The Unintentional Immorality of Equity

Before going into any significant discussion on the topic of equity, first we should establish what exactly equity means in this context. In this essay, equity will be defined as an equitable outcome, not equitable opportunity. It is important to establish this definition before any discussion on the topic of equity, as there are multiple definitions of equity in the academic and professional lexicon, and equity of outcome and equity of opportunity are often conflated in common parlance.

Superficially, equity is a very promising and aggregable concept to behold. Especially when it is utilized as the foundation for a solution in discussions regarding historic injustices, current social imbalances, or economic disparities. How could it not be? The core principle is, in and of itself, generally good-natured and deservingly merits significant social approval. How could anyone make a moral argument against it? How could anyone successfully argue against acknowledging a social (or economic) handicap placed upon a group of people who, through no fault of their own, found themselves in the midst of great misfortune? While the following example has been used ad nauseum, take the newly emancipated American slaves in the mid-19th century. Here existed a group of people who, up until the end of the American civil war, had not been granted personhood; were bought and sold as objects; and whose personal and familial well-being was completely dependent on the genericity and kindness of the person who, literally and legally, owned them. How could anyone argue that the newly freed slaves didn’t deserve some modicum of social, legal, or economic equity? Especially after considering that the fruits of their labor did not benefit them, but rather their Earthly master.

I use the example of the newly freed slaves to illustrate the positive morality of equity. In this example, the discussion of equity is, indeed, very much justified and necessary. How else could society amend for the great evil that it bestowed upon a group of individuals over several centuries? I assert that when people in contemporary times speak of equity, it is from this well of justified, necessary, and righteous morality.

However well intentioned the waters of the well of equity may be, it does not mean the water is eternally good or that taking too much from the well does not rear unintended consequences. In the words of the father of toxicology, Paracelsus, “Alle Dinge sind Gift, und nichts ist ohne Gift, allein die Dosis macht dass ein Ding kein Gift ist,” or in English, “All things are poison, and nothing is without poison, the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison.”

This saying holds true for all substances in the physical world and the social world. Enough religion maintains social order, too much religion leads to oppression and war. A small amount of irrationality allows room for future exploration and development, too much leads to harmful contradictions and intellectual stagnation. A dose of non-productive selfishness prevents stress from crippling one’s life, too much non-productive selfishness leads to hedonistic self-destruction. Altruism, in the right amount, can lead to social trust and a sense of a healthy community, too much leads to self-immolation and the destruction of the community.

The same phenomena of toxicity that applies elsewhere in the universe, applies to equity. Equity can be necessary and can be greatly beneficial in discrete amounts in a defined space and time. It is the antagonist of this positive effect that we will be discussing from here on.

While the benevolence of equity has been touched upon thus far, let us discuss the malevolence of the same equity. As mentioned before, equity can be very beneficial, and necessarily so, in the proper dose for the proper amount of time. However, what happens when either too much equity is applied or when it is applied for too long? Let us now discuss the former. If, in the name of righteous indignation, a solution based in equity is applied to a social group, but is done so without carefully considering sister social groups, it very well may be that the solution takes from the sister groups so much so that the groups begin to vilify the very group being assisted. Take, for example, this hypothetical equity program for the newly freed American slaves in the 1860s. In this hypothetical program, every person not of African decent must pay the newly freed slaves $800 (the cost of a slave in the 1800s) or give the newly-freed slave property of the same value. Now, such a program would, obviously, be implemented to correct the great wrongdoing caused by the institution of slavery. However, such a program wrongly makes every person of non-African decent implicit in the wrongdoings of slavery. In such a system, the benevolent slave master, the newly-arrived immigrant, the native people, and all other natural-born citizens are being judged by the acts of the most malevolent slave masters and the forebearers that brought slavery to the Americas. In other words, all people, regardless of their actual involvement in slavery or the abolishment thereof, are to be punished for the sins of the worst that participated in the institution of slavery. Such a program would rightly generate an enormous amount of hostility from those who were wrongfully accused of a grievous wrongdoing. Therefore, while the motivations of the equity were decent and good, by overapplying the equity a great immorality has emerged, which then effectively renders any decent morality in the initial act of equity null and void.

Now that the toxicity of overapplication of equity has been discussed to a degree, let us discuss what happens when equitable policies are applied for too long. While overapplication of equity can be avoided easily enough (as the consequences of such action can be easily seen, as illustrated previously), it is applying equity too long that is much more nefarious and disruptive. This toxic quality of equity is due to the negative accumulative power that the libation of justified altruism brings. Just as mercuric toxins increase in toxicity as one moves up the proverbial food chain and builds over time within each organism as each gorge themselves on the poisoned member lower on the food chain, equity may start off benign but build to an unassuming cancerous disease as each generation, “eats,” the fruits of the previous.

To illustrate this effect clearly, we must uncover the toxin hidden within the most virtuous aspect of equity. As mentioned before, for equity to be beneficial it must be applied in small amounts to a specific group of people over a specific period of time. Thus, we’ve immediately uncovered the toxin in equity (though one may not see it clearly at first). This toxin is specificity. If the group to which an equity is being applied changes at all (or the social environment changes), one of two things must occur: the equity must be changed (thereby abolishing the previous equitable idea) or the group must remain the same. Therefore, you are given two options (assuming you do not want to abandon the idea of this specific equity after its time has passed) chase the sun in an eternal fashion (much like the fate of Sisyphus) or oppressively constrain the groups being affected by the current equity.

To illustrate this even more clearly, let’s return to our example of the newly freed American slaves. An equity program that was effective for the newly freed slaves cannot, by the necessity of specificity inherent in equity, be effective to the grandchildren of said slaves. That is, unless no progress (social, economic, psychic, environmental, or otherwise) has been made for the newly freed slaves or their progeny. This means that, not only, must the newly freed slaves and their children not progress or change in any significant fashion, but society-at-large may not progress either (lest the larger social change affect the newly freed slaves). Society and the decedents of the freed slaves are thereby shackled to time and become the new slaves of the cruelest aspect master of time itself.

While one can read this essay, see the negative consequences of equity, and assume that equity is something to be avoided, nothing can be further from the truth. Let us return to what Paracelsus has said, “All things are poison, and nothing is without poison, the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison.” Should we avoid water because it has the power to drown or destroy creation? No. Why? Because water is necessary for life to function. Should we avoid breathing because oxygen gradually poisons someone? No. Why? Because air is necessary for life to function. Should we avoid equity because it has the power to retard personal and social progress? No. Why? Because equity, just as everything else, in the right dose can be essential for life (as it has the power to build a more coherent, righteous, and trusting society). To completely avoid anything is to completely avoid the responsibility required by virtuous living. And, if we learned anything from this essay, is an excess of irresponsibility healthy?