Let’s play a game.  The game is easy at first and it will help us with a definition.

1. I have 100 one-dollar bills.
2. There are five players of which I am one.
3. Like monopoly, I pass out the money equally.
4. How much money does each player receive?

It doesn’t take a math wizard to figure out the answer the question.  Each player now has 20 dollars. But now is where it gets a little harder.

5. Each person in the game must give half of their money to the most deserving by whatever criteria you would like. Equality is no longer a criterion. There could be some possible outcomes:
   1. A person could think he is the most deserving and keep his 10 dollars.
   2. A person could think that friendship or popularity should make the decision.
   3. A person could see the other’s way of dispersion and try to make it fair and give to the person who did not receive anything. Trying to be fair to everyone.
   4. One player may give his 10 dollars back to me because I am the one who started giving away my money in the first place. A reward for giving.

In the first part of the game, I am expected to not cheat and give the dollars out evenly to each person.  It is expected that I am fair with my game.  It was an example of equality.  Each of the players expected the same amount of money at the beginning of the game. The requirement of equality is that everyone was treated the same.  The issue comes up when equality is no longer an absolute criterion for the next step. The second step included things like selfishness as in response (a), prejudice as in response (b), or as in response (c) where equality is attempted.

There is a food pantry at the church at which I attend.  The Pantry provides food to those who want to avail themselves of the pantry services.  The Pantry provides to everyone who comes; equality.  One of the services provided is USDA offerings.  To be a recipient of this food you must meet criteria set by the USDA.  The USDA sets a maximum income ceiling to receive this food.  They provide for low-income families only.  There is no equality in this requirement, it is a means to provide food to the most deserving.  The USDA is trying to provide a level playing field for the food insecure in our community.  This provision is not equal.  This provision is a service of equity.  The USDA is saying that families that do not have the ability or incentive or just plain bad luck there is a government program that will help them in their time of need.  This is an example of equity; that all should have a bottom line for food.

My moral center based upon God says to me I should care for the needed.  Jesus tells me in the word that I should give to the hungry.  I fully support the Pantry and what it is accomplishing. But sometimes I wonder about the difference between equality and equity.

I just read a study on the difference between equality and equity.  This study tells me that people frequently disagree about morality. There seems to be no standard morality in our society. The arguments are about which rules are valid and which are not.  There are disagreements about whether contraception is morally wrong.  There are disagreements over abortion.  There are even disagreements over the fairness of our taxation system.  Should I download music from the internet without paying for it?  So which side do I find my moral compass?  Should my decisions be made only on equality, “all the same no matter what”, or equity, “the one who needs the most”?

I would suppose that if I am the one running the game, I start out with equality, “all men are created equal” and make my decision about equity as I go along.

I need your input on this one, please leave a comment.