Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

4 Bumps

Do you support equality?

From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other but not both at the same time.--F.A. Hayek

How would you justify it?

Answer Question
 
Carpy

Asked by Carpy at 7:05 PM on Apr. 7, 2011 in Politics & Current Events

Level 39 (114,053 Credits)
Answers (19)
  • no because there is no such thing. life just isnt fair or equal
    shay1130

    Answer by shay1130 at 7:07 PM on Apr. 7, 2011

  • I have to figure it out first.
    itsmesteph11

    Answer by itsmesteph11 at 7:09 PM on Apr. 7, 2011

  • I have to figure it out first.
    itsmesteph11

    Answer by itsmesteph11

    Figure what out?
    Carpy

    Comment by Carpy (original poster) at 7:13 PM on Apr. 7, 2011

  • I support equality.

    What an interesting quote! I feel like I am in college pre-law course. I see what the quoter is saying, but I do not agree with that logic. Equality can be defined deifferently in many different areas. Usually, a question such as the one posted in your title, is asking whether or not people should have equal rights in the eyes of the law and privelege. I do not believe that this leads to inequality.

    I do believe that law equlity and material equality are different. Material equality can only be achieved with "unequal" intervention. But they are not negatively correlated, as the quoter is suggesting.

    Thoughtful quote, Carpy.
    ImaginationMama

    Answer by ImaginationMama at 7:18 PM on Apr. 7, 2011

  • . Material equality can only be achieved with "unequal" intervention.

    Then you are not supporting equality.
    Carpy

    Comment by Carpy (original poster) at 7:24 PM on Apr. 7, 2011

  • i am not sure Hayek's conclusion is right .at least today . Hayek is rather old hat though he was an original thinker , an economist of the Vienna School . Modern jurusprudence is based on equality before the law regardless of individuals' material circumstances . But this doesn't negate the pursuit of equality in other areas such as womens rights, especially equal pay for equal work , gay rights and abortion rights and racial/ ethnic discrimination. These combine in some cases both legal and material issues of equality. So I disagree with Hayek that they are necessarily in conflict , because they can be reconciled .
    janet116

    Answer by janet116 at 7:26 PM on Apr. 7, 2011

  • If we treat people unequally to have an equal outcome then they have not been treated equal. To treat them equal under the law we would have to move ALL people equally, say two degrees above their lot. The result would still be inequality, just a different degree of it.nThe only true way to make all people equal would be to apply a different standard to each person. Thus they would not have been treated equally under the law.
    Carpy

    Comment by Carpy (original poster) at 7:29 PM on Apr. 7, 2011

  • Carpy, :)

    I support equality. In the "linguistic" sense of your initial question, I support equality of law and privelege. Unequal intervention, as I previously said, only has to do with material equality, for which I am not for. I do not believe the two are the same. And, when people usually ask if one support "equality" they are not asking about the "material" equality stance . . . if they are,. they usually specify "equally distributed wealth". Is that what you are asking?
    ImaginationMama

    Answer by ImaginationMama at 7:30 PM on Apr. 7, 2011

  • . But this doesn't negate the pursuit of equality in other areas such as womens rights, especially equal pay for equal work , gay rights and abortion rights and racial/ ethnic discrimination

    These are civil rights issues. Not what I am talking about.
    Carpy

    Comment by Carpy (original poster) at 7:33 PM on Apr. 7, 2011

  • "equally distributed wealth". Is that what you are asking?

    Basically, yes. I should have specified it better.
    Carpy

    Comment by Carpy (original poster) at 7:34 PM on Apr. 7, 2011

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.
close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN