Just quick thoughts and guesses (not certain conclusion by any means):

Probably because we have no concensus on what exactly is inequity and what exactly is wrong; thus the muddled complexity.

It's a bit difficult to do a simple quantification of complex qualities without the need of hasty generalizations somewhere along the way.

The relativity sort of screws up the idealistic polarities.

I'm just spitballin' here, so take it with a grain of salt.

Meow!

GREG

Just for clarity's sake, do you mean injustice/prejudice or poverty/lack of necessities? Both? Neither?
Just curious before i answer. Thanks.

Who says that inequity is wrong per se? There's clearly nothing morally exceptionable about the fact that Usain Bolt can run faster than me. I think you need to far more precisely define what forms of inequity you consider 'wrong'.

Why is inequity wrong? For lack of a better explanation – because it just is. Inescapably, some have to dig drains whereas others can attain to superbly fulfilling and exalted careers. We cannot all become astronauts for example, but yet a drain-digger could in principle possess all the personal ambition and capacity for self-fulfilment of the most successful astronaut but ultimately nonetheless be required by unalterable circumstances such as lack of talent to resign himself to his roll in life. A person could of course strive to achieve within the limitations of his situation all the potential for fulfilment it plausibly could permit but neither such a constructive attitude nor the pragmatic reality that such inequity is an inescapable element of our condition can serve to cancel out the element of irredeemable nihilism pertaining to the situation.
Anyway, if the the presumed 'Author' of our condition willed this set up - then I think some at least can take refuge in the realisation that He obviously leans more towards the Republican ticket - and definitely evinces no sympathy for Commies! :)

Inequity is wrong, because that's the meaning of inequity.

Merry xmas, believers, happy holidays, thinkers :))

-Good ' nough for Trump no doubt! :( Never mind - Too corny to say? - "God Bless us - Every one"! :)

Who argues that inequity is wrong?

Why is inequity wrong? For lack of a better explanation – because it just is. — Robert Lockhart

Are you just reporting your own view that inequity, unqualified, is wrong?

Or are you claiming that some population of other people believe that inequity, unqualified, is wrong? What population and how are you acquiring your data?

- That it is objectively the case that inequity, though innate to our situation, is nonetheless intrinsically unjust - even though that idea doesn't necessarily accommodate a logical proof. Like where's the ethics in the situation where the inheritance of talent, or serendipity, as distinct from exerting personal effort, is a super-imposing criterion for success. To say, "That's just how it is" doesn't of course invest the situation with any ethical nature.

Perhaps to an extent the philosophy of Communism could be regarded as a type of idealistic reaction to that nihilistic aspect of our reality, meriting some admiration in that respect... — Robert Lockhart

There is perhaps more of a natural equity of needs than of means. Rocket scientists and shit shovelers both gotta eat. So there is no injustice in being smarter or stronger than the rest, but only in being richer and more privileged. Talent, then, is not private property, but held in common (according to communists).

The pecuniary fruits of individual talent might conceivably be equitably distributed by a progressive tax regime - but not the fulfilling experiences or personal enlightenment talent can afford. - These belong alone to the province of the lucky! -There's just sadly no way to equitably balance the 'seesaw'!

Inequity refers to a lack of justice, so it's by definition wrong.

Inequality, on the other hand, is not necessarily wrong. Be careful not to confuse the two.

Er, no - Oh Wise and Holy One! :) Inequality derives primarily from pre-existant inequity which in turn consists in factors - like talent, serendipity, etc - in principle inimical to human intervention and instead contingent on unconscious, and therefore amoral, chance - inequality thus being unjust by descent. Were inequality primarily a reflection of level of personal effort as distinct from level of luck then the situation would not be so meaningless. - But it ain't so it is!