3 ms·
You're conflating "equal" and "equitable". The latter of the two is along the lines of "fair" - a fully nebulous term in this context; its entire raison d'être
by pxmpxm 4y ago
You're conflating "equal" and "equitable". The latter of the two is along the lines of "fair" - a fully nebulous term in this context; its entire raison d'être is to push agenda narratives.
The idea of equitable outcomes is a common law concept used for things like contract breach remedies, which is again something that the great-grand-parent touched up on.
That is, it's an idea used for compensation when one party walks away from a mutual agreement - the logical implication is that mutual agreements are equitable, which is why compensation is needed to re-establish that state upon a breach.
- claudiawerner 4y ago>the logical implication is that mutual agreements are equitable But nobody uses 'equitable' in this sense, as people have a variety of reasons to engage in a mutual agreement, where upon asked one or even both parties would agree that the agreement isn't 'equitable' or fair. To say that mutual agreements are equitable is only because of the assumption that the agreement wouldn't have occured or been accepted if the agreement isn't equitable - which is obviously false, given that people agree to heavily unfair (though not unconscionable) contracts all the time.