Equality Is A Myth
But there's still a good reason to use it as a guideline
We live in a world ever increasingly concerned with equality and equity. The problem is that the people concerned with these things have equality as can be reasonably applied, and thus why they’re more so pushing equity. But what is equity?
early 14c., equite, "quality of being equal or fair, impartiality;" late 14c., "that which is equally right or just to all concerned," from Old French equite (13c.), from Latin aequitatem (nominative aequitas) "the uniform relation of one thing to others, equality, conformity, symmetry;" also "just or equitable conduct toward others," from aequus "even, just, equal" (see equal (adj.)).
As you can see, equity is not particularly distinct from equality. So what do they mean by it? Well, if you go to the bottom of the definition in the link we get:
By 1980s it had taken on extended senses in sociology, e.g.: "allocating benefits in various policy fields in such a way as to provide groups, persons, and places with at least a minimum level of benefits so as to satisfy basic needs" [Stuart S. Nagel, "Equity as a Policy Goal," 1983].
What this means is that the way people use the words, equality means fair or impartial treatment, which has long meant equality under the law, value of life, and regarding opportunity to exist in public life. This is, of course, subject to modification based on violations of human rights/laws. Equality has always been about making sure society doesn’t artificially hold certain people back based on arbitrary determinants.
On the other hand, when people use equity they typically means “equality of outcome” which means boosting some, and holding back others to make sure nobody gains or loses any more than anyone else. This is the world of Harrison Bergeron.
Equity, by this definition, is inherently authoritarian. It not only claims it’s for the greater good, but it claims that certain “better men” are able to calculate all of the factors to make everyone equal in all factors. This, of course, couldn’t be further from the truth.
The Inherent Inequality Of Life
The one thing that the “equity” people get right, though they can never admit it, is that no two people are actually equal. No two things are actually equal. That’s splitting hairs, but nobody can actually produce two “same” things that are actually the same because we are not capable of getting so granular in production that we can equate down to the smallest units of energy and matter. Again, that’s being a little pedantic, but it serves as an illustration.
A more relatable illustration is just the birth and growth of organic life. Because two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, the resources they have access to and consume from conception are different, and the fact that the genetic “instructions” for creating the organic form are copied at different times, under different circumstances, and we have observed “imperfect” copies via mutation or other influence in the gestational period, and the fact that early life development, which is deemed critical, happens under different circumstances for each life, there cannot possibly any sort of literal equality.
When we extend this to each of these different individuals pursuing different paths of development, based on a variety of different factors, including individual preference, we can clearly see that different lives will be capable of different things, and some of those things will be of greater preference or utility than others.
Why We Should Still Pursue Base Equality
Despite these differences, the fact is that life is not just one thing, and at different times, in different places, different things will be more valuable than others. This means that we need a large variety of “value propositions” to make sure all the bases are covered, and it is not apparent how you would rank-order any of them outside of a specific context. There are also a lot of “inequities” that are not apparent until you’re deep into the weeds, if ever, and you certainly can’t justly discriminate on suspicion. If both science and law have demonstrated anything, it’s that we need compelling evidence to make a definitive call on something.
This means that lacking compelling evidence, we should operate on the assumption that life will be of some value of some unknown magnitude, at some unknown place and time, and thus depriving said life of the ability to exist as an equally free individual [compared to its categorical peers, but that’s a whole can of worms…] is unjust.
So with all of these unknowns, and potential unknowables, carrying out the plan of “equity” couldn’t be more unjust. Equity, or equality of outcome, can only serve to shackle those who are fortunate, and will ask too much of those who cannot rise further (thus forcing even more clipping of wings. Reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator).
Equity, as defined in the political present, is immoral, and equality itself is a myth. We should absolutely treat people fairly, but that’s a negotiation between individuals, that’s not a determination that can be made from ivory towers.
~Good Journey