content or the way in which I convey information change when I am talking to my friends and they change even further when I am discussing with my close friends. So issues that are taboo are only taboo to certain or people or a certain population. Saying God doesn't exist would be quite taboo in an orthodox mikvah or a protestant church, but go to a college philosophy course, and you may find it a central issue of discussion. The issues that are taboo like sex, religion, beauty, to name a few broad ones are only taboo to people uncomfortable with talking about them. Sex might be uncomfortable to talk about with your parents, religion might be uncomfortable to discuss with a rabbi or priest, and beauty may be uncomfortable to talk about with somebody who has had an eating disorder. Every topic of discussion is uncomfortable somewhere and normal somewhere else.

The meaning of life for animals Re: Becky-Jo

First off, I feel the question what is the meaning of life to animals is one of insurmountable subjectivity, especially considering we have not even nailed down the meaning of life for ourselves. Obviously, this is a more lighthearted subject, after all I feel we cannot really infer what the actual meaning of life to non-human animals is because we are not one. I shall do my best to respond to the question at hand, however.

I would say the meaning of life to an animal is just that, to live. I might be way off base in assuming that animals have no need or time to consider what they want to do with their lives, what to be when they grow up, what they should invest their money in, whether or not God exists, or contemplate when they are going to die. Animals seem to want or need a few things, these being, the need to eat, sleep, have sex, rinse and repeat. Granted I might be skipping over some things, like social interaction or bathing. However, I think that animals know more than we do and thus require less time for pondering such ideas like the meaning of life. In short I would assert that the meaning of living to an animal is basic functions for survival and I feel that humans could learn a lot if they stopped questioning and just started living.

potentiality vs. speciesism

In class today, the subject of potentiality was brought up. My understanding of the subject as explained by various participating members of the class is as follows: An object or being can be judged in numerous ways, one of which being its potential. Stated another way an ethical choice can be made towards or rather between two objects based on either's potential. An example of this theory being the question which is more important the acorn or the leaf of the oak tree. Theoretically the most 'choice' answer would be the acorn seeing as it has the potential to become a brand new oak tree while the leaf just sadly seeps into the soil and is slowly forgotten. However, another topic discussed was that of speciesism. This being the perhaps immoral favoring of ones own species over another. My curiosity is whether or not potentiality can outweigh speciesism, or the affects of it. To put it into exact circumstances: If for some hypothetical situation a human being had to make a decision as to whether or not a baby child died or a monkey used in science died. Hopefully, most people would choose, no matter how unfortunate to kill the monkey used in science, perhaps simply because it is a baby and they are our own species or perhaps the baby is viewed as having more potential then the monkey when the baby grows up. I want to examine the latter example more closely. If the baby, say a one year old is seen as having eventual potential, more so than the monkey of science then a human would be inclined, more to the point, obligated to save the baby's life. However, what if the baby had a disease that would prevent he or she from reaching this potential. Say, for example the child is born with Tay-Sachs or encephalitis and the monkey is completely healthy and able to make solid contributions to the scientific community. Would the lack of potential in the human child make the human deciding which life to save, choose the monkey? Or more generally, does potential or in this case a lack of outweigh the intrinsic speciesism, perhaps biologically imprinted in human beings?