NationStates Jolt Archive

Can there be a true equality of opportunity without the guaranteed equality of outcome? Why or why not?

Outcome of what?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3057/2630607206_b7cc08b3e0.jpg?v=0

Can there be a true equality of opportunity without the guaranteed equality of outcome? Why or why not?

Yes.

Some will choose to grasp oportunities and some won't. Some are capable of grasping them and some aren't.

Outcome of what?

I don't know. Some socialist was yelling at me on another site and I have a cold and I got confused so I left and came here to ask so I could understand what the fuck he was talking about.....:confused:

Whenever I ask any questions over there they ban me. :(

I don't know. Some socialist was yelling at me on another site and I have a cold and I got confused so I left and came here to ask so I could understand what the fuck he was talking about.....:confused:

Whenever I ask any questions over there they ban me. :(

I posted your outcome above.

Can there be a true equality of opportunity without the guaranteed equality of outcome? Why or why not?

Of course. Opportunity, in this context, is neutral, but outcome depends on the individual - his/her abilities, motivation, skills, etc. You and I can both have the same opportunity to excel - same education, same talents, same intelligence, but if I don't use the opportunity, it's not the opportunity that's the issue, but my motivation.

I don't know. Some socialist was yelling at me on another site and I have a cold and I got confused so I left and came here to ask so I could understand what the fuck he was talking about.....:confused:

Whenever I ask any questions over there they ban me. :(

God that sounds like a fun site. Ugh.

depends on how we define 'equality of outcome'.

the one thing we have to say for sure is that equality of opportunity is fundamentally unreachable unless we explicitly make sure that everyone has access to health care, education, food, shelter, resources, etc. and we have to make sure that nobody has better access to any of those things than anyone else. otherwise you restrict the opportunities available to some and enhance those available to others.

to take a simple example, in usia, everyone nominally has access to free (at point of delivery) education through high school. but since we allow it to be the case that not all schools are equally good, we make it so that not all people have equal opportunity when it comes to basic education, further education, future job prospects, and so on. worse, we then allow this feature of the system to compound itself over time.

Confucius says yes. Because Confucius can read the future, and the future says bugger off. So Confucius buggered off and here he speaks to you now through this unknown entity known as life.

Of course. Opportunity, in this context, is neutral, but outcome depends on the individual - his/her abilities, motivation, skills, etc. You and I can both have the same opportunity to excel - same education, same talents, same intelligence, but if I don't use the opportunity, it's not the opportunity that's the issue, but my motivation.

but what happens to the opportunities of our children?

usia,

usia? Is that a series of typos in describing the large Eurasian country known as Russia?

I can only assume so given the total lack of capital letters that would be due a proper noun such as the name of a country.





everyone nominally has access to free (at point of delivery) education through high school. but since we allow it to be the case that not all schools are equally good, we make it so that not all people have equal opportunity when it comes to basic education, further education, future job prospects, and so on. worse, we then allow this feature of the system to compound itself over time.

And if over a significantly large population it is impossible to provide equal services? Theoretically we could provide statistically equal services, but there would be limitless variations on quality.

It depends a) what we consider equal opportunity and b) what we consider equal outcome.

Equal opportunity to me is equal access to food, clean drinking water, shelter, healthcare, and education. This mix will allow people to have the resources they need to succeed. Everyone starts the race at the same time.

Equal outcome is much more hazy, but generally would mean that everyone crosses the finish line at the same time.

You can unquestionably have equal opportunity without equal outcome. To continue the race metaphor, if everyone starts the race at the same time and had equal access to training, then everyone has the same opportunity to win. However, the ones that worked harder in training and have some innate gift for the sport will likely do better.

And if over a significantly large population it is impossible to provide equal services? Theoretically we could provide statistically equal services, but there would be limitless variations on quality.

indeed, and this hits on why i said it depends on what we mean by 'equality of outcome'. we cannot make it so that everyone gets identical opportunities, nor should we want to make it so that everyone gets identical outcomes. not everyone wants the same things. moreover, life actually requires diversity. what we must be after are acceptable ranges and varieties, and ways to decouple particular individual outcomes from future opportunities to as great an extent as possible - especially across generations.

Of course. Opportunity, in this context, is neutral, but outcome depends on the individual - his/her abilities, motivation, skills, etc. You and I can both have the same opportunity to excel - same education, same talents, same intelligence, but if I don't use the opportunity, it's not the opportunity that's the issue, but my motivation.

Well said. I second this.


No one should be banned for asking questions. Sounds like a false website.:eek2:

Ideally, realistically, or pragmatically?

Ideally, realistically, or pragmatically?

I'm interested in any opinions or information anyone has.

Can there be a true equality of opportunity without the guaranteed equality of outcome? Why or why not?

Short answer is no. Longer answer is because we can not guaranteed equality of outcome. We can not obtain "true equality" until we figure out first what it is and worse how to achieve it.

I don't know. Some socialist was yelling at me on another site and I have a cold and I got confused so I left and came here to ask so I could understand what the fuck he was talking about.....:confused:

Whenever I ask any questions over there they ban me. :(

That "socialist" doesn't understand socialism very much, trust me.

Tough if you asked bluntly "what the fuck are you talking about", here, this could be the reason why you got banned. When it comes to yelling, even virtually, things get out of control easily.

indeed, and this hits on why i said it depends on what we mean by 'equality of outcome'. we cannot make it so that everyone gets identical opportunities or benefits, nor should we want to. life actually requires diversity. what we must be after are acceptable ranges and varieties, and ways to decouple particular individual outcomes from future opportunities to as great an extent as possible - especially across generations.

While I certainly agree that cross-generational decoupling of opportunity should exist, my concern would be that we can (without extreme measures) never fully decouple primary or secondary generations because of transmitted values..and effecting systemic change across multiple generations is exceptionally difficult because of the sheer amount of time. I'd wonder if governments have the institutional memory to carry something like that out--especially democratic ones.

Can there be a true equality of opportunity without the guaranteed equality of outcome?

Theoretically, yes. In practice, though, the answer tends to be "no": the wealthy guarantee for themselves privileges that stack the deck, and the poor lack the power to protect their interests.

In any case, "equality of opportunity" as people generally tend to use the term doesn't seem a particularly laudable goal to me. "Equality of outcome" at least has a fairly clear and reasonable basis behind it: it makes utilitarian sense, for one, and it respects the fact that it's really hard to see why one person could ever really deserve to have more than another.

but what happens to the opportunities of our children?

?

Give people opportunities. Give them all you want. In the end, it's what they do with the opportunities that counts. Equality of outcome cannot be guaranteed.

Theoretically, yes. In practice, though, the answer tends to be "no": the wealthy guarantee for themselves privileges that stack the deck, and the poor lack the power to protect their interests.

I think a reasonable and implementable goal, though, is not equal opportunity, but a minimal acceptable level of opportunity, which should be fairly high, but why should there be caps?

In any case, "equality of opportunity" as people generally tend to use the term doesn't seem a particularly laudable goal to me. "Equality of outcome" at least has a fairly clear and reasonable basis behind it: it makes utilitarian sense, for one,

There's a long tradition of utilitarian thought that would disagree with you on that.

A utilitarian would certainly hold that there should be a modicum of opportunity (internal monologue: see, we're measuring opportunity! I wonder what units we should use. I think teaspoons would be best. I like teaspoons...especially the magnetic kind that stick together and, literally, spoon. I like spooning too.) but by not placing a cap, would incentivize extra effort.

and it respects the fact that it's really hard to see why one person could ever really deserve to have more than another.

Begging the question, how does anyone deserve anything?

Unequal outcomes in one generation lead to unequal opportunities in the next.

Begging the question, how does anyone deserve anything?
Hopefully you believe that there are at least some natural rights that people are entitled to.

Hopefully you believe that there are at least some natural rights that people are entitled to.

desert/merit and rights are two different, if related, concepts.

Can there be a true equality of opportunity without the guaranteed equality of outcome? Why or why not?

of course there can, but equality of outcome has to kick in with each new generation... otherwise there is no equality of opportunity. i guess, in that sense, you ultimately have to have some kind of equality of outcome, even if that outcome is what happens after death.

interesting topic

I'm interested in any opinions or information anyone has.

Ideally, equity of outcome is provided for, so equity of opportunity is irrelevant. Presumably, in an ideal world every outcome is the ideal outcome regardless of opportunity, so equity of opportunity isn't needed.

Realistically, neither is provided for, and neither can be. A thousand factors outside of the control of any person or group influence one's opportunities. DNA creates specific strengths and weaknesses that prohibit one person from taking advantage of certain opportunities, while others excel at them. An extreme example: Someone with Down Syndrome will never be a chess champion.
Moreover, allowing equity of opportunity ensures inequity later: inevitably, some will fail, and their children will subsequently be at an economic disadvantage. If all economic differences were removed and everyone was made economically equal (assuming that's possible), then the outcome would be equivalent, making equity of opportunity more feasible, but also more irrelevant.
Nor is it fair to disadvantage one person for the sake of giving someone else an advantage, and it would defeat the purpose anyways (ie: telling Michael Phelps he's only allowed to practice a certain amount per day, or telling more industrious students that they're only allowed to study as much as another kid who doesn't have time to study because he or she has to work).
Realistically, it's therefore somewhat of a moot point as neither is possible; and should it somehow come to be, it won't remain so for long.

Pragmatically, you can provide for certain things. Scholarships help balance economic disadvantages by allowing people to go to college who otherwise wouldn't be able to and rewards those who take advantage of what they have. Equal opportunity laws prevent people from deliberately disadvantaging people because of their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Charity moves money down the economic scale, as does government welfare and subsidies. It will never be equal, but allowances that can be made can be made.

of course there can, but equality of outcome has to kick in with each new generation... otherwise there is no equality of opportunity. i guess, in that sense, you ultimately have to have some kind of equality of outcome, even if that outcome is what happens after death.

interesting topic

I have a feeling you just said something that would make sense to me if I weren't on codeine laced cough syrup.......please rephrase and dumb down.

Hey, I just had a great idea. Equality of housing is a great way to produce outcome equality. Why don't we give loans to people who can't afford them, just so they join mainstream housed society. Then, if they default, we can take money from everybody else, go into debt as a country, and possibly completely default the economy, just to make equal outcomes. Why hasn't anybody thought of this before?

Hey, I just had a great idea. Equality of housing is a great way to produce outcome equality. Why don't we give loans to people who can't afford them, just so they join mainstream housed society. Then, if they default, we can take money from everybody else, go into debt as a country, and possibly completely default the economy, just to make equal outcomes. Why hasn't anybody thought of this before?

But we...

Oh! I see what you did there. Very sly. ;)

Hey, I just had a great idea. Equality of housing is a great way to produce outcome equality. Why don't we give loans to people who can't afford them, just so they join mainstream housed society. Then, if they default, we can take money from everybody else, go into debt as a country, and possibly completely default the economy, just to make equal outcomes. Why hasn't anybody thought of this before?

because they were too busy giving those loans to developers who caused a glut in the mcmansion and condo markets while selling each other 'securities' where everybody got free money if housing prices never went down, ever?

I have a feeling you just said something that would make sense to me if I weren't on codeine laced cough syrup.......please rephrase and dumb down.

lol, well... i'm exhaustedly tired myself, so i'm probably not explaining well, anyway :wink:

my point was that in order for there to be true meritocracy and opportunity of opportunity, each person in society has to start with a clean slate. no paying for better education, no better medical care, no maids to do the chores other kids might have to do, the same education, the same provision of healthcare... basically, the same start in life. that's what i mean when i say equality of opportunity. the world, as it is today, is not a meritocracy for this very reason - people all have different starts in life, meaning two people with the same talents, motivations and skills can very well end up in different places in life through factors outside their own efforts. (Rawls does some good writing on this issue, iirc)

but that's just my rant. the point is, if a person, Bob, is given the same start as Joanne, and Bob makes a real success of his life, that's great because he's unquestionably earned it. however, what happens when Bob dies? if his wealth passes on to his children, then his children will have a better start in life than those of Joanne, thus ending the meritocracy and equality of opportunity. in order for equality of opportunity to persist, Bob can't pass on his earned wealth to his children. so, ultimately, with the perspective of a persons' lifetime, there has to be equality of outcome in order for equaity of opportunity to continue.

hope that makes more sense... not sure if it does to me, lol ;)

Can there be a true equality of opportunity without the guaranteed equality of outcome? Why or why not?

Let me tell you, I am slightly lost with this thread. Can you expand the question a bit more. I'm afraid I don't understand.:tongue:

Let me tell you, I am slightly lost with this thread. Can you expand the question a bit more. I'm afraid I don't understand.:tongue:

Basically the statement was made on another forum that "everyone has the same right to an education" which is true-ish in the US, we have free public education, some of it's good, some of it's bad, but all of it's free. However, you can pay for more education, tutors, better schools, etc.

The person on the other forum said that there isn't equality of opportunity in the American Public school system because poor kids generally live near poor schools while rich kids live near rich ones and thus the only way to make sure that poor kids got a good education was to make everyone equal........when I asked "what would that look like?" I got banned.

I read a lot of stuff today and apparently it's unfair in the world (who knew!?) but I was wondering if there was a real way to get equality of opportunity (in this example access to the best public education) without equality of outcome (everyone makes the same money so everyone goes to the same school because there aren't any bad neighborhoods....or something, I'm still not clear and since I'm banned I can't ask)

Basically the statement was made on another forum that "everyone has the same right to an education" which is true-ish in the US, we have free public education, some of it's good, some of it's bad, but all of it's free. However, you can pay for more education, tutors, better schools, etc.

The person on the other forum said that there isn't equality of opportunity in the American Public school system because poor kids generally live near poor schools while rich kids live near rich ones and thus the only way to make sure that poor kids got a good education was to make everyone equal........when I asked "what would that look like?" I got banned.

I read a lot of stuff today and apparently it's unfair in the world (who knew!?) but I was wondering if there was a real way to get equality of opportunity (in this example access to the best public education) without equality of outcome (everyone makes the same money so everyone goes to the same school because there aren't any bad neighborhoods....or something, I'm still not clear and since I'm banned I can't ask)

Ah, now I understand. My answer though is that unfortunately, those with more money tend to have access to a better education. It shouldn't be like that, but sadly it is.

If every outcome is equal, what is the point of trying to make it better?

?

Give people opportunities. Give them all you want. In the end, it's what they do with the opportunities that counts. Equality of outcome cannot be guaranteed.

but how do you do this? how do you prevent the outcomes of my slackitude from limiting the opportunities afforded to my kid?

If every outcome is equal, what is the point of trying to make it better?

wait, what?

wait, what?

Meaning, if the outcome of every opportunity is equal, why shouldn't I just sit on my fat white ass since I don't have to try and everything will be handed to me.

Meaning, if the outcome of every opportunity is equal, why shouldn't I just sit on my fat white ass since I don't have to try and everything will be handed to me.

because that would get boring?

because that would get boring?

I see. So, in the interests of not being bored, I try harder and, bingo, my outcome is no longer equal to yours - it's better.

I think a reasonable and implementable goal, though, is not equal opportunity, but a minimal acceptable level of opportunity, which should be fairly high, but why should there be caps?

No one proposes implementing equality of opportunity by bringing the opportunities of the rich down to that of the poor.

A utilitarian would certainly hold that there should be a modicum of opportunity... but by not placing a cap, would incentivize extra effort.

Right, but that applies to any kind of equality. Clearly, economic equality of any variety (opportunity or outcome) can result in problems for incentives: paying for the education and health care of the poor takes tax money, after all.

In considering which kind of equality to balance against this potential loss of efficiency, however, utilitarian thinking tends toward equality of outcome: since utilitarianism has no place for "desert", it's a simple matter of declining marginal utility.

Begging the question, how does anyone deserve anything?

Generally we tend to think that people are equal, and that people having the means to satisfy their desires is a good thing.

I see. So, in the interests of not being bored, I try harder and, bingo, my outcome is no longer equal to yours - it's better.

what are you measuring as 'outcome'?

No one proposes implementing equality of opportunity by bringing the opportunities of the rich down to that of the poor.

And that's not what I'm suggesting anyone is proposing. I'm saying that a modicum of opportunity should be afforded to every individual, but due to scarcity we can't all go to Harvard (so to say).



Right, but that applies to any kind of equality. Clearly, economic equality of any variety (opportunity or outcome) can result in problems for incentives: paying for the education and health care of the poor takes tax money, after all.

Correct, but there is an acceptable level of tax that people are willing to accept without it hindering their incentives. (Which is why I strongly prefer progressive taxation).

In considering which kind of equality to balance against this potential loss of efficiency, however, utilitarian thinking tends toward equality of outcome: since utilitarianism has no place for "desert", it's a simple matter of declining marginal utility.

Declining marginal utility makes progressive taxation feasible, but it does not necessitate equality of outcome.

Generally we tend to think that people are equal, and that people having the means to satisfy their desires is a good thing.

Can there be a true equality of opportunity without the guaranteed equality of outcome? Why or why not?
Depends what you consider "equality of opportunity"

I have type 1 diabetes, so that's a barrier to certain kinds of physical work (or at least makes it more dangerous for me than for others) and reduces my opportunity. However, if I were "given" the same opportunity, as a non-diabetic, by society, I would still "have" less opportunity, even if I were to hypothetically seize as much as the other person would.

Inevitably, people are not equal. Life is not fair. Does this mean we should give up? Of course not; we should be trying to make life fairer. But so long as we remain fixated on a certain idea of "equality" we're focusing on one kind of unfairness more than others; and that's even less fair.

I'm saying that a modicum of opportunity should be afforded to every individual, but due to scarcity we can't all go to Harvard (so to say).

But we can all have a level playing ground to get into Harvard, and a guaranteed capacity to pay for it if we are admitted--and there's an argument from fairness for that even if everyone is, say, guaranteed a spot at a community college.

Declining marginal utility makes progressive taxation feasible, but it does not necessitate equality of outcome.

I did not say it did. I said it was the utilitarian reason for caring about equality of outcome--not at the expense of everything else, but as a factor.

Basically the statement was made on another forum that "everyone has the same right to an education" which is true-ish in the US, we have free public education, some of it's good, some of it's bad, but all of it's free. However, you can pay for more education, tutors, better schools, etc.

The person on the other forum said that there isn't equality of opportunity in the American Public school system because poor kids generally live near poor schools while rich kids live near rich ones and thus the only way to make sure that poor kids got a good education was to make everyone equal........when I asked "what would that look like?" I got banned.

I read a lot of stuff today and apparently it's unfair in the world (who knew!?) but I was wondering if there was a real way to get equality of opportunity (in this example access to the best public education) without equality of outcome (everyone makes the same money so everyone goes to the same school because there aren't any bad neighborhoods....or something, I'm still not clear and since I'm banned I can't ask)
You got confused because that socialist was confusing -- and probably confused him/herself. What he/she was calling "equality of outcome" was not the outcome in the hypothetical under discussion. He is putting the cart before the horse, claiming that unequal wealth is the outcome, whereas in fact, it is part of the opportunity portion of the issue.

I think we can have equality of opportunity without equality of outcome because outcome results from opportunity, it is in the future, and therefore it cannot be either predicted or guaranteed. But the beginning of the process -- the opportunity -- can be.

For example, in education: There is no equality of opportunity in the US public school system NOT because some people are rich and others poor, but because the US has a bias in favor of the rich and against the poor which causes the supposedly public school system to not be administered equally.

IF all public schools were held to the same, higher than now, standards, then rich and poor alike would have access to a basic education that would give them the tools they need to get ahead in society. If the public were really dedicated to the proposition of universal education, college would be kept more affordable so that more poor people could get into it -- or else, lower level free education would be raised in quality so that college would be less necessary outside of specialized fields.

Now, let's say that our society ever does accept the obligation that the principle of universal education requires -- namely to provide the same education to all of the public. That would be equality of opportunity because you would be giving the same training and the same intellectual tools to everyone.

But now let's watch them use that training and tools. One student excels at everything due to natural talent. Another struggles and advances more slowly. This is due to their inherent natures. Is that unfair? Take it up with their DNA. Or one student suffers a brain injury as a result of a scuba diving accident and becomes less able to apply her education to succeed in life, while others in her class who don't suffer that injury excel. That is unequal outcome, but it is not due to unequal opportunity.

When we focus on outcome, we should see that equality of outcome is dependent on far more than just the initial opportunity, and therefore you cannot say anything about whether the opportunity was equal just by looking at the outcome.

Unequal outcome does not indicate unequal opportunity.

Now let's flip it. Let's say the opportunity is unequal and the poor are not given the same level of education as the rich. Now when we look at outcome, we will definitely see that inequality continue in lower test scores, higher drop-out rates, etc.

Unequal opportunity does often indicate unequal outcome.

Therefore, I would say that we can have equality of opportunity without equality of outcome, but we cannot have equality of outcome without equality of opportunity.

Wow, you guys over-analyze this stuff.

You have to understand that the ordinary folks who worry most about this stuff aren't doing it out of jealousy. You would have to live in their world to really understand where they are coming from. I am betting most of you don't.

Let's call the person with less opportunity Poor Guy and the one with more opportunity Rich Guy, since we're talking in that vein here anyhow. OK. Poor Guy has grown up in a world where his landlord does the bare minimum to keep his residence up to code, and oftentimes not even that, since the city is so busy paying to attract tourists that it has no money left to enforce code. He got jammed into the poor part of town with a slumlord for a landlord, crackheads living in the building behind him, guns going off every night and he has to stop and hope they're fireworks, and then when he knows they aren't, breathes a sigh of relief they didn't come through his wall. In his neighborhood there are a lot of small business owners because no chain will set up shop there, it's too dangerous. Every other building is boarded up. The kids are well-nigh feral because their mamas are not allowed to stay home and watch them anymore; TANF has a time limit. Oops, the Republicans just cut funding for after-school programs again. And white people don't shop in the neighborhood so it is just the same old five dozen broke people buying crap from one another that they can't even afford in storefronts with hand-painted signs because the business owners can't afford professional sign services either. The sidewalks are crumbling. Half the streetlights don't come on. Nobody owns a bicycle because they're always stolen off the front porch. There's a social network but it's trapped in this neighborhood and has no influence in the wealthy sector of the city economy nor with the city government.

Rich Guy was born in a relatively safe and decent neighborhood, everything in his (owned) house works, he inherits it from his parents along with a healthy chunk of change, they put him through law school, Daddykins has friends who help him get ahead, his son left his skateboard out in the front yard last night and it's still there this morning, and if the public schools go bad, by gum, Rich Guy will just send his kids to private school. But so far it's been going well because the tax base in his district is so high that they can pretty much fund whatever they want. Rumor has it there will be a Mandarin Chinese immersion charter school opening soon about a mile down the road. The kids can walk there as far as he's concerned; it's good exercise and Miss Nosybody down the street will tell him if they misbehave.

The Poor Guys who have idle time to talk politics talk about equality of opportunity in the sense of, "I want to live in decent housing, not be shot at every other day, for the school to actually educate my kids, for my neighbors to be dependable enough to help me look after them once in a while and I'd return the favor, and for someone please God to help me keep the broken forty-ounce bottles cleaned up out of the park and the graffiti removed as soon as it appears. I live in a s?!thole and I know it." That takes too much effort to get out and it doesn't sound like something he could ever actually achieve, so instead he says it in shorthand: "Man, I wish I was rich." Obviously, being rich is the only way to live a decent life because God only knows the government doesn't want to be bothered unless it will get them votes, and it usually doesn't for long because the arse-chapeau libertarians and "conservatives" start squalling about what a waste of money neighborhood revitalization is even though they have no objections whatsoever blowing money on bully cops and rotting prisons. (And the privately-owned ones are even worse.) Or worse, the only "revitalization" they are remotely interested in is the kind that pushes Poor Guy out of the neighborhood he's inhabited for thirty years (he used to live in an owned house, but his mama got sick) so that suburbanites alarmed at the rising gasoline prices can move back into the inner city into condos rehabbed from public housing.

You conservatives speak of "envy" as if it's a BAD thing. But then, you seem to believe that jobs and paychecks are taken, not given. No, only opportunity is taken. And if you don't know what it looks like or if it doesn't possibly fit your circumstances, what good will it do you?

I think measuring equality of opportunity by whether there is equality of outcome is a cop-out. It lets people who don't want to see equality realized make excuses for the lower achievement of certain racial and ethnic groups by pinning all the blame on said groups for "not trying hard enough." You want hard? Try living upstairs from a drug dealer who beats his girlfriend and they're not even tenants, they're living with the guy who is, and your landlord asks you point-blank whether you think dealing is going on and you tell him about the 2am and 3am and 4am knocks on the downstairs door and you think about the pit bull living there and months go by and nothing is done even though suspicion of dealing is grounds for eviction, and there's a graffiti tag on the front of the downstairs apartment that's been there three years and Mr. Landlord still hasn't removed it, and scary strangers cross the lot all the time without so much as a by your leave, and you have a small daughter under the age of five.

If you don't know what that's like? Don't bother with your empty theorizing. Let those of us who must worry about such things handle them ourselves. I always rather thought my ex-landlord could do with a dragging behind a pickup truck himself. He's white (as am I, though not always treated that way), Christian, Republican, a Bush-voter, goes to India regularly to tell the heathens there to quit worshiping idols, and yet thinks nothing of leaving a young child and her mother in constant danger because they can't afford to live anywhere else.

But who's gonna be blamed for the circumstances? The young child's mother. Of course.

In any case, "equality of opportunity" as people generally tend to use the term doesn't seem a particularly laudable goal to me. "Equality of outcome" at least has a fairly clear and reasonable basis behind it: it makes utilitarian sense, for one, and it respects the fact that it's really hard to see why one person could ever really deserve to have more than another.

I don't see that as being so hard. If I work my butt off for something, while another person slacks off, I would say I deserve that something more than them.

Equality of opportunity would mean that we all start at the same point and then succeed or fail further on our own merits. It sounds like a good goal to me.


I think a reasonable and implementable goal, though, is not equal opportunity, but a minimal acceptable level of opportunity, which should be fairly high, but why should there be caps?

I kinda agree with this, with the caveat that there are some advantages that simply being born into a rich family shouldn't give you. All children should have the same access to education, healthcare, nutrition, etc.

Basically the statement was made on another forum that "everyone has the same right to an education" which is true-ish in the US, we have free public education, some of it's good, some of it's bad, but all of it's free. However, you can pay for more education, tutors, better schools, etc.

The person on the other forum said that there isn't equality of opportunity in the American Public school system because poor kids generally live near poor schools while rich kids live near rich ones and thus the only way to make sure that poor kids got a good education was to make everyone equal........when I asked "what would that look like?" I got banned.

I read a lot of stuff today and apparently it's unfair in the world (who knew!?) but I was wondering if there was a real way to get equality of opportunity (in this example access to the best public education) without equality of outcome (everyone makes the same money so everyone goes to the same school because there aren't any bad neighborhoods....or something, I'm still not clear and since I'm banned I can't ask)

Is there a way of actually achieving it? No, I don't think so.

But we can try to get as close as possible.

Can there be a true equality of opportunity without the guaranteed equality of outcome? Why or why not?

If there's 'equality of outcome', then, equality of opportunity would be irrelevant.

however, what happens when Bob dies? if his wealth passes on to his children, then his children will have a better start in life than those of Joanne, thus ending the meritocracy and equality of opportunity.It wouldn't even take Bob's death to do this. All he would have to do is send his children to a private school that provides better education than the school Joanne can afford.

If every outcome is equal, what is the point of trying to make it better?Because you would then raise the total amount of all outcomes.

IF all public schools were held to the same, higher than now, standards, then rich and poor alike would have access to a basic education that would give them the tools they need to get ahead in society. Only if these standards are equal to the standards of the private school with the highest standards. Or, alternatively, you could somehow ensure that going to the private school somehow does not provide the student with more opportunity than the public school student.

If I work my butt off for something, while another person slacks off, I would say I deserve that something more than them.

Right: if there's a deal (Dempublicents attains x for y labor) and you actually fulfill it and someone else doesn't, you're entitled to what you were promised. But this has nothing to do with "desert", just with the fact that you shouldn't be manipulated out of your labor.

If we have a society where you know that you will get the same as others however hard you work, if you choose to work hard anyway it hardly seems to me that you deserve any more. Why would you? You knew what you were going to get from the outset, and you chose, for your own reasons, to work hard anyway.

Equality of opportunity would mean that we all start at the same point and then succeed or fail further on our own merits. It sounds like a good goal to me.

What "merits"? If I'm smarter than someone, why should I get more? If someone else is stronger than me, why should she get more? Our talents--our "merits"--are largely a product of our environment and our genes. They say nothing whatsoever about our desert.

we should enact a system that results in the division of benefits on the basis of height.

we should enact a system that results in the division of benefits on the basis of height.
"Short people got no reason to live..."

It wouldn't even take Bob's death to do this. All he would have to do is send his children to a private school that provides better education than the school Joanne can afford.


of course, but i didn't want to overcomplicate it :P

Can there be a true equality of opportunity without the guaranteed equality of outcome?
Turning the question around, how could there be a "guaranteed equality of outcome", except in the broadest of senses?

No matter how equal a start each individual gets in any society, nor how rigid a society it is, there will be little chance of equality of outcome, insofar as a society necessarily has different individual's roles with different subsequent outcomes.

Not at all. There are so many variables affecting how someone will perform that it is completely impossible to achieve anything close to equality of outcome without literally suppressing the best in any given field, and as it's been shown time and again attempting to force equality on something inherently inequal is doomed to failure, failure that will ultimately harm the very people it was supposed to help in the first place. It is a fact that some people will be blessed with innate talent, supreme intelligence, outstanding social skills or any other number of positive (or negative) traits that will influence their success or failure and will likely exceed any egalitarian effects of equal opportunity.

Now, perhaps if you were to enhance the abilities of all people to achieve a supreme level of performance, things might be a little more equal. However, even then I think there will still be people who will rise to the top and others who will fail because there will always be that push by the most dedicated individuals to be something even greater than they already are. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink...giving someone equal opportunity doesn't mean they're necessarily going to achieve an equal outcome, and I think that kind of competition is necessary to ensure that we continue to improve on our abilities and to be the best we can be.

Can there be a true equality of opportunity without the guaranteed equality of outcome? Why or why not?

That's a very loosely phrased question...
I think that yes, there can be equality of opportunity without even coming close to a guaranteed equality of outcome.

Opportunity + Chance = Outcome

So you not only need to control the opportunity, but ever possible element of chance to be able to guarantee the outcome.

Basically the statement was made on another forum that "everyone has the same right to an education" which is true-ish in the US, we have free public education, some of it's good, some of it's bad, but all of it's free. However, you can pay for more education, tutors, better schools, etc.

The person on the other forum said that there isn't equality of opportunity in the American Public school system because poor kids generally live near poor schools while rich kids live near rich ones and thus the only way to make sure that poor kids got a good education was to make everyone equal........when I asked "what would that look like?" I got banned.

I read a lot of stuff today and apparently it's unfair in the world (who knew!?) but I was wondering if there was a real way to get equality of opportunity (in this example access to the best public education) without equality of outcome (everyone makes the same money so everyone goes to the same school because there aren't any bad neighborhoods....or something, I'm still not clear and since I'm banned I can't ask)

Well, I think that poster did have a point there. I believe in the US, schools are funded locally. So if you happen to live in a rich community, the funding for education is likely to be high, and therefore the standard of education provided is likely to be higher (more teachers per kids, more and better materials, etc.). Whereas if you happen to live in a poorer area, not only are the chances higher that your parents and your social environment has a lower grade of education, which would mean that the school would have a greater educational gap to bridge, but the school will be less likely to be able to do that, as they will have lower funding.

Now, you will never be able to provide a true equality of opportunity. That doesn't mean one shouldn't try, though.
One way might be to change the way schools are funded, and move it up one level. If it wasn't the immediate community paying for the school, but a larger group, say on state level for example, the funding could be distributed more fairly. That might provide schools in poorer areas with more possibilities of providing good education even to kids of a poorer background. Just an example.

Can there be a true equality of opportunity without the guaranteed equality of outcome? Why or why not?

Yes. I take two men of equal intelligence, equal ability, equal knowledge, I give them the same tools, and a task, like, say, "Okay, take this raw bar-stock, and design a machine you think people will buy."

Guess what? they're not going to produce the same product, it won't be of the same quality. Factors like Opinions, guesswork, different ideas on what people want or need, different ideas on how to accomplish something-all of these will fall into what they produce, and while both men have the same skills, same level of intelligence/education, same tools and same materials, what they make is likely to be very different.

"Opportunity" does NOT equal "Outcome". There are loads of stupid, but well-educated managers and engineers out there, and smart, but informally educated mechanics out there. There are also smart managers and engineers, and stupid mechanics.


Men of equal intelligence WILL disagree. This doesn't make either of them stupid, even when one of them is wrong. "Wrong" doesn't equal "ignorant", "Heartless", "evil" or "Stupid", and there are plenty of Idiots, Callous Bastards, and Evil men who are (unfortunately) Right on any given issue, while there are also boatloads of Good, kind, caring, and intelligent people who wind up WRONG on any given issue (and vice-versa).

Lots of smart people fail in business all the time-even starting off with good funding and excellent tools/education/materials, while there are just as many idiots, morons, cruel asshats, and sociopathic predators who succeed even given crap for funding/tools/education/materials.

Humanity is MADE of unequal outcomes. Down the street from my apartment is a store that was purchased by a nice Laotian couple who came to the U.S. without money, with poor english, little education, but lots of ambition. Living in the park two blocks away, is a guy who graduated from U.W. with a Master's degree, born in the U.S. to a WASP family-it's not as simple as Ambition, or persistence, or starting resources. It DOES have to do with how one chooses to live-the product one makes and offers, and how that product IS made and offered, whether you're looking at product of thought, work, or offering of attitude.

People will fail, people will succeed, people will hold on barely and people will thrive, and it's purely individual to the person what choices they make to make the determination.

<snip>

Good thing that apparently only applies to men.

People will fail, people will succeed, people will hold on barely and people will thrive, and it's purely individual to the person what choices they make to make the determination.

you see, i just don't believe that. some people can - and do - break the mould, but for most people factors outside of their own individual decisions play a very important part in their outcomes in life. that's not to say individual decisions aren't highly important, but just that ignoring these other factors assumes a level of meritocracy that just isn't present in the real world.

I don't know. Some socialist was yelling at me on another site and I have a cold and I got confused so I left and came here to ask so I could understand what the fuck he was talking about.....:confused:

Whenever I ask any questions over there they ban me. :(

I never saw this part. The socialist idea of equality of outcome means that you both end up in the same stagnant place, doing the same thing, and getting the same rewards.

Not at all. There are so many variables affecting how someone will perform that it is completely impossible to achieve anything close to equality of outcome without literally suppressing the best in any given field,Not at all. Unless you are saying that not granting someone additional rewards for being smarter is suppressing them.

The socialist idea of equality of outcome

Communist, maybe, with "to each according to his need"--socialism isn't about equality of outcome, it's about putting the workers in control of the means of production, a social arrangement that is theoretically compatible with a variety of distributive principles.

means that you both end up in the same stagnant place, doing the same thing, and getting the same rewards.

The last is the only one of those three statements that is remotely true, and even then, it is a matter of equality, not identity: even in perfect "equality of outcome" you wouldn't get exactly the same bundle of goods as anyone else, it would depend on your preferences and your needs.

No matter how equal a start each individual gets in any society, nor how rigid a society it is, there will be little chance of equality of outcome, insofar as a society necessarily has different individual's roles with different subsequent outcomes.

It sounds to me that you're conflating "equality of outcome" with "identity of outcome", too. "Equality of outcome" doesn't mean "everyone is in the exact same place" any more than "equality of opportunity" means "everyone goes to the same university."

Either that, or you're assuming certain distributive structures by assuming that "outcomes" are the consequence of "roles"--something even the welfare state moves a little away from.

Communist, maybe, with "to each according to his need"--socialism isn't about equality of outcome, it's about putting the workers in control of the means of production, a social arrangement that is theoretically compatible with a variety of distributive principles.



The last is the only one of those three statements that is remotely true, and even then, it is a matter of equality, not identity: even in perfect "equality of outcome" you wouldn't get exactly the same bundle of goods as anyone else, it would depend on your preferences and your needs.

To my mostly flawed understanding the difference between socialism and communism is: One is impossible; the other is a prettier way of saying feudalism.

It sounds to me that you're conflating "equality of outcome" with "identity of outcome", too. "Equality of outcome" doesn't mean "everyone is in the exact same place" any more than "equality of opportunity" means "everyone goes to the same university."
I think the term 'equality of outcome' implies far more rigidity than 'equality of opportunity' does. If we have equal opportunity, as you rightly say, we can do many different things with that opportunity, but we all still have the same opportunity; none of us has less, or more, opportunity than anybody else.

'Equality of outcome', however, sounds much more like a rigid structure; we all have the same outcome. I know you object to that reading, but what do you take it mean?

Either that, or you're assuming certain distributive structures by assuming that "outcomes" are the consequence of "roles"--something even the welfare state moves a little away from.
Apart from ther 'role' of being a sentient, social, rationally-capable animal, I do not advocate strict roles in society; certainly not in the vein of 'worker bee', etc.

Wow, you guys over-analyze this stuff.

You have to understand that the ordinary folks who worry most about this stuff aren't doing it out of jealousy. You would have to live in their world to really understand where they are coming from. I am betting most of you don't.

Let's call the person with less opportunity Poor Guy and the one with more opportunity Rich Guy, since we're talking in that vein here anyhow. OK. Poor Guy has grown up in a world where his landlord does the bare minimum to keep his residence up to code, and oftentimes not even that, since the city is so busy paying to attract tourists that it has no money left to enforce code. He got jammed into the poor part of town with a slumlord for a landlord, crackheads living in the building behind him, guns going off every night and he has to stop and hope they're fireworks, and then when he knows they aren't, breathes a sigh of relief they didn't come through his wall. In his neighborhood there are a lot of small business owners because no chain will set up shop there, it's too dangerous. Every other building is boarded up. The kids are well-nigh feral because their mamas are not allowed to stay home and watch them anymore; TANF has a time limit. Oops, the Republicans just cut funding for after-school programs again. And white people don't shop in the neighborhood so it is just the same old five dozen broke people buying crap from one another that they can't even afford in storefronts with hand-painted signs because the business owners can't afford professional sign services either. The sidewalks are crumbling. Half the streetlights don't come on. Nobody owns a bicycle because they're always stolen off the front porch. There's a social network but it's trapped in this neighborhood and has no influence in the wealthy sector of the city economy nor with the city government.

Rich Guy was born in a relatively safe and decent neighborhood, everything in his (owned) house works, he inherits it from his parents along with a healthy chunk of change, they put him through law school, Daddykins has friends who help him get ahead, his son left his skateboard out in the front yard last night and it's still there this morning, and if the public schools go bad, by gum, Rich Guy will just send his kids to private school. But so far it's been going well because the tax base in his district is so high that they can pretty much fund whatever they want. Rumor has it there will be a Mandarin Chinese immersion charter school opening soon about a mile down the road. The kids can walk there as far as he's concerned; it's good exercise and Miss Nosybody down the street will tell him if they misbehave.

The Poor Guys who have idle time to talk politics talk about equality of opportunity in the sense of, "I want to live in decent housing, not be shot at every other day, for the school to actually educate my kids, for my neighbors to be dependable enough to help me look after them once in a while and I'd return the favor, and for someone please God to help me keep the broken forty-ounce bottles cleaned up out of the park and the graffiti removed as soon as it appears. I live in a s?!thole and I know it." That takes too much effort to get out and it doesn't sound like something he could ever actually achieve, so instead he says it in shorthand: "Man, I wish I was rich." Obviously, being rich is the only way to live a decent life because God only knows the government doesn't want to be bothered unless it will get them votes, and it usually doesn't for long because the arse-chapeau libertarians and "conservatives" start squalling about what a waste of money neighborhood revitalization is even though they have no objections whatsoever blowing money on bully cops and rotting prisons. (And the privately-owned ones are even worse.) Or worse, the only "revitalization" they are remotely interested in is the kind that pushes Poor Guy out of the neighborhood he's inhabited for thirty years (he used to live in an owned house, but his mama got sick) so that suburbanites alarmed at the rising gasoline prices can move back into the inner city into condos rehabbed from public housing.

You conservatives speak of "envy" as if it's a BAD thing. But then, you seem to believe that jobs and paychecks are taken, not given. No, only opportunity is taken. And if you don't know what it looks like or if it doesn't possibly fit your circumstances, what good will it do you?

I think measuring equality of opportunity by whether there is equality of outcome is a cop-out. It lets people who don't want to see equality realized make excuses for the lower achievement of certain racial and ethnic groups by pinning all the blame on said groups for "not trying hard enough." You want hard? Try living upstairs from a drug dealer who beats his girlfriend and they're not even tenants, they're living with the guy who is, and your landlord asks you point-blank whether you think dealing is going on and you tell him about the 2am and 3am and 4am knocks on the downstairs door and you think about the pit bull living there and months go by and nothing is done even though suspicion of dealing is grounds for eviction, and there's a graffiti tag on the front of the downstairs apartment that's been there three years and Mr. Landlord still hasn't removed it, and scary strangers cross the lot all the time without so much as a by your leave, and you have a small daughter under the age of five.

If you don't know what that's like? Don't bother with your empty theorizing. Let those of us who must worry about such things handle them ourselves. I always rather thought my ex-landlord could do with a dragging behind a pickup truck himself. He's white (as am I, though not always treated that way), Christian, Republican, a Bush-voter, goes to India regularly to tell the heathens there to quit worshiping idols, and yet thinks nothing of leaving a young child and her mother in constant danger because they can't afford to live anywhere else.

But who's gonna be blamed for the circumstances? The young child's mother. Of course.

Wow. Extremely eloquent and well put. Makes you think, which I assume was the point.

Right: if there's a deal (Dempublicents attains x for y labor) and you actually fulfill it and someone else doesn't, you're entitled to what you were promised. But this has nothing to do with "desert", just with the fact that you shouldn't be manipulated out of your labor.

If we have a society where you know that you will get the same as others however hard you work, if you choose to work hard anyway it hardly seems to me that you deserve any more. Why would you? You knew what you were going to get from the outset, and you chose, for your own reasons, to work hard anyway.

Hence the reason that such a society would discourage working harder.

It might be nice if the majority of human beings were perfectly happy to work their butts off just to get exactly what their lazier colleagues get, but that really isn't the case. With most people, if they can't get more by doing more, they're going to do the bare minimum.

What "merits"? If I'm smarter than someone, why should I get more? If someone else is stronger than me, why should she get more? Our talents--our "merits"--are largely a product of our environment and our genes. They say nothing whatsoever about our desert.

(a) What meaning of the word "desert" are you using?

(b) Merits aren't necessarily innate talents (although sometimes they are). Sometimes they are a product of just how hard you've worked for what you get.

Hence the reason that such a society would discourage working harder.

It might be nice if the majority of human beings were perfectly happy to work their butts off just to get exactly what their lazier colleagues get, but that really isn't the case. With most people, if they can't get more by doing more, they're going to do the bare minimum.
That nice young man Karl would argue that this is because we are alienated from our labour, and that in pure communism, we would vest far more of ourselves, and thus our effort, into our work; as our work is not labour expended into someone else's unjustified profit (as in capitalism), but something intimately more connected with ourselves.

That nice young man Karl would argue that this is because we are alienated from our labour, and that in pure communism, we would vest far more of ourselves, and thus our effort, into our work; as our work is not labour expended into someone else's unjustified profit (as in capitalism), but something intimately more connected with ourselves.

That Karl Marx guy sounds like he must have been one hell of an epic troll back in his day.

That Karl Marx guy sounds like he must have been one hell of an epic troll back in his day.
Him and Engels were pretty effective at flamebaiting Mikhail Bakunin.

Him and Engels were pretty effective at flamebaiting Mikhail Bakunin.

Almost as good as that Hitler dude who got the entire world to flame him.

Almost as good as that Hitler dude who got the entire world to flame him.
Mmm... actionable offence.

Mmm... actionable offence.

Or was he banned by mods?

you see, i just don't believe that. some people can - and do - break the mould, but for most people factors outside of their own individual decisions play a very important part in their outcomes in life. that's not to say individual decisions aren't highly important, but just that ignoring these other factors assumes a level of meritocracy that just isn't present in the real world.

Who said anything about MERIT??? Some of it's Merit, some of it's chance, some of it is choices. Equality of Outcome has another name: Mediocrity, because it's easier to lower the standards, than it is to get everyone to reach the same High standards.

Hence the reason that such a society would discourage working harder.

It would discourage working harder for the sake of material reward, yes. But the same is true of steps toward equality of opportunity, which inevitably involve higher taxes for the rich and more restrictions on how their money is spent (through, say, inheritance and gift taxes.)

Yes, any kind of equality needs to be balanced against the risk of inefficiency through lack of incentives--but that tells us nothing about which kind of equality we should be balancing.

(a) What meaning of the word "desert" are you using?

I'm interested in what qualities or actions make someone morally worthy, as a matter of justice, of attaining more than another.

(b) Merits aren't necessarily innate talents (although sometimes they are). Sometimes they are a product of just how hard you've worked for what you get.

And "how hard" people work is also inextricably bound up with their genes and their circumstances... and there is no trustworthy way to tell what part is traceable to volition and what part to luck.

Not that the choice to work hard is a clear indicator of desert, either.

'Equality of outcome', however, sounds much more like a rigid structure; we all have the same outcome.

"Equal" in this context does not mean "same." The idea is that no one has a higher standard of living--but I might choose to spend more of my wealth on one good than my friend, and that hardly seems to suggest inequality in any relevant sense.

It would discourage working harder for the sake of material reward, yes. But the same is true of steps toward equality of opportunity, which inevitably involve higher taxes for the rich and more restrictions on how their money is spent (through, say, inheritance and gift taxes.)

People still want more money and more things even if they're being taxed at a higher rate.

But if working harder has no chance of getting them that "more", most people simply aren't going to do it.

I'm interested in what qualities or actions make someone morally worthy, as a matter of justice, of attaining more than another.

Harder work, for one.

If you do more, you deserve to get more for it.

And "how hard" people work is also inextricably bound up with their genes and their circumstances... and there is no trustworthy way to tell what part is traceable to volition and what part to luck.

You can generally tell if someone is busting their ass to get something done.

But, you're right, we can never tell exactly how much is due to what. We don't live in an idealized world. We live in the real world.

Not that the choice to work hard is a clear indicator of desert, either.

Wtf does "desert" mean in this context? The only definition I can find for the word is the one I already know - and that one doesn't fit in this sentence at all.

People still want more money and more things even if they're being taxed at a higher rate.

That's right. And that's true whether they're being taxed more to get us closer to equality of outcome or whether they're being taxed more to get us closer to equality of opportunity.

If you do more, you deserve to get more for it.

Why? Again, what kind of injustice is it if the voluntary choice to work harder than somebody else doesn't bring about a special reward?

For that matter, in a variety of contexts, working harder doesn't bring about any kind of monetary reward, and nobody seems to have any problem with this: if I work really hard on a post on NSG, nobody's about to pay me for it and people would laugh in my face if I called it unjust. That's my choice; nobody else is responsible for compensating me for it.

Things are different only when there is a preexisting agreement, as with a labor contract: if I choose to do a certain amount of work on the condition that I be paid for it, I am certainly entitled to that payment. But that applies as long as I fulfill the terms, which may or may not have anything to do with working hard.

You can generally tell if someone is busting their ass to get something done.

Maybe... but you can't tell always or even usually tell why, or how much is traceable to a volitional act of commitment and how much to upbringing or experience or a well-suited natural personality. So, even under the assumption that some notion of "hard work" or "sacrifice" or whatever brings about desert, any economic inequality in the real world will be very distant from such an ideal, and will thus be treating many people unfairly. Considering the logic of declining marginal utility, it seems reasonable to err on the side of equality.

Wtf does "desert" mean in this context? The only definition I can find for the word is the one I already know - and that one doesn't fit in this sentence at all.

Wikipedia's definition works fine: "Desert in philosophy is the condition of being deserving of something, whether good or bad."

"Equal" in this context does not mean "same." The idea is that no one has a higher standard of living--but I might choose to spend more of my wealth on one good than my friend, and that hardly seems to suggest inequality in any relevant sense.
True, but the phrase 'equality of outcome' just seems... unweildy and unnecessary. I'm fine with equality=/=sameness, but here the proposed outcomes look neither same nor equal.

But meh, semantics.

I don't know. Some socialist was yelling at me on another site and I have a cold and I got confused so I left and came here to ask so I could understand what the fuck he was talking about.....:confused:

Whenever I ask any questions over there they ban me. :(

Do not feel bad. Socialists are pretty good at yelling and pretty bad at economics and well pretty much everything. I do not think that your typical Socilaist really wants to hear that they are wrong. Heck most of them are probably still in high school or middle school.

I imagine that what they were getting at is the typical elitist liberal view that equal opportunity is meaningless because most people are too dumb to act in a rational way when confronted with choice.

Of course we should never underestimate the capacity of people to be stupid, but trying to build a planned economic model of society that is based on that notion is pretty inefficient and goofy. It is far better for a society to let individuals choose their economic destinies while subtly encouraging responsible or otherwise "desirable" economic choices by education and perhaps tax breaks.

I imagine that what they were getting at is the typical elitist liberal view that equal opportunity is meaningless because most people are too dumb to act in a rational way when confronted with choice.

By "typical" do you mean "imaginary"?