Equality of opportunity means that all people get the opportunity to make right choices and build careers and lifestyles how they want to. Critics of equality of outcome believe that it is more important to raise the standard of living of the poorest in absolute terms[citation needed]. Although it is not always clearly defined, it is usually taken to describe a state in which people have approximately the same material wealth or, more generally, in … Outline, Equality of outcome, equality of condition, or equality of results is a controversial political concept. Login Analyst Julian Glover in The Guardian wrote that equality challenged both left-leaning and right-leaning positions, and suggested that the task of left-leaning advocates is to "understand the impossibility and undesirability of equality" while the task for right-leaning advocates was to "realise that a divided and hierarchical society cannot – in the best sense of that word – be fair. "[24] As a result, critics contend that efforts to bring fairness by equal opportunity are stymied by the difficulty of people having differing starting points at the beginning of the socio-economic competition. One writer suggested greater socioeconomic equality was "indispensable if we want to realise our shared commonsense values of societal fairness. After all, a nation full of rich people sounds great. Achieving this requires reducing or eliminating material inequalities between individuals or households in a society. How To Make Opportunity Equal: Race And Contributive Justice. To the extent that incidental inequalities can be passed from one generation to another through substantial gifts and wealth inheritance, some claim that equality of opportunity for children cannot be achieved without greater equality of outcome for parents. A focus on outcomes with respect to literacy among young children may seem appropriate, since it is important that children actually become literate rather than have an opportunity to read, which could be missed. This can be contrasted with a payment system such as piece work, which requires that every worker is paid a fixed amount of money per lamp. For example, imagine that only 1,000 doctors can be appointed in one year. Equality of Outcome requires that individuals have some share of goods, not merely a chance to obtain them without the hindrance of some obstacles. While outcomes can usually be measured with a great degree of precision, it is much more difficult to measure the intangible nature of opportunities. The idea of even the poorest Americans living in mansions is a wonderful dream. What is the difference between Liberalism and Socialism ? According to this view, wealth and income is a reward needed to spur such activity, and with this reward removed, then achievements which would benefit everybody may not happen. Equality of Outcome requires that individuals have some share of goods, not merely a chance to obtain them without the hindrance of some obstacles. Equity, by way of contrast, aims to give everyone what they need to be successful. Opportunities are baked in throughout our entire lives, and minorities without a doubt face bigger challenges over a lifetime than non-minorities. Equality of outcome is a controversial political concept which describes a state in which people have approximately the same material wealth or, more generally, in which the general conditions of their lives are similar. [23] Policies that seek an equality of outcome often require a deviation from the strict application of concepts such as meritocracy, and legal notions of equality before the law for all citizens. To legislate equality of outcome is to force a square peg into a round universe. When evaluated in a simple context, the more preferred term in contemporary political discourse is equality of opportunity which the public, as well as individual commentators, see as the nicer or more "well-mannered"[14] of the two terms. In contrast, equality of outcome, as in socialism, treats unlike individuals alike – which is anathema to any genuine liberal. [8] It is not a new phenomenon; battling between so-called haves and have-nots has happened throughout human civilization, and was a focus of philosophers such as Aristotle in his treatise Politics. The term has been seen differently from differing political perspectives, but of all of the terms relating to equality, equality of outcome is the most "controversial" or "contentious".[1]. ", includeonly>George Packer. Therefore, it is considered impossible to ensure equality of outcome without imposing inequality of opportunity. It courses through the political bloodstream of the Democratic Party, and it informs each of their policy decisions. This could involve a transfer of income and/or wealth from wealthier to poorer individuals, or adopting other institutions designed to promote equality of condition from the start. Neo-revionist socialists also allow for relatively large amounts of social and economic inequality in society as a means of incentivisation under capitalism. … The concept of equality of outcome is an important one in battling between differing political positions, since the concept of equality, overall, was seen as positive and an important foundation which is "deeply embedded in the fabric of modern politics." Some analysts see the two concepts not as polar opposites but as highly related such that they can not be understood without considering the other term. In political philosophy, there are differing views whether equal outcomes are beneficial or not. To address this concern, we might understand Equality of Opportunity as requiring that, with certain effort, and overcoming only relevant obstacles, any person, and any number of persons, can, independent of the actions of others, realize the good that they have an opportunity to secure. "[17] Analyst Kenneth Cauthen in his 1987 book The Passion for Equality suggested that there were moral underpinnings for having equal outcomes because there is a common good––which people both contribute to and receive benefits from––and therefore should be enjoyed in common; Cauthen argued that this was a fundamental basis for both equality of opportunity as well as equality of outcome. It doesn't take any sort of great mind to realize this simple truth. Historically speaking, equal opportunity results in the liberty of the individual, while equal outcomes results in tyranny, genocide, and the enslavement of the individual. Equality of Opportunity distinguishes itself from Equality of Outcome in two main cases. A fair society is a just one—is that not the purpose of the law? 20 examples: Achieving equality of outcome between persons is morally good even if there is… The neo-revisionist socialist stance on equality is very similar to that of liberals – who also favour equality of opportunity and meritocracy above full equality of outcome for all. Equality of outcome can be achieved by making sure that everyone is supported to have access to resources and decision making and to be recognised, valued and respected. Equality of Opportunity, however, is often understood as allowing for these inequalities and many consider this to be a decisive advantage of focusing on opportunity. "[8][23] For example, striving for equal outcomes might require discriminating between groups to achieve these outcomes; or striving for equal opportunities in some types of treatment might lead to unequal results. Greater equality of outcome is likely to reduce relative poverty, purportedly leading to a more cohesive society. This could be a social service or education, but that is it. [18] Analyst George Packer, writing in the journal Foreign Affairs, argued that "inequality undermines democracy" in the United States partially because it "hardens society into a class system, imprisoning people in the circumstances of their birth. Equality suggests that everyone is at a particular starting point and should be treated the same. This paper argues that competitive market economies actually trade off some freedom for others. To argue for equality of outcome would surely imply that I could get paid as much for writing this now as Gareth Bale does or that I would actually be happy earning £15 million a year. It is not a new phenomenon; battling between so-called haves and have-nots has happened throughout human civilization, and was a focus of philosophers such as Aristotle in his treatise Politics. It is a further worry about Equality of Outcome that it might stifle individuality leading to uniformity of character, of preferences or of ability. "[18], Critics of equality of opportunity note that while it is relatively easier to deal with unfairness for people with different races or genders, it is much harder to deal with social class since "one can never entirely extract people from their ancestry and upbringing. This paper argues that versions of Luck Egalitarianism that hold that only inequalities can be unjust are as plausible as more orthodox versions and this entails that equality of outcome is never unjust. The Spencer Foundation funded the creation of this site as part of a project that examines the relationship between the ideal of equality of opportunity and public education. Analyst Anne Phillips argued that the proper way to assess the effectiveness of the hard-to-measure concept of equality of opportunity is by the extent of the actual and easier-to-measure equality of outcome. Equality of Opportunity may help us to decide to run a lottery where each child has an equal chance of getting a place. If you are equal in how you turn out from the beginning than what is the point of doing anything at all? Everyone must be completely equal! [14] Nevertheless, she described single criteria to measure equality of outcome as problematic: the metric of "preference satisfaction" was "ideologically loaded" while other measures such as income or wealth were insufficient, according to her view, and she advocated an approach which combined data about resources, occupations, and roles.[14]. One view is that there is a moral basis for equality of outcome, but that means to achieve such an outcome can be malevolent. Rawls argues that the inequality between a doctor's salary and a grocery clerk's is only acceptable if this is the only way to encourage the training of sufficient numbers of doctors, preventing an unacceptable decline in the availability of medical care (which would therefore disadvantage everyone). McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society, Section 1: Equality of Opportunity and Alternatives. Proponents argue that rigging equality of outcome can be a force preventing co-optation of non-economic institutions important to social control and policy formation, such as the legal system, media or the electoral process, by individuals and coalitions of wealthy people. As for equality of outcome, its ridiculous at its fundamental level. An Introduction to Equality of Opportunity, Section 2: Conceptions of Equality of Opportunity, Section 3: Equality of Opportunity and Education, Section 2: Conceptions of Equality of Opportunity », Center for Education Policy Analysis at Stanford, Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality, Workshop on Poverty, Inequality, and Education at Stanford, Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences, Youth and Education Law Project at Stanford Law School. [20] Authors of the book The Spirit Level contended that "more equal societies almost always do better" on other measures, and as a result, striving for equal outcomes can have overall beneficial effects for everybody. A sharp, divisive cultural debate in the United States is that of equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome. It seeks to promote fairness, but it can only work if everyone starts from the same place and needs the same level of support. I'd appreciate general rather than party political answers. Equality of outcome is very possible as long as the outcome is what happens every time leftists take over a country: universal poverty (except for the ruling and enforcer classes). Even the most Draconian policies couldn’t accomplish this. A mainstream political view is that the comparison of the two terms is valid, but that they are somewhat mutually exclusive in the sense that striving for either type of equality would require sacrificing the other to an extent, and that achieving equality of opportunity necessarily brings about "certain inequalities of outcome. Equality of condition is also known as equality of outcome.Equality of condition is a form of egalitarianism which seeks to reduce or eliminate differences in material condition between individuals or households in a society. It’s about “equality of outcome” in a package that makes it impossible for anyone to misunderstand. This effectively amounts to authoritarianism whereby a central body ultimately plays God at the expense of people’s own free will and agency. Further, Rawls claims that all economically and socially privileged positions must be open to all people equally. Painted as such, equality of outcome is an oppressive, Harrison Bergeron idea. Generally, the concept is most often contrasted with the concept of equality of opportunity, but there are other concepts as well. In these areas, they push welfare and abortion, both policies that ensure everyone in these cities are equally destitute. Equality of condition is a form of egalitarianism which seeks to reduce or eliminate differences in material condition between individuals or households in a society. Equality of opportunity provides in a sense that all start the race of life at the same time. "[8] There is much political jousting over what, exactly, equality means. Fat cats and corporate jets: Why is it so unrewarding for politicians to bash the rich in America? A related argument is often encountered in education and more specifically in the debates on the grammar school in the United Kingdom and in the debates on gifted education in various countries. [citation needed] 'Equality seeking' policies may also have a redistributive focus. ", Developmental-Behavioral Screening and Surveillance, TIP: The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, File:Lenin-Trotsky 1920-05-20 Sverdlov Square (original).jpg, File:Paul Krugman-press conference Dec 07th, 2008-3.jpg, Public Policy in the United States: At the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century, The complexity of equality: Equality for the left is a complex concept, which bears little resemblance to the caricatures drawn by the right. In their so-called fight against racism, they promote hatred against whites and strive to make them inferior to ev… Analyst Paul Krugman writing in The New York Times agreed with Rawls' position in which both equality of opportunity and equality of outcome were linked, and suggested that "we should try to create the society each of us would want if we didn’t know in advance who we’d be. on outcome, feminists have also tended to think of equality of outcome as a key m easure of sexual equality. Part of the background to this is the rather disreputable history of the The liberal perspective is based upon the premise that a dichotomy exists between equality and liberty. [14] A third writer suggested that trying to pretend that the two concepts were "fundamentally different" was an error along the lines of a conceit. [18], And there is general agreement that outcomes matter. Reuploaded and updated. Achieving this requires reducing or eliminating material inequalities between individuals or households in a society. The relationship between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome is an important controversial topic in politics and economics. There is much political jousting over what, exactly, equality means. Equality of Opportunity is partly motivated by the plausibility of treating individuals equally and partly motivated by the unattractiveness of giving each person the same, or Equality of Outcome. In a lamp assembly factory, for example, equality of outcome might mean that workers are all paid equally regardless of how many lamps they make. The concept is central to some political ideologies and is used regularly in political discourse, often in contrast to the term equality of opportunity. If equality of outcomes is seen as beneficial for society, and if people have differing levels of material wealth in the present, then methods to transform a society towards one with greater equality of outcomes is problematic. Debate about economic issues surrounding equality is as old as civilization. Gomberg argues against competitive conceptions of equality of opportunity, which regard the opportunity to be distributed as necessarily unavailable to some, on the grounds that it denies some the opportunity to flourish at all. Equality of outcome attempts to ensure that everyone finishes at the same time. Moreover, access and opportunity to various social institutions is partially dependent on equality of outcome. Excellence: Can we be equal and excellent too? Equality of outcome eliminates personal responsibility [25] Equality of outcome may be incorporated into a philosophy that ultimately seeks equality of opportunity. However, in some cases, it may be impossible for individuals to collectively realize the outcomes that they have equal opportunity to secure. … But life isn’t fair. "[21] Krugman favored a society in which hard-working and talented people can get rewarded for their efforts but in which there was a "social safety net" created by taxes to help the less fortunate.[21]. Meaning of equality of outcome. This book contains arguments for the importance of equal outcomes with respect to some goods, such as literacy, and discusses different demands of equality with respect to other goods. Unless we are happy to waste school places, Equality of Outcome can’t help us decide here, so we need another principle. Equality of opportunity is heavily dependent on previous generation’s equality of outcome and equality of outcome is heavily dependent on equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome can be a good thing after it has been achieved since it reflects the natural "interdependence of citizens in a highly organized economy" and provides a "basis for social policies" which foster harmony and good will, including social cohesion and reduced jealousy. A person born into an upper-middle-class family will have greater advantages by the mere fact of birth than a person born into poverty.[24]. View a complete list of the references on this site. Equality of outcome eliminates personal responsibility Suggesting that all people not being in the same place is a result of systemic problems creates and perpetuates a victimhood narrative, and takes the spotlight off one’s own actions. Equality of condition is also known as equality of outcome. Equality of Outcome October 15, 2020 by Miles Kimball "If there is not equality of outcomes among people born to the same parents and raised under the same roof, why should equality of outcomes be expected—or assumed—when conditions are not nearly so comparable?" A key legal requirement relating to equality for universities and colleges in Scotland is the publication and delivery of equality outcomes. Both equality of outcome and equality of opportunity have been contrasted to a great extent. The concept of equality of outcome is an important one in battling between differing political positions, since the concept of equality, overall, was seen as positive and an important foundation which is "deeply embedded in the fabric of modern politics. A mainstream view is that mechanisms to achieve equal outcomes––to take a society and with unequal wealth and force it to equal outcomes––are fraught with moral as well as practical problems since they often involve force to compel the transfer. According to that argument, people by nature have differing levels of ability and initiative which lead some to achieve better outcomes than others. It focuses on ‘equality of outcomes’. [20], In contemporary political discourse, of the two concepts, equality of outcome has sometimes been criticized as the "politics of envy" and is often seen as more "controversial" than equality of opportunity. This book defends the equal opportunity to contribute their talents to the production of certain social goods as a means to flourishing. The one doesn’t really exist without the other. © Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305. Equality of outcome, equality of condition, or equality of results is a controversial [1] political concept. Equality of Opportunity. "[2], Equality of outcome is often compared to related concepts of equality. Equality of outcome means that all people regardless of determining factors get an outcome. In cases involving individual choices, such as voluntary gambling, Equality of Outcome condemns inequality resulting from win or loss as wrong or unfair. But a focus on outcomes may seem less plausible in other cases, such as equalizing the results of standardized tests. Equality of outcome is a concept, realisable through state policies and systems, in which all individuals have approximately the same material wealth and income. The notion of equality of outcome is a pernicious myth that has pervaded the American left. They have succeeded in some respect in the minority communities they govern. “Why should other conscientious students be worse off to ensure that she is admitted?” critics will claim. In cases involving goods that cannot be distributed equally, Equality of Opportunity specifies a fair way of distributing unequal outcomes. Inevitably, society must make a choice between equality of outcome or the preservation of individual liberty. In these cases, Equality of Opportunity may seem unfair. For example, there may be ten children for every place at a charter school. "[18] The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche did not like either type of equality and was opposed in principle to democracy, and he associated equality with what he termed "slave morality. [20], Philosopher John Rawls, in his A Theory of Justice (1971), developed a "second principle of justice" that economic and social inequalities can only be justified if they benefit the most disadvantaged members of society. The two concepts, however, are not always cleanly contrasted, since the notion of equality is complex. It happened in the Russia in the early 1900’s, in the Eastern Bloc after WWII, in Cuba, in Venezuela, in North Korea, ect. This paper discusses the importance of equality of outcome and equality of opportunity as a proper response to the badness or injustice of inequality. "[19] Packer elaborated that inequality "corrodes trust among fellow citizens" and compared it to an "odorless gas which pervades every corner" of the nation.[19]. Then there is equality of opportunity. This paper argues that taking equality of opportunity seriously with respect to race, gender and political representation means that we should care about and expect equality of outcome. I support equality of opportunity, but people (conservatives) who say this don't realize that equality of opportunity on the surface is not actually equality of opportunity. Americans are used to considering equality of condition and equality of opportunity as separate issues. Thus, even proponents of meritocracy may promote some level of equality of outcome in order to create a society capable of truly providing equality of opportunity. Equity: When the Left Goes Too Far Equality Before the Law. Equality of opportunity is meaningless when your background so routinely determines whether you get any opportunity at all – and when political leaders are unconcerned with where you end up. However, if taken to an extreme it may lead to greater absolute poverty if it negatively affects a country's GDP by damaging workers' sense of work ethic by destroying incentives to work harder. Equality outcomes are strategic and express results institutions will achieve to improve people’s life chances over a four year period. Photo: Vladimir Lenin addresses a crowd in Moscow in 1920. If a person chooses to act in ways that diminish her prospects for admission at a good college, it may seem wrong to compensate her at the expense of other candidates. One newspaper account criticized discussion by politicians on the subject of equality as "weasely", and thought that terms using the word were politically correct and bland. This is the case with scarce goods, such as jobs or college places at elite institutions. For example, a child born in a poor, dangerous neighborhood with poor schools and little access to healthcare may be significantly disadvantaged in his attempts to maximize use of talents, no matter his work ethic. 4 DivisionByZero // Oct 28, 2011 at 4:13 pm. [17] Another agreed that it is impossible to understand equality without some assessment of outcomes. Examples of equality of outcome in a sentence, how to use it. Equality of outcome would entail simply giving a person who grew up with countless disadvantages the same “outcomes” as a person who grew up with the perfect scenario. In the early 20th century, in support of equality of outcome… Moving towards a higher equality of outcome (albeit not perfectly equal) can lead to an environment more adept at providing equality of opportunity by eliminating conditions that restrict the possibility for members of society to fulfill their potential. Nevertheless, when comparing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome, the sense was that the latter type was "worse" for society. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, the political structure of the Soviet Union (1917–1989) tried to emphasize equality of outcome as a primary goal. Equality of outcome or equality of results means the state or quality of being equal correspondence in degree, ability, value, quantity or rank unhampered by artificial barriers or prejudices or preferences except when particular distinctions can be explicitly justified.