Equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome

[GhostlyJoe]

Equality of opportunity seems fundamental to American politics, and that's reflected in the arguments of both liberals and conservatives. Arguments about affirmative action, for example, are about equal access. One side argues that social inequalities necessitate it, the other that it's discriminatory. I'm curious to see if you agree.

Here's a little to chew on:

Eqaulity of opportunity

Equality of outcome

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Let me start this off before this thread gets polluted with extremism and hackish statements from the right and the left. I reject the concept of equality of outcome as not only against ideal on which this country was founded, but as discriminatory in and of itself. Each of us is not, necessarily born into the same conditions... nor with the same skills, but each of us has the ability to attain the zenith with those skills and those conditions. That is up to the individual.

Equality of opportunity is a bit more complicated. Each of us does not have the same opportunities as another. There are MANY factors that go into the opportunities that one can utilize. Family of origin, genetics, intellect, physical health, place of birth, psychological health, all contribute to the level that one could possibly attain. Now, certainly one can overcome some of these struggles, but they still would create a disparity in the opportunities available.

Equality of opportunity can also be affected by societal rules and laws. For example, currently in the US, gays do not have the opportunity to get married. This is a societally created deficit and prevents equality of opportunity in this area. Affirmative action. This is a tricky one. On one side, using affirmative action creates an unequal opportunity situation. On the other, since it is not guaranteed that racism will never prevent one from an opportunity, there can certainly be some inequality by NOT having it.

Ultimately, equality of opportunity is not black or white. There are many subtitles that effect the concept. Since true equality of opportunity cannot be attained, the best we can hope for is some modifications to get it as close as possible.

 

[Pote]

I would clarify a bit...
Social inequalities alone shouldn't necessitate affirmative action, but the inequality before the law that was present in the U.S. in the past necessitates some inequality before the law in today's U.S. to balance out the effects. I (edit: normally) wouldn't support any inequality before the law, but I kind of think that certain inequalities in America's past support the need for a few balancing tweaks.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

I reject the concept of equality of outcome as not only against ideal on which this country was founded, but as discriminatory in and of itself. Each of us is not, necessarily born into the same conditions... nor with the same skills, but each of us has the ability to attain the zenith with those skills and those conditions. That is up to the individual.

Well said. I agree. It's also been the general march of history. We've evolved as societies toward the notion of equality of opportunity naturally because it best marshals the abilities of the populace. I'd also argue it's why capitalism has been more successful than socialism.

Equality of opportunity is a bit more complicated. Each of us does not have the same opportunities as another. There are MANY factors that go into the opportunities that one can utilize. Family of origin, genetics, intellect, physical health, place of birth, psychological health, all contribute to the level that one could possibly attain. Now, certainly one can overcome some of these struggles, but they still would create a disparity in the opportunities available.

Equality of opportunity can also be affected by societal rules and laws. For example, currently in the US, gays do not have the opportunity to get married. This is a societally created deficit and prevents equality of opportunity in this area. Affirmative action. This is a tricky one. On one side, using affirmative action creates an unequal opportunity situation. On the other, since it is not guaranteed that racism will never prevent one from an opportunity, there can certainly be some inequality by NOT having it.

Ultimately, equality of opportunity is not black or white. There are many subtitles that effect the concept. Since true equality of opportunity cannot be attained, the best we can hope for is some modifications to get it as close as possible.

I suspect you agree with me that limited social programs are necessary to achieve it, that the best system encourages a minimum outcome. However, affirmative action is one program I oppose. For example, the university I attended had a policy that read, and I paraphase, "Hiring preference is to be given to women, minorities and the disabled, provided the candidate posseses a terminal degree." That's clearly discriminatory. The college was sued in a reverse-discrimination suit, but the guy didn't have the credentials, so it was dismissed.

Would you say that equality of opportunity is a moral imperative?

 

[GhostlyJoe]

I would clarify a bit...
Social inequalities alone shouldn't necessitate affirmative action, but the inequality before the law that was present in the U.S. in the past necessitates some inequality before the law in today's U.S. to balance out the effects. I (edit: normally) wouldn't support any inequality before the law, but I kind of think that certain inequalities in America's past support the need for a few balancing tweaks.

I don't believe it's necessary with anti-discrimination laws in effect. We should encourage hiring to be based on merit.

 

[SirPwn4lot]

Haven't seriously thought about it and come to a conclusion before, I'm open to all argument.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Well said. I agree. It's also been the general march of history. We've evolved as societies toward the notion of equality of opportunity naturally because it best marshals the abilities of the populace. I'd also argue it's why capitalism has been more successful than socialism.

It's one reason that capitalism has been more successful than socialism. The biggest reason, though is human psychology. The desire to get ahead or win is the antithesis to socialistic theory. This is why pure socialisim will never occur.

I suspect you agree with me that limited social programs are necessary to achieve it, that the best system encourages a minimum outcome.

I'm probably a bigger supporter of social programs than you, but I would like to see social programs aimed towards attainment rather than maintenence. To me, it's not the quantity of social programs that's the problem. It's the quality and the aims/goals.

However, affirmative action is one program I oppose. For example, the university I attended had a policy that read, and I paraphase, "Hiring preference is to be given to women, minorities and the disabled, provided the candidate posseses a terminal degree." That's clearly discriminatory. The college was sued in a reverse-discrimination suit, but the guy didn't have the credentials, so it was dismissed.

I agree with you on principle. However, for things like affirmative action to be eliminated, strong anti-discrimintory laws need to be in place an enforced. That way, the equality of opportunity can be attained... at least as much as possible.

Would you say that equality of opportunity is a moral imperative?

For one to be successfu, I think that one must believe in the equality of opportunity. It is amazing what one can attain if they belief it is possible and that they can do it.

 

[Pote]

I don't believe it's necessary with anti-discrimination laws in effect. We should encourage hiring to be based on merit.

The anti-discrimination laws in effect were put in place after years of discrimination. The years of discrimination still have an effect on today's society, because the gains and losses from the discrimination were passed down from generation to generation, even if the discrimination itself was not.

I agree that hiring should be roughly based in merit, but merit can be bought, and it can be paid for by money that was gained through discrimination in the past.
Hypothetical: A rich white Harvard graduate is definitely better suited for job X than the poor black community college graduate, but that's only because he went to Harvard, because he got better grades, because he was born into a richer family, because his ancestors owned 1,500 slaves and tons of land back in the 1700s, and the wealth was passed down. Does the rich white Harvard graduate really deserve the job?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

The anti-discrimination laws in effect were put in place after years of discrimination. The years of discrimination still have an effect on today's society, because the gains and losses from the discrimination were passed down from generation to generation, even if the discrimination itself was not.

I agree that hiring should be roughly based in merit, but merit can be bought, and it can be paid for by money that was gained through discrimination in the past.
Hypothetical: A rich white Harvard graduate is definitely better suited for job X than the poor black community college graduate, but that's only because he went to Harvard, because he got better grades, because he was born into a richer family, because his ancestors owned 1,500 slaves and tons of land back in the 1700s, and the wealth was passed down. Does the rich white Harvard graduate really deserve the job?

This is a good question. My answer would be yes, but this also refers back to my first post in this thread. We are not all born with the same equality of opportunity. This is where the "shades of gray" come in. Who is, all things being equal, more qualified for the job, in your scenario? We really don't know, because this is one of the inequalities that cannot be controlled. However, is it then necessary to level the playing field? How do we know how hard that rich white Harvard graduate worked? Maybe he worked just as hard, if not harder than the poor black. Ultimately, these kinds of built in inequalities cannot be altered. It is the inequality where a white is chosen over a black when both are equally qualified, that the inequality of opportunity comes into play. These are the situations that need to be controlled.

 

[Henrin]

Equality of opportunity is mostly an opinion and driven in most cases by emotion. It is impossible to measure when its happening, and in most cases impossible to see when its not. It is a ghost concept only really known for sure in the most extreme circumstances.

Society as whole has been driven deeper and deeper into the situational chances of equality until its absurd and just comes off as stupidity at its finest. Over the years of pondering this I have gone from supporting it when its obvious to not supporting at all and that is where I stand now. I'm still against discrimination as I was when I was younger, but I don't think its the governments business to care about it no matter if its federal or state in any way.

You can flame now.


As for equality of outcome, its ridiculous at its fundamental level. If you are equal in how you turn out from the beginning than what is the point of doing anything at all? Nothing is what. It doesn't take any sort of great mind to realize this simple truth.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Equality of opportunity is mostly an opinion and driven in most cases by emotion. It is impossible to measure when its happening, and in most cases impossible to see when its not. It is a ghost concept only really known for sure in the most extreme circumstances.

Society as whole has been driven deeper and deeper into the situational chances of equality until its absurd and just comes off as stupidity at its finest. Over the years of pondering this I have gone from supporting it when its obvious to not supporting at all and that is where I stand now. I'm still against discrimination as I was when I was younger, but I don't think its the governments business to care about it no matter if its federal or state in any way.

You can flame now.

No flame. Just disagreement. Our country was founded on this principle and though attaining the absolute is impossible, working towards it maikes sense to me. Again, though, we are not all born with equal availablity to opportunity, so that must be factored in.

As for equality of outcome, its ridiculous at its fundamental level. If you are equal in how you turn out from the beginning than what is the point of doing anything at all? Nothing is what. It doesn't take any sort of great mind to realize this simple truth.

I agree that it is ridiculous, fundamentally.

 

[Pote]

This is a good question. My answer would be yes, but this also refers back to my first post in this thread. We are not all born with the same equality of opportunity. This is where the "shades of gray" come in. Who is, all things being equal, more qualified for the job, in your scenario? We really don't know, because this is one of the inequalities that cannot be controlled. However, is it then necessary to level the playing field? How do we know how hard that rich white Harvard graduate worked? Maybe he worked just as hard, if not harder than the poor black. Ultimately, these kinds of built in inequalities cannot be altered. It is the inequality where a white is chosen over a black when both are equally qualified, that the inequality of opportunity comes into play. These are the situations that need to be controlled.

I think we may have different ideas of "equality of opportunity". The link above states "In the classical sense, equality of opportunity is closely aligned with the concept of equality before the law, and ideas of meritocracy." In this sense, we are all basically all born with the same equality of opportunity (notable exceptions, or shades of gray include gay's lack of right to marry).

The Harvard graduate is more qualified, but my question was not who should get the job, but who deserves the job, and so I read you answer as "Ultimately, these kinds of built in inequalities cannot be altered.", but I would disagree. I think it is entirely possible to alter these inequalities, but I agree that it is impossible for us to determine exactly who deserves the job. In these cases I would argue that the poor black should be given the benefit of the doubt, and if both could fulfill the job's requirements the poor black should get the job.

 

[mbig]

I am for equality of opportunity, not outcome.

However, unmitigated 'cut-throat capitalism', such as a regressive/unprogressive income tax will result in a society we don't want.
Another 'serf-and-castle' system where the more talented end up with just about all the marbles.
Because, let's face it, a few percent are Much, Much better at the accumulation game.
Yeah, now THAT'S Fair.

In fact, that's what motivated the Income tax in this country in the first place.. the Robber Barons of 100+ years ago
Rockefeller, Carnegie, Mellon, Morgan, and hundreds of their servants/servant class.
It's the tax dollars (income and estate) of the rich that Necessrily pay for the 'equal aopportunity'/Some education for all that maintains a mobile society.
What Makes America, America IS a large govt. Crafted Middle Class.
Yeah the 70-90% top marginal rates from Eisenhower thru mid-Reagn when we were 'socialists' I guess, but had more income/asset equality.

So virtually all of you unrich dogmatic Libertarians and GOPers who think we should have pure consumption or flat rate taxes better go buy your hoes and smithy tools because the vast majority of you are going to be working in the Buffett/Eisner/Gates/Blankfein Duchys.

 

[SirPwn4lot]

I am for equality of opportunity, not outcome.

However, unmitigated 'cut-throat capitalism', such as a regressive/unprogressive income tax will result in a society we don't want.
Another 'serf-and-castle' system where the more talented end up with just about all the marbles.
Because, let's face it, a few percent are Much, Much better at the accumulation game.
Yeah, now THAT'S Fair.

In fact, that's what motivated the Income tax in this country in the first place.. the Robber Barons of 100+ years ago
Rockefeller, Carnegie, Mellon, Morgan, and hundreds of their servants/servant class.
It's the tax dollars (income and estate) of the rich that Necessrily pay for the 'equal aopportunity'/Some education for all that maintains a mobile society.
What Makes America, America IS a large govt. Crafted Middle Class.
Yeah the 70-90% top marginal rates from Eisenhower thru mid-Reagn when we were 'socialists' I guess, but had more income/asset equality.

So virtually all of you unrich dogmatic Libertarians and GOPers who think we should have pure consumption or flat rate taxes better go buy your hoes and smithy tools because the vast majority of you are going to be working in the Buffett/Eisner/Gates/Blankfein Duchys.

If 39.5% under Obama is socialist/Marxist, then the 50-91 tax rates from Eisenhower to mid-Reagan were... I dunno, pick a keyword... Wikileaksian.:lol:

Could someone from either side outline the benefits and drawbacks of equality of outcomes/equality of opportunity... thanks! Trying to get some info from those who support the view.

 

[Pote]

Equality of outcomes: Benefits: Everyone is treated equally, and hopefully nobody suffers, since there should be enough of everything for everybody.
Drawbacks: Difficult/impossible to achieve completely. It is not completely fair unless everybody also puts in the same amount of effort, which is unlikely.

Equality of opportunity(or before the law): Benefits: Everyone has the same legal rights, and should therefore have the same basic opportunities.
Drawbacks: It does not accommodate for natural inequalities, and the more intelligent will possibly subjugate the less intelligent.

 

[SirPwn4lot]

Equality of outcomes: Benefits: Everyone is treated equally, and hopefully nobody suffers, since there should be enough of everything for everybody.
Drawbacks: Difficult/impossible to achieve completely. It is not completely fair unless everybody also puts in the same amount of effort, which is unlikely.

Equality of opportunity(or before the law): Benefits: Everyone has the same legal rights, and should therefore have the same basic opportunities.
Drawbacks: It does not accommodate for natural inequalities, and the more intelligent will possibly subjugate the less intelligent.

One could argue that under the current system success is not granted by intelligence or hard work, but rather by how much you're willing to scam those below you, and pure luck, whether through getting a massive inheritance, being born into a rich family and going to the best schools, etc.

What do you say to this?

 

[Pote]

That's probably better. I was searching for a better word than intelligence, but I gave up after 10 seconds or so, because I'm tired.

 

[SirPwn4lot]

That's probably better. I was searching for a better word than intelligence, but I gave up after 10 seconds or so, because I'm tired.

So how is this any better? It seems, from a brief analysis, that perhaps we should have a system somewhere in between the two extremes. I don't see how they're mutually exclusive at all.

A nation where one's success in life is determined by their willingness to work hard and get a good education, but also a system where the powerful can't force the weak into virtual wage slavery. Point in case, real wages have stagnated/declined since the mid 70s, while corporate profits have increased exponentially.

I think the question that naturally flows from this discussion is: what should be the goal of humanity?

Comments?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Equality of opportunity is the ideal we should strive to attain. Its proven to be expensive though because it requires things like public education and other social infrastructure type spending. The resulting economic prosperity is worth it though, I think.

 

[d0gbreath]

I figured I might as well support inequality since that is what we have.

In the real world, when hiring, you cannot know which candidate will do the best job by reading a resumé and having a couple of interviews with each prospect. You might accidentally pick the lesser of the crop only to have the best one get hired by your competition.

 

[TurtleDude]

I would clarify a bit...
Social inequalities alone shouldn't necessitate affirmative action, but the inequality before the law that was present in the U.S. in the past necessitates some inequality before the law in today's U.S. to balance out the effects. I (edit: normally) wouldn't support any inequality before the law, but I kind of think that certain inequalities in America's past support the need for a few balancing tweaks.

Affirmative action in public institutions is an abomination in many cases. Blaming a white man today for the fact that fire departments were anti black 100 years ago is pathetic. However, if private schools want to practice affirmative action that is their right, and in some cases affirmative action makes business sense--if you need black undercover narcotics officers to infiltrate black narcotics gangs that would justify hiring blacks ahead of whites

 

[Patria Antiqua]

Affirmative action in public institutions is an abomination in many cases. Blaming a white man today for the fact that fire departments were anti black 100 years ago is pathetic. However, if private schools want to practice affirmative action that is their right, and in some cases affirmative action makes business sense--if you need black undercover narcotics officers to infiltrate black narcotics gangs that would justify hiring blacks ahead of whites

Who is blaming white men today for anything? Nobody practices affirmative action and says "by the way, this is because it's personally you're fault that white people didn't like black people fifty years ago."

@OP: Equality of result is silly and undesirable. Equality of opportunity is such a vague concept that I can't be certain of myself choosing to support it, but I did anyway.

 

[liblady]

The anti-discrimination laws in effect were put in place after years of discrimination. The years of discrimination still have an effect on today's society, because the gains and losses from the discrimination were passed down from generation to generation, even if the discrimination itself was not.

I agree that hiring should be roughly based in merit, but merit can be bought, and it can be paid for by money that was gained through discrimination in the past.
Hypothetical: A rich white Harvard graduate is definitely better suited for job X than the poor black community college graduate, but that's only because he went to Harvard, because he got better grades, because he was born into a richer family, because his ancestors owned 1,500 slaves and tons of land back in the 1700s, and the wealth was passed down. Does the rich white Harvard graduate really deserve the job?

and anyone who believes discriminatory hiring practices are not still in place, unofficially, is deluded. we need STONG laws to fight discrimination.

 

[OscarB63]

Who is blaming white men today for anything? Nobody practices affirmative action and says "by the way, this is because it's personally you're fault that white people didn't like black people fifty years ago.

no, they just blame the generic "whitey" because they know they can't point to any specific living white guy and say "it's his fault", so they just blame whites in general.

get real dude, there are still people blaming the plight of inner city blacks on slavery, and that **** ended over 150 years ago.

 

[OscarB63]

and anyone who believes discriminatory hiring practices are not still in place, unofficially, is deluded. we need STONG laws to fight discrimination.

agreed. I have personally been turned down for at least two govt jobs because they had to hire a lesser qualified minority to maintain diversity.