Equality and Equity: Aristotelian Analysis.

In common usage, “equity” is equal outcome whilst “equality” is equal opportunity, yet these were not supposed to be divorced from one another, since the latter is the end whereas the former is the means.

 

It’s natural to seek for equal outcome, since we wish for Others to be able to enjoy the same prosperity that we do. Yet demanding this prosperity for all, for it to come immediately, only leads to ruin, so we have to take a longer road to get to that Society which we desire. 

 

So, although it’s natural to wish for equity, it’s logical to seek it by equality. Yet two extremes prevent us from arrival at this goal, both variations on the segregation between ends and means.

 

On one extreme, those who demand that we have equity, immediately, seek the ends by wrongful means, while those who settle for equality of opportunity but do not *take* this opportunity *for equity* (for that was all that “opportunity” referred to from the start) have taken proper means and turned them to improper ends.

 

**In short, then:** Equity is equal outcome, whilst equality is equal opportunity. Yet opportunity *for what?* For equity, of course. The former is the end; the latter is the means. The two are not to be regarded separately, and the failure of all modern systems has arisen from the separation of the proper end from proper means, resulting in two legions: one who seeks the proper end by wrongful means and one who uses proper means towards improper, private — and thus wrongful — ends.

 

**[({R.G.)}]**

 

**This Page has been Optimized for Discord.**

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

First Response to Hazmat: Absolutist Ethics.

Image
Yes: I value the opinions of others, insofar as I can vouch for their integrity. Yet that requires that they fervently believe that what they say is true, that they can stand beside it, put it into practice, and uphold it as a sacred principle, as though it were a Higher Power which compelled them. It thus follows that, so long as an opinion is valid, one must validate it not by merely practicing that view within one’s own life, but by holding others to it. One cannot impose morality on anyone, because morality is binding on us all, in equal measure, and one’s only burden is to fathom it, to the extent one can, and to uphold it. That is not an imposition; it’s an obligation, and, without it, we have nothing. You once asked me: “At what point is it an evil to impose one’s views of righteousness on someone else?” I’ll answer with the obvious: at no point, whatsoever, since it is impossible. Where Righteousness is what’s at stake, one can’t “impose on someone else”, as though one posed a
Read more

Justice for R. Kelly: a Reflection on the State of Eros. (Dedicated to the Lady Jerri.)

  I've been reading, recently, about the life of Robert Kelly, whom you'd recognize from *Space Jam*'s soundtrack, the "Ignition" remix, and his many other hits, such as "Trapped in the Closet". It just breaks my heart to see how he was treated, not just as a child who had to grow up much too fast, but also as an adult, even after having given us such heartfelt, soulful music. I could never reconcile those sweet and sentimental, loving, sometimes mystifying tones with the entire image of a sex offender; he was a Don Juan, but not Don Giovanni.   Clearly, that same mainstream media that made him famous had betrayed him, while the legal system, which was never there for him when he himself most needed and deserved it, in the tenderness of youth, went well beyond its obligations in defence of "children". The hypocrisy is not the part which angers me, as it is so ironic that it's laughable, and that alleviates some of the sadness of this gr
Read more

The Early Death of Any Future Peace:

  The biggest problem with the issue of abortion seems, at first, to be that no one wants to talk about it *as* a controversial issue. All the major arguments which either “side” reiterates have been around for roughly half a century at least, and we have made no progress in resolving them in the last forty years. This does not stop idealogues from acting like the matter’s settled and that *their* side won, however.   Yet beyond the moderate, “politically correct” and “civil” surface of the issue lies the deeper issue: Hardly anybody wants to talk about abortion *in itself*, and those who advocate for “choice” (and, by extension, for abortion, as it has to be a choice) are those least willing to discuss *the act itself* and whether it is good or evil to commit.   Instead, we hear from advocates for “choice” a slew of beautiful ideals, impassioned speeches, and redundant platitudes: -    the value of one’s bodily autonomy, -    the need for women to receive protection in a m
Read more