Equity vs Equality - an infographic

[the_tortoise]

Many people seem to confuse equity and equality...

And many others believe "equality" is the only true fairness in all situations; While to them "equity" means "unfair special treatment advantage for some and not others".

So I thought I would post this infographic showing how in one (of many) situations, equity is actually more fair than equality...It is from this page:

Equity | Voice of Albertans with Disabilities (VAD)

 

[Judge]

True, they are terms easily misunderstood, apart from different circumstances dictating their meaning.

The first thing that comes to mind is economics. Where "equity" is so commonly connected to shareholders' interest in a publicly owned corporation. A scenario where controlling interest of shareholders can dictate outcomes that the majority of shareholders or corporate officers and directors may vehemently object to. Often involving a hostile takeover of sorts.

Nothing "fair" about that particular form of equity. But it (fairness) "looks good on paper" relative to the legal requirements of any corporate charter.

I'm also reminded of American civil procedure in a formal suit brought to a civil court of law. A process that doesn't depend on being just- or fair. Simply on a premise of which attorneys can sway a civil jury with a majority of votes in favor of a plaintiff or defendant. A matter of skill, cunning and persuasion- not fairness.

As well, the concept of "equality" (or egality) is more of a platitude than anything else. A goal for some, a curse to others. But either way a scenario that isn't likely to even exist in a body politic or specific type of economy. Particularly contrasting an ever-present sense of elitism and hierarchies found in virtually all body politics. As well, the potential for any democracy to experience the "tyranny of a political majority".

Take for instance the French Revolution. One with noble intentions, but one that became "a revolution that devoured its own children". From Louis XVI to Robespierre, to Napoleon.

 

[Dagan]

Oh, yeah. I've talked about this with people for a long time. I've never mentioned it on this forum, though, I don't think. Overall, I feel like fighting for equality is a mythical quest that will never be fulfilled. I can explain....

You have to accept the literal and figurative "ladder" to success to best understand when I claim that equality is a farce. Think of your place on said ladder - your rung, if you will. There are rungs above and below you, and there are people on said rungs. Think of each rung basically as a level of whatever class / wealth system - each rung equals a step in status. Okay. Now, just realize that is how everything in this world works, from just how you perceive yourself socially to how you seriously fit on the spectrum of power and wealth. It just absolutely is that way. It's factual, and there's no questioning it. Next is to understand that you almost always want to do better, have more, etc. meaning that you desire to move UP the ladder...moving up another rung or two or all the way to the top, perhaps. You have to then accept that you will be putting more people beneath you. But...even if you are content to whatever rung / place on the ladder you currently are...if you never desire to move up the ladder...it's a 99% chance that you fear moving DOWN. It's the utmost likelihood that you will do whatever it takes to never move down the ladder because you don't want less / lesser status / fewer options or less wealth, etc. You don't want to lose your status.

All of this proves that practically no one (maybe there are some, but there's not many people at all) seeks equality for everyone across the board. If people truly did want equality, then every single day they'd not prove otherwise trying to gain more and/or doing whatever it takes to have less.

Equity is what people truly want and should fight towards.

 

[the_tortoise]

Yes, the conceptual problems here are many and hard to concisely describe, but it strikes me that one of them is:

Both "equity" and "equality" are fundamentally about quantities and fairly or very straightforward math.

It's fundamentally similar to (might be fair to say "is the same as" -- not certain) the problem you run into with the word "normal"...

"Normal" is also about quantities, a math word, taken from statistics and warped into the huge, association-based, light-years-distance-abstracted multi-headed monstrosity of a social category that is used to describe so many symbolic variables, so many dimensions that to think of every possible definition in every possible context probably exceeds the mental capacity of the most genius abstract thinker on earth.

Equality applied to human beings, or the situations and systems we create -- it's hard to pin down...with few exceptions it ends up being arbitrary and is truly impossible/meaningless because it attempts to describe too many things only by way of conflation and over-simplification of nearly infinite variables -- tries to squish them into one single thing that is supposed to translate into universally equal power birth to death (social status and wealth being types of power).

Equitable/equity is still a sort of ill-fitting numbers word but it acknowledges uneven pieces (or even pieces, but either even or uneven distribution) of a complex whole and the distribution of those pieces even in its most literal original maths/numbers/economics defintion....this makes at least some room for the reality of all the variables involved in power distribution. It is a more closely fitting metaphor for the process of giving everyone a fair chance at similar competitive advantage, similar experience, similar quality of life -- while still acknowledging the undeniable reality of literal inequality across all the variables of human existence for any given individual in any given circumstance.

 

[Yeshuasdaughter]

I'm sorry, I cannot walk this road with you. This is leftist, democratic socialist propaganda. I live in a city burned out by antifa. And this city is a common place for refugees to settle. I have heard first hand accounts of the horrors of socialism over the years, and seen the effects of peaceful protests that very quickly turned my utopia into a burned out shell that still has yet to recover. The city council meetings to this day are full of protestors every week, who shout at anything they deem hate speech, taking down names and doxing individuals. It's sickness. And any chance we have at recovery is smashed because of "equity" that keeps all of us equally destitute and empty of any promise of recovery.

 

[Judge]

I'm sorry, I cannot walk this road with you. This is leftist, democratic socialist propaganda.

No it's not. It just reflects the same platitudes born out of the American and French revolutions. Concerns like inalienable rights, freedom of speech, press, assembly and religion. As was liberty, egality and fraternity.

Historical platitudes that existed many years before Marx or Lenin. Having nothing to do with the means of production and distribution being controlled by the state, in whole or in part.

 

[JDShredds]

I have a complicated relationship with these words, a sort of duality (not fixed on any single view). First of all, having to differentiate in what context we're applying them. Socioeconomic? Cultural? Literal/practical? For a long time I believed the greatest fairness is a meritocracy, which would be equality. In the most commonly used context, equality of opportunity, rights, treatment, etc. We all play by the same rules, and the outcomes are a result of the input.

This thought process concludes: If someone offers more, is better at something, etc they should be rewarded as such. The assumption here is this includes all demographics being treated equally. But if, socioeconomically speaking for an example, one person works 50/hr a week, is morally sound and is exceptional, and the other person doesn't work, commits crimes, and consumes, do we really think "equity" is the answer here? That is how you absolutely ruin an entire society. What incentive is there for anyone to do any good? The goodness of their heart? History tells us we can't count on that.

However, as time passes and I see how people are not created equal, nor are their opportunities ("equality" in the system does not mean "equality" in their ability), that simply will not lead to a fair balance of outcomes. Two people can have the same "opportunity," but the road that led them to who they are today can lead to drastically different outcomes, even when both put in equal efforts, and even their output for that matter. "Equality" is an illusion, not a reality. But so is "equity." They are both false ideals.

Too much gets funneled to the top and bottom. But the problem we face: this is observed in all of nature. The history of living organisms show this same exact pattern. How do we fix what is the nature of things? I truly don't have an answer. But "equity" is a dangerous ideal. It's too utopian and unrealistic for me. However, "equality" is often a term that is favored by people who have benefited from such a system, and they live under the delusion that it's fair.

I do believe in kindness. If someone needs help, and you're able to help them, you should. I believe in the way Christ taught (do not confuse this with the behavior of many Christians, or even other teachings in the bible, as Christ contradicted a lot of it and was far more sympathetic). You don't need to be a Christian to understand what I mean. Help the needy, offer generosity and kindness, offer fairness. If you have wealth, give it. What good are spoils on you alone? When you die what good is it other than having kept it from others? This leads to socialistic ideas, but nobody wants to accept that, most of all a lot of bible-belt conservatives who "claim" to be Christian.

In all reality, life isn't fair. So I do the best I can to make a positive difference in my tiny, humble way. And if anything will help society, it is that. Much more so than arguing over equality and equity.

 

[Judge]

In all reality, life isn't fair.

Indeed. Which also reflect the differences between social/political or economic platitudes and reality.

Regardless of any ideologies whatsoever. Leading for me to assume anyone who vehemently supports of opposes or polarizes such things is likely being duped by one ideology or another.

A dynamic that continues to keep me from "marrying" much of any idea. Instead willing to take them individually and in part if and when they work, and to eschew or modify them when they fail.

Political/economic ideologies have never yielded consistently objective results as being entirely right or wrong. Yet flawed (and often duped) humans continue to hope for such. Tragic for us all.

 

[the_tortoise]

I'm sorry, I cannot walk this road with you. This is leftist, democratic socialist propaganda. I live in a city burned out by antifa. And this city is a common place for refugees to settle. I have heard first hand accounts of the horrors of socialism over the years, and seen the effects of peaceful protests that very quickly turned my utopia into a burned out shell that still has yet to recover. The city council meetings to this day are full of protestors every week, who shout at anything they deem hate speech, taking down names and doxing individuals. It's sickness. And any chance we have at recovery is smashed because of "equity" that keeps all of us equally destitute and empty of any promise of recovery.

Well, you are of course entitled to think what you like, but I find your accusation satiricaly
ironic, because you are the only person discussing political groups and political ideologies, and bringing fear-mongering, misinformation-based propaganda into this discussion.

What I speak of is just reality of life, and a particular ethical viewpoint that ironically supports many of the ethics you have clearly stated you also support in other threads -- like sharing with those who have less, recognizing differences in ability, refraining from selfish exclusionary behaviours and power grabs.

I have not promoted any political ideology nor system of governace whatsoever....no propaganda from me, just reality and statement of personal ethics.

"Equality" and "equity" are not words that actually belong to any particular political ideology...they can exist and be discussed on their own.

You have yourself discussed these things, just without using these specific words and while speaking about smaller groups of people or individual actions in circumstances much tinier that an entire society or humanity as a whole. For example:

You told me to go volunteer somewhere like a soup kitchen in a thread about Christmas happiness -- guess what? That's you promoting wealth redistribution and equitable treatment for all -- that's people who have wealth (food, equipment to make and cook and serve it, a place to use the equipment to prepare and cook the food and give it away) redistributing it, giving it to those who don't have the same resources so that more people could have full tummies at Christmas, creating less inequity in nourishment and quality of life by addressing circumstances of inequality and inequity....

You told a story about growing up poor, buying a hamburger -- all the richer kids loading up on them, like it was nothing...you are describing the reality of inequality and inequity there...were you and your family poor because of socialism being in charge or the wealthiest of the wealthy in the USA being socialists when you were growing up? Or because you were socialists? I seriously doubt it.

 

[Dagan]

To want Equity across the board doesn't mean you will ever be given anything at all besides the same options to work for / earn what you're after. To want Equality across the board would be where everyone achieves being handed out everything like a socialist / leftist / communist leadership would do, but there would still be the contradiction of those few elites giving hand outs to the masses relying on them. Equality then continues being a farce. It may also well be the most effective tool for psyops in our entire history.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

Equity... at least the definition of it... sounds quite attractive. However, where it has the potential to be destructive of societies is how it can be applied in real life, such as legislation, governmental, and economic systems. There have been too many horrible mistakes made in our history... mostly the forced application of Marxist ideas, Socialism, and Communism. Historically, humans have not been able to eliminate corruption... the oligarchy walking away with all the money and resources... USSR, China, Venezuela, North Korea...just a few recent examples. Furthermore, if someone has worked, put in their time, effort, blood, sweat, and tears to accumulate wealth and property... and then the government says, "Now, you have to give it away to the less fortunate."... or perhaps, "Now, the State will just take it away and it will become property of the State and private ownership of property will be outlawed." All of the people become "comrades"... same clothes, same living conditions, you live, eat, and breathe whatever the State says you will... you are not given "choice". These are all things that these systems have in common. In every case... so far... any resistance is met with a bullet... mass graves... by the millions. This is "equity" gone wrong. Since... so far... there hasn't been a system of equity that has worked on any large scale... people really get their hackles up. Equity works on a small scale... the children in a family, a small business model, etc... but humans have a tendency to really screw things up when it comes to scaling these ideas.