Notion of Equality

Aristotle wrote of being a "tabula rasa" or blank slate at birth. If you follow this then it would mean that genes do not account for anything and knowledge is developed from life experiences and sensory perceptions. I guess Aristotle took the side of nurture in the nature/nurture debate. I believe there is a mix of genetic predisposition and then cultural experiences. We don't live in a vacuum. But the brain is pre-programmed for certain emotional responses. Take the pain experience for example. While everyone feels it differently we still recognize it as pain and it hurts. Our mind tells us it's not pleasurable (well okay I do have to make the exception of sado-masochism). Yes that could be a cultural response but with classic conditioning would it ever be possible to associate pain with happiness? Not that I propose that study ever be conducted since it would be unethical. Watson also believed in the notion of a tabula rasa and stated that if he had 20 infants he could create who they would become (thieves, doctors, etc.). Now what does the idea of a blank slate mean for equality? If we start out as a blank slate then everyone would be equal from the beginning. But even if you do state that everyone is a blank slate at birth will they remain that way? Will equality continue throughout time? To use an extreme example, two children are born on the same day. One is born to a judge and the other to a crack addict. Will these children be the same? Yes they are both equal at birth in the sense that they are both infants and both human. But their worlds will undoubtedly be shaped very differently so how can there be equality?

In a political sense the idea of equality encompasses three things.

1. Equal Rights
2. Equal opportunities
3. Equlity before the law

But, in practice, do we really have those three equalities in society? Someone commits a crime and goes to jail. They no longer have the same rights. Granted they gave up that right by committing the crime but that also means they are no longer equal with other members of society. I have the right to vote. The homeless guy downtown does not have the same right since he does not have an address. What happened to equal rights? Why do they not have the same rights simply because they are homeless?

Equal opportunities.... I did a google search and really all I got were web sites on affirmative action. According to Wikipedia, "Equal Opportunity is a descriptive term for an approach intended to give equal access to an environment or benefits, such as education, employment, health care, or social welfare to all, often with emphasis on members of various social groups who historically suffered from discrimination. Some protected groups include gender, race, or religion. Equal opportunity practices include an organizations' implementation of personnel practices to ensure equality in the employment process. Equal opportunity also applies to equality in housing and public accommodations.In developing countries, equal opportunity is provided by creating jobs accessible to poor people. Economic studies suggest that this is achieved by reducing barriers to entry and allowing entrepreneurial activity."

Now, how exactly is that equal opportunity? Okay, I understand the idea that we are supposed to have equal access but then that is followed by an emphasis on the disenfranchised in society? So now the white guy is screwed for a job and is discriminated against because he's not part of the minority. How exactly is that better? As you can tell, I am not a fan of this type of policy.

Another example of how equal opportunity falls short is in the access to health care. Let's go back to the homeless guy. Or even employment. Is he as likely to get medical care from a family physician? Or even from a hospital? Whereas I can go see my family doctor if needed and can call for help. Let's say we both have a degree in psychology and apply for the same job. We have the same qualifications (it could actually be argued he has more in the way of life experience) but who is more likely to get that job? I am. If you follow the logic of equal opportunity then would it not be discrimination to show preference for someone with a university degree over someone who simply has life experience? While both people are able to apply (equal opportunity at work) it has already been pre-determined that the person with the degree will get the job.

When it comes to equal opportunity is there such a thing when it comes to education? Post-secondary education is not publicly funded and few can afford it without a loan. There is a huge disparity in who goes on to get a degree. Not to mention the cost of paying it back. When I finished school my loan was $54,000 (I think) and then there is the interest on top of that. Since it is education and relates to the betterment of society then why do we have to pay interest on the loan? Because it's the government. And they make it incredibly difficult to get interest relief. But that was a bit of a tangent there. The point is that we do not have equal access to post-secondary education.

Equality before the law means that when a law is made every person is to be treated equally. Equal protection of the law means that when a law is applied or is enforced then there should not be any differentiation except where it is rational and justifiable. The courts have admitted that is impossible to treat everyone equally. In this context equality has come to mean that if two people in the exact same situation should be treated equally. But it is also very difficult for situations to be identical.

As taken from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Equality Rights
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law	15.	(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Affirmative action programs		(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (83)

Equality can also be looked at from a political, social or economic viewpoint. In politics there is the charter of rights and freedoms as mentioned previously. And, of course, the goverment wants us to believe that everything is equal and that the justice system is fair.

Economically it is easy to see that we are not all equal. For things to truly be equal there would need to be a redistribution of wealth. In a capitalist society this will never happen. And if wealth is taken from the rich and given to the poor then it inhibits personal freedom. What would the incentive be to work hard if that was the case? You won't get ahead in the long run. So society would actually become poorer if we tried to make things equal.

Taken at it's simplest equality is treating everyone the same. Within any culture is this ever possible? A corporate executive that steals from the company will get less prison time (if they get any at all) then the person that robs a bank. Why are the courts more lenient on white collar crime? The societal notion of equality is related to equal access to education, employment, and social services. As already mentioned this doesn't happen.

Equality is a lofty goal that does not appear to be attainable. But does that mean we shouldn't strive for equality? Philosophers use logic and reason to construct beliefs and then attempt to prove them. I guess the question would actually be "Is equality a noble ideal and something we should work towards or should we simply acknowledge the inequalities in society and continue on with the hierarchy of power?"

To be continued...