Defining Equality :: Philosophy

Defining Equality The article "We're Not Really Equal," by Thomas Sowell discusses the need to be clear on definitions of important terms when delivering an argument. To draw readers into listening to his main point about clarifying definitions, Sowell chooses an important issue to serve as an example: equality. When introducing this example topic, Sowell makes a clear claim of fact, " 'Equality' is one of the great undefined terms underlying much current controversy and antagonism' (204.) When discussing equality, controversy, and antagonism, Sowell's word choices call a lot of attention to his claim. This emotional appeal may work to catch the attention of a wide audience, but may also put off anybody who doesn't want to spend time reading demanding material. The political direction of his example may confuse readers who start the article thinking this will be a discussion of clarifying definitions, then wonder if the real topic is the lack of equality in a country that supposedly constitutionally g uarantees equality for all. Both the tasks of clarifying terms we all think we understand and discussing equality are difficult. The audience of this article may have to readers with more education than the general population, yet the short sentences, standard word choices, and short overall length would allow a fairly wide readership. The potentially inflammatory subject is what may limit the audience to only readers who agree with Sowell. Perhaps in awareness of these possible limitations, Sowell initiates some general support through an illustration of confusion around defining equality in mathematics. He tells us that mathematical equalities are easily understood because numbers are compared only to other numbers. Despite Sowell's innocuous example, this piece of his argument doesn't seem to be the case in true life. No two people think alike, or share the same history, so how can our thinking processes be compared to something as black and white, and quantifiable as numbers? Another example Sowell brings up is a concept many Americans share that everyone is equal under the law. He is relying on the underlying warrant that North Americans believe in our constitutional rights that the same rules apply to everyone, regardless of wealth, status, education, priviledge, or personal ability. His support grows stronger here because constitutional law is hard to argue against. Defining Equality :: Philosophy Defining Equality The article "We're Not Really Equal," by Thomas Sowell discusses the need to be clear on definitions of important terms when delivering an argument. To draw readers into listening to his main point about clarifying definitions, Sowell chooses an important issue to serve as an example: equality. When introducing this example topic, Sowell makes a clear claim of fact, " 'Equality' is one of the great undefined terms underlying much current controversy and antagonism' (204.) When discussing equality, controversy, and antagonism, Sowell's word choices call a lot of attention to his claim. This emotional appeal may work to catch the attention of a wide audience, but may also put off anybody who doesn't want to spend time reading demanding material. The political direction of his example may confuse readers who start the article thinking this will be a discussion of clarifying definitions, then wonder if the real topic is the lack of equality in a country that supposedly constitutionally g uarantees equality for all. Both the tasks of clarifying terms we all think we understand and discussing equality are difficult. The audience of this article may have to readers with more education than the general population, yet the short sentences, standard word choices, and short overall length would allow a fairly wide readership. The potentially inflammatory subject is what may limit the audience to only readers who agree with Sowell. Perhaps in awareness of these possible limitations, Sowell initiates some general support through an illustration of confusion around defining equality in mathematics. He tells us that mathematical equalities are easily understood because numbers are compared only to other numbers. Despite Sowell's innocuous example, this piece of his argument doesn't seem to be the case in true life. No two people think alike, or share the same history, so how can our thinking processes be compared to something as black and white, and quantifiable as numbers? Another example Sowell brings up is a concept many Americans share that everyone is equal under the law. He is relying on the underlying warrant that North Americans believe in our constitutional rights that the same rules apply to everyone, regardless of wealth, status, education, priviledge, or personal ability. His support grows stronger here because constitutional law is hard to argue against.