Equity vs Equality (Philosophical Distinction)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
- A description of the difference between equality and equity including an explanation of Aristotle's Numerical Equality vs Proportional Equality and how that distinction maps onto the modern conception of equity and equality.
Sponsors: João Costa Neto, Dakota Jones, Joe Felix, Prince Otchere, Mike Samuel, Daniel Helland, Mohammad Azmi Banibaker, Dennis Sexton, Yu Saburi, Mauricino Andrade, Will Roberts and √2. Thanks for your support!
Donate on Patreon: / carneades
Buy stuff with Zazzle: www.zazzle.com/...
Follow us on Twitter: @CarneadesCyrene / carneadescyrene
![FendiDa Rappa - Clock Dat ft. Shamar Marco [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3NBU8KHdxYY/mqdefault.jpg)
The thing about the fence situation is that the tallest kids usually make the boxes. Get too eager to pass them out and the box makers make less of them.
If they had all purchased tickets they wouldn't need boxes.
Maybe the fence is there for a reason and all the kids with their boxes are cheating someone out of their privacy.
@@ReisterJP Or watching the game without tickets
boxes, therefore, should not be left to the market
@@RaviPillalamarri I agree mostly, I am no longer a free market proponent. We would be collectively better off if we used criminals, mentally disabled and sexual deviants to build the boxes so the fully functioning and properly adjusted individuals could use their time more effectively.
Very interesting concept, I never heard of this distinction but it makes quite a bit of sense. Great video!
Thanks! And thanks for watching!
the fence thing dies if the kids buy tickets to the game to watch it properly. So none of the kids should be watching the game for free...
Haha. It is just a lot harder to visualize with things that we do consider rights like education or job opportunities.
we don't have a right to either of those things. education is a public good, you have the right to obtain it, but you do not have the right for it to be provided for you. you have a right to apply for job opportunities, you do not have a right for people to give you those opportunities.
I believe education should be provided for you. I also believe people have the right to be given opportunities. If the government can't even do these things right, why would we need them.
opportunities are always there and people are trying to help you, trying to handed it to you. It's just that people chose not to have them.
poyi1013 educating people requires labor. That labor requires you to pay people. You do not get to enslave people by demanding their labor, you do get to enter into an agreement with someone and give them something they want, like money, in exchange for their labor. You are not entitled to anything. You enter into a series of agreements where you are held accountable as much as the party you are employing to provide labor. If someone wants to give you labor and opportunities, that is their CHOISE. It doesn't mean you have a right to it. It means they agreed to give it to you, most of the time under restrictive circumstances.
For example; if someone gives you a job they are making a choice to give that opportunity to you under the agreement that you will preform the job adequately. Once you stop upholding your end of the bargain, they have the right to take that opportunity away from you. If they do not believe that you have the qualifications that prove that you will be able to hold up your end of the deal, they have the right to not give you that opportunity.
@@elissbern That labor would be paid for with taxes, like they already are. Equity is mainly not distributing help to those who dont need it, but if someone needs extra help that being provided. A teacher cant be expected to give the same amount of help to an excelling child and a struggling child.
Equal Outcome or Equal Opportunity. When simplified for the masses, it's logical to most people to determine which is best for a situation. If someone is trying to make it confusing then they are most likely trying to deceive you.
The issue is it seems that there are things that society disagrees on even when framed as equal outcomes vs equal opportunity. Admission to universities is one. Should all students be judged the same, or should students from historically underrepresented groups be given a leg up? There seems to be a fair amount of disagreement on this.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene Especially amongst and with respect to Asian ethnicities, who are experiencing the opposite end of the stick.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene There will always be disagreements when we base decisions on identity instead of on individuals. Arguments against individualism breach natural rights of freedom. The only beneficial way to provide equal outcome is to abolish freedom and adopt a more socialist approach. This is, at least in America, only going to end catastrophically. Those that enjoy being free will not let the oppressors of equality restrict their freedom for the sake of another. Our nation has not and should never guarantee an outcome, only the opportunity to achieve that outcome.
so by your own logic you are being deceitful since I don`t have any idea what "Equal Outcome or Equal Opportunity" are supposed to stand for?
There's a fair amount of motivated reasoning behind pretty much all arguments against addressing historic underrepresentation. For example, definitions of merit change when the dominant group starts losing its advantage. That is, if another group starts getting high test scores, the definition of merit will expand to include subjective criteria like leadership and well-roundedness. Every admissions decision is an affirmative action by the college to get the incoming class they want. And then there are things like the Dean's Interest List which is just whom you know or maybe buying your way in.
I really learned a lot from your this video
I don't think equity, in the sense of 'seeking an equal outcome', should EVER be used. However, we might see a similarity between that idea and the idea of 'seeking a minimum outcome'. Perhaps people should be given help below a certain standard, but none above.
I like that argument, and some studies which show that income increases happiness up to a certain level (where your basic needs are met) would support that. The question is where exactly that basic level falls. Should you be able to afford a smartphone? electricity? Internet? What is a necessity these days, it is not the same thing everywhere you are.
Valosken I tend to agree with you although if you think about it there are examples of equity that almost everyone seems to agree with. I’m thinking something like wheelchair ramps for example.
Wouldn't that necessarily entail you denounce things like equal access to clean water and equal access to fire or legal protection services?
If equailty is everyone being treated the same, and equity is people being treated proportionally to their need; who determines NEED? If we can say objectively that certain groups need more to achieve the same outcome as those who don't, who determines that need vs not need duality? And the better question is, should they? And why?
This is my question as well!
Seems like equity violates equality in almost every instance.
They are certainly opposing notions of fairness. The challenge is that most people think that there are some cases where equality is clearly wrong (we shouldn't give everyone glasses with the average prescription), and other cases where equity is clearly wrong (we should be allowed to consider whether you went to medical school when hiring a doctor). The problem arises in the many cases for which it is not clear which treatment is better.
I agree, but I don't see why we would expect it to be any different given the natural variability in outcomes.
Actually it doesn't and here is why. Take the gifted and talented programs and the special needs programs are forms of equity education where they people who need special attention for both issues get special attention, this allows individuals to exceed as an over all benefit to everyone as a whole. We all know that children benefit better in some instances from different treatment when it comes to their needs, individualized learning programs like the Silvan learning center etc. has been the rage for decades and they work. By in 2001 GW and gang instituted the no child left behind mantra, which did not fulfill the goal of increasing the education of the children at large. This new goal equity will teach the children who were deliberately left behind better with greater individualized attention and focused studies as they need them. That's why it does not violate equality. Think about it this way, if you have children and you treat them all the same while ignoring their individual needs you are not practicing fairness.
@@Ryooken You seem to be slightly addled.
Your example does not show why it doesn't, but actually further bolsters OP's premise instead.
You have, in fact, given more examples of why equity would violate the concept of equality.
Consider that, giving everyone parity in their attention and resources would not be in alignment with equity, yet would nonetheless be an example of equality.
The truth is that parity in the formerly described assistance would be saliently inequitable given that those who have promising potential are treated the same as those who are struggling to get by.
This is why when you say "That's why it does not violate equality" after literally describing a circumstance in which equality is violated in order to achieve equity, you are making a demonstrably false claim.
"Think about it this way, if you have children and you treat them all the same while ignoring their individual needs you are not practicing fairness."
Therefore, your example is not a refutation of OP's position, but instead bolsters it even further.
@@ParadymShiftVegan Your response was rather unenlightened.
You said "You seem to be slightly addled."
Oh? How so?
You said "Your example does not show why it doesn't, but actually further bolsters OP's premise instead."
Oh? How so?
You said "You have, in fact, given more examples of why equity would violate the concept of equality."
Again how so?
You said "Consider that, giving everyone parity in their attention and resources would not be in alignment with equity, yet would nonetheless be an example of equality."
Actually your premise is false here. What I said addressed two groups as they are now. It's not a full example of parity of either equity or equality. What has been done is a slanted version of some equity without equality. I used this example to demonstrate the equality argument does not work because we give preferential treatment to some students with special needs on both ends of the spectrum to white children while leaving others behind. Yet, claiming equity is bad when it comes to using this approach for all students. If we were to stop these programs it would adversely impact not only these two groups of students and punish everyone else in the process. By the OP claiming that this use of equity is somehow unfair when we already recognize the needs of students with special circumstances is in itself discriminatory.
You said "The truth is that parity in the formerly described assistance would be saliently inequitable given that those who have promising potential are treated the same as those who are struggling to get by."
Actually they are not but that's not why your premise fails. You are assuming a balanced book between the three groups of students and that doesn't happen. What you are stating is that nonsense they said during segregation of separate but equal. The situation isn't equal to begin with. While it is better than nothing, my point was and I am sorry you missed it that if the system recognizes that there people that have special needs that cannot be met by doing the status quo then they can't claim that recognizing the problem on a larger scale is somehow unfair. It's like saying everyone gets the same size shoes without recognizing that everyone have different size feet.
You said "Therefore, your example is not a refutation of OP's position, but instead bolsters it even further."
Actually it does, bolster it and here is why. The OP is badly stating his perspective on history but doesn't define the difference between equity vs equality why decrying it's new use. What he is arguing badly is that the one size fits all is better than tailoring things to the individual while ignoring that there have always been privilege that allows for the individual while requiring the under privileged to take whatever is left distributed supposedly equally. Now that we are going about righting these wrong, he cries foul and attempts to reduce this into what I would call the cry for the continuation of social Darwinism.
What is dont like about the fence example it that it is exactly analogous to the expletives wherein the fence is just a little higher. Then under the numerically equal result only the tall person can see, but under the equitable situation none of them can. This is an example that demonstrates equitable distribution leading to a less favorable outcome than the numerically equal distribution.
6:33 umm, technically nobody has a burden to prove they aren't guilty. Prosecutors have the burden to prove they are guilty. Innocent until proven guilty means the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove guilt, not on the accused to prove they aren't guilty.
This! 👍
Only in certain countries.
While this is true you should probably still get a defense attorney if you're accused of something
There is no equality in the fact that a man's sperm fertilize the egg, at the same time the man's chromosomes determine the gender. But he has no say pertaining to giving birth or killing the baby. Now if the woman decides to give birth . The court will supposedly intervene on the child's best interest by making the man pay child support even if he never wanted to be a father. The court should allow the Man the opportunity to say to the woman give birth and I will lovingly take responsibility soul custody of the newborn... And I also know to be true if we believe in equal rights. When the man is forced to pay child support or willingly he should be able to have a itemized list of every penny that is spent on the infant, baby, toddler, young child, teenager and I would say more importantly the court should mandate that the woman learns why breast feeding has been scientifically classified and religiously verified as the absolute best experience mother and baby, toddler, young child can experience.. Because the physical, mental, financial, and spiritual benefits are constantly consisting throughout their entire life I guarantee that fact alone will encourage more women to become mothers at the same time inspiring mothers to breast-feed opposed to formula. Fortunately I am educated enough on the subject to go into great detail pertaining to such matters if anybody has the heart bring it on.
it's a simple concept basic logic if life is not free why the hell would death be any cheaper it's not. So the question one may wonder is the spiritual cost to one's own soul and spirit for having lived and died to the lowest standards of quality for so many years now global pollution has diminished the quality of life to the point where today's people are living, dying and yielding the worst spiritual kickback that has ever been manifested since the beginning of life only getting worse. The polar opposite extreme to that is today's people should be living and dying to the highest standards of quality which would make each and every moment physically, mentally, financially and spiritually beneficial. S.R.F.
Basic, should be equitable within reason. This is the republic. Basic means foundational. Basic rights, basic income, basic needs. If a society is able to supply basic rights and basic needs for their members, without violating basic needs or basic rights, then equality is appropriate for the foundation of society to support the creativity of its members. Anything above the line of basic needs, gets divided into creative rights and common rights. You control what you create, you are not taxed or abused in exercising your rights. You are granted an equal portion of the common resources in society, and treated equally in common with respect to societies common rights, and all common properties of a society. A tax as we have come to know it, is a violation of common rights and is obscene in the realm called equity.
I'm not convinced that equity, as I comprehend it, is not applied in certain situations, but am open to clarification. I've been using the dictionary definitions so perhaps the philosophical distinctions are more nuanced and/or precise.
I am slightly confused by the double negative, but let me see if I understand. Do you think that there are not situations currently where we treat people with equity? Eyeglasses are the prime example. No one thinks giving someone a pair of glasses that match their prescription constitute an unfair advantage, but these are clearly an equitable, not any equal solution. We don't give everyone the same prescription, people with worse eyesight get a stronger prescription. Or do you think that there are no situations where people are treated equally? One might think of complex examples like job interviews, sales tax, or courts, but a simple one might be a lottery where everyone gets one ticket. Or do you think that there are some situations where neither is applied? Most would not argue with you here, the question for ethicists is in those situations which should we be applying? Equity or equality?
@@CarneadesOfCyrene You have my sincerest apologies; rereading my message, I can see that I didn't articulate myself very clearly at all 😝
Firstly, I would just like to clarify that equity, as I comprehend the term, means fairness, being just, being impartial, etc. while equality is essentially synonymous with parity.
To answer your question, I can't imagine any situations where we would not be treating others equitably outside of a corrupted government system or exploitative situation where victims are being unjustly, or inequitably treated.
I'd also like to mention that I feel confident in my grasp of your kid-box example diagram.
On another side note, I would furthermore like to mention that giving people treatment proportional to their needs does indeed seem like a reasonable entailment of fairness or the state of being just (notwithstanding your explanation of it's properties that could still at times give unjust outcomes), but nonetheless (to me at least) doesn't seem necessary or intrinsic to the term, even if we were to assume it was always implemented in a "just" manner.
For example, even though it would perhaps be more just, in some sense, if a person in privation gets adequate support to allow them to be in a more stable situation while the exceedingly wealthy person receives no such support, but if that comes at the cost of forcibly removing excess resources from the exceedingly wealthy in order to redistribute the resources more evenly, can it truly be said to be equitable to do so? Isn't part of the incentive to make money the assurance to be able to spend it on what one likes without having to support others? Is it just and fair for someone to take the money one earns and give it to another who didn't earn it just because it ostensibly maximizes utility overall?
Questions like these make me think that assigning treatment proportional to needs might be accurate as a general heuristic, but perhaps not as an intrinsic component.
That being said, what I meant was that when you say in the video:
"It seems to me that there are situations in which equity is also something which society does not value "
it wasn't at all clear to me what you were saying.
You then elaborated with what seemed to me to be examples of parity such as getting equal treatment before the law, as well as examples of questioning the boundaries of equity, such as the lawyer vs. burden of proof analogy.
This became even more puzzling when you went on to claim:
"If we want to be equitable in terms of skills and hiring practices, by giving a proportional level of preference to those of fewer skills, then the person that is hired to build the car you buy should have an equal chance to have the skills necessary to do this job as not. I'm skeptical that anyone would claim that these are all cases in which we would treat people equitably. Therefore, what makes some cases ones where we value equity and others not?"
To address the first part regarding the hiring practices, I don't see how this example isn't blatantly expressing equality, rather than equity (as is claimed), so I don't see why you were using it as an example as equity (unless I'm misinterpreting your quote).
Going back to what I mentioned earlier, equity doesn't seem to always be aligned with treatment proportional to needs. Otherwise, in certain contexts we are surely talking about not equity, but parity, or equality (given that all are treated the same or given the same value assignment such as in the case of the hiring process where those of all skills are given an equal chance -thus an example of parity of hiring, or equality in the hiring process- as opposed to equity, which would be giving people opportunity based on merit, hence them deserving it, making the hiring process just or equitable).
You claimed that we would not treat people equitably in these cases, but that only seems true to me if we're assuming that all equity entails this principle of proportional need fulfillment, which doesn't follow as near as I can tell, and as I outlined earlier.
Also, to answer your other poignant questions:
1) I suspect there is a high probably that there are some situations in which people are treated equally, but I'm certain that given that this is indeed the case that it's highly dependent on the context of said treatment.
2) In short, I intuit the answer would be most likely. I think deeming situations where equality would not be present is also very context dependent, but would posit that lacking equity is the more significant and interesting factor to consider.
Now, you also go on even further to addle me when you say:
"Is the point here that we should always be unequitable? No, it is simply that equity, like equality, does not seem to be intuitively applicable or socially acceptable in all situations. Which means that we need some way to distinguish between what we want to treat equitably, what we want to treat equally, and what we do not."
Again, if "equity" means "fairness" or "being just" or "being impartial," then the only situation I could imagine society not upbearing equity would be in situations of gratuitous exploitation or political corruption.
It's strange that the way you use the two terms seems to comport with my understanding at certain times in the video, but then at other times seems to diverge and become befuddling to me.
Hopefully I've been able to adequately articulate myself this time such that you'll be able to gain insight and directly address the discrepancy (or discrepancies) with our positions.
Thanks so much for your kind and keen response 🙏 your insights are always appreciated (:
@@CarneadesOfCyrene P.S.
Now, I would also finally add that perhaps the lack of penetration on my behalf stems from a philosophical distinction with these terms in contrast to the dictionary definitions. I'm certainly still open to this.
edit clarification
@@ParadymShiftVegan I tried reading through your entire comment. Unfortunately, it was too long and I don't have that much spare time...😁
I noticed you didn't get a response yet so I thought I would give you some help... equity is NOT fairness. It's an attempt to create fairness and balance by uplifting those without. In order to accomplish this porportional shift they have to take away from those who are capable and/or have an ease of access to support. Take it from them and give it to others who are either in need of support or give it to others who haven't earned it and are undeserving of support . While it's true that there are many people who need help and support (temporary/permanent), there are also plenty capable people who refuse to work or are unwillingly to put forth enough effort to pull themselves up. These particular people get lumped in with others who are incapable and that creates the most challenging dilemma.
@@ParadymShiftVegan This attemp at "fairness" tries to implement fairness by changing the outcomes. That isn't fairness. It discriminates against those who are capable.
I dont understand why everyone keeps using the fence analogy.
This implies that there are elements (laws) that strictly benefit one type of person - which is not the case. The barriers (fence) is no longer there.
Naturally slower?
Naturally faster?
Equity gives you the opportunity to get to your full potential, not someone else's. If two young students are learning addition and one struggles and the other excels you cant just give both of them the same amount of help. One kid doesnt need help, but the other does it wouldnt be fair for a teacher to give both of them the same amount of help. The struggling child might not get enough help which will make math harder for them than other kids as they advance in the education system the child will continue to struggle. However, if the struggling child had been given more help than the excelling child they would both have the math skills needed to do well in the next level of math or the next grade of school.
Survival of mankind, peace and prosperity has to kept in mind
Did you make a video “doubting equity”?
I have one on doubting equality ruclips.net/video/943dqJozkYY/видео.html. I may do a future one on doubting equity specifically.
Equity allows you to reach someone else's potential, not your own.
Equity gives you the opportunity to get to your full potential, not someone else's. If two young students are learning addition and one struggles and the other excels you cant just give both of them the same amount of help. One kid doesnt need help, but the other does it wouldnt be fair for a teacher to give both of them the same amount of help. The struggling child might not get enough help which will make math harder for them than other kids as they advance in the education system the child will continue to struggle. However, if the struggling child had been given more help than the excelling child they would both have the math skills needed to do well in the next level of math or the next grade of school.
@@moonlight_shadow1350
Wrong. Both students should receive the same level of instruction. It would then be up to each students innate abilities. Equity ignores the differences between individuals. Someone with an 80 IQ will not be capable of grasping advanced concepts but someone with an IQ of 140 would. No amount of instruction would close the gap.
Students should be given an IQ test upon entering 1st grade and sorted accordingly. Grouping the slow students together ensures that they are given adequate attention. Grouping the elite students together ensures that they can advance at their natural faster rate.
@@DaveWard-xc7vd you just described equity, but that is a better way of looking at it
@@moonlight_shadow1350
You dont know the difference between equity and equality.
@@moonlight_shadow1350
Equity in education is all about equal outcomes. Given that there are dull students and bright students equity requires that the bar be set far too low in order to ensure that the dull students meet standards. Every student has his or her own potential and no two students have exactly the same potential.
Educational equity will result in the squandering of gifted minds in favour of equality of outcomes.
We certainly shouldn't treat ethnic groups equitably, especially if it means treating people inequitably. People are the only entities worthy of equitable treatment because people are capable of suffering, such as the suffering of a person who is denied acceptance to a college. It may be inequitable for an ethnic group to be underrepresented in college, but an ethnic group is not a person and cannot feel any suffering due to this mistreatment. If we were to worry about the equity of ethnic groups, then we may as well worry about the inequitable treatment of the number 13 and how it is underrepresented among the floor numbers of buildings.
Interesting argument. The counterargument would be that when different ethnic groups are not equally represented in institutions of higher learning or positions of power, it leads to suffering in people that belong to those underrepresented ethnic groups since they may come to believe that they are worth less or they may not be able to get issues which are specific to that ethnic group addressed at the highest level. Another counterargument might be that students in colleges benefit more from being around a more ethnically diverse group and therefore when choosing between two otherwise equal applicants more benefit is given by admitting the one of an ethnically underrepresented group. I'm not saying that I agree with these arguments, simply that there may be knock on effects of not treating groups equitably which reach people.
"When different ethnic groups are not equally represented in institutions of higher learning or positions of power, it leads to suffering in people that belong to those underrepresented ethnic groups since they may come to believe that they are worth less."
It is not unusual for equitable treatment to make people feel bad, but that's no reason to treat people inequitably. For example, if a thief steals a television and is sent to prison, she's bound to feel bad about that situation, but that wouldn't justify letting her go free while other thieves are imprisoned. Every person naturally feels that they and their friends are more important than everyone else, so we'll tend to want better-than-equitable treatment for those people and feel bad when we don't get it. Even so, it is impossible to give everyone better-than-equitable treatment, so someone will always end up feeling bad.
"They may not be able to get issues which are specific to that ethnic group addressed at the highest level."
So long as every person is being treated equitably, how can there be any issues that are not addressed? What more could anyone deserve beyond equitable treatment? If the issues we're talking about are not issues of people but rather issues of ethnic groups, then once again we face the problem of ethnic groups not being people and therefore not being worthy of concern.
"Another counterargument might be that students in colleges benefit more from being around a more ethnically diverse group."
Treating people equitably has direct and obvious benefits. The benefits of being around a more ethnically diverse group are very subtle if they exist at all. If we must sacrifice one for the other, then let's go with the one that has clearly demonstrable benefits.
Most interesting kids and fence illustration so far.
Thanks!
Equity would logically seem to imply that people who are too stupid to run their own life without creating a lot of problems for the rest of us need to be put in prisons where smarter people can micromanage them even if that means stupid people are technically being discriminated against.
Okay let's not overcomplicate simply because we are all not created equal. But one of the common denominators is that we all have a equal obligation in doing our best to live up to the pleasure potential responsibility of femininity and masculinity. For the goal is to make each moment constantly consistently physically and mentally financially spiritually beneficial.
How about equity for combat veterans.
That would be the idea that we should treat combat veterans better than we treat others since they have been in danger of losing their lives and gone through potentially traumatic experiences. One might say that programs like the G.I. bill in the US would be examples of attempts to give equity to this group, though some might claim that not enough is being done.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of equity. Combat veterans are going to have, statistically, greater needs for medical care and mental health care than the general population, because of the nature of combat, and thy should get support for it. That's not the same thing as better treatment like a nicer car or housing. I encourage you to read how the GI Bill's proceeds were distributed by race.
Equality seems to map onto deontological ethics, while equity seems to map onto consequentialist ethics. If virtue ethics is indeed the fusion they claim it is, then they may have a way to parse this problem.
While equality maps onto deontological ethics and equity maps onto consequentialist ethics in the sense that deontologists care about things like inputs and universal rules, while consequentialists care more about outcomes and maximizing benefit, I don't think that in all cases they are going to divide along these lines since consequentialists are going to care about a kind of cost benefit analysis which the deontologists won't. For example, if it costs $1,000,000 to save the lives of one group of people and only $1,000 to save another group, the consequentialists will preference the cheaper group since you can get more bang for you buck, while the deontologists might treat them all the same. In that way equality keeps mapping onto deontology, but equity does not always fit consequentialism.
As for Virtue Ethics, calling it a fusion of the other two does not seem accurate. Virtue Ethics is a different type of ethics entirely (ruclips.net/video/uqPIWhe2WVQ/видео.html). While they certainly advocate finding virtues as the balance between two vices, they frame the theory in a very different way from consequentialism or deontology. But it is a very interesting question of how the virtue ethicist would treat this dilemma.
I've heard virtue ethicists treat it as a hybridisation; that both deontology and consequentialism focus on one feature of ethics to the exclusion of the other. It's the attitude that informs their response to the "moral luck objection", among other things. It seems a little arbitrary to me too, but that seems to be the general attitude (granted it may be a biased sample as they are quite scarce).
There's no excuse for equity
I like this. It reminds us that situational circumstances may uncover harsh(er) realities for some and the goal of society may seem to want equitable choices in order to reach equality--but it will never be possible, because a communist society does not work justly. However, if we don't have some standard form of using equity so everyone can perceive an equal perspective over the fence, then people with a limited view will ruminate in their minds how unfair society is to them and with all the free time they have plan how they are going to get even with why they are treated so unfairly not out of their own fault. *Bang. I'm not laughing. We need equitable reasoning in order to calm the disadvantaged and claim supportiveness.
Height is easily quantifiable. Skin color is not.
2.13 lol
no situation should be equal or equitable to any that is not 100% identical to it.
But then is there any measure by which we can call discrimination wrong?
only when it involves the initiation of force. If you initiate force against someone on any basis, including discriminatory bases, you are in the wrong.
It depends on the circumstances of discrimination. For example: if you are discriminating in a situation where you need to hire a person for a job, discrimination based on competence is completely reasonable fair and discrimination based on any other metric that would effect how well the job gets done is also completely reasonable and fair. However, discriminating based on someone owning a blue car, for no reason other than you don't like blue cars, would be unfair.
Everyone that thinks equal opportunity will lead to equal outcome dont take into account unequal work
It seems to depend on the situation though? Take eyesight, for example. If we are equal and give no one glasses, we will have unequal opportunities. However if we are equitable, and give people the prescription they need to see, then we will have equal outcomes. One might argue that there are other situations where equitable treatment (i.e. giving proximate to need) is insufficient. Say we give runners in a race a head-start based on their fitness level. We would likely still see some runners outpace others because of the effort that they put in. I'm skeptical that equity guarantees equal outcomes, but I'm also skeptical that it precludes it either.
What if you admit people into a college based on Equity and they fail? College does not make you smart. College is a must have for people that already are smart....Its the way it is...Equity sets people up to fail from the git go...which is unfair to all those involved...
I think few people would agree with the claim "College does not make you smart". 100 years ago, reading was something that only "smart" people could do (only 6% of US adults were literate in 1920). People thought that if you weren't naturally smart, you just couldn't read. "Why should you set the dumb 94% of the country up to fail by trying to teach them to read when they were clearly too dumb to do so?" (Hopefully as you read this the issue with the argument that some people are too dumb for college is clear).
That said, I think you could have a stronger argument along the lines of claiming that the problem is that college education is a limited resource (we can argue about whether it should be a limited resource, but for now it seems to be) and based on that, we should allocate college educations to those who would benefit the most from them (e.g. one might claim those with higher IQs, higher test scores, better grades, will get more from college etc.). We should evaluate applicants based solely on merit (not need) because those with the greatest merit will have the greatest benefit from college.
However, one might respond that our current assessments are a poor judge of merit (wealthy children that pay to be tutored or have someone cheat on the exam for them are not more deserving, in fact they are likely less). Equity in this way might be attempting to overcorrect for measurement error we are confident is in the system (wealthier children appear to score better than their actual aptitude while poor children score worse than their actual aptitude).
Just uae the word "equslity". Equity is a finance word. You can't just chsnge the definitions of words like this.
The concept of equity in the philosophical sense was used by Aristotle, long before finance as we know it existed. This does not change the term merely offer a different (arguably older) definition for it. Stream and river banks existed long before monetary banks, but that does not mean that by calling places where you keep money "banks" the word is being stolen. There are going to be homonyms in the world, no matter what we do, there's only so many sounds we can make!
@@CarneadesOfCyrene that's why context matter in a conversation so I agree with you there.
I think you should start by defining your terms. It really jumping around with a bunch of different stuff
This video is defining the terms equity and equality. What terms do you not understand? We have over 900 videos, many of which define the many terms used in philosophy.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene You defined equity? Where? What's the definition? Can you please type the definition here and post the timestamp. I heard examples, but not a definition. Thanks.
The difference is that implementing equity requires that you discount merit and incentivizes people to need things so they people give them things rather than obtain them themselves. You needing more doesn't mean that you deserve more. In fact, you can easily inflate your needs by allowing yourself to fail and have nothing so that those things are given to you from an outside source. what is the point of putting in effort when you get what you need to succeed without effort? This means that equity is not a fair or just way of running a society. The only fair society is one in which people sink or swim on their own merit starting from whatever circumstances they find themselves in (with the advantages and disadvantages that come from the random draw of birth, random draws are not oppression) and are free to either work however hard they have to to make their way up to success (with no legal oppression in their way and no one intentionally holding them back) or are free to fail.
This is the issue of want vs need.
You can technically inflate your needs by allowing yourself to fall but you will likely lose something in thar process.
If a student stops studying for no reason their grades will likely fall, but they should still get help in bringing their grades back up.
If a student's grades fall because they dont understand a subject they should also be given help.
However if a student is doing good in that subject they dont need help, so they shouldnt get help.
Equity is also referring to what one person needs, and though a person failing should still be given what they need to survive, they wouldnt have the money extra things like television or going to a resturaunt.
@Moonlight_Shadow13 sometimes the “help” is in the form of telling the student they need to work harder.
A friend who took social assistance said it was challenging to work her way out of it because when she went over the income threshold her assistance dropped. So she knew that by working a little higher paying job she would effectively receive less income.
What you trade off is self respect and instilling self reliance in your children, not to mention society views you as a burden rather than an asset so there is social standing to be lost.
But not everyone or every social group sees being on the dole as a stigma or insult to their sense of autonomy.
I realize you won't respond as im three years late.. but why not just use pictures?
It is a stylistic choice. I even do it for faces.
Carneades.org I see that 🤔 I honestly respect how much time it must take 😁
Equality = Not racist or sexist
Equity = Racist and sexist AF
excellent, follows rawl's veil of ignorance!
Yep, I'm planning on doing some more applied ethics/political videos once we finish with The Good The Bad and Philosophy, analyzing some actual ethical questions using normative ethical theories.
While we could argue about the merits of equality vs equity, but one can only choose one or the other not both.
Why do you think this? As the video highlights, most people think that equity is applicable in some situations (you don't force everyone to wear glasses with the average prescription when taking a math test), but equality is preferable in others (we should not give proportionate advantages to someone who has not gone to medical school, when hiring a doctor). You may only be able to have one in any given situation, but that does not mean we cannot distinguish by situation.
Is a combination of the two possible?
No really. Pure socialism isn't just and that's more or less what total equality would get you.
No, look at it this way. What people claim as equality is everyone gets the same thing. Look at it like shoes, everyone gets the same shoe regardless of size and measurement it's all the same right? Where as equity gives everyone the type of shoe they need based on the needs of their body. That's why a combination of the two isn't possible.
@@ParadymShiftVegan What you are talking about isn't socialism at all. For example, in the 1880s during the coal miner's rebellion everyone was given the same level of food and were paid subsistence wages, given rudimentary tools, and blankets. All equal right under a capitalistic system. Do you know what happened, half died from hypothermia and starvation. Technically everyone get the same thing, just not what they needed to survive. These actions forced the US government to put a stop to this nonsense.
@@Ryooken Fair enough. We seem to agree for the most part. I surely could have qualified my earlier posit with "for all intents and purposes," however, I did indeed predicate my position with "more or less" with this intention in mind and nonetheless find this to be accurate as a general heuristic.
That being said, I never claimed it was impossible for socialistic sub-systems to exist within a capitalist system, this should be obvious, I would think. Police and fire services are a clear example of socialized systems within a more capitalistic system, as is the example you have presented.
No current system is pure socialism and no system is pure capitalism either, these are just overarching theories; hence my critique, which still stands, particularly so, even, given that you have just elucidated a clear example of why socialist systems aren't always (or, rather, often are not) congruent with the term equity, as they are focused on equality instead, further buttressing my point.
Sometimes equality is a better choice than diversity and thus may comport with the definition of equity, but other times (more often than not), it leads to unjust outcomes and thus is contrary to the notion of equity.
edit grammar and clarification
I believe what ever we do we need to consider what is the best for the whole community or the whole society. In a long run.
This is basically John Rawls' concept that you have to design a system that is fair, without knowing what your position in the system is or will be.
Who provides the boxes?
The example with the kids, the fence, and the boxes is interesting since it seems that when people argue about whether equality of opportunity or equality of outcome is better, the ones who support equality of opportunity sometimes describe the case where none of the kids get a box as a case of equality of outcome (since the outcome of the distribution of boxes is equal) and they describe the case where the smaller kids get boxes whose size are inversely proportionate to the size of the kids as equality of opportunity (since they all have the opportunity to see over the fence) - while the ones who support equality of outcome would say that the case where the smaller kids get boxes is equality of outcome (since the outcome is equal in that all the kids are able to see over the fence) while the case where none gets any boxes is a case of equality of opportunity (because the initial conditions in external reality which generates the individual outcomes is equal).
I don't know exactly how or if this issue or these concepts relate to the distinction between equality and equity, although I suspect there is some relevance. If nothing else it shows how nebulous the concept of equality can be, even after one, nominally at least, distinguishes between different kinds of equality. I suspect that equity is similarly open to interpretation and thus must be defined very precisely if one wants to be clear about the implications of promoting equity. Speaking for myself, I'm very suspicious of any appeals to equality or equity since the terms can mean almost anything and be used to support even contradictory conclusions. In this video the terms were somewhat well defined but I'm almost certain that others would use different definitions. As long as one is clear by what one means, there hopefully shouldn't be too much of a problem.
I agree that the problem centers around unclear definitions of these concepts. While the majority of people might say that they support equality, they will have a very difficult time pinning down exactly what that means. The same applies to equity. However I do think that we can talk about these concepts once our terms are clearly defined, but this is easier said than done.