The difference and connection between substantive equality and formal equality

Substantive equality and formal equality are two different concepts of equality, and there are obvious differences between them in terms of realization methods and effects, but they are also related to a certain extent.

1.Differences:

Formal equality: It is mainly manifested in the recognition of all persons in the form of law as equality before the law, the same treatment in terms of rights and obligations, and the prohibition of discriminatory treatment with differential treatment. Formal equality attaches importance to equality of opportunity, emphasizes the creation and maintenance of a level playing field, and encourages people to succeed through competition and hard work.

Substantive equality: refers to the state taking appropriate measures according to specific conditions and actual needs to provide citizens with conditions for equal development, narrow the gap caused by formal equality, and achieve substantive equality. Substantive equality is concerned with the rights and interests of specific individuals, emphasizing discrimination based on individual differences and needs.

2.Contact:

Formal equality and substantive equality are dialectical relations, formal equality is equality of creating opportunities, emphasizing procedural fairness, and encouraging people to achieve self-development through competitive efforts. Substantive equality, on the other hand, is concerned with the de facto inequality of formal equality for a particular person in a specific situation, and it is the responsibility of the State to take appropriate measures to reduce the gap and guarantee de facto equality.

In general, both formal and substantive equality have their importance, and they are interrelated and mutually influential. In practice, we need to take appropriate measures according to specific circumstances and actual needs in order to achieve true equality.

The right to equality refers to the rights granted to citizens by law, all citizens enjoy the same rights, and no one is allowed to enjoy privileges different from others, which is the right to equality; Reasonable difference refers to the difference in the quantity, content and method of enjoying rights within the scope of the law and in accordance with the requirements of social fairness and justice. The right to equality and reasonable distinction are interdependent, without which there can be no reasonable distinction and no right to equality. The relationship between the right to equality and reasonable distinction can be understood from the following two aspects:

On the one hand, the right to equality is the basis for reasonable differences. Without the right to equality, reasonable differences cannot arise, and the right to equality is the premise and basis for reasonable differences. On the other hand, reasonable differences are a concrete manifestation and guarantee of the right to equality.

There is no reasonable difference.

Summary. Pro, the right to equality and reasonable differences: the differences prohibited by the constitution are unreasonable differences, that is, there are reasonable differences and unreasonable differences in the constitutional sense.

The relativity of the right to equality requires the prohibition of unreasonable differences, which are constitutional. For example, the Constitution makes special provisions on the right to exempt NPC deputies from responsibility for speech, and this right is enjoyed by people's deputies on the basis of their qualifications, and cannot be enjoyed by citizens who do not have the qualifications to be deputies. Here, the value of the right to equality is expressed in the equality of the people's deputies in the exercise of their right to immunity from speech, and certain special provisions of the rights of citizens are a reasonable distinction that cannot be considered a privilege.

Pro, the right to equality and reasonable differences: the differences prohibited by the constitution are unreasonable differences, that is, there are reasonable differences and unreasonable differences in the constitutional sense. The relativity of the right to equality requires the prohibition of unreasonable differences, and reasonable differences are constitutional.

For example, the Constitution makes special provisions on the right to exempt NPC deputies from responsibility for speech, and this right is enjoyed by people's deputies on the basis of their qualifications, and cannot be enjoyed by citizens who do not have the qualifications to deputies. Here, the value of the right to equality is manifested in the equality of the people's deputies in the exercise of the right to immunity from speech, and the interference of certain special provisions in the rights of citizens is a reasonable difference and cannot be considered a privilege.

Dear, hello Shentong, the above is a return to the blind judgment, you can refer to it, I hope it will help you, if you have any questions about missing changes, you can continue to ask yo, I wish you a happy life! 

Summary. In the Constitution, what we call equal protection is, in principle, that all citizens should be treated without discrimination, unless there is a legitimate reason for the differential treatment. In particular, race, gender, family origin, or religious belief may not be used as grounds for legal discrimination.

In general, the criteria for determining whether a measure is a reasonable difference or a discriminatory practice that violates equal protection are as follows:

1.** The purpose of the differential treatment must be to achieve a legitimate and vital interest;

2.Such discrimination must be a reasonable and even indispensable means of achieving its stated legitimate aim;

3.**Burden of proof.

There are several specific types of reasonable differences:

1) Reasonable differences in responsibilities, rights, etc., due to differences in age.

For example, our Constitution stipulates that only citizens who have reached the age of 18 have the right to vote and to stand for election.

2) Reasonable differences based on people's physiological differences. For example, women's protection during pregnancy.

3) Reasonable differences based on ethnic differences. For example, China's laws give preferential treatment to ethnic minorities in the political, economic, cultural and other fields.

How to understand the relationship between the right to equality and reasonable differences.

In the Constitution, what we call equal protection is, in principle, that all citizens should be treated without discrimination, unless there is a legitimate reason for the differential treatment. In particular, race, gender, family origin, or religious belief may not be used as grounds for legal discrimination. In general, the criteria for judging whether a measure is a reasonable difference or a discriminatory practice that violates equal protection are as follows:

1.** The purpose of the differential treatment must be to achieve a legitimate and vital interest; 2.Such discrimination must be a reasonable, even essential, or desirable means to achieve its stated legitimate aim; 3.

For example, our Constitution stipulates that only citizens who have reached the age of 18 have the right to vote and to stand for election. 2) Reasonable differences based on people's physiological differences. For example, women's protection during pregnancy.

3) Reasonable differences based on ethnic differences. For example, China's laws give preferential treatment to ethnic minorities in the political, economic, cultural and other fields.

their relationship.

The right to equality and reasonable distinction.

"Right to equality", I understand that it refers to equality of political rights and opportunities, not equality in the economic (wealth) sense. In ancient and modern times, in China and abroad, there are absolute "differences" in economic wealth between people, and "equality" cannot be achieved. "Equal wealth and poverty" is a utopian slogan, and no country in history has been able to do the deed, and the difference can only be limited to the "reasonable" hairtail.

"Reasonable difference" is more complicated, first of all, what is the "reason"? Who decides if it's "reasonable"? How much of a difference between people is "reasonable"?

These are questions that are difficult to discuss.

The concept of equality here means a basic question, simply put, how do we understand equality? In many cases, this question is regarded as superfluous, consciously or unconsciously, because equality itself is usually regarded as an unspoken value, and accordingly it is applied as a clear or self-evident concept, often even if in theory. Even among the most serious thinkers of equality, the concern is mainly with the scope of application of equality, with little reflection on the concept of equality itself.

The assertion that all men are created equal, or the opposite of the unequal nature of human beings, is often taken as a clear statement in everyday discourse and in theoretical analysis, as opposed to what modern people call an equal society or an unequal society. However, the question here is, do these words of equality refer to the same concept in the above sentence?

There is no doubt that the notion of equality has always been at the source of contention, but the usual concern is with what should be included in the list of benefits for equal distribution, rather than equality as a value in itself. In fact, the real and original cause of most of the disagreements and controversies about the concept of equality is in many cases not in the object to be measured and put into practice in terms of equality, but precisely in the fact that the concept of equality has not only different meanings but also different references in different people, in different contexts and in different theories.

If the concept of equality is not clearly and precisely defined, then all men are created equal, as Rousseau said

In Buddhism, all living beings have the virtue and wisdom of a Buddha, and all living beings are equal. This concept of equality transcends race and is equal to all life. ...Taoism, heaven and earth are all Pangu, and everything is Pangu.

All things have spirits, and you and I are one. This view of equality is broader and is already equal in all dimensions.

There is no official and half-position, and he is designated as a civilian.

The principle of equality means that all persons are equal before the law and no privileges are allowed. The principle of equality requires that no one be discriminated against on the grounds of race, colour, sex, language or religious belief in the application of the law, nor shall he be treated differently on any grounds. The principle of reasonable difference means that different laws should be applied according to the different circumstances of the case, so as to ensure the uniform and correct implementation of the law, and at the same time prevent injustice in the application of law.

The principle of reasonable difference requires that in the application of law in specific cases, the specific circumstances of the case should be fully considered, and different laws should be applied to different circumstances of different cases, so as to achieve uniformity and correctness in the application of law. The principle of equality and the principle of reasonable difference are two manifestations of the principle of equality before the law in the judicial field, and they complement each other and together constitute the basic requirements of the principle of equality before the law in China.

Summary. The right to equality refers to the right of citizens to demand the same protection of the State in order to be treated similarly to others under similar conditions. The right to equality is relative, and equality allows for reasonable differences.

A reasonable difference is a difference that is taken to a reasonable extent and has a reasonable basis. It is difficult to determine a uniform standard for the judgment of reasonable differences, so in the process of specific application, it is necessary to make a comprehensive judgment based on certain principles. Hope mine can help you.

Hello, dear drop, now call the rock disturbance in my jujube to cover your question, wait a moment and Dan moment, I will send you the detailed answer Oh, wait patiently, don't worry,

The right to equality refers to a right of citizens to demand the same protection from the state in order to be treated similarly to others under similar conditions. The right to equality is relative, and equality allows for reasonable differences. A reasonable difference is a difference that is taken to a reasonable extent and has a reasonable basis.

It is difficult to determine a unified standard for the judgment of reasonable differences, therefore, in the process of application of the bright body with stove, it is necessary to make a comprehensive judgment according to certain principles. I hope my answer will help you.

Dear drop, the above is all of my touch Xiangyan, is there a ridiculous that is not clear to continue to consult, if not, can you judge to help make a like? Thank you and wish you a happy life and all the best.