The Equality Fallacy
Let’s be clear from the get-go, EQUALITY DOES NOT EXIST, period, full stop, end of argument. Equality does not exist and cannot exist because of one massive problem. We, as a society, have been incapable of agreeing on what equality is. To put this in perspective we could survey one hundred individuals “Family Feud” style asking if equality is either A or B, and we will still get close to one hundred answers where two seemed to be the only options. That has to do with individual views and the perspective of “give and take.”
If I am going to rant about equality, the clear first step is to understand the philosophy of equality or “Egalitarianism”.
Egalitarianism is a trend of thought in political philosophy. An egalitarian favors equality of some sort: People should get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals, in some respect.
Richard J. Arneson — 2013 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
It should come as no surprise that equality has been an idea for thousands of years, stemming all the way back to the times of hunter and gatherer of nomadic tribes. The hunters would catch the beasts for meats, pelts, and tools while the gatherer would gather fruits, nuts, and flowers for diversity in their diet and for medicine. It didn’t matter if you speared the saber tooth tiger or harvested the aloe plant, if you needed food or medicine it was given. Our prehistoric homo sapien ancestors had little care about what a mammoth pelt was worth because just living until the next day was etched into their very DNA.
Since much of the population no longer worry where their next meal will come from or where they will fall asleep that night, luxuries have become common place in society. The ability to transport yourself in your own private horseless carriage capable of speeds exceeding one hundred miles per hour has become commonplace to the point where having a car is expected to receive a job. Public buses that require a fee can help if you don’t have a car or friends, but unless their job is under three miles away it would take someone over an hour to walk to where they need to go. Is it equal to expect everyone to have access to transportation in order to give them the opportunity to receive the monetary compensation they require to access transportation?
This might seem like a simple binary question with a yes or no, but the nuances or lack thereof in the average citizen’s mind varies from person to person. How would transportation be achieved without our current system? Who determines what transportation someone can use? What color should the bus be painted? The confusing answer to the question depends on who you ask, and how they view the value of their previous endeavors that led to their current situation.
When people are asked about equality many choose to use terms of value, but even then value differs from person to person. The price of a sports car may be higher to a racing enthusiast than to a soccer mom. An appraisal of time on a painting changes from artist to artist. The concept of quality for a home shifts with the contractors. All these have value as long as one person believes they do, and a person can have them as long as they have something someone else says has value. Understanding that concept, does a loaf of bread have equal value to people if some have a full stomach and some have not eaten for days?
The average cost of a loaf of whole wheat bread is $2. That is determined by the grocery store or gas stop where you buy the loaf, and it doesn’t change for anyone. To many people that is equality, having every person pay the same price no matter where you come from or what you do for a living. If you work for the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, that is .17% of your gross monthly income or about fifteen minutes of your time. If you work for $35 per hour that loaf of bread costs you .03% of your gross monthly income, or about five minutes of your time. That loaf of bread is the same size, quality, and will make the same amount of grilled cheese sandwiches for both people, but one person has to work three times longer to get it.
The conundrum stems from an indisputable fact that everyone has the same twenty-four hours, relativity aside. No matter how much you work or how many jobs you have, the day will end for everyone and a new one will begin. At what point does the concept of working to survive as an individual become a higher burden than the idea of assisting to thrive as a society? At what point subjecting a population to resolvable arbitrary systems simply because another was forced through the same become an archaic rite of passage instead of a necessity?
That false belief has circled our society for years, “If I have to do it, so do you.” An idea that goes wholly against the human progress of consistently pushing to make our civilization better for the next era. When stripped down to the core, specific questions that are rarely asked or never given a true answer come up. Why do we have to do what you did, and why does it have to be as difficult as when you did it?
Having a group of people that may have been historically oppressed and enslaved and only given roughly twenty years between true civil equality that still didn’t erase the stigma held in many of the population and the introduction of the “pay to play” economic system that everyone else had a two hundred year head start in preparing for may seem like equality to some, but other may see giving the former a bit of a leg up as leveling the game out a bit. Even then, how big of an assist to give still rages on as a question of equality.
Though several versions of the philosophies are spread around, broken down the answers come down to two schools of thought. There are those who see equality as having everyone prosper equally, and those who see equality as having everyone suffer equally. So, why can we not agree on which one is equality?
To be blunt ego, pride, and identity protection are some of the biggest contributors to this view. When someone has lived a life that followed a specific path that they felt they had no control over, they have a tendency to see that path as the only one that can possibly exist. Anyone who strays from the life the person had is viewed as wrong, or at the very least seen as taking “advantage” of outside options. Emphasis on TAKING. Many don’t view community support programs funded by those who have more than enough to not only survive but to indulge far beyond many others as willfully giving, but as forcefully taking by those whom they perceive as lesser simply because they did not “try” hard enough. Who determines how hard someone must “try” in order to survive, or even has the omnipotence to even fathom how much someone has tried?
If you have read this far there are probably one of two thoughts going through your head. Either “This article has delved deep into the root of one problem in our society and could be used to start a real conversation of inequality.” or “Do you want a welfare state?” To the former thank you, that is exactly the goal. To the later ask yourself this how someone else’s suffering truly improve your life? If you cannot think of any answer that doesn’t involve you seeing them as not worthy based on your own standards, that might say less about them and more about yourself.
Paul Collins — Frelance Writer, Photographer, Graphic/3D Designer
December 2020
New Scientist — Inequality: Why egalitarian societies died out — 25 July 2012
Bureau of Transportation — From Home to Work, the Average Commute is 26.4 Minutes — October, 2003
Healthline — What Is the Average Walking Speed of an Adult? — 14 March, 2019
Kimi Harris — How Much Money Do You Save When Baking Your Own Bread? — 31 May, 2020
