TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Is equality feasible and is it worth achieving? Subquestion: By your definitions, is equality synonymous with fairness?

This is an idea I recently fell upon while thinking about colleges and scholarships. I was wondering why I've been told (not actually witnessed) that minorities get a better chance of getting in college for being a minority. This was apparently an attempt to level the playing field and make things for equal for applicants. I realized that in their attempt to equalize the playing field, they made it unfair. What are your thoughts on this situation and any other equality situation? Do you think people should be going for fairness or equality, both, or are they essentially the same thing?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jun 7 2013: Guess the definition of equality and equality of opportunities should be addressed on different debates. The first is perhaps field for philosophers. The second is an informed desition each state should make. Understanding that state, government and nation are not the same things.

    Personally I always preferred the term equivalent to equality. Mainly because I feel the first allowed us to provide value to society through our differences and not despite of them. Which would mean we are worth the same because of our differences. Otherwise - and this is an opinion, the term would hurt more than it healed. Since being different on any aspect would be simply wrong.

    Equality of opportunities is a discussion to be made by each state. Not by a particular government nor a particular nation within a state. Personally I believe the state should provide the same opportunities of education and health to all citizens. Which is not the same to limiting the amount of opportunities those wealthier can access. It means a state makes a desition wether it prefers to remain competitive or not. Wether it wants to extract up to the last drop of value and innovation from its citizens or only from those who by effort or natural disposition reach the top. Understanding that the first will imply heavy investments with low to medium levels of return. While the second one will incur on the exclusion of contributions from big sectors of the population simply because they didn't do things they way a particular sectors of the state's population though things should be done under a particular mindset consequence of a particular series of events during a particular time frame.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.