All man's progress (and occassionally, his downfall), starts with a thought. This is the single reason why thinking - right thinking - is such a critical thing to mankind. Thinking on its own is adorable, but when employed in the pursuit of Truth, is the most remarkable faculty posssessed by mankind.
It is thinking, applied in this manner, that we call Philosophy, and far from the constraints of formal debates, dull classes or tense sermons, philosophy has been (and is still) practised and enjoyed by men and women of all kinds; from way back, when man first questioned the relevance of keeping a wolf about him instead of chasing it off, to this present moment - as you probably ponder whether it makes sense to allow this volume to engage your thinking capacity for the next couple minutes or days... or whether it's easier and preferable give-in to the temptation of ignoring Truth.
Think about it, don't you really want to find out more? Ask more questions? Question the answers and counter-answers? Compare competing "truths" or just discard all pretensions to truth and just seek the Truth? And what is Truth anyways?
Why not join us, take a long walk, as we talk and think, about some very important questions, so we can finally sit down or jump (in surrender or celebration), when we finally stumble upon the Truth! Truth, when finally possessed, sets you FREE and EMPOWERS YOU. Come, let's walk...
Without losing ourselves in unrealistic ideals, it is indeed unfair and unjust for one to consider that all humans are created equal. Simple observation of the varied conditions under which every mother bares her child or even the intrinsic, biological and psychological variations with which every other child is born with, would only make clear that the idea that "we were created equal" though plausible, isn't equivalent to the notion that "all humans are equal", and neither can it be argued that the later is a consequence of the former. We are not equal, and it's more by design than accident in my opinion.
Consider this case of the man and his wife: On the one hand, you have a man who forever must wake up before sunrise and sleep past midnight, all in pursuit of the bread and dress his wife demands. The wife, on the other hand, only knows to arise close to midday, tidy herself and the home, eat everything her husband can afford, after which she spends the rest of her waking hours daydreaming, gossiping, watching the latest soap or series, reading a fashion magazine or making more demands of her husband. If in such an unfortunate home (not so far off from many families I know of today), it were to be considered law, for the man and woman to have the same rights and privileges (and it probably is, under many current jurisdictions), oh how much injustice their would be under that roof!
No. Justice is this; that everyone is accorded honor, privilege and entitlement only in proportion to their worth. To do otherwise would be a violation of sense (however uncommon nowadays) and reason. The basic thesis being; considering that the common good is greater than that of the individual, then, if one person should possess utility to the group as does another, it would be logical and fair, for each to be valued or treasured (by those to whom they hold value), in proportion to their effective utility. It ought be such, for any form of reward or entitlement, and as can then be seen, unless each human were to be of uniform utility to his fellows (in comparison to all), then some men would warrant higher entitlement than others - and this is not equality - by virtue of what each man possesses, but (interestingly and more importantly), is equality in the sense that every man would only be entitled to reward, according to his worth. Whether or not the reward is bestowed unto him or not is another matter, but that he that deserves it can get it in principle is the important thing. We are thus equal under law, not in kind, and this is, as will soon be observed, is a principle of mortal or human justice.
Some of you might have already started to frown upon all this in objection, as the foregoing principles seem, in light of conventional spiritual ideals, to be nothing but injustice. Yes, by divine standards of justice, of which only God can be said to be an able authority and exemplar, it would be argued that based on how nature bestows her rewards upon all, without consideration for ones worth or utility to his fellow men or even nature itself, the principles just presented seem flawed.
Indeed, it isn't strange to see the murderer and his villainous sons enjoy such sublime natural rewards as sunsets, the soothing music of birds and clean air. Nor is it unheard of, to find a just and pious man suffering from the perils of obstinate pestilences in his garden or the distress of having his home being ransacked by turbulent storms or rains. Nature seems to give and take from all and any, unconditionally, and what better way to see this than the fact that age and death befall all, irrespective of creed, race, color or wisdom. Thus, to the judge who would seek to employ or emulate God's system of justice, it practically be the case that no (otherwise logical) criteria would suffice, in order to bestow punishment or reward unto anyone. Divine, though such a system might seem, it can not be doubted that given man's limited capacity to act effectively within the finite constraints of reason and based on our general inaccess to sufficient information, an attempt to act based on such ideals would most likely unleash the most ridiculous forms of injustice - and this wouldn't be the first time that pretensions to religious or divine justice have caused man much more suffering and turmoil than without.
It is for these reasons that I propose we really study and come to the appreciation of the otherwise better and more pragmatic (and utilitarian) system of meritocratic justice. Well understood and implemented, a meritocracy ought be held up high, as man's closest approximation to a true application of justice. Though we have warned of pretensions to divine law, some of the ancient scribes acknowledged and championed the same ideals as we here present, when in some of the holy scriptures, they advocated for meritocractic justice thus:
To those that have, more shall be given, and to them that have close to nothing, even the little they have, shall be taken from them.
Which, re-hashed in a more humane manner would be:
To those few, with potential and or the capacity to produce, for the good of others, more ought be given, whereas, to them that either have no potential and neither capacity to aid others, what little there is being awarded to them, if it would benefit the majority, should be revoked from them.
These principles might seem mean, but it's the nature of Truth, that if you aren't ready to be objective in your inquiry and judgement, you are bound to substitute emotion for reasoning, when it comes to matters averse to your religiously held ideals. Truth doesn't have to appeal to your senses or sense of justice, it only has to be true, to be True. A meritocracy, architected well, is the ideal human republic, and would be the only means to ensure man's survival and self-earned progress.
Considering that there might be principles external to man's conscious control, but which principles have the potential to bias, skew and or control man's and nature's present and future (and these you can easily ascertain for yourselves if you wish), must explore the present matter from yet another angel. For purposes of this discussion, let's label such principles as "divine" or "transcedental", in contract to otherwise consciously limited principles.
So, besides the possibility of leveraging divine intervation (and this is a noble and sensible justification of classical supplication), in an otherwise purely human system, everyone ought work for and earn their place, and some would further argue, even their life! To those who can neither work nor give, and who can not learn to gain advantage of, or earn their worth by virtue of their relation to the divine, they would not only fail, but would likewise have no basis for any claims to justice. It should be relatively easy to sacrifice such, who would otherwise be a huge liability in an otherwise progressive system.
In a pragmatic and utilitarian system, only utility justifies entitlement, all else being injustice, inneficience or extravagance. If we must allow for possible divine agencies acting within the system as well, then to those who would otherwise not accrue any entitlement, their utility relative to the divine principles by which they work (for example a system in which faith is a currency - as is the case with magic and religious systems), might be able to earn them entitlements, even where such might turn out to be contrary to or unjust under the meritocractic principles we have just highlighted - the magician can (justly) cheat the system, and it might be hard or impossible to hold them accountable.
Ultimately, if one is only human, they ought work for what they earn. For those capable of harnessing divine principles so as to produce proof of entitlement without trading (mundane) work, by virtue of their divine capacity, are thus entitled to what they can get (and nothing more). To all else, nothing is owed by nature or the system. Such is the just meritocracy, in which both the logical and divine laws can co-exist as arbitrators of justice.
The following is an outline of a brutal, but realistic philosophy of power in our world.
This outline is a draft, and will possibly change sooner or later, to correct errors, and improve the concept.
Someone once asked this question on /r/occult, and I felt compelled to give the following response - which I echo here as well, since the response I gave, serves to illustrate some aspects of my philosophy, as has been outlined in other parts of this book or elsewhere...
In this perfect world, "imperfection" is part of the design, and is in most ways than not necessary - it's the oil that keeps the machinery working (as it should?). Where there are masters, there ought be slaves/servants. It's inevitable.
By extension, if it were that all humans ought be equal or that there ought be fundamental equality, I argue that things would soon spiral into morbid stasis.
We need Chaos to perpetuate life and (the illusion of) progress!
In terms of social justice; I don't expect that egalitarianism is even feasible except as a thought experiment - start by demanding a physical basis for equality, and soon you'll either be mad or fanatic evangelist of a mere pipe-dream.
Where there are things to be learned - as in the world we live in, there will by necessity be teachers and students, those who know and those who don't. Heck, thanks to the complacent, passive nature of most of modern society, there's even those who are neither interested in being slaves or masters - they just want to be or don't know what to be!
Anything but egalitarianism. To those with the will to power, should they decide to act upon it, let them be free to find and seize that power. In some cases, it's even going to be necessary to create imbalances just so the end can be attained. It's all nature, and there's only something wrong with it, because you have chosen to be on the wrong side of an otherwise impersonal phenomenon. To all else, well... let Chaos prevail!