4 ms·

What is helping people most in need other then giving more to one side at the expense of other? I joke here, ultimately all society is a form of altruism. Equ

What is helping people most in need other then giving more to one side at the expense of other? I joke here, ultimately all society is a form of altruism. Equity is not equality and never has been. Equity in life means making it less likely that random events are liable to make it impossible to live a life. The other word for it is fairness. We don't achieve that. We have many rules that are obviously stacked for some group or another, and these synergize with each other. The simplest one that is technically available to everyone is inheritance - but of course poor have nothing to leave to their children. Nations make rules that stack the deck for their citizens. Social roles, jobs and their interactions with status are often easily stacked too. And so on. Genetics are often relatively weak compared to these rules - it mostly comes into play when comparing people from roughly similar backgrounds.

rajin444 5y ago
> What is helping people most in need other then giving more to one side at the expense of other? That's a great question and a lot more philosophical than I'm going to get into in HN comments. I was trying to emphasize how framing is important - focusing on reducing privilege is much different than helping those who are starving. Making LeBron James wear ankle weights will further equity in the NBA, but I don't think anyone wants that. > The other word for it is fairness Fairness in opportunity, or fairness in outcome? Neither is possible with the randomness of the world. The only way to reduce the effect of randomness is to make us all exactly equivalent - I can't think of any good ways to do that. > We have many rules that are obviously stacked for some group or another Life is inherently stacked for some group or another. Even if we manage to make perfectly "fair" rules (which I don't believe is possible), there will still be disparities between however you want to define groups. > Genetics are often relatively weak compared to these rules Depending on the implementation of the rule, I somewhat agree. I don't think our science is advanced enough on the genetic side to determine how much of an impact these rules have.
- UnFleshedOne 5y ago
  > but I don't think anyone wants that I really hope that's true...

rajin444 5y ago

> What is helping people most in need other then giving more to one side at the expense of other? That's a great question and a lot more philosophical than I'm going to get into in HN comments. I was trying to emphasize how framing is important - focusing on reducing privilege is much different than helping those who are starving. Making LeBron James wear ankle weights will further equity in the NBA, but I don't think anyone wants that. > The other word for it is fairness Fairness in opportunity, or fairness in outcome? Neither is possible with the randomness of the world. The only way to reduce the effect of randomness is to make us all exactly equivalent - I can't think of any good ways to do that. > We have many rules that are obviously stacked for some group or another Life is inherently stacked for some group or another. Even if we manage to make perfectly "fair" rules (which I don't believe is possible), there will still be disparities between however you want to define groups. > Genetics are often relatively weak compared to these rules Depending on the implementation of the rule, I somewhat agree. I don't think our science is advanced enough on the genetic side to determine how much of an impact these rules have.

UnFleshedOne 5y ago
> but I don't think anyone wants that I really hope that's true...