Equality In The Giver And Harrison Bergeron

We live in a world full of rules that apply to everyone, but not everybody follows them. Do you think that by attempting to restrict our society that we are pushing into a utopia? A utopia is a world in which life is perfect without flaws but there are also times when perfection is masked chaos also known as a dystopia. One reason that “The Giver” is more restrictive than “Harrison Bergeron” is that the people in the community are given an occupation.

Equality can be interpreted in many ways, as we can see throughout the history such as racial, gender, and socio-economic equality. The Civil Rights emphasize that everybody should be treated equally and another view is the one represented in the story that everybody is equal. It is a completely out of reality to have a perfect society or no competition at all because how we could make advancements if the government was allowed to impose handicaps on the naturally gifted. The great thinkers would not be able to have new ideas because of the mental

The novel The Giver by Lois Lowry illustrates a dystopian society hi lighting the limitations of individuality and suppression of cultural memory in order to prevent any potential destruction that warrants deviation from the totalitarian state of mind with the society depends on. The dependence on the elaborately regulate system however causes the burden of beneficial and detrimental knowledge to the rest on one person's shoulders. Through sociological analysis I will analyze the effects of this reliance on the Giver’s ability to retain such crucial information on a singular causes the detrimental affect triggered not by the inability of the Giver but rather by the society’s unwillingness to change. It can be observed that dystopian societies are ambivalent in nature, situated in utopian text; however, in Lowry's novel the world is engineered where the utopia goes wrong due to its extinction of the aesthetic and personal choices. In “The Utopian the Function of memory in Lois Lowry’s the giver, the author analyzes the ambiguity between the dystopian aspect and the utopian aspect of the society created in the novel (Hanson).

According to the fact that everyone is different in many ways, it isn't possible for everyone to be equal. According to the story "Harrison Bergeron" all humans can never truly be equal. We see in the beginning of the story the reader learns that the gifted are handicapped, but the ability to reason hasn’t been taken away. Hazel tells George that she thinks he looks tired. She says, “All of a sudden

Do you think society would improve if everyone was equal? Even though people may argue with me, I say that everyone isn’t truly equal in the story, Harrison Bergeron. I say this due to how people that are naturally born with above average intelligence, strength, and looks gorgeous has to wear handicaps to hide their unique abilities. Another reason is that some people are either respected or disrespected because of their special talents. Thirdly, some people in the story does not need to follow the law, even if they are a citizen of the United States, which means that everyone does not have equal rights.

To start off, the ideal of equality is an important section of the Declaration of Independence. In any democratically ruled country, as the United States, the equality among its citizens, is the key to success in building societies where everyone is issued their rights, opportunities, and status, regardless of their gender, race, and origins.

The short story ‘Harrison Bergeron’, Written by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. and the novel ‘The Giver’ by Lois Lowry both share a theme of forced equality and uniformity. Both stories take place in dystopian worlds. Woven throughout both of the stories are, authority is forcing egalitarianism onto citizens because they want an indefectible civilization. In the short story Harrison Bergeron, the world is ruled by Handicap General were in The Giver the world is ruled by the Elders, so that the community would be equal. But in both stories the protagonist goes against the community to break the peace and gain freedom and demonstrates how the authority always doesn’t know the best.

“What is equality?” one might ask. We all have different views on specific topics and can describe what something truly means to one’s self like in the 3 text, “I have a dream,” by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr (published; 8/28/1963, genre; narrative and argumentative), “If we must die,” by Claude Mckay (published; 1919, genre; narrative and lyric), & “Harrison Bergeron,” by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. (published; October 1961, genre; satirical & dystopian science-fiction short story). In all 3 texts the authors are giving their touch on equality. Equality can convey being treated the same when a colored and a white man/woman are next to each other as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr says. You can also see equality as Mckay who thinks it’s being on the same level of strength and worth as a white man being in the shoes of a colored man. Or equality can be being exactly the same in every way as anyone around you in every exact way in Vonnegut’s eyes. All these 3 authors have a particular view on how to answer “What is equality?” and we can compare their ideas.

Equality means to treat everyone the same. Everyone should have equal opportunities and access to resources and services regardless of their individual needs or differences. For example equal access to a building for wheelchair users.

The society is not equal because no can truly be changed on the inside, no matter how you may try to change them on the outside. Also if society were truly equal everyone would have handicaps and their handicaps would be the same, there would not just be a certain amount of people with handicaps, everyone would have them because equality is being the same and if only a certain amount of people had handicaps that would not be equal. Everyone has different qualities and different strengths and weakness's and if people were meant to be equal to each other, people would be, however everyone is different and unique. In conclusion no matter what anyone ever does or tries to do to society, no one will ever be truly equal to one another because the only way that would be possible, is if people were made that way but people were not, so no one is or ever will be truly

As humans naturally, we believe that it is rather better to be free than not to be free, and in some cases we don't consider equality to be of great worth. One good example that proofs that theory true is, the African slaves in the western world, who fought and campaigned to be freed from slavery and to see slavery business abolished all together. They were struggling to be free, without having in mind that equality is indeed necessary in their struggle. As we know they were later freed from being slaves and regarded as freemen and women, but the main obstacle that hindered their progress in integrating into their

This is important because inequality causes unrest and brings about interminable turmoil which can eventually lead to a collapse of a regime or a state. If every human being is given equal opportunities then the outcome after those opportunities were presented, whether it was success of failure, fully rests upon the individual’s shoulders. In case of failure, the government or any other individual would not be held accountable.

Greek philosopher Aristotle once said that “The worst form of equality is to try to make unequal things equal.” While there are some scenarios where Aristotle’s words may not apply, I personally agree with him to a certain degree. Within society, equality may sound good when put on paper, but falls flat due to issues that have arose in history, essentially proving that true “equality” is a goal that cannot be accomplished..

Equality stands side by side with no contingencies. To be truly equal there has to be no disadvantages. A society cannot have equality when arbitrary hinders its growth. John Rawls a philosopher of egalitarianism believes that an equal society is essential to its productivity. It is not fair for moral Arbitrariness to have superiority over the less fortunate in justice and the free market. There should be opportunities given to start at the same starting point regardless of status quo. Everyone has an opinion on equality which fairly is their own. An opinion is just an opinion base on what the individual believe is right by how they feel. What if you could strip away outside inferences, opinions and see equality for what it is. The

Certainly, Alexie’s illustration of his childhood struggles are an enlightening experience. While he does not directly address the question, it does shed some light on the ongoing debate. Equity vs Equality, which is more beneficial. Equality has been used since Jim Crow when southern schools installed the mentality of 'separate but equal'. This mentality exhibited that even though they were separate, nothing was ever truly equal. This mentality failed. Looking at our system now, one cannot help but point out the similarities to the old Jim Crow system. As Albert Einstein would say, Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Equity is the opposite. Equity would ensure that those who needed extra or additional help would receive because that would be fair.