1.5.9.3 Equality for Individuals & Organisations

Version 1.0 October 2022                             (Previous Version)

Choosing Equality as a core value, one of our central guiding principles, primarily means we commit to choosing the appropriate courses of action ourselves to promote equality.  We also want other people and organizations to make similar choices (mutates mutandis).  We suggest that the core values of a Reasonable Global Way are just that – very reasonable – and many people would feel able to adopt them.  And in fact many people do, even if they don't use our terminology or reasoning: all around the world valuing Equality, like valuing Love, in general has widespread support.  Controversy arises in the dimensions of equality that we take into account when making value choices.

But we must distinguish between individuals and organizations in the application of ethical guidelines, particularly in relation to valuing Equality. 

●   We accept that normal human beings will treat family and friends differently.  We must be realistic in our expectations and not define an ethical guideline (such as equality) in such a way that most individuals will in practice fail to follow it.  We cannot force individuals to love and be as generous with strangers as they would be with their friends and relatives: individuals driven by visceral emotions cannot be expected to act too much in opposition to their feelings. 

●   But this qualification applies to individuals. We can and do expect organizations such as government agencies and large corporations to treat all people fairly: organizations do not have visceral emotions, and the people of which they are constituted must contain their biases and act more ‘objectively’ as representatives of the organization.  Policies and procedures must be in place to minimize bias, conflicts of interest, cronyism, pork barreling and so on.

●   This qualification also doesn’t apply to individuals when visceral emotions are not predominant.  We can accept that a desperate parent caring for a needy child is likely to seek special attention, especially when those around do not seem to be needy.  But a moderately affluent person choosing how to spend the last few dollars of their discretionary income is not driven by primitive emotions and can be expected to behave more rationally, and indeed more fairly and considerately.

Although generalized support for equality is widespread, people differ on the dimensions on which they support equality, and the circumstances in which some dimensions of equality apply.  This is a complex issue.  The following subsections discuss the philosophical and historical context in which we define the kinds of equality valued in REALigion, a Reasonable Global Way. 

As we did in section 1.5.8, on choosing Love, we emphasize that we provide this context only to the degree necessary to determine what reasonable constraints are imposed on our ethical philosophy by the reality we are aware of.  Science and History do not drive our philosophy but they do inform it.  Historical observations made here just summarize the presentation in Part 3 on History.

 

1.5.9.4 Dimensions of Equality

Version 1.0 October 2022                             (Previous Version)

In the previous section, we said valuing Love is making choices that are beneficial to others and that minimize harm to them, tending towards satisfying their needs or desires and promoting more fulfilling lives.  Ultimately, valuing Equality is making those choices so that, in the ideal, the interests of everyone affected by the choice is considered equally.

Of course, no two people are really equal in all respects.  Sceptics of valuing Equality suggest that if we treat everybody equally – in all respects – then society wouldn’t function properly.  But this is a ‘straw dog’ argument, obviously false, because no-one seriously proposes that people are equal in all respects.  But we should treat people as though they were equal in specific ways: we value equality only along certain dimensions. 

The equality we value is, at a minimum, equality before the law and equality of treatment in civil society.  Regardless of age, sex, gender, social status, race, religion, caste, class, ability or disability, appearance, dress, and so on, legal authorities such as the police, the judiciary, government agencies, etc should treat people in the same way, and allow them, or grant them, the same entitlements: to be appropriately housed, dressed, nourished, schooled, employed, married, listened to, represented, medically treated, and so on. 

These obligations also apply to corporate enterprises, businesses, hospitals, schools, NGOs, civic groups and charities as well as ordinary people providing goods or services to others.  This is what we refer to in this context, for want of a better term, as civil society.  For instance, no-one should be excluded from hiring a room in a hotel on the basis of their skin colour.

There may be some organizations or individuals that we accept are exempt from respecting equality before the law and equality in civic society, but currently we aren’t aware of any.  Some religious organizations and schools may claim exemptions but these are inappropriate and shouldn’t be allowed.

The equality we value includes being treated with respect.  This includes respecting everyone’s dignity as a human being, being polite and considerate to each other in day to day situations, ensuring basic bodily needs can be met, and allowing normal emotional responses. 

Even convicted criminals in prison, prisoners of war, ‘enemy combatants’ or ‘illegal aliens’ should be treated with dignity:

●   NOT kept in open air cages, or dungeons, or freezing cold, or stultifying heat, or excessive noise;

●   NOT isolated, NOT subject to torture or torture like ‘pressure’; NOT expected to act cheerful;

●   Provided with basic food, clothing, sanitation, medical care and some access to open air; and

●   Spoken to audibly but quietly and referred to by name, not a number or a pejorative term.

The equality we value includes taking into account people’s suffering, needs and desires as equally deserving, rather than ranked according to irrelevant criteria or dimensions such as age, sex, gender, social status, race, religion, caste, class, ability or disability, appearance, dress, and so on.  A professional or member of the elite who has transgressed in some way should not be treated as having finer sensibilities than the supposedly ‘common people’, nor granted any special dispensation on such grounds, but punished to the same extent as everyone else, with imprisonment, fines, community service, naming and shaming, or whatever is appropriate.

 

1.5.9.5 Equality of Opportunity vs Outcomes

Version 1.0 October 2022                             (Previous Version)

Some people support equality of opportunity, but not equality of outcome.  Consider education:

●   If each child should have an equal opportunity to receive a quality education, should we publish students’ test or exam results which show unequal outcomes?  Half of the students will be below average on such measures.  Or a tenth will have the lowest scores and a tenth the highest scores.

●   Is this to say that half, or a tenth, of students are failures?  Receiving low grades at school can have a major impact on a child’s future, preventing them from obtaining further education or professional qualifications.  The grades students obtain is correlated to their socioeconomic status: children of richer parents generally get higher grades than other children.  Is any of this fair? 

●   Is it better to not publish the test results, or rank students in any way?  Or is it best not to have exams or tests at all, but just publish that the student completed that year or course of study.  But is that being unfair to students whose higher grades would generally lead to greater economic success in life? 

A major goal in education should be to cultivate an informed citizenry, so that individuals are able to evaluate the information presented to them and the services delivered, especially from government.  Education for a job, or the job market, must be secondary because a) each person needs the skills to choose a fulfilling life, including what job they have (if any), and b) the job market is changing so rapidly that specific jobs may not be available or required in the near future.

The ideal educational outcome is therefore to so substantially to improve access to high quality education that, although students are still tested and ranked, they are (virtually) all performing well, rather than some doing well and others doing poorly.  If all students reach a high standard, no-one should fail.  The benefit of ranking from the top to the bottom is not absolute.  Continuing to use a relative measure (she was in the bottom 10%) is inappropriate, ineffective and unfair if everyone, including the bottom 10% did very well.

Similar issues arise with housing, health care and incomes.

●   Should the government provide everyone with equally good, or equally bad, housing?

●   Should the government provide everyone with equally good, or equally bad, health care.

●   Should the government provide everyone with an equal regular income.

Or should we at least attempt to provide higher quality services, in housing, health care, legal aid, etc so that even the worst off have a tolerable standard of living and reasonably fulfilling life.

It seems many socially conservative, religious, or business oriented observers reject equality of outcomes as a goal because they perceive that it is dragging down the successful rather than pulling up the strugglers.  This is another ‘straw dog’ argument: no-one (or no-one reasonable) actually wants that.  But we can try to find different initiatives to counter the impediments the poor and minority groups face, to reduce the undeserved inequality of outcomes. 

This must be done in addition to ensuring there is adequate funding.  It means we need to try new initiatives that are untested and accept that some of them will fail, for a variety of reasons, perhaps because they turn out to be unfair and/or don't improve the outcomes of the target group.  Every step will be controversial, but we should try.

 

1.5.9.6 Equality of Inputs

Version 1.0 October 2022                             (Previous Version)

Considering education again, it is inevitable that, even with adequate funding and initiatives to minimize the impact of unfair impediments, some students will ‘fail’ or drop out earlier than others.  One child might leave school at year 9, whereas another completes year 12 at school, then another 6 years at a university to obtain a post-graduate degree.  The first has their education funded for (say) 9 years (excluding prep class and preschool) while the other has 18 – and the higher levels are more expensive.  Is this fair?  Should society fund one student more than double the other?

Perhaps all students could be allocated the right to 18 years of education.  If someone drops out at year 9 they would still be entitled to another 9 years of education to be used throughout their life.  This could be taken up as full time education, at an appropriate school, college, or university, or perhaps as trade based courses or on-the-job training provided by an employer and funded out of this entitlement.

We are well aware that some children benefit more from school education than others, and that this may be due to no fault of their own, and perhaps no lack of ability or interest!  Whether a child has the wherewithal to progress at school depends a lot on luck, more than socioeconomic status, intelligence, innate ability and so on.  Granting all students the same entitlement over their whole life seems fairer.

This is equality of inputs: we grant each person, in this case, 18 years of education.  Is this justifiable?

Many conservatives in Western countries propose that all students be given “vouchers� for a dollar value, which they can use at any educational institution, to obtain the education they value most.  This is a kind of equality of inputs.  There are numerous reasons why it would be bad policy, but it is seriously proposed.

But could this equality of inputs be applied to other areas?  Perhaps society could grant people a certain maximum value of housing support, which people can use to buy or rent housing, as they see fit, until they reach their maximum expenditure and they are left to their own devices.  Should we grant people a certain maximum expenditure on health care, and once that is exceeded society no longer funds your health?  In practice, such policies are cruel.  There are fairer, more humane, more financially viable alternatives.

As explained in Part 3, on History, after the end of World War 2, productivity gains, Keynesian economics, greater awareness of workers’ rights, and a desire to reduce national and international conflict, led to the development of the welfare state, especially in Western Europe and the English speaking countries, except for the USA.  National governments took on the responsibility to provide a “safety net� for the poor and needy, which has expanded over time to cover accommodation for the homeless, universal medical insurance, and pensions for the aged, disabled and other needy persons.

 

1.5.9.7 Equality of (Basic) Income

Version 1.0 October 2022                             (Previous Version)

As indicated in the previous subsection, many modern welfare states provide a regular income to certain groups who are deemed to be worthy of social support.  These incomes are generally called pensions, and are typically granted to elderly people who have retired, the disabled, perhaps single parents, perhaps some students, and some of the unemployed who are looking for work.  There is enormous criticism and controversy over these pensions, whether the recipients really are entitled to them, whether the income is too low to live on, or whether they are unaffordable by the nation.

Some oil rich countries, such as Saudi Arabia or Qatar perhaps, pay their citizens a regular income without expecting anything in return.  Some of these citizens also have jobs, but many pay overseas workers from poor countries to provide personal services and do the menial work.

●   More and more people are starting to say all governments should provide everyone with an equal regular income, regardless of whether they deserve it.  it's called a universal income.  The theory is that modern economies are so efficient and productive that we can charge enough taxes to pay everyone a minimal, basic, but livable wage while businesses continue to make a profit.  The universal income would be set at the lowest rate possible for a modest lifestyle.  The income for children and adults who cannot look after themselves would be paid to their carers.  The universal income would be added to any other income and taxed progressively, so those on higher incomes pay a higher proportion of their income in tax.  For the super-rich, the universal income payments would be almost totally clawed back in tax.  Taxes would also be raised by value added taxes or consumption taxes, and financial support could come from sovereign wealth funds.  Aged and disability pensions and so on would be replaced by the universal income, and doing so removes the need for the bureaucracies managing these schemes, so the universal income would be very efficiently managed.  Some evidence shows reduced crime rates and improved health outcomes.

      Many details need to be worked out. 

●   It is assumed that many people, perhaps 5% of the working age population, or perhaps 25%, would choose to have no other income, but that the others would work, for the pleasure of it, for the social status, for altruistic reasons, for a sense of obligation to contribute to society, or for the extra money, which they can save or spend on luxuries (because their basic needs are already met). 

      Note that many very rich people still work, even though financially they don't have to.

      And many people work, even though they are paid nothing, as volunteers or to support the family.

●   Many people think it is unaffordable.  Many think that such a high percentage of the population would not work that the scheme would not be financially viable.  Many think it is an abomination to give people who don't deserve it any sort of income: we don't want to encourage laziness; it is one of the so-called deadly sins, and it would be morally corrupting.  And it may be, in some cases.

●   More importantly, some think that taking away the need to work for an income takes away a significant motivation in life, reducing the opportunity to participate in society, leading to mental health problems.  Others think it will free up most people to be creative, in both cultural and economic spheres, so that society becomes culturally enriched and even more productive, so the system makes itself even more viable and effective in a positive feedback loop.  Additionally, if workers have a basic income, they will not be desperate for a job, and will refuse to take on low paid, menial, dirty, degrading, repetitious, soul-destroying, alienating work, so employers will not be able to continue exploiting workers, and must restructure and partially automate such jobs.

●   In previous centuries the whole idea of an unearned universal income was unthinkable. 

●   In modern times, there have been many limited trials, targeting eg a specific needy group (18-20 year olds leaving care) or a sample of a specific area, but most have not been designed with the intention of continuing or broadening the scheme.  The idea is promoted in the policy platforms of several left leaning political parties.

●   Equal incomes have been tried in various communes, most notably in Israeli Kibbutzim.  Originally mostly agricultural and part of the Zionist expansion into Palestine, in a Kibbutz everyone was expected to work as best they are able, but everyone was paid the same.  As time progressed, there were tensions within the Kibbutzim as equal wages were seen to be unfair, and problems with the huge disparities in wages outside the Kibbutzim.  Although there are still many Israeli Kibbutzim, which are highly productive in other industries as well as agriculture, few communes now retain the common basic wage.

●   There are ongoing concerns about the financial viability of a universal wage, its fairness to the workers, its risk of encouraging free-loaders, and so on.  There is also the model of a better managed welfare system, which is politically acceptable (almost everywhere outside the USA) and in many respects financially viable.  Some welfare pensions (eg age pensions in Greece and France) were not only expensive, but were not targeting the poorer sections of society, so reforms are required to ensure state welfare targets the right people.  But universal health care, such as that provided in Australia, despite its failings, provides much better health outcomes for the vast majority of the population at half the cost to the health system in the USA. 

●   So it seems preferable to provide more widespread access to services, in accommodation, health, disability support, and emergency income support, rather than a universal income.  With improved management, we can allow the service recipient an appropriate degree of control over the services delivered, while ensuring that these are professionally managed to be efficient and effective.

 

1.5.9.8 Equality of Merit

Version 1.0 October 2022                             (Previous Version)

Is a meritocracy an example of equality?  A meritocracy is a society in which most people are chosen for a job based on merit, ie who has the most relevant qualifications and experience.

●   In some workplaces, selection for a job depends on your social status (eg race, religion, class, caste or wealth).  In some it depends on your length of service – seniority – in which the person with the longest period of service gets the job. 

●   These rules have been explicitly applied in the colonial service of colonizing countries, and in the public service, ie government departments and agencies.  These rules mean that the best or most capable person doesn’t necessarily get the job, but also that job candidates aren’t being treated as equals. 

●   To correct these failings many workplaces now have a policy that job appointments and promotions must be based on merit, meaning the best or most capable candidate should be appointed to the job, regardless of their social status or seniority.  This meritocracy sounds fairer and should be more productive. 

●   But many suggest that the meritocracy is unfair to those whose education or work experience has been held back because of their social status, or poverty, so that individuals from minorities or oppressed groups are under-represented in better paying or higher status jobs.

●   To correct these failings many workplaces now have a policy to NOT select all people on merit, and to select some because of their (supposedly low) social status, not in spite of it.  On the downside, this allows those from the majority or supposedly better off to claim that they have been unfairly discriminated against, and that people are getting jobs or promotions just because they are in a minority group.  The workplace can respond that most jobs are still selected on merit and ask that the workers accept that some candidates succeed on other grounds but are still deserving.    The workplace can also legitimately say that the added productivity and justice that selecting on merit provides, despite being useful effecting values, are not absolute values and must be countered by improving, at least for some, the equality of access of the oppressed.  As societies become more affluent, and businesses become more efficient and effective, with higher profits compared to wages, productivity as an effecting value becomes less significant.  But justice remains important.

●   And in a small number of cases, for example selecting a pastoral care worker for an indigenous community, being a member of that community, with lived experience of the problems they face, can enable a candidate to do the job better than someone else, even if in other respects, on paper, they seem better qualified.

So a modified meritocracy appears to be a sufficiently good model for workplace recruitment.

1.5.9.9 Calculating Equality

Version 1.0 October 2022                             (Previous Version)

We use Equality as a guiding principle not in all respects but only in some dimensions, as discussed.  In a very rough way, we have to measure along all these dimensions to ascertain the best outcome.

In practice we must balance what we know for more or less certain against what is less reliably known.

As the other people affected by a decision become more remote in distance and time, in practice we discount their interests more: we may think they are less important, but also, they may be less impacted.  This is a reality of life and it is not hypocritical if we acknowledge it.  The critical issue is that those remote in distance and time are not discounted completely.  If we care even just a little bit about the millions of strangers on the other side of the country or the other side of the world, then given their numbers, that fact can have a significant impact on our choice criteria.

How much benefit or disadvantage a person experiences as a result of one of our choices is almost impossible to ascertain, especially if we must consider each of the relevant dimensions.  If we consider all of the possibly affected people, the problem seems to be immense.

So in practice we learn and develop rules of thumb for standard situations.

Large organizations similarly will develop rules of thumb, perhaps expressed as policy statements, and perhaps based on industry standard practices.  When there is a more unique issue, larger organizations will have more resources, and more expert resources, to address the issue as a one-off or a precedent.

We consider these rules of thumb in more detail later, for individuals in Part 6 on Personal Practice, and for larger organizations and society as a whole in Part 7 on Political Action.

 

1.5.9.10 Equality in Literature

Version 1.0 October 2022                             (Previous Version)

References to human equality in the traditional world religions are mixed.

Christians believe Jesus promoted equality, but it is hard to find an explicit quote.  Many of the “books� in the New Testament are letters (or epistles) written by Paul of Tarsus (St Paul), who never met Jesus, and a few of these have explicit directions to treat people equally.

Some forms of ‘democratic’ equality apparently arose in independent "republics" of India, saṅghas and gaṇas, and also in the Ancient Greek cities of Athens and Sparta.  But the vast majority of cities and states in ancient and medieval times were far from egalitarian, the equality that did exist was often between members of various elites – nobles or property owners etc. 

Substantial political equality has only been discussed and come about in limited areas in the past few hundred years.  Here we provide only a small sample of influential statements.

 

1.5.9.11 Love and Equality are Not Enough

Version 1.0 October 2022                             (Previous Version)

Before considering the sufficiency of Love and Equality, we must avoid being misled by the order of presentation of these ethical values.  Equality on its own is not enough either!  Though treating people, or sentient beings, equally seems fair on the surface, without Love as a guiding principle (the desire to minimize suffering and promote happiness) we could act in a way that is equally unfair to all and still comply with the principle of Equality.  We could behave in a way that is equally bad for everyone who is affected.  This is obviously not what we would consider ethical behaviour.  So we choose to value both Love and Equality, while being clear that while valuing both of these is essential for us to lead a good life, they are, on their own, incomplete as ethical guidelines.

We accept that ethical judgements are based on outcomes as well as intent.  As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  What turned out to be wrongdoings or evil actions are often undertaken with the aim of improving peoples’ welfare, not harming it.  Good intentions, when acted upon, may have unintended, adverse consequences.  We are obliged, if we value Love and Equality to pursue the Truth, to discern the relevant aspects of Reality, and allow for a Diversity of informed opinions, so that we become more aware of the expected outcomes of our ethical choices. 

If Love involves minimizing suffering it must be balanced with valuing Life: we mustn’t lightly euthanize a living thing to reduce its suffering, but must take into account that entity’s desire to still live and be able to have a satisfying life.  On the other hand, when the suffering is immense and a person makes a conscious and justifiable decision to end the suffering by dying, we should allow that.

Other core values are also applicable.  We want to avoid being in the position of saying “I loved her, I didn’t mean to hurt her!�  To avoid harming others we need self-discipline, to avoid aggressive or controlling anger, to prevent our pride, greed, lust, envy, jealousy or sloth from causing harm.  We need to take action ourselves, and have others take action, to assist us to overcome selfish or negligent behaviour that causes harm.  it's not a matter of a logical necessity, but rather a practical one.

For ourselves and others, we need a motivator to help us actually do the right thing.  This is the subject of the next section.