Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet
icon backReturn to Entries

Equity

In its original formulation, equity was a rectification of, or supplement to, rigid law. In its modern form, it has lost this concrete relation to rigid law and is used to describe either the “essence” of good law or an independent value that good law takes into consideration. Where equity was originally outside the law, it has come to describe a way in which the law itself ought to treat people. We say that the law is equitable, that it treats people fairly, or perhaps that it promotes equity. We no longer say that the law requires equity as a remedy. Furthermore, an original distinction between equity and equality in ancient Greece has given way to the modern interchangeable use of equity and equality. Tracing the evolution of the concept is instructive; the loss of its original meaning suggests we have lost sight of (a) a fundamental problem of governance by law and (b) an alternative to governance by law.

Definition and Etymology

The English word equity comes from the Greek epieikeia and the Latin translation of epieikeia, aequitas. The Greek epieikeia had a relatively specific meaning that was partially transformed and later forgotten through its Latinization. The modern English use of the word equity is closer to the Latin aequitas. Two English terms, epiky and equity, capture the distinction between the original Greek and later Latinized meanings. Epiky is less frequently used and has perhaps dropped out of our ordinary language. Epiky is derived directly from the Greek epieikeia, whereas equity likely comes from the Latin aequitas.

Epieikeia

The term epieikeia was of both philosophical and practical importance to the ancient Greeks; the term was central for Athenian self-definition. The main sources for the meaning of Greek epieikeia are Thucydides, the fragment of Gorgias's funeral oration, Sophocles, and most prominently, Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics. The term epieikeia originally had two concretely related meanings: (1) what is appropriate, convenient, or fitting and (2) what is opposed to strict law.

The concept of epieikiea originally pointed to a fundamental problem of governance by law. Aristotle, and much later, Thomas Aquinas, both identified the same problem. Simplified a bit, the problem is that laws necessarily take the form of general statements meant to apply to large classes of persons. A law that reads, “All persons who steal shall be punished” is exemplary of the generality of most laws. Such general statements speak to, or are meant to be applied to, cases that generally arise. We might say that in most cases, when someone steals, it is appropriate that they be punished. Occasionally, however, exceptional cases arise. When a starving orphaned child steals a loaf of bread to survive, should the general law be applied? There are exceptional cases where the application of general laws seems inappropriate. Another example suffices to make the point. Imagine a law that states, “All teachers who corrupt the youth are to die by poison hemlock.” Now imagine that an exceptional case arises in which the great Socrates is accused of being a teacher who corrupts the youth. It would seem to follow that he ought to be condemned to death by poison hemlock. We might think, and certainly many in Athens thought, that Socrates' case was so exceptional that a strict application of the general law in his case would be inappropriate.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Read next

More like this

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

close

Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches

close
close
close Signed In to profile You are signed in as:
close
Logged in Institution Institution