Differences: between “equality” & “equity” (the fairness). (part 2/2)

    In this second part, I’ll continue displaying the view on the topic, by more explanations and arguments, because the matter needs a lot of concentration to understand and we’ll continue from the idea which says that the equity means to distribute the rights and responsibilities according to every single situation, and of course we’ll find many similarities and in the end we’ll have some patterns which control this mechanism.

    And here is another example, you can’t give two people in your family the same responsibilities without considering the age, the sex, the consciousness, the ability and efficiency, and the knowledge of each one, also you can’t give all them the same advantages for the previous factors too.

    I continue in the same sample, in the family, all children have the same rights and treatment theoretically from their parents, and I mean the basic thing like : Eating, drinking, outfits, education and learning, …etc. but when someone is sick, he must get a special treatment and care more than others else it’s not fair enough. So when people have the same criteria, they get the same dealing and that’s the equality between them. But once someone is featured by an additional criteria, of course he must get an additional treatment – more or less - according to the case, a treatment that differs to others whether more or less, reward or punishment, better or worse,…etc.

    So practically the life absolutely managed in a way that the equity is the principle whatever the situation is, or the treatment we do towards others, maybe you can realize that when you see yourself behaving differently from a person to another, right! Logically because you don’t make them in the same position according to: the age, kinship ties, gender, nationality, religion, or just the kindness of personality (when someone is kind, or rude, educated or ignorant, easy-going, flexible or fanatic,..etc.)

    There is another suspicion, it’s about the equality between man and woman, this idea brings many of troubles in the human life, simply because it’s not fair enough in their rights (whether man or woman), because in some situations we’ll be unjust to put on woman responsibilities greater than the strength that she can (or she has) to bear (in comparing with the man) and the same for the man too. So we’ve to respect and to take account of those characteristics and traits in each one in order to instruct the convenient tasks and requirements in life, and in that way we shouldn’t admit the equality between man and woman, but there must be equity between them, because in some situations it’s needed to prioritize the woman by more advantages than the man, and some other situations; it’s the opposite. In other words; that everyone has his own rights and responsibilities dependant (and not obligatory the same at once) but complementary to the second in the life overall.

    It was a big lie in our world that we appeal to equality and convince ourselves whereas the matter will be more unjust if we apply that in every part of life in fact. Rarely to find exactly the same situation that requires one equal treatment whether between people or societies when you can match between, and there will be a similarity between them only in that situation, once a new condition comes across; you’ll be obliged to change from your attitude against and then your treatment (not the same with others like before) and that’s depending to every detail in your life.

The rights & confines:

  The liberty represents a philosophical problem, where philosophers divided between 2 ways, who says it’s absolute for the human, and in contrast who sees it’s limited in confines. And every one among them has his arguments to confirm his opinion. We don’t want to broaden in this matter through the philosophical aspect because of the aim here is to light the way and give a general idea about “ the freedom of expression”, in the time where it becomes one of top issues in world today, with several faces and aspects.

  A lot of slogans are on, in the name of human rights (generally), or women rights, minorities …etc, which proving that the world in confused between many opinions because of “ambiguity in definitions “, and in this way the concept changes from person to another. And that also brings the diversity in positions and reactions too.

  If we say that the human being has the right to do everything he want, so that’s an arguments of individual liberty, and democratic life in society, if we can say that, so is it possible to justify the abuse of somebody to others as a freedom in conducts ? Furthermore; if I choose driving in highway but in the opposite direction, or acclaim in street with rude speaking and ugly words, only because i want to do that, is it logical??!!! I think this doing couldn’t be expected only when the person is fugitive or mad. And this blindly acting and it isn’t a real right from human rights.

 We give another example; when you hear on TV,  and you receive daily letters mocking from you, because they don’t like your orientations, or what are precious for you, aren’t the same for them. Can we call that as a freedom of speech too?? !!!

Every person, part, or nation, …etc, has a set of sanctities and symbols, which mean models for them in whole life. Is it logical to accuse these symbols and abuse them because they aren’t valuable to me? I think it’s not, or there is another incitation to this stupid doing ..maybe?

 We can’t imagine the democratic reality which considers the freedom of expression, without control and define the concept of this kind of liberties and define that in every domain, so what do we mean by the freedom of expression?

   Maybe somebody says: it means to say (everything I want) about every matter even if the saying includes an abuse to others, other replies: when they accuse me, I couldn’t stay silent, and here we’ll have a mess, a conflict. The act which looks like a liberty in first opinion, this second sees it as an abuse. And that means: if the opinion is mocking and not building, surely it’s a provocation like what it’s happening in policies or gov criticism.

   But to override by your opinion to accuse sacral rites of other communities with no reason, so nobody agrees to you where it is not your business to judge them if they’re right or wrong, whatever in their reflection or religion. And the precise definition which we can give it to “the freedom of expression” is: the liberty of individual (or organizations or authorities) in opinion through his doing or saying stops where it is the end of freedom of others, and no right to override that or abuse them, because they all have the right in their own doings and beliefs, if they don’t touch the beliefs of others communities too. That’s what I meant by the second example (about TV’s ridiculing), when we see many means of media do that to insult communities or nations. In order that shouldn’t be a target to provoke them under the name of freedom.

   In this way we reach the imperative truth:

The freedom of individual “of sound mind” in his opinion, undergoes to confines dictated by his mind, (just to prevent him from assaulting others), without causing any damage or loss of his rights. This concept can be applied to institutions and organizations in the same time.