Circumstances should be analized and society needs and according to what topic specifically we are treating we should aim for a solution based on equality, equity, liberation or just thing happen whatever way.
In that exact context of the drawing probably equity is what is necessary. Or liberation. As the main objective is all three to watch the match.
In the laboral world equality of opportunities is more necessary than equity though, as the objective is not everybody having same skills, but everybody to fully develop their skills, even if someone can develop them more than others. Because the goal is not to avoid someone having to face their limits, but the get the more efficient professional to work for our society's improvement.
When giving food to a family, however, equity. Wouldn't be logical to give the same quantity of food to the father of the family than to his 5 years old kid. Because the goal here is to satisfy the hunger of all family members.
About reality sometimes work better sometimes don't, we keep working on it. About liberation it depends on what is beign understood. If it's what it's pictured, that seems anarchy, the lack of rules and that's not ok. We human need rules and limits. Even if we try to make limits disspear we can't. Our own existence and nature limit us.
Well liberation comes from freedom and fairness and that eventually becomes reality.
Equality in there images would be state socialism/state monopoly. Equity would be communism, each according to their need. Reality would be capitalism. And liberation would be anarchism.
Liberation... that would have you arrested. You can't wander right out into the middle of the field during a sporting event.
This sounds like a bunch of liberal arts education gobbledygook.
We are not equal. We never will be. Some are loaded with intelligence, maturity, drive, ambition, conscientiousness, cleverness, looks, charm and work ethic and other with hardly any of these things and people fall all over the spectrum.
The law only ensures EQUAL OPPORTUNITY... NOT EQUAL OUTCOMES.
Some are brilliant, risk takers, will endlessly strive and invent and create and end up wealthy.
Some will just go to high school and go be janitors and will support themselves... have an apartment, or a small house, they'll put food on the table and live a decent life.
Both will be doing just fine for themselves. The law just gives us equal opportunity to make of our lives what we will with the hand we've been dealt.
In theory tnose people would be self sustainable and capable of feeding themselves and owning or renting a small place. But the reality doesn't reflect that.
@SirRexington In the USA, if you are healthy and able bodied than it does. Too many churches, charities, welfare, food stamps programs... etc.
Unless you are sick or disabled in some way, an able bodied man can support himself. If not... than it is most likely they are into drugs and alcohol and have destroyed their own lives. In the USA that is.
Very incorrect. I implore to to step outside you house and view the world.
The social safety net programs we have are shit and are over complicated but the idea of them is still necessary to our modern society. I fight for a basic income program (which get a lot of shit but usually it's from idiots) that would replace needless, expensive, inneficient and beurocratic programs like food stamps and welfare.
But not, able bodied adults are having an awful time supporting themselves even with longer hours.
Equity is crap. It's basically forcing things to end up equal for everyone, regardless of efforts or work put into it.
Only equality of opportunity should be accepted. Giving people the same start, just like in a race. The rest being up to how much you work and how well you perform in that race. You don't slow down people working more just because those who don't put as much effort don't have the same result.
Equity in this example would be ideal. Not having a fence there would just create boundary issues with spectators wandering on to the field/getting cracked by stray balls at full blast.
Mhmm overall I like the idea of liberty and think it is an ideal to strive for but that has to involve flexibility for the context and situation. We still are more effective as a functioning group than as individuals so there has to be a balance.
This example is actually fairly broken in the first place. The use the height of the people to represent the personal factor which is misleading since you dont have much choice in how tall you are but you do have a choice in how hard you work for something.
@Soteris again that's not what equity means and it is akin to socialism. Socialism would be everyone looking over the fence with different people having different needs.
@SirRexington No, socialism is everyone given the same "box" to stand on. Its up to the government to make sure the "box" is big enough that everyone can look above the fence, otherwise the fence is just too high for the country to have an effective socialist society.
Dont forget that the box in this example is the "total help available" for that person and in a socialist society you always have access to as much help as the government can give you just like everyone else. "Short" people do not have access to more, they just use more of the box to see higher where as other people might not need it.
Most Helpful Opinions