Now this question is difficult but I believe that reason can at least clear up the question for us.
Now, if people are naturally equal, that is, incapable of anything but having the same qualities as their fellow men, then how does one explain the idea that "there is always someone better than you"? If the latter is true, then there must, at all times, be someone who has a certain quality that is superior to yours, and indeed, since this cannot go into infinity, it implies a God who has the quality of Personhood at its highest perfection. So equality is not consonant with knowledge of natural inferiority.
But perhaps it can be objected that "there is always someone better than you", can be taken to mean not that "there is naturally always someone better than you" but "given the nature of the universe, it is not absurd, that there is always someone better than you". However this last interpretation would still contradict equality, since given that someone is better than you (as we know is true), then there can be no time where people are equal. To clarify, "given the nature of the universe, it is not absurd that there is always someone better than you" translates into, "Given this particular state of the universe, if it exists, then for every time, person, and you, there is some person better than you." But we know that this (unequal) state of the universe, does indeed exist and so it follows that at all times we are in no sense equals.
However several problems appear when we accept this conclusion as well. The first is that if all people were unequal all the time, then assuming that there exists some God at some time, then there must be someone superior even to God since if it were not so, then at some time, there would be someone (God) who didn't have someone better than Him. A further contradiction occurs when we examine how we use the word quality. If everyone always has different (unequal) qualities, then since contradiction is a quality, then something exists which is contradictory par excellence, and if that is true, then that something is not contradictory par excellence. Hence a contradiction is derived. The same reductio ad absurdum may be reached, by using the quality of equality instead of contradiction. And again, if everyone is inherently unequal, then how do we account for political revolutions where one person overthrows another, since to overthrow someone means to oppose them with at least equal force?
So it would seem, that reason has revealed a particularly disturbing conclusion: that we are not all equal and we are not all unequal. In that case what are we -I certainly don't know.