We should achieve equality, even if it makes everyone extremely poor or living a horrible life

P1. If equality is the best thing in the world, then we should achieve equality, even if it makes everyone extremely poor or living a horrible life.

P2. Equality is the best thing in the world.

C. We should achieve equality, even if it makes everyone extremely poor or living a horrible life.

(C = topic)

P1 

Now, P1 is obviously true, because if something is the best, then it should be achieved no matter what.

P2

P2 is also true, because when people are equal, there is no unfair advantage or unfair disadvantage. There is no one person suffering while other enjoys. Either they all enjoy either they all suffer. Since there is no any proof that one person is more important than another, different treatment cannot be justified. Thus, lack of equality cannot be justified.

With P1 and P2 proven obviously true, the conclusion (topic) follows:

C. We should achieve equality, even if it makes everyone extremely poor or living a horrible life.

P1: If equality is the best thing in the world, then we should achieve equality, even if it makes everyone extremely poor or living a horrible life.
Your first premise assumes that anything labeled “the best” warrants pursuit at all costs, which is about as logical as saying, “If chocolate cake is the best dessert, we should eat it even if it gives us diabetes and destroys our pancreas.” There’s no room in this argument for trade-offs, nuance, or the possibility that sacrificing everything for a singular ideal might actually be counterproductive. “The best” doesn’t mean “blindly pursue with no regard for consequences.” Try again.

P2: Equality is the best thing in the world.
Equality is lovely in theory—like unicorns and world peace. But your argument doesn’t establish why it’s inherently the best, just why it’s preferable to inequity. There’s a difference. Equality can easily mean  equal suffering, as you helpfully pointed out in your conclusion. And let’s not forget that fairness and equality aren’t synonymous. Cutting everyone’s legs off so they’re equally short isn’t moral or practical. It’s just…sadistic.

Conclusion: We should achieve equality, even if it makes everyone extremely poor or living a horrible life.
 Congratulations, you’ve managed to craft an argument that prioritizes ideological purity over actual outcomes. This conclusion assumes that misery is justified as long as it’s evenly distributed. But here’s a pro tip: a world where “everyone is equally suffering” isn’t utopia—it’s dystopia. And while you claim there’s no proof one person is more important than another, you ignore the reality that unequal outcomes often come from unequal effort, talent, or choices—not unfairness.

Final Thoughts:

The premise is flawed, the logic is lazy, and the conclusion is morally bankrupt. You’re essentially arguing for equal misery over unequal happiness, which isn’t noble; it’s nihilistic. If you’re going to sell equality as “the best thing in the world,” try doing it without making existence objectively worse for everyone.