Equality vs Equity

And why the latter deserves to die

In today’s blog post, I want to talk a bit more about my political views. As a free speech enthusiast, I don’t believe that my views should go unchallenged, so I am going to do something that my acquaintances in the rationalist sphere refer to as steelmanning - putting forwards the best arguments that the opposition has to offer (rather than the weakest, as is more traditional) before shooting down those arguments and explaining why they are invalid.

Just for fun, let’s portray this discussion of ideas as a debate between two people. Representing my political beliefs will be Mr. Q (Q stands for Questioner, the name of this fine publication). Mr. Q plans to represent my political beliefs: namely the thesis statement that most people who support the ideology of equity rather than equality are evil and that their ideology deserves to die.

Serving as the steelman representation to oppose Mr. Q’s thesis statement will be Ms. Y - because as somebody of identical intellect and emotional temperament to the questioning Mr. Q, Ms. Y tends to ask “Why?” an awful lot. It makes sense that for me to steelman the arguments of the opposite side, I should have my steelman be somebody who thinks in a similar way as me, just with opposite political views. Plus it’ll be easier for me to role-play my opposition if they think in a similar way to me. As for why my adversarial imaginary counterpart happens to be a woman, I assure you that it’s not for diversity or equity reasons - rather I hope that a side benefit of this LARP will be to help me get in touch with my feminine side (as progressive men assure me that it’s very important to do). I’ll do my best to avoid making any gender-based arguments (such as calling Ms. Y hysterical) unless it seems like she really, really deserves it. As people similar in temperament to me, Mr. Q and Ms. Y are both smart and vicious debaters, but nevertheless extremely honest. If it seems likely that that one of the other side’s points is factually true, they will yield that one particular point and attempt to defend their argument in a different way. In other words, Mr. Q and Ms. Y are both operating on the same set of data - they simply interpret that data in a different way.

We begin the debate with Mr. Q putting forth the hypothetical thought experiment of two young men - Brad and Chad - who both want to be doctors. Brad comes from a very wealthy family, but is of only middling intelligence. Over the course of his potential future career as a doctor, he will save approximately one hundred human lives. Chad, by contrast, comes from a very poor family, but is of extremely high intelligence. If his potential future were to come true and he were to become a doctor, he would devise a cure for some fatal illness (like Covid-19) and save a million lives. (Ms. Y raises an eyebrow skeptically at Mr. Q’s comparison to current events, but ultimately decides to allow it.) Mr. Q’s question is this: if Ms. Y’s equity policies result in Brad becoming a doctor rather than Chad, isn’t Ms. Y responsible for all the deaths that resulted because Chad couldn’t fulfill his destiny and benefit society? A million deaths can be attributed to her policies (or 999,900 deaths, if you want to be fair and subtract Brad’s “total lives saved” score from that total).

Ms. Y responds that she would indeed be responsible for all those deaths, if her equity policies resulted in Brad becoming a doctor rather than Chad. However, that’s not the case - her equity policies are intended to have the opposite effect - to allow Chad to become a doctor rather than Brad.

Mr. Q responds that the intent of her policies doesn’t matter, only the outcome. Also, he forgot to mention earlier that Brad is black and Chad is white. So could Ms. Y explain again how exactly her equity policies are helping him?

Ms. Y responds that this is a ridiculous hypothetical. Very reliable data shows that on average, black families are much poorer than whites. She then proceeds to show Mr. Q all the data confirming this, which both sides agree is reliable. So statistically, Brad is more likely to be white.

Mr. Q responds that it doesn’t matter at all whether the average black family is poorer because the only relevant question here is who gets helped by Ms. Y’s equity policies. Ms. Y’s equity policies aren’t designed to help poor black families, they’re only designed to help wealthy black families. Is Ms. Y deluding herself into thinking that the majority of black families whose kid ends up becoming a doctor are poor? That without a stable home environment or support network, lots of poor black kids are somehow acing med school and going on to become doctors? Of course not, statistically it tends to be the wealthy black youths who benefit from the existing equity policies which Ms. Y supports. (He then proceeds to show Ms. Y all the data confirming this, which both sides agree is very valid.) So while Ms. Y can argue all she wants that on average black people tend to be poorer than white people - and he will happily accept the validity of such arguments - the specific people applying to med school who benefit from Ms. Y’s equity policies are black, wealthy, and socially privileged. That means that for the purposes of this specific example of who benefits from current equity programs, it’s far more likely that Brad would be black.

Ms. Y doesn’t like to accept this, but the data is pretty conclusive. She hems and haws over it, but finally accepts it as valid. However, she does ask “If we accept what you’re saying as true, then how are we supposed to solve systemic racism? Or are we supposed to accept racism as a permanent feature in society in exchange for Chad saving all those lives?”

Mr. Q replies that he is all for solving systemic racism, but not through equity programs such as affirmative action. Rather he believes in equality programs that address the problem at its root, by providing poor people (who are indeed predominantly black, he agrees - Ms. Y’s data was very clear on that score) with better access to education and housing, so that they can have the stable home lives necessary to raise their test scores and have better life outcomes. In fact, you should buy this book that tells you all about the real solutions to social problems, which Mr. Q advocates for. It can show you a better way to solve systemic racism.

“Smooth,” says Ms. Y. “I love how you managed to sneak in a stealthy little sales promotion during this debate. Well done.” She gives him a sarcastic little golf clap.

“I knew you’d appreciate that,” Mr. Q responds, smoothly.

Ms. Y acknowledges that the specific black people helped by her diversity and equity programs - for this specific thought experiment - are probably going to be wealthy black Brads, rather than poor white Chads. So in this specific scenario, her equity policies would have bad outcomes. However, could Mr. Q please explain how he draws the line from this one specific thought experiment to the generalization that equity programs are bad in most scenarios?

“It seems pretty clear to me,” Mr. Q answers. “If your equity programs result in underqualified Brads becoming doctors instead of more qualified Chads, then they will also result in underqualified Brads becoming CEOs or military leaders instead of more qualified Chads. If you think a lot of lives are unnecessarily lost because of an underqualified doctor who only gained their position because of an affirmative action program, imagine how many more lives would be lost because of underqualified generals making stupid decisions, or underqualified politicians enacting bad policy. I can’t see how there’s ever any benefit to society at all from putting underqualified people in positions of power, except to make you feel slightly better from helping somebody whom you consider an ‘oppressed minority’. Your personal virtue signalling has a death toll.”

“We need more black people and minorities in power to have a more equal society,” says Ms. Y.

“Great, then you can take the underqualified doctor to help you with your medical issues, and you can pay the taxes to stupid social programs created by underqualified politicians, and have your kids die because of poor decisions made by underqualified generals,” say Mr. Q. “But I would rather not participate in this elaborate failure mode, and I think most people in society would support me in this rather than you. Besides, if you’ll read my book, you’ll see that I advocate for more minorities in power also, I just support different policies which makes them more fundamentally qualified to hold those roles, rather than putting underqualified people into positions of power because of some affirmative action quota. So don’t pretend like you’re the only one trying to help blacks or minorities.”

Ms. Y considers whether her position is strongly defensible, but decides against it. She takes a drink of water to think and regroup. Maybe she should go on the attack here and test whether Mr. Q’s position is defensible. Probe his own ideology for weaknesses, just like he’s probing hers.

“Let’s assume you have a point here,” she says. “I’m not willing to concede that my way is necessarily worse, because we haven’t tested out your method yet to prove that it’s better. But say - for the sake of the argument - that your method is better. You still need to prove the part of your thesis that states that the people who support equity rather than equality are evil. Based on everything you’ve said here, it seems like the strongest case you can make is that they have good intentions that result in bad outcomes. You can certainly build a case that their methods are dumb, but that’s still a long way from proving that they’re evil. And remember, the thesis statement that you agreed to defend was very specific: that most people who support the ideology of equity rather than equality are evil and that their ideology deserves to die. So let’s talk about the ‘evil’ portion of your thesis. Misguided is not the same as evil.”

“What’s the difference between somebody being misguided and evil?” Mr. Q asks. “Define it for me please.” He already knows what she’s going to say, because he knows that Ms. Y is a thought experiment much like himself and so they agree on certain basic tenets. Ms. Y does not disappoint, and recites the same basic definition that they both share: “A misguided person does harm to the world accidentally, an evil person does harm to the world deliberately.”

“OK, so if they’re just misguided, they’re basically willing to listen to the other side and in theory change their opinions if they hear a persuasive enough argument, right?” Mr. Q says. “Their intentions are good, but the outcome is bad. And since they are allegedly concerned with having good outcomes, they’re at least willing to listen when they meet somebody who tells them that they’re getting suboptimal outcomes or drawing the wrong conclusions due to a deficiency in their thought process.”

“Right…” says Ms. Y hesitantly. She can kind of see the logic in that.

“So if we recognize this principle, then we can also recognize the inverse - that if they’re not willing to listen to the other side, then they’re not just misguided - they’re actively evil. Because at that point - when they’re not even willing to listen - they demonstrate that they don’t even care about having good outcomes, they just care about being right. And from a common sense perspective, if you’re willing to sacrifice human lives just because you don’t want to consider the possibility that you might be wrong, I think we can all agree that that’s evil behavior. And I know that you share my exact temperament, which means that one thing we strongly agree on is that evil must be destroyed.”

“But they are willing to listen to the other side,” says Ms. Y. “Look at us - I’m conversing with you right now, listening to your perspective.”

“Bullshit,” says Mr. Q. “The only reason that you’re listening to me right now is that we’re part of the same thought experiment by Humblerando. Most of the people on your side, who support the same equity principles you do, believe in the censorship and deplatforming of their opponents. They’re clearly and demonstrably not willing to listen to the other side or even allow anybody to hear opposing viewpoints, and that is what makes them evil rather than simply misguided.”

“Can you prove that?” asks Ms. Y.

“Of course I can,” replies Mr. Q. “On a personal level, Humblerando has already conducted an experiment to demonstrate that. He signed up for both the conservative and liberal subreddits and said things on both subs that diverged from mainstream conservative or liberal opinion. The conservative sub removed some of his posts, but the liberal sub took a far more intolerant approach and banned him completely. You’re a thought construct of Humblerando just the same way as I am, so you have full knowledge of the experiment just like I do.”

“I remember that experiment,” says Ms. Y sharply. “But that’s just an anecdote. What I meant was, can you prove that it’s most of the people on my side, rather than just some of the people on my side? I acknowledge that I’m a liberal and you’re a conservative, and liberals aren’t always the most tolerant of contrarian viewpoints nowadays. But conservatives aren’t exactly very tolerant of dissention from the party line either, especially now that this Trump fellow has taken over… possibly in part thanks to your meddling in the 2016 election.”

“I think you mean Humblerando’s meddling in the 2016 election,” says Mr. Q smugly.

“Don’t split hairs with me, asshole,” snaps Ms. Y. “We’re not debating the validity of thought constructs or the role they play in one’s decision-making process. We’re talking about whether the liberal party is more or less tolerant of alternative opinions than the conservative party. Assuming we’re still on the same page, you needed to prove that they are much less tolerant in order to demonstrate that their behavior is not just misguided, but actively evil.”

“Sure, here’s the data,” says Mr. Q casually, displaying some recent polling information on his phone. “According to everything we know, at the current moment in time liberals are not just mildly more intolerant than conservatives, but wildly more intolerant. Therefore, you can no longer pretend that their harmful policies are purely the result of ignorance. When the data so clearly shows that they don’t even want to be corrected - that they actively harm and silence anybody who points out the flaws in their ideology - the only logical conclusion is that they’re evil, and the reason they don’t want to listen to anybody who might have different opinions than them is because they care about being right more than about doing the right thing. Not all liberals, sure. But my thesis statement didn’t say anything about proving that all of the people with this equity mindset are evil, just that most of them are evil - and well, just look at the chart that summarizes it so succinctly. Numbers don’t lie.”

Ms. Y looks at the data with a sinking feeling. It is accurate, as she knew it would be, because she also knew that Mr. Q was a thought experiment similar to her, and as vicious as he could be sometimes (as they both could be, being mirror images of each other), he always preferred to hurt people with honesty rather than lies. Struggling to defend her case, she grasps for the last straw that she can.

“Even if they were evil, nothing you’ve said proves that they deserve to die,” she manages to say.

Mr. Q smiles, and thinks carefully for a very long moment before choosing his next words.

“I never said they deserve to die, I said that their ideology deserves to die,” he answers. “You were actually the one who said they deserve to die, not me.” And at this point he smiles a rather old and cruel smile. “Your suggestion seems a little extreme to me, but… you know what? As a free speech enthusiast, I’m willing to hear you out. Considering how many millions of lives were lost during Covid - due largely to the fact that we had inadequate Brads managing the pandemic response rather than the Chads who should have been in charge - I can kind of understand why some people might feel a little bit of vengeance is in order. Please, tell me more about why you feel that way.” And at that moment, the debate needs to be brought to an end because Ms. Y is starting to become a little bit hysterical.