What is Equality?
Equality Requires Objectivity to Be Determined, Yet Society Discards it at a Certain Level
Modernity speaks endlessly of equality. It is written into constitutions, marketed by corporations, and celebrated in every social campaign. Yet the louder the word is repeated, the less clear it becomes what equality actually means. In a society that denies objective truth when it comes to being, “equality” becomes a matter of negotiation rather than justice, a slogan that conceals hierarchy rather than dismantles it.
We are told that equality can be achieved through empathy, inclusion, or representation. But equality is not a sentiment; it is a measurement. And measurement, by its very nature, demands a fixed reference point. To claim that two things are equal is to imply a shared constant, a ruler that doesn’t stretch or shrink depending on who’s holding it. Modernity insists that no such constant exists. Truth, we are told, is socially constructed. Yet without a constant, equality collapses into preference or power. What passes for fairness today is often just dominance disguised as consensus.
Equality begins as a logical principle, not an emotional, empirical, or social one. Before we can measure fairness in outcomes, we must first define what it means for two things to be equal in reference to the same truth. This requires coherence, the recognition that there exists an unchanging logical relation between things that allows them to be compared in the first place.
You cannot measure the length of two lines without a ruler. But even more fundamentally, you cannot know that “longer” and “shorter” are meaningful relations unless you presuppose coherence, that length itself is a consistent property across reality. Equality, then, is not an empirical observation; it is a logical commitment to coherence.
Empirical measurements depend on logic, not the other way around. Every act of observation assumes that what you are measuring is governed by stable relations that can be compared under a constant frame. Without coherence, empirical data would be meaningless noise. Coherence therefore lives one layer deeper than empiricism, it is the logical grammar that makes fairness relationally measurable.
Now imagine a ruler that bends in favor of its builder and the builder is one of the components being measured, giving it an advantage over the others. The act of measurement would no longer be neutral. The ruler is no longer universal; the system is biased. The construct is broken. Equality, which depends on impartiality, collapses. Otherwise, the system becomes circular, and what is circular cannot be just, nor can it faithfully present the facts.
A true ruler, the objective one, must satisfy three criteria: it must be singular, it must be neutral across all that it measures, yet it must also possess authority to measure. Singularity ensures completeness; neutrality ensures fairness; authority ensures coherence. A ruler that has no authority cannot measure, but one that has authority only through self-reference cannot be fair. The measure must come from beyond the components being measured, it cannot be one of them.
Furthermore, discussions surrounding equality and human rights cannot be fully understood on the level of life alone. Life, human or otherwise, is not self-sustaining. It is contingent on countless nonhuman systems: sunlight, gravity, water, minerals, time, and the very space that holds them. Any measure of equality confined to the human sphere will inevitably distort itself, because humans depend on what they do not control. This is the very example of said contingency. Therefore, to measure equality coherently, we must step beyond the frame of “life” and observe existence itself.
Therefore, the most comprehensive level of measurement is ontological, at the level of being. It is at this level that we can recognize the common attribute that unites all things: contingency. Every being, from a person to a particle to an idea, exists dependently, not by its own necessity. Existence itself is a network of dependencies. This is not belief; it is observation. Everything that exists is a contemporary, existing alongside other contingent things in mutual dependence.
Recognizing contingency as the common feature of all things allows equality to be measured logically and transparently. From this basis, we can discover, not invent, efficient ways to examine and quantify fairness. The method is simple in principle: identify the common attribute (contingency), step outside of it, and observe it impartially and logically. That “outside” reference, the non-contingent, is what allows the system to be coherently measured. God, then, is not a being within the set, but the coherent marker of being itself, the necessary reference point that makes objective observation possible.
The human mind, however suppressed, retains an instinctual awareness that coherence must exist. Sentimental moralism, though fragile and endlessly manipulable, cannot be erased; under duress it resurfaces unfailingly, pointing back to the deeper truth that coherence precedes reality. It persists. Even when narratives obscure or ridicule the recognition of objective fairness, the mind instinctively seeks a fixed point, a standard, a logical anchor. This instinct is the internal signal that objectivity is not merely procedural but foundational to existence itself.
Manipulation to obscure this recognition has been a common theme reinforced in media and classic literature starting from a young age. Classic literature from Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov to Tolstoy’s Resurrection frames God as a character, a contemporary being, evaluated by human standards. Even subtle moments in children’s shows, like the popular family tv series Little House on the Prairie, often presented God as a tangible figure whose presence can be questioned to reinforce skepticism. In children’s literature such as Dear God, Are You There? It’s Me, Margaret, the protagonist negotiates with God as if God were a being within the set rather than the logical ground of being. In music, “What If God Was One of Us?” similarly turns the divine into a hypothetical peer. Time and time again, across media, these narratives keep audiences fixated on empirical imagination rather than ontological recognition, distracting them from the very logic that underpins existence.
Here lies the great irony: those at the top of the hierarchy understand objectivity. It is implicitly referred in other ways—efficiency, innovation, optimization, science. The systems that govern modern life—finance, technology, law, and science—all rely on strict logical coherence. The scientific method itself is grounded in the pursuit of objectivity: observation, consistency, repeatability, and elimination of bias. Coherence is the formula for discovering truth. It is what allows us to build machines, calculate trajectories, map the universe, and turn arbitrary and copious amounts of data into intelligence.
Those who rise to the top of these systems understand this. They know that reality operates according to objective patterns. They use coherence to advance technology, predict behavior, and shape economies. Objectivity is the silent engine of progress, but withholding and clouding this narrative turns it into the silent instrument of control.
When the same method is applied to the social sphere, to calibrate fairness, distribute justice, or recognize equality, suddenly it becomes “controversial.” To speak of objective fairness is branded as rigidity, arrogance, or even hatred. The same coherence that engineers scientific advancement is rejected when it threatens to equalize power.
Aldous Huxley captured this dynamic in Brave New World Revisited:
“Children are nowhere taught, in any systematic way, to distinguish true from false, or meaningful from meaningless, statements. Why is this so? Because their elders, even in the democratic countries, do not want them to be given this kind of education.”
Equality could, in principle, be pursued with the same precision and transparency as science. The same human capacity for logical discernment could be used to evaluate fairness, to test, refine, and improve it through consistent reasoning. But it isn’t. Instead, the public is trained to confuse emotion with morality, empathy with justice, and agreement with truth.
Objectivity is the only true leveler that produces equality without stripping components of their attributes. Modern justice systems recognizes the importance of objectivity in the pursuit of justice, but society is propagandized from pursuing an objective mind to recognize being. At the level of being, objective analysis recognizes all beings as contingent, equally dependent on the same order of reality. It does not flatter anyone’s identity or bias. It does not bend to culture, wealth, or narrative. To see existence objectively is to recognize that no one is more real than another. Each person, no matter their position, exists within the same contingent frame upheld by the same non-contingent ground. That recognition, not simply empathy or representation that lacks coherence to demand equal footing, is what gives rise to equality.
At the root of all this lies a crucial recognition: coherence presupposes being. This reality is underpinned by logic. God, in the deepest sense, is found in the logic that sustains existence, that underpins the empiricism of this reality. Narratives that insist on locating God empirically, or as a being among beings, are red herrings; distractions engineered to prevent the public from demanding objective discernment for advocacy and equality.
Coherence enables observation, measurement, and discernment. It fuels science, technology, and progress. But when applied to social fairness, it is deliberately obscured. Understanding the logic behind being, the abstract coherence that governs reality, is essential for recognizing equality, monitoring fairness scientifically, and promoting transparent advocacy.
Western narratives, from childhood media to modern pop culture, consistently distract from this ontological foundation, leaving humans pliable to those who have mastered coherence and objectivity to shift narratives. Recognizing God as coherence at the level of being is not about faith in an obscure being; it is about acknowledging the logical foundation that makes reality, measurement, and equality possible.
Freedom without objectivity is chaos; equality without objectivity is tyranny disguised as virtue. Objectivity anchors equality in reality. It ensures that no ideology, institution, or identity can claim divinity over others. The moment objectivity is dismissed as “rigid” or “oppressive,” we open the door for manipulation to wear the mask of liberation.
When the ruler bends, equality becomes theater. When coherence is denied, fairness becomes performance. Only objective analysis at the level of being, the logic underpinning reality, makes justice visible, measurable, and universal. This logic supersedes all the dogma that accumulates around religion thereafter. It is the quiet core of what every revelation once sought to express before being obscured by human interpretation, ritual, and power. Across history, this pure, abstract recognition of coherence, that being itself demands an unbending reference point upon which objective analysis can be applied, has been buried, rebranded, or ritualized, yet it remains the heart of every genuine search for truth. And because it is so abstract, it must be protected by those capable of recognizing it, not for themselves, but for those who cannot yet grasp the concept of it, and guarded from those who would obscure it as a means to obtain a stronghold over power. For this logic is the very structure that makes equality, justice, meaning and discovery possible at all, and so sacred that it is indeed worthy of devotion.