equality vs equity where do you stand?

[Snow 6,898]

if you believe in equality than you believe that everyone should be treated fairly, what about those who are disadvantaged in some way? do they not get special treatment and if they did, for it to be equal people who don't need it must receive it too, but that's unfair D: but for each person to receive only what they need is unfair too because some would get more than others and greed/human desire simply wouldn't let that happen

which of the two do you think is best? im a bit selfish so i kinda wanna get a box too but since im already quite tall i'd give it up to someone in need.

also checkmate feminists, communists and old starlight glimmer

Edited August 10, 2016 by Ju88snow

[RealityPublishing 323]

ERM... UUGGGHHH..... I GO WITH.... SANDWICH

[Honeysuckle 135]

Equity. But i prefer to say Equality because i'm thinking everyone should get the Equal amount of opportunities, even if someone else needs a little help.

 

When theres a child who needs help getting something on the counter, do you say "sorry kid, if you get a boost everyone gets a boost, some kids can reach it fine, everyone is doing fine on the floor."

 

NO you give the kid a boost. If someone needs help because of *insert reason that is none of my business here* we should help them.

 

if we say "i don't wanna help that'll take money/things/time away from ME" thats selfish. Why have money and time if you aren't going to use it to better the world? Rather waste time watching TV on that new 4D TV you just bought for no apparent reason? You could use that time n money to help people!

 

I'm not saying don't buy yourselves nice things with the money you worked hard for. But take some like, if you make 2,000 a month, take a hundred a month and go donate it somewhere, buy a homeless man a meal once a week, buy him a hair cut and an outfit and help him find a job. Do something thats worth something. Help your fellow humans.

[Invincible 2,091]

Equality. Disadvantaged individuals should make an effort in life to overcome their problems. Everyone should be treated fairly and not give special treatment to one another. A society where one gets more based on criteria promotes stagnation in terms of personal development, with no incentive to improve, you won't make any progress.

[Guest]

Neither, I believe in judging everything on a case by case basis and determining what is fair given the circumstances and that blanket ideas are generally easier to abuse. There's an old saying:

 

"Equality and fairness are not the same. Fairness is when everyone gets what he or she deserves. Equality is when everyone gets the same thing and that's not always fair."

[Justin_Case001 4,876]

Neither, I believe in judging everything on a case by case basis and determining what is fair given the circumstances and that blanket ideas are generally easier to abuse.

This.

 

I think when most people talk about equality, they don't mean in an extremely literal sense.  I think they are talking more about treating everyone fairly.  Of course we wouldn't treat everyone equally in a completely literal sense.  I mean, take that to technical, ridiculous extremes, and what happens?  Insanity.  What if you saw a lost child in a public place?  Any sane person would do something to help, but literally equality would say....what?  Treat the child like an adult, so ignore them and figure they can get home on their own?  Of course people require different treatment based on needs.  Of course we need to build wheelchairs for people who can't walk.  Of course men and women require different medical care for certain things.  There's a big different between blind equality and treating others fairly, and without discrimination.

[GenderIsAnIllusion 2,177]

Equality. Everyone should have equal oppurtunites. if someone is disadvantaged, that's not governments job to give them a handicap.

Edited August 13, 2016 by Shepard of Fire

[Barpy 2,225]

Mix of both equality and equity

[Concerned Bystander 2,902]

Everyone should have equal opportunity, but the system should not be skewed to produce equal outcome.  Quotas (for example) are counterproductive, and only serve to diminish the efforts made by people who are genuinely equal to their peers.

 

People should be given such assistance as is required to ensure that they are not unfairly disadvantaged, for example, ensuring that (where practical) workplaces are accessible to the disabled, but nobody should be assisted to the point where they have an actual advantage either.

Edited August 13, 2016 by Concerned Bystander

[Denim&Venöm 18,549]

I'd actually argue that the second example, the one for equity, is actually a case of equality, as in everyone is being treated fairly and is in the same place. 

 

I guess the reason soem people may take issue, is that it's genuinely unsettling, that you give everyone the same opritunity, the same starting point, and that it still isn't enough for them to get by. That for one reason or another, some people just don't have what it takes to be on the level of everyone else when given the same opportunities as them. Now I'm not advocating that they be given more resources for them to catch up, nor that they be left to fend for themselves and let social Darwinism be the judge. I'm just saying that it probably does scare people that in this race, not everyone is gonna reach the finish line, even when all the runners start from the same place. 

[Concerned Bystander 2,902]

 

 

That for one reason or another, some people just don't have what it takes to be on the level of everyone else when given the same opportunities as them. Now I'm not advocating that they be given more resources for them to catch up, nor that they be left to fend for themselves and let social Darwinism be the judge. I'm just saying that it probably does scare people that in this race, not everyone is gonna reach the finish line, even when all the runners start from the same place.

 

Pretty much, but people being scared shouldn't be a consideration (not that you were suggesting it should be).  To use an example, if a workplace is hugely male dominated, and a vacancy opens up, then female applicants should be given exactly the same consideration as male applicants, they should not be given less consideration nor given more, based only on their sex.  Basically, the job should go to the candidate with the most relevant qualifications, experience and personal qualities, not to the one that ticks certain demographic boxes.  The same of course should apply to males applying to a female dominated workplace, and to any other considerations such as ethnic background or sexual identification/preference.

[\/ 650]

(Dramatic announcer voice) In a world, where people manage to get along, help each other, and don't do random hateful bullshit, people are happy. Watch as Mike Jones, an average guy, explores an alternate world where nobody has problems, and peace has been maintained for thousands of years.

 

If everyone was nice, equality would be a perfect system. However, not everyone is nice. We live in a world where it's advantageous to be rude to others. It's kind of something we have to deal with.

[El Duderino 879]

It's not black and white in which one is better. There are certain situations where equality is what we need, but other times where we need equity. Things like opportunity. Everyone should have equal opportunities, equal pay for the same job, equal treatment under the law. But with things like (just an example off the top of my head) college scholarships and grants. Equity would be the better option because there are people who need the help and people who don't. Situations where someone doesn't have the necessary qualities or resources to have that equal opportunity vs someone who already has those things. 

[Discordly Cutiepie 2,065]

To be fair where I live it's more like the second one because I have lots of medical issues I get lots of free money from the government and others dont

 

So I'm more bias in saying I prefer it that way but that's because I could not live without it being that way

[Aurora Glimmer 494]

I think everyone should be given an equal chance to prove themselves.

[Anneal 2,197]

It's not black and white in which one is better. There are certain situations where equality is what we need, but other times where we need equity. Things like opportunity. Everyone should have equal opportunities, equal pay for the same job, equal treatment under the law. But with things like (just an example off the top of my head) college scholarships and grants. Equity would be the better option because there are people who need the help and people who don't. Situations where someone doesn't have the necessary qualities or resources to have that equal opportunity vs someone who already has those things.

 

But at the same time this is also why affimative action is so controversial. Should you base your applicants off of what their skills actually are, or are you going to favor certain groups because they are disadvantaged? Honestly I am against equity in the case of universities; it keeps a lot of Asians like me to go into the schools they want because certain universities want racial "diversity" and Asians "score too well". In this case I want equality, not equity, and judge people off of what their skills and capabilities are.

[El Duderino 879]

But at the same time this is also why affimative action is so controversial. Should you base your applicants off of what their skills actually are, or are you going to favor certain groups because they are disadvantaged? Honestly I am against equity in the case of universities; it keeps a lot of Asians like me to go into the schools they want because certain universities want racial "diversity" and Asians "score too well". In this case I want equality, not equity, and judge people off of what their skills and capabilities are.

I was not talking about affirmative action. Affirmative action is basically that a college is required by law to have a certain amount of diversity among their students, and therefore end up favoring certain people based on ethnicity when accepting students. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about things like grants and scholarships, which have nothing to do with affirmative action.

Two people could be exactly the same (same grades, same achievements, same everything) and be accepted to the same school, but if only one of them can afford the tuition, they automatically have more opportunities available to them. The person without the necessary finances would need financial aid in order to open those opportunities.

Or it wouldn't be fair if someone who got better grades and worked harder than me couldn't have the same opportunities as me just because they were in a worse financial situation than me. They need that financial aid more than I do.

That's actually how financial aid normally works. They analyze your financial situation and determine how much aid you need or don't need, that way they aren't wasting money by giving aid to those who don't need it. In that case, equity would work best.

 

I think affirmative action is kind of bullsh**, because I agree that it is fu**ed up that (like you said) keeps Asians (or anyone else) from getting into the schools they want just so the school can fill a quota and have the right amount of "diversity" required by law. That is totally a situation where equality is more appropriate than equity.

Edited August 14, 2016 by El Duderino

[Dreambiscuit 9,560]

Common sense should be used with such matters as these. Help should absolutely be given when and where needed, but those who don't really require it should not try to use it as a free ride or to get extra privileges they don't need. That just makes it hard for people to do the right thing, and the best intentions will quickly become a matter of exploitation.