Discourse on equality, equity and freedom

[arif]

Many of the posts here arise from ideas about notions like equality and freedom, and tensions arising from the left and right on these ideas. Here I'll attempt an analysis of this.

Jefferson wrote in the Dec. of Independence "all men are created equal", and the idea of equality was enshrined in Western culture. John Locke had similar ideas coming from the UK. In the beginning, this did not extend to racial minorities or women, but eventually it did as these groups made it evident that they were, and that the word "man" is meant to mean humankind inclusive of non-white and non-male humans equally.

We can establish therefore that equality is a fundamental concept of Western society. The phrase, however, says that we are created equal, and we have not established what is meant by equality. There are all manners of genetic differences that endow one person with more abilities than another. We are not talking about being created equal in terms of genetic endowment (although it may be argued that those with the most disadvantage in genetics are among the most loving among us, indicating possible balancing). What we are talking about is equality in valuing individual members of society by society. Each member of society is valued equally, regardless of genetic inequality.

Now, we are introduced to inequalities of nurture as well. Insofar as one person's upbringing is more beneficial than anothers that person may achieve more than the other, have more moral character, more friends, money etc. Nurture is going to shape a person in ways they cannot control. It seems inevitable that across the population, people endowed with better nurture are going to do better. Yet, we can still maintain a fundamental valuing of members by trying to mitigate negative effects of family nurturing, with a society that offers other supports, not necessarily governmental - could be a culture of a "village raising a child". Whether on the left or right, decent people will reach out to relatives or friends who we see to have been negatively affected by factors beyond their control.

The third challenge and most significant challenge to equality is freedom, free will or choice. In my conception, I see freedom and responsibility as increasing with amount of choice and power a person has. A child is less responsible for what they do because they have less control, whereas more of the responsibility lies with the parents and society, although it is the responsibility of the adult world to transfer that responsibility in stages until the child can assume adult-level responsibility. A person faced with being murdered is not criminally responsible for killing or injuring his attacker when their choice is limited to that action. Yet, even with all of the forces of nature, nurture and circumstance, there are a great number of choices a person can make, and for that they are responsible. How does this effect equality for people who are able to determine to a great degree their health, income, education etc.? What role would a government have in intervening on the effects of these choices?

Yet, all of us must recognize that even when we have had success we have made some bad choices and errors we shouldn't have. How able would we be to judge whether someone else is fundamentally unequal to us in intrinsic value based on the difference in our choices? Someone may have been there for us to set us on the right course. Other effects of choices are due to chance. My drastic driving error of not checking my blind spot would have no consequence if there was no car in the lane, someone else might be a quadrapeligic because of that. It seems very arrogant to attempt to compare my value as a human being, even if I could eliminate all of the things that person was not responsible for, to someone else's and to be able to say definitively that we are fundamentally unequal. Yet I must reconcile that with the fact that for myself, making good choices is an important part of valuing myself and others.

Furthermore, it would be disingenous not to have a "meritocracy" in society. Society ought to reward good behaviour and punish bad, not out of the idea of the intrinsic superiority of one over the other, but actually out of a sense of setting out the conditions by which people can compete on a level playing field where there are rules and consequences. This is the concept of equity, distinct from equality but related.

An attempt to establish fair conditions (equity) on the basis of intrinsic equality is distinct from the endeavour of creating extrinsic equality. Thus, it would not be necessary to pay doctors the same as store clerks (although I would say nurse-doctor equity is a question that deserves consideration). It would not be necessary to make relative all competing interests and ideas. It extends to abandoning the notion of cultural superiority, while not abandoning key ideas of a culture, such as equality itself. When other cultures are approach one another with respect, common and universal values can be agreed upon, and cultural baggage tends to be abandoned.

Thus we begin with fundamental equality, address intervention with a notion of equity, and address freedom and competition as most advantageous when the equality is respected and equity is the foundation.

That's all for now.

Arif

my (existential) poem

in this existence

it's possilbe to live in agony

and die in peace

you can realize dreams

or miss, just barely

you can sleep with a clear conscience

while I lie awake in fear

the golden child genius

and the drunken failure

born from the same seed

humanity

and you can't avoid this

whatever is presenting as your life

hide if you must

sleeping long hours in dreamy bliss

but best to be awake

as the knife-blade cuts

and the wine is upon your lips

as the sun rises

to embrace

and accept embraces

[August1991]

Jefferson wrote in the Dec. of Independence "all men are created equal", and the idea of equality was enshrined in Western culture. John Locke had similar ideas coming from the UK. In the beginning, this did not extend to racial minorities or women, but eventually it did as these groups made it evident that they were, and that the word "man" is meant to mean humankind inclusive of non-white and non-male humans equally.

Neither Locke nor Jefferson employed the word "equality" the way you do (which appears to be some sort of late 20th century mixed Leftism).

Equality, in the 18th century, meant that the State should treat people equally. IOW, the government should not play favourites. In our private lives and between ourselves, we obviously treat one another differently and both Locke and Jefferson (to name two examples) knew this perfectly.

Your comments on freedom are simplistic. The exercice of your freedom imposes (potential) costs on others and hence creates a (potential) liability to you. This creates ideally a natural restraint to freedom.

----

In any case, the pertinent question is not really about freedom and equality, which is bound to collapse into disputes about property rights. A far more important question is how to achieve potential. We are more likely to agree on that.

[freakwondergirl]

Arif,

Thank you so much for taking the time to write such an intelligent, well thought out opinion piece. It's people like you who give me hope and help curb my cynical mind. I totally agree with what you have written. I would like to write more but im meeting my folks for coffee. Its too bad you couldnt join us cause you would be amongst people who think in the same vein as you do.

PS I would love to meet you...If your half as cute as you are smart I think wed have a really good time.

PPS Love your poem!!!

[arif]

Neither Locke nor Jefferson employed the word "equality" the way you do (which appears to be some sort of late 20th century mixed Leftism).

Jefferson stated that all men are created equal. The current constitution of the US makes "men" equivalent to all human beings, even if Jefferson meant white males. They have taken the spirit of his equality, and extended it to all human beings, recognizing that races and genders are equal, are we agreed on that? That we should go back to the original meaning seems utterly stupid in the light of what we now know. Why it appears as mixed Leftism may be that I have attempted to make the discourse unladen with left-right ideology.

Equality, in the 18th century, meant that the State should treat people equally. IOW, the government should not play favourites. In our private lives and between ourselves, we obviously treat one another differently and both Locke and Jefferson (to name two examples) knew this perfectly.

What does it mean for the state to treat people equally? If I am born into a poor family, I'm at a disadvantage in education and future income. So, if the government gives everyone, rich and poor, $1000 for post-secondary education, that $1000 can easily be spent at the campus bar by the rich, while I would not be able to afford the $5000 min/year to attend school, unless I work full-time which may impact on my studies thus reducing my chance of future employment. That would not be treating people equally, because the significance of the $1000 is completely different according to contexts beyond the control of the individual. Such a system would only superficially be treating people equally, while in fact favoring the endowed. Student loans are therefore available to students who demonstrate their need.

Your comments on freedom are simplistic. The exercice of your freedom imposes (potential) costs on others and hence creates a (potential) liability to you. This creates ideally a natural restraint to freedom.

I'm not sure what you mean. It may seem simplistic because I'm trying to keep the post as short as possible. I do not think there exists a freedom that is without costs. If a business is free to pollute as much as they want, that imposes a cost on future generations. I would like to argue that though the endeavour of creating extrinsic equality is not the purpose of state, creating equitable conditions is. Further, greater equality provides a non-tangible freedom, the freedom from unequal social relationships. While I would submit that a degree of inequality in power, prestige, status etc. is inevitable and desirable in a meritocracy, a fundamental equality of humannes is freeing. I can't imagine the barriers that exist in marital relationships, for instance, where one partner dominates the other and does not consider them an equal. It is absolutely freeing to be married to someone who I regard as equal. There is a barrier that is erected when my students travel overseas, when absolutely poor people know that the person is from the West and desperately want them to give them some money. How absolutely freeing it would be if Africa stood strong as a civilization equal to the West, and we will get there by beginning with a fundamental notion of equality from which equitable action arises, and extrinsic inequality that follows is never absolute and is based on merit.

While meritocracy implies that all must earn their place in society, equity implies that they have that opportunity. Even clients I work with with severe intellectual disabilities have expectations on their behaviour, though neglect is out of the question and the work of the agency is to provide the best possible conditions for them to create their quality of life and contribute to the home and community. I have heard one prof say that bringing in a Western conception of self-esteem, which is given without any merit, is damaging to the people she works with, ex-child soldiers, victims of rape etc. Though they are cared for, they are expected to contribute even from the beginning of their re-integration into society, that contribution being essential to re-integration.

I would submit that the creed "to each according to their need, from each according to their ability" is not inconsistent with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happinness."

It is complementary.

In any case, the pertinent question is not really about freedom and equality, which is bound to collapse into disputes about property rights. A far more important question is how to achieve potential. We are more likely to agree on that.

The pertinent question of this thread is about freedom and equality. Potential for what if we don't have that?

Arif

[August1991]

Jefferson stated that all men are created equal. The current constitution of the US makes "men" equivalent to all human beings, even if Jefferson meant white males.

Arif, after the famous equality phrase you quote, the US Declaration of Independence immediately goes on to state:

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Jefferson and the others were thinking about how governments treat men.

Arif, your reference to "white males" is purely 20th century.

----

Arif,

Thank you so much for taking the time to write such an intelligent, well thought out opinion piece. It's people like you who give me hope and help curb my cynical mind.

Arif, Jefferson would have found self-evident freakygirl's unequal treatment of your post and my post.

In freakygirl's mind apparently, you and I are not equal. I am thankful that we live in such a world, and I suspect that you too Arif prefer a world in which freakygirl thinks you are special.

[arif]

Jefferson stated that all men are created equal. The current constitution of the US makes "men" equivalent to all human beings, even if Jefferson meant white males.

Arif, after the famous equality phrase you quote, the US Declaration of Independence immediately goes on to state:That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happinessJefferson and the others were thinking about how governments treat men.

Arif, your reference to "white males" is purely 20th century.

I was trying to point out the obvious, that Jefferson et. al had made progress in introducing equality as a fundamental principle of the founding of a nation, but at the time, women and non-whites were not included in "men". If they were, it would have been immediately obvious that lack of suffrage for women, and slavery were inconsistent with the declaration. So as women and non-whites came to be seen as equal, that meaning has changed, yes in the 20th century (it took that long!). Now, we can take this more rational meaning and examine its implications.

----

Arif,

Thank you so much for taking the time to write such an intelligent, well thought out opinion piece. It's people like you who give me hope and help curb my cynical mind.

Arif, Jefferson would have found self-evident freakygirl's unequal treatment of your post and my post.

In freakygirl's mind apparently, you and I are not equal. I am thankful that we live in such a world, and I suspect that you too Arif prefer a world in which freakygirl thinks you are special.

I've got no dispute with this argument (nor freakygirl's comments, though she should know I'm happily married!). I'm arguing for a more philosophical view on fundamental equality. People are free to see others as unequal, though if they were too deeply examine this, they could see that it would be difficult to establish objectively such judgments. Such judgments may be useful, but are not absolute, so that while freakygirl would see as as unequal, I good mental exercise for me is to see as as equal fundamentally. I have noticed that when I do this, it is ultimately freeing. The state should follow the highest level of ethical philosophy and treat people as equal according to their needs and rights. When people have the capacity to secure their person, shelter and basic needs, and their civil liberties are protected, they are free to work within a meritocracy.

If significant barriers exist on this, or civil liberties are curtailed, this freedom does not exist. The state has an obligation therefore, in saying that it is treating its citizens equally, to control those things that are within its mandate that interfere with a level playing field. I would leave the extent of the governments mandate open to debate. Further, if citizens cannot (and in this some cases are clearer than others) secure their person, shelter and basic needs, the state has an obligation to intervene, whether directly (favoured by socialists), or making sure that charities can fill that need (preferred by conservatives).

This argument stems from the statement that people are created equal, which we take to understand that even those with severe disabilities are equal in the eyes of the state, so that if the state has encouraged a capitalist system, it must recognize that not all are able secure capital. If there are protections for risk-taking, like corporate welfare and bankruptcy, there ought to be protections for those without the capacity to compete in the marketplace. It must be understood that treating people equally does not mean taxing all at the same rate, treating all students in primary school the same regardless of their advantages and disadvantages. This is not equality, it's uniformity.

In the case of bankrupty as a protection for someone putting up risk in a venture, and protection for vulnerable people, the contexts are completely different - but the notion that there should be protections for all is a notion based in equality. Further, though you say we treat each other unequally and treating people in our personal lives has little to do with the declaration, on a philosophical level, feeling superior to anyone based on endowment seems only ego. We often do, and probably should, make value judgments about ourselves and others based on character and merit that are within our control. But even these can be suspect with thorough examination, so the utility of those judgments must be questioned, and yes, sometimes they do have utility.

It is much more satisfying to err on the side of an assumption of equality. Establishing objectively either inequality or equality may not be possible, so without a good reason, why should we make a judgment of inequality? Ethical arguments may use positive evidence, but their assumptions cannot be verified empirically. The logical positivists did not feel that ethics had anything to do with truth. These are axioms by which rational arguments can be made and then supported with empirical evidence. The axioms themselves represent the heart of humanity and it's highest desires, it's desire to be in accord with nature.

The corporate CEO that passes by someone with cerebral palsy in a wheelchair might feel superior, but this is a useless subjective judgment. Maybe they beat their wife and kids, waste their money, and bully their way to the top of the company. Maybe the person with CP is adored for his wit and wisdom and creativity, even if he can't work. Most of the time we don't have all the info and make superficial judgments. Whatever criteria we choose are artificial, we cannot know for sure if they are valid to the equality we seek.

Cheers,

Arif

[August1991]

I was trying to point out the obvious, that Jefferson et. al had made progress in introducing equality as a fundamental principle of the founding of a nation, but at the time, women and non-whites were not included in "men".

My point was a little more subtle. I meant that Jefferson was primarily concerned with how the State treats men. I quoted the Declaration of Independence to make this plain. The British Crown at the time did not treat men equally and this is what Jefferson found offensive.

Arif, your idea of equality is a different matter again.

I'm arguing for a more philosophical view on fundamental equality. People are free to see others as unequal, though if they were too deeply examine this, they could see that it would be difficult to establish objectively such judgments. Such judgments may be useful, but are not absolute, so that while freakygirl would see as as unequal, I good mental exercise for me is to see as as equal fundamentally. I have noticed that when I do this, it is ultimately freeing.

Arif, what do you mean when you say "equal"?

People are obviously different. They have different abilities, skills, desires. It would be absurd to treat people equally and we don't. If you are married, I would expect that you treat your spouse differently from other people you know.

Fundamentally, you discriminate. You discriminate when you choose where you buy your groceries, and whom you will have as neighbours.

If significant barriers exist on this, or civil liberties are curtailed, this freedom does not exist. The state has an obligation therefore, in saying that it is treating its citizens equally, to control those things that are within its mandate that interfere with a level playing field.

Do you mean that the State should have the right to forbid a marriage on the grounds that ugly people do not enjoy a level playing field?

It is much more satisfying to err on the side of an assumption of equality. Establishing objectively either inequality or equality may not be possible, so without a good reason, why should we make a judgment of inequality? Ethical arguments may use positive evidence, but their assumptions cannot be verified empirically. The logical positivists did not feel that ethics had anything to do with truth. These are axioms by which rational arguments can be made and then supported with empirical evidence. The axioms themselves represent the heart of humanity and it's highest desires, it's desire to be in accord with nature.

The corporate CEO that passes by someone with cerebral palsy in a wheelchair might feel superior, but this is a useless subjective judgment. Maybe they beat their wife and kids, waste their money, and bully their way to the top of the company. Maybe the person with CP is adored for his wit and wisdom and creativity, even if he can't work. Most of the time we don't have all the info and make superficial judgments. Whatever criteria we choose are artificial, we cannot know for sure if they are valid to the equality we seek.

Sorry, Arif. You are just stating contradictory nonsense that has no bearing on any real world I inhabit, or I suspect that you inhabit.

Where did you get these crazy ideas of equality? People are not the same, and people do not treat other people equally. I would hate to live in such a society of "equality" if it were ever attempted.

You seem to have fallen for some absurd Hallmark card philosophy of "deep down, we're all the same with equal worth and value". Well, that's nonsense.

OTOH, the State has monopoly powers and its powers must be circumscribed. In particular, a civilized State should be careful how it discriminates (treats differently) certain citizens. These limits on State power should not be subject to majority votes.

----

I'll paraphrase a famous philosopher: A society that aims for perfect equality will not achieve equality and it won't even come close to achieving its potential. A society that aims for achieving its potential will come close to that goal, and in the process, surprisingly, it will achieve the greatest equality possible.

[arif]

What do you mean by potential?

What I mean by equality is valuing. I don't mean that people are the same. There can be equality in diversity. I mean that I see you as an equal, even though we are different. You equal worth to me in society. While people don't treat people equally, when they see each other as equal, they see that each of us has the potential to make the best choices available to us. I agree that the state should be careful on how it treats people differently. You can treat people differently and support equality, or you can treat people the same or differently and support inequality.

I've used disability as an example. The state does not give everyone a disability pension, it gives it to those who cannot work because of their disability. One definition of discrimination is simply making distinctions, so yes it is discrimination. The definition of discrimination in legal terms ie. discrimination is illegal, is not the same. In that case, a building that does not provide wheelchair access discriminates access to the building based on disability. In the first case, the discrimination is justified because we see that a market-based, productivity-based society discriminates naturally against those unable to work, so correcting the discrimination gives the disabled person (close to) adequate resources to survive, on the basis of their basic equal value to individuals who can work.

One note is that some disabilities can be overcome in terms of a person finding work. In this case, our pension system can actually work against that because there are disincentives to returning to work. You may be able to reenter the workforce only in a job that pays $10 without benefits, but your income takes away your benefit for the medication you need to buy, and if your meds are very expensive, it makes no economic sense to return to work. A lot of young people can work at $10/hr no problem without benefits, and I'm not suggesting every pizza hut employee must have benefits. In this case, there is inequality, because two people might be just as good as employees in a job, but the disabled person can't get off disability. Although we have some programs providing continued benefits even while the pension income is replaced by employment, they are far from adequate, so there are still many disincentives.

This may seem to support your notion that as we attempt equality we end up with inequality etc. But the reality is that you need a disability support system, because many will never be able to work, and others may need time to recover, or may need to quit work. But we do need a system, that as you said, supports potential.

My crazy ideas on equality come from working with homeless, psychiatric survivors, developmentally delayed, alcoholics, immigrants, refugees, people with HIV/AIDS, and from being a psychiatric survivor myself (so I have papers to prove I'm crazy!). I've seen how people with all of these labels are devalued and feel devalued, but having experienced being on either side of the 'nursing station' if you will, I understand that though we occupy different stations in life, we're equal in value as human beings. I have only a sense of fortune that I've gone from spending a good year of my life (at different times over five years) in a psychiatric hospital, that now I'm in a management position in an international organization. I don't feel that I'm superior to some friends who are still in and out of hospital, nor inferior to another friend who went through that and is now a surgeon, just more fortunate! Again, my sense of equality has to with valuing, not exact treatment, so that equal valuing can result in different treatment for different people. And I hope all of us have the opportunity to fulfil that potential.

I will soon be lucky enough to travel to Africa. One of the things we find unacceptable in the world is unequal valuing of life itself across the world. This means that we have much less adequate treatment protocols for HIV in 'resource-poor' settings. With the contsraints we have, we can only give a single nevirapine dose to mothers with HIV to prevent mother--child-transmission. While it's better than nothing, and cuts transmission in half, anyone in the West would get the full cocktail and reduce by 95%, and they would get treatment and nutrition support for that treatment for life, while the mother in Africa will likely die and orphan their child. That the WHO can have different protols of treatment for people reflects reality, and is unavoidable, but in principle, it violates medical ethics. Therefore, it is an ideal that we should work towards to live up to those ethics.

Cheers,

Arif