Questions On The Word Equity

Equity is that part in the law that moderates the harshness of common law and statute and because of this persons seeking assistance from an unconscionable transaction have been able to find relief through equity. Although equity only appears in the most repugnant of situations, it comes as in disbelief, that the courts would consider a newer level of standard for unconscionability. The following paper considers the effect of the statement made and the ramifications of the statement through equity.

Social equity was presented to public administration first by H. George Frederickson in the 1960s after the Standing Panel on Social Equity in Governance was created by the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) (Johnson, 2012). Social equity is the fourth pillar of public administration by the NAPA (Norman-Major, 2011). According to the panel their definition of social equity is “fair, just and equitable management of all institutions serving the public directly or by contract” (Johnson, 2012). In Wooldridge, & Gooden (2009) they state that the idea of social equity in public administration is inseparably linked to John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice (1971). Rawls developed the principle of justice as fairness. Fairness is justice would mean that people have equal rights to basic liberty (Rawls, 1971). To be discussed will be comparison and differences between many author overtime that has touch social equity regarding its definition, challenges along with the overall conclusion. The fact that the use of these notions has evolved in different ways over time (Herrera, 2007) is why this is being mentioned.

All employees analyze their environment and strive to be recognized and rewarded for their hard work and dedication they put into the company, in a word they are seeking justice. Justice can be defined as a person receiving what they feel they are entitled to and if they do not receive what they deserve, the situation may boarder on injustice. Unfortunately in today’s society justice and appreciation are not given out to all those deserving (Pinder, 1998). Within the Equity theory there are three justice theories. The first of which is distributive justice, this touches on if the referent feels that the outputs are fair that are given to the employees. This comes into play

Reconnecting this interpretation of justice to distribution purely means that the virtue of justice, being concerned with the liberty, rights, and fairness of citizen 's in a society, must consider how the economic opportunities and social conditions affect the citizens in that society. While there may be cases of perceived inequality among the citizens of the just society, those inequalities might be acceptable if certain principles of justice insured the fairness of liberty and rights inherent in justice as the first virtue. Further, any inequalities in authority and wealth could be just, only on the condition that they benefit all citizens. In

I intend to discuss these issues while also discussing why it is important for these issues to be highlighted in this document. Firstly, the issues of personal rights are acknowledged at the beginning of the document. “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good” . At this time, to be equal meant the end of legal differences.

develop a normative foundation for empirical research. I first consider the legal definition of equity,

This case is significant in terms of this paper since the courts discussed some key principles concerning section 15. One of those principles claims that “Section 15 is not, however, a general guarantee of equality: differential treatment does not necessarily result in inequality…”.3 In most circumstances, this can be considered true as the Charter cannot provide protection for every single issue, otherwise people would go to

Equity is a branch of law, founded in justice and fair dealing, which seeks to supply a remedy when no adequate remedy at law is available.

To me, equity means that everyone is treated the way they should be. Women are just as important as men are. We are just as capable of doing certain things as they are. That calls ethics into play. Is it right to treat us women different or weaker just because of estrogen? Many people feel this way. I do not think they have no ethics or morals. I think they believe that equity is not important. Without equity or ethics, the world would be in trouble. That is what equity and ethics means to me.

Courts of equity were the Chancery courts and existed historically as an entirely separate department from the Supreme Court, imitating the historical arrangement in place in England. A primary reason for the development of the Chancery courts was to provide a means of redress where the common law provided an inadequate remedy or no remedy at all. In equity, generally the court’s power is to direct someone to act or to forbear from acting, which circumstances clearly cannot be redressed by the award of money damages.

Although equality and equity are not the same, the concepts are intimately related. With the absence of a single accepted definition of equity, there is general agreement that equity implies quality. The measurement of inequality pertains to statistical variation. Equity on the other hand requires normative judgements based on moral theories. Inequality in consumption means that different people receive different

The official version of the law is the basis on which the law prides itself to be. It claims to be neutral, having no prejudice against race, sex, gender, or any other distinguishing characteristics. The law compares itself to a blindfolded woman as historically women who have been seen as virgins who are pure, uninfluenced, and have no biases. The official version of the law is bound by one rule and that is everyone is subjected to the law and will be treated equally under it. Stare Decisis, a well known term to legal scholars is used define how judges are bound by precedent which means they must treat all cases the same and thus leading to the basis of the official version which is predictable, unbiased law. My focus in this paper is to

The major difference according to Jones (2009) is that “Whereas equity is about fairness and focuses on processes, equality compares the distribution of some goods or outcomes between different individuals or groups.” (p. 9). To clarify it, Jones (2009) mentioned that “…equity focuses on what constitutes a just distribution, which treats people equally, whereas equality is about what the final actual distribution is, requiring that people receive equal amounts.” (p. 9). Equity’s main goal is not to make everyone in society equal, but rather to provide fair opportunities to become equal while equality’s main goal is to leave everyone as equal as possible in the end result. Furthermore, equity advocates for people to not be responsible for the consequences that they have no control over and promotes fair competition. On the other hand, equality strives to make everyone equal in society and promotes equal share of resources for people to have equal outcomes. To sum it up, equality drives on the notion that everyone shall have the same, while equity is about everyone having fair opportunities to achieve the same

between equality and equity? What is the better choice? Do we prefer similarity or justice? And

Equity vs Equality. Over the years, multiple distinguished authors, politicians, teachers, and philosophers have weighed with their opinion. Equality is ultimate state of being equal in all things, including opportunists, states, and rights. Equity, on the other hand, describes being fair and impartial in all situations. Words that are so similar yet, completely different. Equity is being fair, and being fair doesn't always mean being completely equal to everybody. Equality, sounds good however as time has shown equality is only beneficial if everyone has the same advantages and all benefit equally from the system . What happens when everyone does not have the same inborn advantages? We begin to have unfair disadvantages aimed at marginalized people. Equity is the path that as a society, we must take in order to improve.