Yeah, it’s pretty special. I read it a few days ago and re-read and re-read, i just couldn’t get it out of my head. Posting it today seemed appropriate.
"...the inequality of the human animal is the necessary evil, we must respond by simply saying that first, it is evil but second, it is not necessary. " Such a powerful statement. 1964 to 2024. Fifty years. And what has changed? Homo sapiens we are called - Human and Wise. Surely not. Thank you, J. Curtis, for the reminder.
I can't seem to bring your comment back but here was the text: Good speech. It's strange in a way thinking back on Rod Serling, with a cigarette in his hand, speaking about cancer. But what we don't know CAN kill us.
Hopefully no one can disagree that it is our duty to not prejudge others. Martin Luther King famously said that he longed for a day when people would be judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin. But he did believe in judging others.
There is a related concept that is really an American political belief in "equality". I think it is apparent that people are not equal in many ways. Height, weight, intelligence, and so on, may have a genetic component but learned behaviors also create inequality. Culture, beliefs, and behavior are defining and, it seems to me, sometimes mistaken for prejudice.
---
You bring up some interesting points, but a few of them need a closer look. For starters, describing equality as an “American political belief” misses the mark. The push for dignity and justice is universal—a deeply human pursuit that crosses cultures and histories. Sure, the U.S. may be a prominent voice on equality, but it’s far from the only one.
Then there’s the matter of individual differences, like height, intelligence, or background, which you mention as sources of inequality. Social equality doesn’t mean erasing individual traits; it’s about ensuring everyone gets fair treatment and opportunity. Just because people aren’t the same doesn’t mean anyone should be denied basic respect or rights.
That brings us to the question of character. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. reminded us to judge people by the “content of their character.” And why? Because the real measure of a person is in their actions, values, and how they treat others. Sometimes true compassion means being honest about someone’s character—especially when their choices and values don’t align with what’s good for the community.
In times like these, judging character isn’t optional; it’s our duty. Choosing leaders who actually represent fairness, respect, and integrity is about building a world where core values matter more than retribution, pettiness, or idolizing strongmen. I’m sure you can see that a society built on this kind of clarity—one that’s guided by compassion but unafraid to call out harmful behavior—is the only one where decency and justice can thrive. This empowers us to support leaders whose character lifts others up and genuinely pushes us forward, not just those who say what people want to hear.
Don't worry about accidentally removing the comment.
I stand by the fact that people aren't equal and that it's a political concept. I think that misunderstanding is why our current politics is so adamant about putting any ol widget in a position of power and expecting that they will be successful. There is a concept that all people should be treated with respect but people simply aren't equal. One doctor is better than another, one baseball player is better than another and one leader is more competent than another. I see it as obvious.
If people aren’t equal from the start, then by your logic, wouldn’t that mean some embryos—those with life-threatening conditions, for example, or those conceived through rape or incest—might be “less than” others?
Doesn’t that line of thinking start to unravel your idea that all life is sacred? Be careful how far down that rabbit hole you go.
Lack of being equal isn't the same as value as a human. People aren't widgets. That's my point. Your story about the decision machine illustrates that, I think.
The point of the Serling piece is about equality; that God-given right to be whomever you want, whatever shape you want to be. And, last I checked, I don’t think anyone anointed you to decide what value someone else has.
Powerful word. I wish more people not only heard these words, but listened to them, absorbed them, and lived them with their every breath!
Thanks for sharing. Serling wrote this? Mind blown.
Yeah, it’s pretty special. I read it a few days ago and re-read and re-read, i just couldn’t get it out of my head. Posting it today seemed appropriate.
"...the inequality of the human animal is the necessary evil, we must respond by simply saying that first, it is evil but second, it is not necessary. " Such a powerful statement. 1964 to 2024. Fifty years. And what has changed? Homo sapiens we are called - Human and Wise. Surely not. Thank you, J. Curtis, for the reminder.
I can't seem to bring your comment back but here was the text: Good speech. It's strange in a way thinking back on Rod Serling, with a cigarette in his hand, speaking about cancer. But what we don't know CAN kill us.
Hopefully no one can disagree that it is our duty to not prejudge others. Martin Luther King famously said that he longed for a day when people would be judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin. But he did believe in judging others.
There is a related concept that is really an American political belief in "equality". I think it is apparent that people are not equal in many ways. Height, weight, intelligence, and so on, may have a genetic component but learned behaviors also create inequality. Culture, beliefs, and behavior are defining and, it seems to me, sometimes mistaken for prejudice.
---
You bring up some interesting points, but a few of them need a closer look. For starters, describing equality as an “American political belief” misses the mark. The push for dignity and justice is universal—a deeply human pursuit that crosses cultures and histories. Sure, the U.S. may be a prominent voice on equality, but it’s far from the only one.
Then there’s the matter of individual differences, like height, intelligence, or background, which you mention as sources of inequality. Social equality doesn’t mean erasing individual traits; it’s about ensuring everyone gets fair treatment and opportunity. Just because people aren’t the same doesn’t mean anyone should be denied basic respect or rights.
That brings us to the question of character. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. reminded us to judge people by the “content of their character.” And why? Because the real measure of a person is in their actions, values, and how they treat others. Sometimes true compassion means being honest about someone’s character—especially when their choices and values don’t align with what’s good for the community.
In times like these, judging character isn’t optional; it’s our duty. Choosing leaders who actually represent fairness, respect, and integrity is about building a world where core values matter more than retribution, pettiness, or idolizing strongmen. I’m sure you can see that a society built on this kind of clarity—one that’s guided by compassion but unafraid to call out harmful behavior—is the only one where decency and justice can thrive. This empowers us to support leaders whose character lifts others up and genuinely pushes us forward, not just those who say what people want to hear.
Also, I didn't mean to remove the comment. Simply hit the wrong button and now it won't come back.
Don't worry about accidentally removing the comment.
I stand by the fact that people aren't equal and that it's a political concept. I think that misunderstanding is why our current politics is so adamant about putting any ol widget in a position of power and expecting that they will be successful. There is a concept that all people should be treated with respect but people simply aren't equal. One doctor is better than another, one baseball player is better than another and one leader is more competent than another. I see it as obvious.
If people aren’t equal from the start, then by your logic, wouldn’t that mean some embryos—those with life-threatening conditions, for example, or those conceived through rape or incest—might be “less than” others?
Doesn’t that line of thinking start to unravel your idea that all life is sacred? Be careful how far down that rabbit hole you go.
Lack of being equal isn't the same as value as a human. People aren't widgets. That's my point. Your story about the decision machine illustrates that, I think.
So, everyone has value? Some? A lot?
The point of the Serling piece is about equality; that God-given right to be whomever you want, whatever shape you want to be. And, last I checked, I don’t think anyone anointed you to decide what value someone else has.