Is achieving an equitable society a naive aspiration?

TLCD1996

As I read a little bit about what's going on these days, and as I talk and meet with people who are passionate about their cause, I come across an insistence for justice in the world. One particular "realm" is that of equity. Some organizations, for example, seek equity for Native Americans, equity being the distribution of resources according to each unique group's individual needs. This is opposed to treating everyone equally, as if we were all the same.

This, at first, sounds great. I would love for people to recognize the nuances of society and respect them appropriately. However, I see a problem, and that is the fact that nuance is nuanced. First, when it comes to race, we may acknowledge that it's somewhat vague, really; the boundaries between "races" are not clear-cut, and indeed different societies have been struggling to define race for a long time. We've come to a point recently where one's blood content is used to determine the extent to which one is racially a Native American, and the child of a native mother may be deemed non-native if their measurements don't meet a particular standard (I'm saying this from my memory of an anthropology class, so I can't provide specific resources).

Then there comes along "identity". If we can truly lump people into groups and have them live happily ever after, that would be great. But we know people like to go hang out with other groups. And we know that some people might want to break off and form their own group. Some may live in a group but be dissociated with it for whatever reason; perhaps they may be particularly selfish and want more resources than others, or they may be freely generous and willing to share with insiders or outsiders (to the disapproval of different insiders). Groups are not solid, nor are their members. It's not easy to pin down groups, and it's a challenge for many if not all communities to maintain harmony when keeping to rigid rule systems. Sometimes our own minds rebel against our own "systems".

So if we tried, what would that take? Might it result in a system that is actually too complicated to sustain itself? Might the people of a group who once demanded equity rebel in a future generation? Human minds love to think; what happens when a person questions a little too much in this equitable system?

I think the reality is that some people running these movements aren't necessarily seeking the ideal, but using it as a compass. After all, activists' opponents have needs too, and if they can't be met, there will be conflict; presumably someone's going to have to compromise. A little voice goes in my head, related to a search for a "simple" and "satisfactory" answer to a philosophical problem, and it seems that these movements pose more questions than answers. And when I speak to anyone who poses such a clear-cut ideal, I personally get red flags.

I'm wondering what people think of this, and what has been written about this, if anything; I'm fairly confident that some of these thoughts relate to the concept of liberty as sought by America's founding fathers, and there we already see that "freedom" has no single definition, and I'm sure I'm not the first to question idealism.

I'm also really interested in hearing that the proponents of these movements have to say about it.

Judaka

↪TLCD1996

Each racial group should be given equal treatment but accomplishing equity among racial groups should not be a goal. I see inequity as a product of systemic racism and past injustices, among other things. However, many see inequity as a component of systemic racism and as a current injustice. Both views see any insidious or intentional perpetuation or worsening of any contemporary unequal treatment as unjust but anyone can see that even if those offences were eliminated, the inequity between the races will continue to exist, it will likely never cease to exist. If the inequity itself is an injustice then we cannot simply strive for equal treatment, it would have to be addressed directly.

Like you say, race membership isn't clear cut and the concept itself can often be confusing. By attempting to achieving equity among racial lines, we need to hyperfocus on this issue of race and to implement controversial policies which select races for special assistances. This isn't just controversial due to the majority race feeling sidelined but every race would need to be evaluated for the kind of assistance needed to accomplish an equitable outcome and I think finding a method of doing this everyone agreed with would be impossible. I think such a move would be divisive and socially inflammatory, because it focuses on racial differences, however, I don't think we should treat everyone the same.

There are disadvantaged and vulnerable groups in society and there is a need for economic redistribution. Striving for a more equitable society is an absolute must, the economy is naturally trending towards a less equitable society just left to its own devices as it is and the way it is currently is already pretty bad. No matter if we treat everyone equally, life isn't fair, everyone knows this. Therefore, I don't think trying to achieve a more equitable society is naive or wrong but I don't agree with aiming for more equity across racial lines as an explicit goal. Once everyone is being treated equally then allow racial inequity to be addressed through programs that help those who are disadvantaged in more practical categories, within which poorly performing racial groups will certainly be overrepresented.

Apollodorus

Some organizations, for example, seek equity for Native Americans — TLCD1996

Well, I must say it wouldn't be bad to see a Native American US President for a change but for some strange reason it looks like other minorities are always given priority in these matters.

But a more fundamental problem with "equity" seems to be that is is difficult to define and even more difficult to implement. To begin with, who decides? It looks like the group that shouts loudest or gets the support of the media, big tech and big bucks tends to win the day. Of course, I may be wrong.

Leghorn

I'm fairly confident that some of these thoughts relate to the concept of liberty as sought by America's founding fathers — TLCD1996

America, as I perceive it, was founded, not on the rights of racial groups or any other sort; it was rather founded on the rights of individual men (human beings). Bathed in the light of such individual rights, the sort that make all men equal, their differences with regard to religion and race (and, anachronistically, sex) were supposed to disappear...yet they haven’t. Indeed, it seems those differences have only been augmented...

...I remember Obama coming out, after Trevon Martin’s murder, before the American ppl, and saying, “if I had a son, he would look like Trevon Martin”. I wondered to myself: “what does that fact have anything to do with the justice of this case?” Actually, such a sentiment as our president expressed in that moment runs contrary to justice. It says, “you as though killed my son, and so you too deserve to die”...but isn’t Justice supposed to be blind? blind to what? to skin color certainly, among many other things.

America’s founding is flawed. First of all, the Declaration should have said, not “men”, but “human beings”: “all HUMAN BEINGS” are created equal...the problem with this is, however, that, though it include women, it doesn’t exclude children. Immature human beings cannot be given the same rights as mature ones. In other words, once you open the door to all men, you can justifiably open it to whom- or what-so ever you will... which suggests you should never have opened it up for even ALL men...

...but then Pandora came along, just like did Eve.

TLCD1996

↪Judaka

So you think equality should be a guiding compass rather than equity, and that equity needs a stronger foundation in order to have a good effect when pursued?

Judaka

↪TLCD1996

Equality and equity are just two very different things, sometimes pursuing equality alone just perpetuates the unfairness. Such as leaving the rich and poor to their own devices, we'd just be guaranteeing that the wealth inequality will widen. Some people need more help than others, I'm just saying that we shouldn't define the people who need help by their racial features nor offer help exclusively to people based on their race.

Adam Hilstad

I expect that if equipped with the right conceptual tools, an equitable society is, to some degree, an inevitability. We will never completely get there, but once things are catalyzed, we will only tend to get closer and closer. As for these tools, I believe they’re an amalgam of philosophy, computer science and poetry.

TLCD1996

I'm just saying that we shouldn't define the people who need help by their racial features nor offer help exclusively to people based on their race. — Judaka

Would you say this is the same as ignoring race or broadening the perspective to be more holistic?

But a more fundamental problem with "equity" seems to be that is is difficult to define and even more difficult to implement. To begin with, who decides? It looks like the group that shouts loudest or gets the support of the media, big tech and big bucks tends to win the day. — Apollodorus

And that doesn't sound like equity! But then again, we need to shout sometimes; on a micro scale, if we've fallen and we're being trampled in a crowd, we'll die if we don't shout. But we're not asking everyone to stop what they're doing and help us in every way. We have a need which isn't being recognized, so we shout that get that need heard so it can be met.

From https://www.raceforward.org/about/what-is-racial-equity:

At Race Forward, we define racial equity as both an outcome and a process. As an outcome, we achieve racial equity when race no longer determines one's socioeconomic outcomes; when everyone has what they need to thrive, no matter where they live. As a process, we apply racial equity when those most impacted by structural racial inequity are meaningfully involved in the creation and implementation of the institutional policies and practices that impact their lives.

Apollodorus

And that doesn't sound like equity! But then again, we need to shout sometimes; on a micro scale, if we've fallen and we're being trampled in a crowd, we'll die if we don't shout. But we're not asking everyone to stop what they're doing and help us in every way. We have a need which isn't being recognized, so we shout that get that need heard so it can be met.

From https://www.raceforward.org/about/what-is-racial-equity: — TLCD1996

That was more like a general observation.

However, talking about race, which races would you say are not treated equitably or are "being trampled in a crowd"?

Personally, I tend to think it's more nations or ethnic groups than "races". For example, the Kurdish people aren't allowed to have their own state, Tibetans are being suppressed by China, etc.

Judaka

↪TLCD1996

Would you say this is the same as ignoring race or broadening the perspective to be more holistic? — TLCD1996

Either? Or neither?

I can give different justifications for why selecting specific races for privileges is a bad idea. Keep things simple and help people who can be defined as needing help by their circumstances. I think even someone who is racially sensitive can understand why creating a ladder for which races deserve the most help, and giving or withholding help based on your race, will cause many problems. Socially, politically, culturally, it exacerbates racism and helps to justify it.

Agreeing that we need to pursue a more equitable society by more pragmatic disadvantages I think is at odds with wanting a more equitable society by race. Not because the end goal is different but because the race element hijacks the agenda and turns it into something different, both in how it operates and in how it is perceived.

Is achieving an equitable society a naive aspiration?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions