Is equality dangerous?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by harrythomas14
Big question. I like it.
My 2 cents is, like many before me in this thread, that equality of opportunity - or the closest possible thing to it - is good. We should all be able to be able to achieve what we want out of life and given the same freedom in which to do that (ideally).
However, I don't think this whole 'everything has to be fair all the time, forever' mentality is very plausible. Hell, life itself isn't fair. Equality of outcome should not be a thing in my opinion.
People should be paid on performance and hours worked. The grammar school system also comes to mind when I think about it - some kids are cleverer than others. Some kids are more suited to a more academic environment whereas others are more suited to a practical one.
Equality of opportunity is something I support, however equality of outcome is not - you create your own outcome, you lie in your bed the way you made it.
My 2 cents is, like many before me in this thread, that equality of opportunity - or the closest possible thing to it - is good. We should all be able to be able to achieve what we want out of life and given the same freedom in which to do that (ideally).
However, I don't think this whole 'everything has to be fair all the time, forever' mentality is very plausible. Hell, life itself isn't fair. Equality of outcome should not be a thing in my opinion.
People should be paid on performance and hours worked. The grammar school system also comes to mind when I think about it - some kids are cleverer than others. Some kids are more suited to a more academic environment whereas others are more suited to a practical one.
Equality of opportunity is something I support, however equality of outcome is not - you create your own outcome, you lie in your bed the way you made it.
I agree mostly with what you say. In terms of equality of opportunity (relative) could it be said that grammar schools may not be in line with this as many of the students taking the 11+ come from a middle class background to begin with, as background can hold children back in such a system?
Original post by Trinculo
Consider what "total" equality of opportunity would look like and ask if you would want it.
Let me ask the following basic questions :
Would there be any divides in the workplace at all? Men, women, old, young any race or class would have the same access to and pay for any career?
Would there be any restrictions on who could marry? At what point would there be minimum ages for voting, driving, consent, drinking, smoking?
Without answering what you think total equality would be, you can't know if it would be a positive or not
For example - under a total equality system, could you see a disabled person- say someone with cerebral palsy joining the army? Would there be any concept if paralympians? Surely everyone would compete in the same Olympics. Would there be any concept of women's sport?
Let me ask the following basic questions :
Would there be any divides in the workplace at all? Men, women, old, young any race or class would have the same access to and pay for any career?
Would there be any restrictions on who could marry? At what point would there be minimum ages for voting, driving, consent, drinking, smoking?
Without answering what you think total equality would be, you can't know if it would be a positive or not
For example - under a total equality system, could you see a disabled person- say someone with cerebral palsy joining the army? Would there be any concept if paralympians? Surely everyone would compete in the same Olympics. Would there be any concept of women's sport?
In a way this was one of the ideas I was expressing. It’s interesting, how if we are to take equality to its extreme it can aim to remove naturally occurring barriers or divisions as you mention. I can’t say that is a world I would choose to be a part of.
Original post by OutsideOfItAll
I agree mostly with what you say. In terms of equality of opportunity (relative) could it be said that grammar schools may not be in line with this as many of the students taking the 11+ come from a middle class background to begin with, as background can hold children back in such a system?
But grammar schools give everyone the opportunity to get a good education, it's not a matter of "equality of opportunity" if lower class people fail to seize this opportunity. The opportunity is there for everyone to take advantage of, if they don't, their bad. I understand it may sound unideal, but it's still a huge improvement to the "bad state school - good private school" paradigm.
In Italy, the best high schools are entirely free and have no entry tests. This was done to improve social mobility, and it did, since such schools (compulsory Latin, Ancient Greek, etc) were previously only attended by the upper classes. However, even in this way, the vast majority of those attending them are not working class. This shows that after a certain point, it's not material issues, but cultural, that prevent working class people from attending good schools. Family values play a huge role. Unenlightened working class families will hardly prompt their child to focus on their education and apply to the best schools. This doesn't make the system unfair though. Another example: Oxford has few black people because few apply. Is the recruitment process unfair? No.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by OutsideOfItAll
I agree mostly with what you say. In terms of equality of opportunity (relative) could it be said that grammar schools may not be in line with this as many of the students taking the 11+ come from a middle class background to begin with, as background can hold children back in such a system?
To some extent. All kinds of kids end up going to grammar schools - my grandad did as a child and he was dirt poor, for example. Culture also has an influence, too - e.g. there are a wealth of Asian parents that push their kids notably harder in academia, which doesn't have much to do with class.
Be that as it may, I can see what you mean with the students being mainly middle-class; I know when I tried to get into a grammar school (I flunked because I didn't want to go) I was tutored, and that was paid for. A lot of kids are likely in the same boat in that respect (parents having to afford tutoring, not flunking exams).
Equality is and will continue to be an arduous thing to achieve in all fields, it simply isn't that simple, you know?
Original post by harrythomas14
To some extent. All kinds of kids end up going to grammar schools - my grandad did as a child and he was dirt poor, for example. Culture also has an influence, too - e.g. there are a wealth of Asian parents that push their kids notably harder in academia, which doesn't have much to do with class.
Be that as it may, I can see what you mean with the students being mainly middle-class; I know when I tried to get into a grammar school (I flunked because I didn't want to go) I was tutored, and that was paid for. A lot of kids are likely in the same boat in that respect (parents having to afford tutoring, not flunking exams).
Equality is and will continue to be an arduous thing to achieve in all fields, it simply isn't that simple, you know?
Be that as it may, I can see what you mean with the students being mainly middle-class; I know when I tried to get into a grammar school (I flunked because I didn't want to go) I was tutored, and that was paid for. A lot of kids are likely in the same boat in that respect (parents having to afford tutoring, not flunking exams).
Equality is and will continue to be an arduous thing to achieve in all fields, it simply isn't that simple, you know?
I understand and in some respect I was speaking anecdotally. When I was younger I had no idea what a grammar school was, never mind that I could get into one if I passed a test. it just wasn’t something parents considered within certain neighbourhoods.
I’m not sure where I stand on the issue of grammar schools, in some respects I think a free market within education can be important, however the focus upon individualism doesn’t seem to extend to this scenario, as the child’s future tends to be within the hands of the parents rather than the child themself.
Original post by OutsideOfItAll
I see your point about gender equality not quite extending to the example of abuse. Could it be argued that’s there are some jobs in society in which gender discrimination could rationally occur, such as certain positions within the military?
I'm not too well-informed enough on all military positions so it's very possible that there are positions where gender discrimination is rational. However, for the bread and butter frontline, I would argue that it doesn't take a gender to pull a trigger, command or know what's right and wrong. Perhaps, as females are factually biologically 'weaker' than men, then yes maybe if the load they carry is literally beyond any female's capability, then yes, maybe. However I'd argue that there are more than enough women who have shown that it's very, very possible to generate that strength and resilience no matter what your gender.
Some areas are unavoidably going to run into gender discrimination (or any for that matter). E.g. A patient in a forensic unit who has had a severe history of repeated abuse by males is perhaps not appropriate to be working with males. Not immediately at least.
Total equality and meritocracy are contradictory concepts. You can't have both at the same time.
Take the army example - this is the simplest and most straightforward of all. At the moment, there are different standards for men and women, and women cannot do all the jobs within the army- direct combat ones like infantry or driving tanks.
To achieve total equality, women would have access to all jobs, and the standards would be the same. However, this would mean that almost all women currently in the army would fail to qualify for their own jobs - so basically there would be almost no women in the army. The only way to remedy that would be to lower the standards for men to the same as women - the result, the quality of soldiers would fall dramatically. By achieving equality, you kill merit.
Another example would be sport. True equality would mean everyone - everyone competes on the same field and has the same opportunity. There would be no more paralympics, no more gendered sports. No paralympian would ever win a medal again, womens sport would disappear. No woman would ever win a tennis title again, no woman would ever play professional football, win any athletic event. Gain equality, kill merit.
Of course, there would be those who would argue that the above is not equality - that women should compete for their own events, the disabled should compete for their own events - but that all genders and people of all physical attributes should compete for the same jobs.
Take the army example - this is the simplest and most straightforward of all. At the moment, there are different standards for men and women, and women cannot do all the jobs within the army- direct combat ones like infantry or driving tanks.
To achieve total equality, women would have access to all jobs, and the standards would be the same. However, this would mean that almost all women currently in the army would fail to qualify for their own jobs - so basically there would be almost no women in the army. The only way to remedy that would be to lower the standards for men to the same as women - the result, the quality of soldiers would fall dramatically. By achieving equality, you kill merit.
Another example would be sport. True equality would mean everyone - everyone competes on the same field and has the same opportunity. There would be no more paralympics, no more gendered sports. No paralympian would ever win a medal again, womens sport would disappear. No woman would ever win a tennis title again, no woman would ever play professional football, win any athletic event. Gain equality, kill merit.
Of course, there would be those who would argue that the above is not equality - that women should compete for their own events, the disabled should compete for their own events - but that all genders and people of all physical attributes should compete for the same jobs.
Well we live in a country where women still get paid less than men for doing the same job, you are more likely to be arressted if you are black than white and if convicted get a harsher sentence. In 2017 we call disabled people benefit scroungers but don't think they are worthy of being even having basic rights like access to toilets in public places. Anyone who bleats that equal oppertunities have gone to far need to really open their eyes to reality. The people most likely to complain about it are white, well-off, able-bodied and male. All I want to do is work, but as a disabled person it's like trying to climb everest. The odds are well stacked against me. What's dangerous about working to put right centuries old wrongs; mysogyny, racism, homphobia and diablism? Or should we just pretend that's all gone away now and ignore all the evidence which tells us it hasn't? Far from a race to the bottom it means as a society we access a wealth of abilities, skills and talents from people who up until now haven't had a chance to use them. So much talent going to waste. (I don't just mean me here lol).
[QUOTE=OutsideOfItAll;73833646
I’m not sure where I stand on the issue of grammar schools, in some respects I think a free market within education can be important, however the focus upon individualism doesn’t seem to extend to this scenario, as the child’s future tends to be within the hands of the parents rather than the child themself.
I appreciate that some people support the idea of gammar schools in theory but the theory is flawed. All evidence has shown that very, very, very few of the poorest children benefited from grammar schools. The people who benefited the most were middle class parents. They couldn't afford private schools but could afford private tutors to coach their children through the 11+ exams. They are a failed experiment and are even unpopular among many Tories who know they are one Grammar school away from p***ing off their constituents in a marginal seat. Thankfully the Maybot quietly dropped her pet project from the Queen's speech. Small mercies.
I’m not sure where I stand on the issue of grammar schools, in some respects I think a free market within education can be important, however the focus upon individualism doesn’t seem to extend to this scenario, as the child’s future tends to be within the hands of the parents rather than the child themself.
I appreciate that some people support the idea of gammar schools in theory but the theory is flawed. All evidence has shown that very, very, very few of the poorest children benefited from grammar schools. The people who benefited the most were middle class parents. They couldn't afford private schools but could afford private tutors to coach their children through the 11+ exams. They are a failed experiment and are even unpopular among many Tories who know they are one Grammar school away from p***ing off their constituents in a marginal seat. Thankfully the Maybot quietly dropped her pet project from the Queen's speech. Small mercies.
Original post by OutsideOfItAll
I'd argue that respecting each other is important but that there shouldn't be equal respect for ideas.
And surely that's still dependent on how you define equality. If everyone respected each other but there were still high levels of income inequality, would you consider us all equal?
And surely that's still dependent on how you define equality. If everyone respected each other but there were still high levels of income inequality, would you consider us all equal?
1. There is a difference between respect (how we treat each other) vs. reputation (sometimes called respect) that an idea or person receives from others. My statement is about our ability to treat one another kindly/lovingly.
We do not have to agree with each other to show respect. You do not need to like my idea in order to show me respect. To treat me kindly/lovingly. Without hostility. Without name calling or to look down at me.
2. I do not consider wealth to be a point of equality. there is good in being viewed different, and jobs posses different requirements as well as demands. Which influence costs and pay/salary. so from my perspective, income inequality would only be denial of pay, not the difference in pay. The denial of pay would include restriction of salary based on other than performance, experience, and loyalty.
Original post by Infraspecies
I don't think the drive for 'equality' is the drive for a lowest common denominator in achievement and capability. Just equality of opportunity to all things.
equality between people regarding opportunity and treatment is not.
demanding that everyone have everything that everyone else has? absolutely.
demanding that everyone have everything that everyone else has? absolutely.
It depends what you define as equality.
You could say equality is that everyone has the same opportunities but otherwise there’s no force to compel them to make certain choices. On the other hand you could say equality is ensuring everyone is doing exactly what they should be doing regardless of what they may want.
You could say equality is that everyone has the same opportunities but otherwise there’s no force to compel them to make certain choices. On the other hand you could say equality is ensuring everyone is doing exactly what they should be doing regardless of what they may want.
I think we pursue equality more than we ought to.
Our obsession with “equality” comes from our natural tendency to compare ourselves with others and to be envious when there is any disparity. If someone else has X, then we indignantly think “why should he have something I don’t?!” and crave it for ourselves.
It would be far more rational for us to try to maximise our satisfaction with our own lives independently of what is going on in anyone else in life, given that this has no bearing on our own well-being. If you are otherwise already satisfied with what you have yourself, then there isn’t really much need to force it to be equal to someone else.
However, I do value equality in the sense that I disapprove of active, arbitrary discrimination. For example it would be irrational to automatically prefer a white person over a black person for a job, when there is a roughly 50% chance that the black person will be better at it.
Our obsession with “equality” comes from our natural tendency to compare ourselves with others and to be envious when there is any disparity. If someone else has X, then we indignantly think “why should he have something I don’t?!” and crave it for ourselves.
It would be far more rational for us to try to maximise our satisfaction with our own lives independently of what is going on in anyone else in life, given that this has no bearing on our own well-being. If you are otherwise already satisfied with what you have yourself, then there isn’t really much need to force it to be equal to someone else.
However, I do value equality in the sense that I disapprove of active, arbitrary discrimination. For example it would be irrational to automatically prefer a white person over a black person for a job, when there is a roughly 50% chance that the black person will be better at it.
Original post by tazarooni89
... It would be far more rational for us to try to maximise our satisfaction with our own lives independently of what is going on in anyone else in life, given that this has no bearing on our own well-being...
I suspect living amoung others who are significantly unsatisfied with their circumstances will have some bearing on our well-being, given that we are social animals.
Original post by Axiomasher
I suspect living amoung others who are significantly unsatisfied with their circumstances will have some bearing on our well-being, given that we are social animals.
I completely agree. This is why we do things like help those who are less fortunate than us, to improve their levels of satisfaction which will in turn improve our own.
But in this sort of situation, we’re not really targeting “equality” for its own sake; we’re just seeking to improve people’s well being and satisfaction.
Equality of outcome and equality of opportunity are very closely related. 99% of those who make a sharp distinction between the two haven't even spent 5 mins reading the Stanford entry on the issue.
Original post by pinkisugarmouse
Well we live in a country where women still get paid less than men for doing the same job, you are more likely to be arressted if you are black than white and if convicted get a harsher sentence. In 2017 we call disabled people benefit scroungers but don't think they are worthy of being even having basic rights like access to toilets in public places. Anyone who bleats that equal oppertunities have gone to far need to really open their eyes to reality. The people most likely to complain about it are white, well-off, able-bodied and male. All I want to do is work, but as a disabled person it's like trying to climb everest. The odds are well stacked against me. What's dangerous about working to put right centuries old wrongs; mysogyny, racism, homphobia and diablism? Or should we just pretend that's all gone away now and ignore all the evidence which tells us it hasn't? Far from a race to the bottom it means as a society we access a wealth of abilities, skills and talents from people who up until now haven't had a chance to use them. So much talent going to waste. (I don't just mean me here lol).
I largely agree with what you said but one thing: the gender wage gap.
The thing is that two people never do the same job, because each human has slightly different abilities, performance capacity etc.
Women and men differ, on average, regarding various parameters, and this means that, on average, there always will be some pay gap, unless the market transforms in such a way that jobs demanding the abilities at which women are superior will be paid better (which is unlikely because such jobs are as it seems, unable to produce more income) or some special measures are taken to discriminate men.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- January 2024 IGCSE edexcel papers
- Man sentenced for 9 years after planning to assassinate the late queen in 2021
- Edexcel igcse english language a 2024 may paper 1
- Please can someone help me with some feedback on my lnat practice essay?
- why are asians (pakistanis) all about money
- Could someone please mark my Macbeth essay and give feedback?
- Girls boxing, your views
- Which uni area is more "dangerous"
- Could a controlling partner be good?
- Is there a reason why the government has failed to control its borders?
- Edexcel GCSE Chemistry Paper 2 Higher Tier (1CH0 2H) - 13th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- macbet practice answer
- Going from a C to A in english lit A-level
- English Literature Paper 1 J + H
- eduqas poetry comparison improvements?
- English language AQA gcse
- Friend thinks it is a competition to sleep with as many guys as possible in halls
- Leeds Festival- Help?
- marriage
- Are terbinafine 250mg tablets dangerous?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
