Comparing equalities: outcome vs opportunity Equality of outcome

in lamp assembly factory, example, equality of outcome might mean workers paid equally regardless of how many lamps of acceptable quality make (which implies workers cannot sacked producing few lamps of acceptable quality). can contrasted payment system such piece work, requires every worker paid fixed amount of money per lamp of acceptable quality worker makes.

both equality of outcome , equality of opportunity have been contrasted great extent. when evaluated in simple context, more preferred term in contemporary political discourse equality of opportunity (or, meaning same thing, common variant equal opportunities ) public, individual commentators, see nicer or more well-mannered of 2 terms. , term equality of outcome seen more controversial , viewed skeptically. mainstream political view comparison of 2 terms valid, mutually exclusive in sense striving either type of equality require sacrificing other extent, , achieving equality of opportunity brings inequalities of outcome. example, striving equal outcomes might require discriminating between groups achieve these outcomes; or striving equal opportunities in types of treatment might lead unequal results. policies seek equality of outcome require deviation strict application of concepts such meritocracy, , legal notions of equality before law citizens. equality seeking policies may have redistributive focus.

the 2 concepts, however, not cleanly contrasted, since notion of equality complex. analysts see 2 concepts not polar opposites highly related such can not understood without considering other term. 1 writer suggested unrealistic think equality of opportunity in isolation, without considering inequalities of income , wealth. agreed impossible understand equality without assessment of outcomes. third writer suggested trying pretend 2 concepts fundamentally different error along lines of conceit.

in contemporary political discourse, of 2 concepts, equality of outcome has been criticized politics of envy , seen more controversial equality of opportunity. 1 wrote equality of opportunity set mild-mannered alternative craziness of outcome equality. 1 theorist suggested over-emphasis on either type of equality can come conflict individual freedom , merit.

critics of equality of opportunity note while relatively easier deal unfairness people different races or genders, harder deal social class since 1 can never entirely extract people ancestry , upbringing. result, critics contend efforts bring fairness equal opportunity stymied difficulty of people having differing starting points @ beginning of socio-economic competition. person born upper-middle-class family have greater advantages mere fact of birth person born poverty.

one newspaper account criticized discussion politicians on subject of equality weasely , , thought term politically correct , vague. furthermore, when comparing equality of opportunity equality of outcome, sense latter type worse society. equality of outcome may incorporated philosophy seeks equality of opportunity. moving towards higher equality of outcome (albeit not equal) can lead environment more adept @ providing equality of opportunity eliminating conditions restrict possibility members of society fulfill potential. example, child born in poor, dangerous neighborhood poor schools , little access healthcare may disadvantaged in attempts maximize use of talents, no matter how fine work ethic. thus, proponents of meritocracy may promote level of equality of outcome in order create society capable of providing equality of opportunity.

while outcomes can measured great degree of precision, more difficult measure intangible nature of opportunities. 1 reason why many proponents of equal opportunity use measures of equality of outcome judge success. analyst anne phillips argued proper way assess effectiveness of hard-to-measure concept of equality of opportunity extent of equality of outcome. nevertheless, described single criterion of equality of outcome problematic: measure of preference satisfaction ideologically loaded while other measures such income or wealth inadequate, , advocated approach combined data resources, occupations, , roles.

to extent inequalities can passed 1 generation through tangible gifts , wealth inheritance, claim equality of opportunity children cannot achieved without equality of outcome parents. moreover, access social institutions affected equality of outcome , s further claimed rigging equality of outcome can way prevent co-option of non-economic institutions important social control , policy formation, such legal system, media or electoral process, powerful individuals or coalitions of wealthy people.

purportedly, greater equality of outcome reduce relative poverty, leading more cohesive society. however, if taken extreme may lead greater absolute poverty if negatively affects country s gdp damaging workers sense of work ethic destroying incentives work harder. critics of equality of outcome believe more important raise standard of living of poorest in absolute terms. critics additionally disagree concept of equality of outcome on philosophical grounds. still others note poor people of low social status have drive, hunger , ambition lets them achieve better economic , social outcomes more advantaged rivals.

a related argument encountered in education, in debates on grammar school in united kingdom , in debates on gifted education in various countries, says people nature have differing levels of ability , initiative result in achieving better outcomes others , therefore impossible ensure equality of outcome without imposing inequality of opportunity.