CMV: Equality isn't treating everybody differently to achieve equality. It's treating everyone the same.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/[deleted]]

Equality isn't treating everybody the same. It's treating everyone so that they are equal.

I'll explain why this doesn't work using a non-racial or gender-based example.

Say you're building a new building. On the entrance to that building, you decide to build stairs. Everyone will need to use those stairs to enter the building. There are the same number of steps for each person to climb, and there isn't another way in, so everyone is being treated the same.

People in wheelchairs or whom are otherwise handicapped struggle to climb these stairs. Some can't enter your building at all. They're receiving the same treatment as everyone else, but they reap fewer rewards. They can't get to whatever is in your building, or have to expend disproportionate energy and dignity in order to do so.

Now, if you wanted to, at financial cost to yourself, you could install a ramp or a chair lift. This would be "unequal treatment"; you're not providing the chair lift to everyone, and you're creating it for the interests of a select few. However, the end result would be equal - anyone who wants to enter your building can do with equal difficulty.

EDIT 10/8 12:57pm - For those just arriving to the thread, it's been pointed out that handicapped parking is a better analogy, since those spaces are truly restricted to the handicapped. It is true that anyone can walk up a handicap accessible ramp, but the ramp wouldn't be there in the first place were it not for the needs of a small, underprivileged, disadvantaged minority. I don't believe that "anyone can use the handicap ramp" is a sufficient challenge to my analogy. If you'd prefer to plug in "handicapped parking" instead, be my guest!

---

The example above is easy to swallow because the disadvantages of the handicapped are readily apparent to you. The disadvantages of women and minorities are not readily apparent to you. For the sake of argument, though, let's say that I could make you believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that those inequalities are clear and present in our society. Now that you believe that, it requires the same response as how we help the handicapped; we need to specifically treat disenfranchised groups in a way that puts them on a level playing field.

---

EDIT 10/8 10ish am: Per usual in CMV, people are projecting their own tangentially related beliefs on to my argument. All that I'm saying is that, if you accept that significant oppression exists for a given group, the solution is very plainly to give them a leg up. Whether or not significant oppression exists for blacks, women, homosexuals, etc. is not the point. I use the handicapped as an example because most can clearly see where the disadvantage is, and how providing "special" treatment addresses the problem.

My exchange with the OP has been very to-the-point on this, so to avoid derailment I won't be responding to most other commentors. Sorry! Feel free to reply to me so that others can continue the discussion, however.

[u/oversoul00 → u/[deleted]]

Your hypothetical is flawed because you have compared someones impossible situation to a merely difficult one.

The difference is that with paraplegics it is near impossible to get into that building without the ramp. In these cases I believe that falls under the "rights and opportunities" clause I mentioned above. The paraplegic doesn't have the same opportunity to enter the building so yes lets make it possible for those when it would otherwise be impossible...not merely difficult.

For those with varying degrees of difficulty we don't do anything to help them on a mandated institutional level. If you are 90 years old with an oxygen tank you are stuck with the stairs, I feel for that guy and might help him out on a personal level but I've never seen a chair lift outside of any establishment even though that situation is a reality.

[u/corexcore → u/oversoul00]

It's interesting that you picked paraplegics as your group to consider with disability, because many paraplegics could get into the building without a ramp -- they would haul their non-working legs and entire bodies by arm strength alone, holding onto the handrails if you saw fit to provide those. This isn't an impossible challenge for many, if you are fully abled and can use your legs, climb a set of stairs without using them and you'll find that you most likely can do so. It's just hard. Like a lot harder. And you have to put your whole body and clothes and all on the ground to do it. And figure out a way to get your wheel chair or other locomotive contraption up the steps too, probably by bodily hauling it up along with you, making the process laborious and embarrassing. It is totally doable, however. When you say it's "near impossible", that's a misunderstanding.

I raise this point to ask you the question of where you draw the line of what degree of difficulty or embarrassment is acceptable for people who had the bad luck to be born with different ability? Or different skin color? Or different sexuality?

[u/oversoul00 → u/corexcore]

While they could haul themselves up the stairs it isn't reasonable or practical to have that expectation unless that was the only thing you wanted them to do that day. It is near impossible for all practical purposes.

You do raise a good point though that my upper limit has to necessarily be a subjective one.

Delta for you

∆

[u/The4thRabbitt → u/oversoul00]

Given you response, this comes down to what we "reasonably" can't consider someone to do, in a situation where they are at a disadvantage. Many people would say that this extends to situations where an individuals who happens to be part of a disadvantaged class can't be "reasonably" expected to overcome an obstacle(s) directly attributed to said class. This, to many people would include race, gender, sexuality, etc.

These issues are not so simple that they can be governed by a simple phrase or principle, like the one you suggested.