Talk:Social equality

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MeztliG.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Who are the founders of the philosophic basis of social Equality?
S no word about it here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doganaktas (talk • contribs) 14:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * they don't even mention gay rights and they should —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.29.5.15 (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They prefer it when you don't identify them. EyePhoenix (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Affirmative Action
That article is currently all about social equality and some phrases auch as positive action are redirected there so I have suggested moving it here and merging. This article should be mainly the lead to the contents of that article. See Talk:Affirmative_action also ~ R.T.G 08:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge - Social equality and affirmative action are different topics. To put it simply, Social equality is the end and affirmative action is the means. Robofish (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Robofish and what is said on the other talk page. These objections have not been addressed; anyone wanting to re-raise the issue should answer them.  I am removing the merge tag.  Blue Rasberry  15:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This article clearly regards 'social equality' as a good thing, and thus is not NPOV. -Simon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.50.100 (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok if i add ethnicity?
i see origin and race, but ethnicity isn't listed. thoughts?Paolorausch (talk) 08:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Include species as a category of discrimination
The third sentence of the introduction reads: "For example, advocates of social equality believe in equal justice under law for all people regardless of sex, gender, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, origin, caste or class, income or property, language, religion, convictions, opinions, health, or disability." I propose that this should be changed to: "For example, advocates of social equality believe in equal justice under law for all sentient beings regardless of sex, gender, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, origin, caste or class, income or property, language, religion, convictions, opinions, health, disability or species. Not including non-human animals in our definition of moral patients that should be seen as equal is an inherently speciesist idea. Moral consideration, and therefore the right to be seen as equal, should not be given to just people, but to all beings that have sentience. Sentience is the property that allows a being to experience pain and pleasure, and it is this capacity that ought to give one moral consideration, because causing unnecessary pain to any being able to feel pain is morally wrong by the same standards that inform us that causing unnecessary pain to any human is morally wrong. One could argue that non-human animals are not able to participate in society, and therefore are exempt of social equality, but this argument doesn't hold up because we do include severely mentally disabled people in the stated definition, who also cannot participate in society. The wikipedia definition of society further strengthens my point: "A society is a group of individuals involved in persistent social interaction". Firstly, Non-human animals are individuals, because they have individual subjective experiences. Secondly, non-human animals can engage in persistent social interaction, dogs can communicate with us non-verbally by showing different behaviors, and so can pigs and cows. Thus, even if it is required for a category that falls under social equality to have its members be part of society, it can be argued that non-human animals are in fact part of society, mandating that species is included in categories that ought to receive social equality. If you don't want to change the initial definition, I would propose to include some mention of veganism or speciesism in the article. Newfangs (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree with your arguments and think that they are also correctly justified.
 * Your suggestion was called vandalism and was therefore changed. However, I have reverted this change again. Your suggestion/change should not be wrongly labeled as vandalism, so I support your suggestion. FreakyN (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI: User talk:2601:647:6100:5D00:B8E4:1283:42CF:8E43 FreakyN (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI: User talk:2601:647:6100:5D00:B8E4:1283:42CF:8E43 FreakyN (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I support your edits based on the language of Wikipedia's Speciesism page and the accepted Wikipedian definition of what constitutes a society.
 * I would suggest though that Wikipedia's page for society could use the addition of a fleshed-out section on non-human animal societies.
 * TomekBotwicz (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Economics of Social Justice and Injustice
— Assignment last updated by CoVo2023 (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)