This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
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.
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)[reply]
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. BlueRasberry15:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Astoudiallo10 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: CoVo2023.