WMN: t3_2hevmr_t1_cks21ow

[TITLE]

CMV: Equality of outcome is malign; equality of opportunity is nonsense

[TechJesus]

Equality is one of a number of concepts referenced regularly in Western political discourse (others being freedom, fairness and so on), but I'm increasingly troubled by the pursuit of it in politics. Usually people dismiss this objection as a confusion between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. The former is something I rarely hear supported, but is at least unambiguous in its meaning (everyone has the same life quality in terms of health, wealth, education etc). Only people with a view of the world heavily slanted towards nurture believe this is possible, and most accept it is beyond the remit of government to achieve it, so far as I can tell. But equality of opportunity, despite appearing to be meaningful at first glance, is actually nonsense, or at least as ambiguous as "equality". Does this mean starting everyone from a same footing (which would involve compensating for background and genetic discrepancies), or simply applying the same provision to everyone? I don't view it as within the power of the state to arrange human affairs so that every child can have an equal chance of prospering at school, and even if it was possible I think the destruction of freedom and family life it would entail would be deeply wounding. On the other hand spending the same resources on every child seems equally callous: squandering talent at the top while potentially not allocating enough to the disadvantaged at the bottom. As for the legal system, equality could seemingly apply to equal rules applied universally regardless of background factors (class, character etc) or attempting to compensate for those factors in the name of fairness. I think there's probably elements of both approaches in our legal system, which limits equality to a principle of not being spuriously discriminatory on grounds of race, sex and so on. I suppose I'm more of a "basic standards" kind of guy, believing there should be a minimum amount of education, health and housing that the state should endeavour to provide, but otherwise citizens should be left to it. That seems to me to be justifiable for reasons of decency rather than equality. CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[citizensearth]

Equality of opportunity arguably has the advantage of maximising the incentive for people to achieve. If opportunities are unevenly distributed, then talent goes unrecognised and unutilised, and the disadvantaged perceive effort as worthless because it is unlikely to change their circumstances. It's a complex issue though I have no idea where I stand on it either.

[forloversperhaps]

"Basic standards" is a political program, not an ethical principle. If your position is "everyone in the US gets 20k from the government," then you still need to explain why. Calling "equality" "decency" instead doesn't change the problem. Think of equality of opportunity as an attempt to defend the concept of desert, if you find it difficult to wrap your head around. Let's say someone says "why should we have laws protecting property when some people have lots of property and others struggle?" One answer would be "because the people who have more worked harder/ contributed more, so they *deserve* it." They problem is that in many cases this fails as a causal explanation of why some people are rich: they actually inherited money, went to better schools, got jobs through connections, whatever. So the second version of "desert" invokes equality of opportunity: "*if* we start people off with equal opportunities, *then* people will only have more because they worked harder, and *thus* they will deserve what they have." If you are willing to accept from the beginning that there is no reason to support our legal system unless you happen to benefit from it, and the poor should fight for whatever they can get, through legal or illegal means, then you don't need to argue that people deserve anything and don't need an equality of opportunity concept. Equality of outcome principles comes from the idea of consent. The idea is that to find social rules that everyone would actually consent to if they were starting from scratch and didn't have the power to force others to obey, you would have to propsoe rules that you thought everyone would benefit from equally. And the most reasonable rule of this type is "overall, societies rules and policies should make people equally well-off where they can be, and help out the worst-off as much as it can where they can't." And that means that whenever we have a new rule to make we should favor alternatives that help the disadvantaged, which means we are always keeping equality of outcome in mind as a goal. Again, if you don't care about consent and think that the powerful should force through policies that benefit themselves because they can, then you don't need a concept of equality like this.

[pikk]

basics standards ARE equality of opportunity.

[ProxyD]

[STA-CITE]> I suppose I'm more of a "basic standards" kind of guy, believing there should be a minimum amount of education, health and housing that the state should endeavor to provide, but otherwise citizens should be left to it. [END-CITE]I'm not sure for what you mean by saying equal opportunity is nonsense. Do you not have an opportunity to live your life as you wish, get your self minimum amount of education, find a place to live or get medication when you're sick? Doesn't someone who wishes to become a nuclear physicist have an opportunity to do so in your country? Regardless of theirs, lets say financial situation? Maybe it would require for them to leave everything for it and work 24/7, but do they have an opportunity to do it? Maybe someone path to the same goal is harder then of the others but all people should have same opportunity to chose and follow them. Opportunity can't be harder or easier, it just is. Equal opportunity means opportunity for all, not equal difficulty or chances in reaching one's goals for every citizen. That would be impossible even on theoretical level.

[TechJesus]

[STA-CITE]> Doesn't someone who wishes to become a nuclear physicist have an opportunity to do so in your country? Regardless of theirs, lets say financial situation? Maybe it would require for them to leave everything for it and work 24/7, but do they have an opportunity to do it? [END-CITE]It's absurd to say that everyone has an equal opportunity to be a nuclear physicist. Some people simply do not have the intelligence to deal with that sort of field, most would not have the interest, and the fact is that there is a limited market for those sort of skills. It's not even theoretically true that everyone has equal opportunities in the job market, even if in legal terms it is.

[ProxyD]

Did i said equal opportunity? I think i didn't and there is a reason for that. You're using world equal to much, and obviously didn't read end of my post. What I said is [STA-CITE]> have an opportunity [END-CITE]and that point still stands. If you remove extremes (which you should as they don't represent the majority in any way) or in this case "retarded" people, I assure you that any person can become a nuclear physicist. Lack of intelligence needs to be filled with hard work and then it is more than possible. Lack of interest/motivation is only for person to blame and job opportunities can be controlled. Do you think that when people say equal opportunities mean that they can get a retarded man to become best nuclear physicist with not making a sweat and having no motivation? Because if you do then I can't change your view, it makes no sense to me. If that is what people truly mean when they pin equal to opportunity than I will stand by your side :)

[GnosticGnome]

[STA-CITE]>But equality of opportunity, despite appearing to be meaningful at first glance, is actually nonsense, or at least as ambiguous as "equality". Does this mean starting everyone from a same footing (which would involve compensating for background and genetic discrepancies), or simply applying the same provision to everyone? [END-CITE]Equality of opportunity is not nonsense. It does not mean compensating for "discrepancies" - that is an attempt at equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity means that every position is open to someone who manages to be fit for it, regardless of background. "Irish need not apply" is an example of inequality of opportunity. A job might be accomplished equally well by someone Irish as someone German, but the rule prevents one from having the job. Likewise, a "natural born citizen" clause for the President of the United States is a violation of equality of opportunity. Equality of opportunity means giving the immigrant an equal chance to run as the native Virginian. Equality of opportunity does not mean that children with Downs and children without have an equal likelihood of becoming an astronaut. It means that the rare child with Downs who happens to have 20/20 vision, 130+ IQ, no heart defects, etc is not barred from NASA purely on the basis of their facial appearance. You may not think equality of opportunity is what you want, but it's far from incoherent.

[TechJesus]

I've never heard it used in that sense, and it doesn't seem to jive with many of the other interpretations reflected in this thread. But if that is all it means then I suppose I'm in favour of it.

[GnosticGnome]

It's the original sense (the "all men are created equal" sense). The [Wikipedia article on equal opportunity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_opportunity) calls it "formal equality of opportunity". Most [dictionaries](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Equality+of+opportunity) present it as the only or main entry. Like its close neighbor equality under the law, it is often lampooned. As Anatole France said, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." Yet however this may seem irksome, it is a major advance over racial/caste/class based rules that do discriminate. Of course, like any noble-sounding ideal, many afterwards have imbued it with their own preferred meaning. As the wiki article linked shows, many have created their own new formulations of equality of opportunity, with varying successes.

[TechJesus]

In the UK I've mostly heard that called equality under the law, and would see equality of opportunity as something more extensive. Those that tend to extol the virtues of the latter concept seem to think of it that way, at least.

[GnosticGnome]

Equality of opportunity is certainly more extensive than equality under the law. Equality under the law still allows businesses to say "Irish need not apply"; the government cannot treat Irishmen differently from Englishmen. Equality of opportunity is a concept that applies everywhere, not just the law. It means businesses, universities, private citizens, etc are offering the same treatment. Not just the law. They are kindred concepts but equality of opportunity goes farther.

[ralph-j]

[STA-CITE]> I don't view it as within the power of the state to arrange human affairs so that every child can have an equal chance of prospering at school [END-CITE]We're never going to have a perfect solution, and we're not going to be able to measure it, but that doesn't mean that we can't strive for it as an ideal. The point is that there should not be any *artificial* restrictions in education, employment etc. Criteria for entry may not be chosen such that they disadvantage specific groups more than the general population, e.g. only prohibiting dreadlocks as a hair style in an office, unnecessarily strict overtime schedules, a minimum height for no legitimate reason (women are shorter on average) etc. They must also make reasonable accommodations, e.g. when there are candidates with disabilities or illnesses. [STA-CITE]> and even if it was possible I think the destruction of freedom and family life it would entail would be deeply wounding. [END-CITE]What do you mean by this?

[TechJesus]

[STA-CITE]> The point is that there should not be any artificial restrictions in education, employment etc. Criteria for entry may not be chosen such that they disadvantage specific groups more than the general population, e.g. only prohibiting dreadlocks as a hair style in an office, unnecessarily strict overtime schedules, a minimum height for no legitimate reason (women are shorter on average) etc. They must also make reasonable accommodations, e.g. when there are candidates with disabilities or illnesses. [END-CITE]I'm ambivalent on the whole issue of whether employers should be able to discriminate on some of the grounds you mentioned, because I think these days most wouldn't bother (and those that do can still do so even under anti-discrimination legislation). It seems an illiberal measure, although I can see why the law is in place. This kind of thing isn't really what I had in mind for the whole topic though. [STA-CITE]> What do you mean by this? [END-CITE]Success at school (and in life) is a complex mix of social, genetic, economic, behavioural and other factors that could only realistically be controlled by institutionalising every child so that variables can be controlled for. That's why I think equality of outcome is malign, and not merely undesirable.

[ralph-j]

[STA-CITE]> This kind of thing isn't really what I had in mind for the whole topic though. [END-CITE]Where do you see the difference with what you understand to be equality of opportunity? [STA-CITE]> Success at school (and in life) is a complex mix of social, genetic, economic, behavioural and other factors that could only realistically be controlled by institutionalising every child so that variables can be controlled for. That's why I think equality of outcome is malign, and not merely undesirable. [END-CITE]In your OP, it reads as if you meant this as an objection against equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. So, the "destruction of freedom and family life" only apply to equality of outcome, right?

[TechJesus]

[STA-CITE]> Where do you see the difference with what you understand to be equality of opportunity? [END-CITE]I would draw a distinction between public and private services. To use a topical example, I believe that while a state marriage registrar has to marry any two people who qualify under the law, a given priest should be allowed to refuse to marry anyone for anyone reason, no matter how bigoted. So a Catholic might refuse to marry a protestant couple, or an evangelical Christian might decline to marry a gay couple. [STA-CITE]> In your OP, it reads as if you meant this as an objection against equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. So, the "destruction of freedom and family life" only apply to equality of outcome, right? [END-CITE]Depending on the given meaning of equality of opportunity, which as seems apparent in this thread, varies considerably, I think it applies somewhat. Social services and education have intruded in the independence of family life to some extent, though I'm not sure it's all been for the worse. The most extreme example only applies to equality of outcome though.

[ralph-j]

[STA-CITE]> I would draw a distinction between public and private services. To use a topical example, I believe that while a state marriage registrar has to marry any two people who qualify under the law, a given priest should be allowed to refuse to marry anyone for anyone reason, no matter how bigoted. So a Catholic might refuse to marry a protestant couple, or an evangelical Christian might decline to marry a gay couple. [END-CITE]I'd totally agree here, because religion itself enjoys specific protection against having to be fair or non-discriminatory. Where I wouldn't agree, is (secular) employment and public commerce, where you are already subject to many rules that you must accept in order to partake in business. E.g. a bakery has to ensure it follows hygiene rules and may not use ingredients that are past their due date etc. Similarly, I believe that an employer or provider of goods/services to the public has to follow rules against discrimination of people based on a number of very specific "person characteristics" that are usually listed in law. Any other (unprotected) reason is fair game in my opinion. [STA-CITE]> Social services and education have intruded in the independence of family life to some extent, though I'm not sure it's all been for the worse. [END-CITE]I'm not sure what you mean. Can you give more specific examples of "destruction of freedom and family life" that apply to equality of opportunity?

[scaliper]

There was a great post written by a sociologist a while back on equality. Unfortunately, I've lost track of it. However, I'll do my best to reproduce it: Imagine a 100-meter dash race, in which everyone in the world must compete. This race will have hurdles, pits, and many other types of obstacles, placed before the race begins. Once you get to the finish line, you'll be rewarded based on your placing. In our current system, this race will be run, but the obstacles will be distributed unevenly. You seem to have a fairly average number of obstacles, but the guy to your right, he has about a quarter as many. Meanwhile, the guy on your left has a somewhat higher obstacle-density than you do, and additionally has to start an additional 100-meters back. And then there's that one asshole who gets to start 5 feet from the finish line, with no obstacles other than a small bump in the way. And God help that guy over there near the end who gets a 50-foot long, 20-foot deep pit starting about halfway down his lane. Equality of opportunity is not about ensuring that everyone gets to the finish-line, nor is it about ensuring that everyone runs at a certain speed(see your "prospering in school" clause). It's about making sure that everyone starts at the same line, and has similar obstacles. Whether you take the race at a sprint or a jog is up to you, and how fast you can run and which obstacles can be overcome are up to your innate abilities. How does this translate from analogy to real life? Well, for one, poverty is currently a huge problem. Is it *possible* to bring oneself from a very poor, uneducated family to an "average," middle-class existence? Sure. It's certainly not easy though. You have to deal with a much *much* farther starting-point than most, and, to top that off, there are all sorts of obstacles in your way (such as the difficulty in obtaining an education with less money, a legal system that actively makes it harder for you to succeed, a lack of initial capital with which to try new things, the list goes on). A number of possible fixes to this exist, but would in large part require a revamp of our entire economic and legal systems. One could mandate universal and free education, up to and including the university level. Universal healthcare is a must. Government grants could be given out for promising ideas. The legal system could (technically) be rewritten to be more class-neutral. Minimum wage would *need* to increase past the cost of living. Basic Income would help immensely. Labor laws could be introduced to make employment more accessible to the lowest classes (as it stands, the near-universal requirement for a permanent mailing address that cannot be a PO box is, in my mind, a significant problem). Meanwhile, new taxes would need to be introduced to pay for all the new programs; but that doesn't seem to be an enormous problem. After all, those taxes could be levied from the people who start the farthest down the track. Would it make the race harder for them? Absolutely, but they're already starting with a significant (rather unfair) advantage, which would certainly not be erased by such a tax. Ideally, it would be great to move everyone to a point where they are starting at that spot, but since that would require even more dramatic changes, this would basically have to be a stand-in. Another significant problem is race-gap. This would be much harder to fix, as a lot of it stems from strong cultural biases that would be near-impossible to remove without something that would amount to re-education, at least in the short-run. In the long-run, it might be at least partly mitigated by changes to the early education system (focusing on developing critical thinking and a sense of understanding of other people), or perhaps by, again, significantly revamping the legal system. Of course, perfect equality of opportunity is probably unattainable except in a true post-scarcity economy, which would effectively require completely scrapping the current system and starting from scratch, while maintaining the current level of infrastructure and technology. I certainly have some idealistic tendencies, but this just seems outside the realm of possibility to me, at least within the next century or so. However, it is difficult to argue that attempting to get as close as we can would be harmful. I want to be clear: The above probably does not address your particular concerns specifically. However, I felt it important to get us on the same page on the meaning of "equality of opportunity," in addition to possible (or maybe just 'intuitively plausible') ways of approaching it, before tackling your specific points, largely due to some discrepancies between our definitions, e.g. [STA-CITE]>I don't view it as within the power of the state to arrange human affairs so that every child can have an equal chance of prospering at school... [END-CITE]which screams "equality of outcome" to me, rather than "equality of opportunity." This out of the way, though, I shall now address specific points in the above context. [STA-CITE]>Does this mean starting everyone from a same footing (which would involve compensating for background and genetic discrepancies), or simply applying the same provision to everyone? [END-CITE]Ideally, an egalitarian society would start everyone on the same footing *per se,* but that does not involve what you're assigning to it. Background would definitely be accounted for, whereas genetic discrepancies would not, at least not in the manner you seem to imply. As in the footrace analogy, the speed at which someone runs the course, and the obstacles they are able to overcome, are dependent on them, and are not intended to be normalized. However, that is not to say that improving the lot of those with something like depression (for example, via free healthcare) would be shied away from, and certain genetic factors (such as sex and race) would be corrected for simply by virtue of correcting for background. Further, I am not sure what you mean by "applying the same provision to everyone." If you mean that the same rules would be applied to everyone equally, I'd say that seems fairly obvious. If, though, you mean that "you get exactly these resources, which are identical to those everyone else gets, no more and no less," that seems rather counterproductive; this removes the incentive to advance oneself. More reasonably, it would be ensured that certain provisions were applied equally across society, while starting-point had less of an effect on advancement. (Note, all that equality of opportunity *really* means in this sort of context is a high level of social mobility) [STA-CITE]>I don't view it as within the power of the state to arrange human affairs so that every child can have an equal chance of prospering at school, and even if it was possible I think the destruction of freedom and family life it would entail would be deeply wounding [END-CITE]See above [STA-CITE]> On the other hand spending the same resources on every child seems equally callous: squandering talent at the top while potentially not allocating enough to the disadvantaged at the bottom. [END-CITE]Except that the talent at the top would not be squandered, but improved. By opening up the "upper levels" to those who currently simply lack access to them because of their last name, you only increase the number of talented individuals. This is not a question of educating the "high-performance students" less, it's a question of ensuring that those with the ability to become "high-performance students" have the opportunity to do so. If the current education system lacks the resources to do so, then give the education system more resources. We need to do that anyway. [STA-CITE]>As for the legal system, equality could seemingly apply to equal rules applied universally regardless of background factors (class, character etc) or attempting to compensate for those factors in the name of fairness. I think there's probably elements of both approaches in our legal system, which limits equality to a principle of not being spuriously discriminatory on grounds of race, sex and so on [END-CITE]Equality of opportunity in the case of the legal system would mean the former, with a few additional add-ons. Equal rules applied universally is the first step. Moving from a system in which juror-biases affect their decisions is another important step; in order for opportunity to be equal, justice must be blind. [STA-CITE]>I suppose I'm more of a "basic standards" kind of guy, believing there should be a minimum amount of education, health and housing that the state should endeavour to provide, but otherwise citizens should be left to it. [END-CITE]Basic standards are certainly important, and would go a surprisingly long way to fixing the problems that currently exist. However, what if one of the poorest people in the country was able to receive education, healthcare, and housing, but then lacked the capital to actually patent and start producing this one *really brilliant* product he thought of? Sure he could try to do such-and-such job until he had enough funds to at least get the patent(supposing food was also supplied) and then turn to crowdfunding, but many ideas require a time of introduction that falls within a narrow window, especially when they aren't patented yet.

[TechJesus]

Thanks very much for writing this, I will be responding to it in full when I get off work :P

[Kinnell999]

You seem to be of the opinion that when the state leaves the citizens to it, the state is not interfering in the lives of its citizens, but this is far from the truth. The purpose of a state is to interfere in the lives of its citizens. Even an extreme laissez faire capitalist government will use threat of violence to support the concept of private ownership of property for example. The concept of equal opportunity is not so much that the state should artificially favour those who are inherently disadvantaged by nature, but that it should strive to minimise the extent to which some of it's citizens are favoured over others as a side effect of the state's constitution and policies.

[TechJesus]

I'm interested in this response. Is there a chance you could elaborate on what you mean by "the state's constitution and policies"?

[Kinnell999]

In a (theoretical) communist state everybody would have equal access to resources, whereas in a capitalist state there is a divide between rich and poor. The choice of capitalism is better for the citizenry as a whole, however some of the citizenry are inevitably born into poverty. Therefore, some citizens are disadvantaged as a result of the state implementing policies which support capitalism over communism. Poverty, with it's obvious disadvantages, is therefore a result of state policy, and should be compensated for as much as possible by the state. You could make similar comparisons with anarchy, feudalism, etc.

[TechJesus]

I wouldn't see it that way. Poverty is the default state of man's existence, and wealth has only been created because of institutions such as the rule of law, property rights and so on. At least when you compare countries that have those institutions to those that don't you can easily see how the absence of them is not conducive to wealth creation. It's of course true that there is a great deal of implicit and explicit violence in such a system, and the state is not necessarily laissez-faire in all matters, but to blame the state for an individuals lack of success is not necessarily fair, I think.

[Kinnell999]

It's not about blame. In the absence of a state of any kind (such as in hunter-gatherer communities) we generally see people sharing natural resources such as land. I'm not trying to idealise this, simply pointing out that everyone starts off on basically an equal footing. In a modern capitalist state, everyone is better off as a whole, but people do not start out in life with equal access to resources. This is a result of the make up of the state. The state should therefore seek to rectify this as much as possible. The whole point of capitalism is, after all, to be meritocratic. Allowing those born into wealth to have a massive advantage over those born into poverty only makes sense if the economic productivity of any individual is a result of genetics, and this clearly isn't the case.

[pikk]

"poverty is the default state of man's existence." It was. Progress of humanity is measured by how far we get away from that. Each generation benefits from the achievements of its ancestors. Saying "fuck the poor because their parents didn't work hard enough", is setting some people back. People who if they weren't struggling just to survive, may have been able to make incredible contributions.

[Trimestrial]

Can you give an example of something that is argued for, in terms of equality of opportunity, that would not be justifiable for reasons of decency? I am having a hard time, distinguishing between what you support through "basic standards" and what you do not support because of equality of opportunity is nonsense.

[TechJesus]

[STA-CITE]> Can you give an example of something that is argued for, in terms of equality of opportunity, that would not be justifiable for reasons of decency? [END-CITE]My point is that equality of opportunity is not an intellectually sound basis for political policy, and I don't think I've seen it usefully used to argue for anything. If one says that all students should leave primary school being able to read to a minimum standard, that is an intelligible and mostly achievable goal. If one says that all students should have the opportunity to learn how to read to a minimum standard the goal is not at all obvious, and even seems to invite failure on the part of the state. In rough terms I guess I'd support a basic welfare state, including a minimum standard of education, universal healthcare and accommodation. But none of that has anything to do with equality, to my mind.

[Trimestrial]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your problem seems to be with an absolutist extreme definition of "Equality of Opportunity." I have really seen anyone outside of political commentators, philosophers, and sci-fi writers (Gattaca..) , to concerned about it. Lets continue your education example. If you are entirely better suited for a certain profession than I am, but that profession requires a college degree. And I come from a rich family, in a rich school district and my parents afforded me the opportunity to be tutored through high school and prepping for the SATs. And you had none of these advantages. What would be a decent, or common sense approach to college admissions be? I know colleges can not reliably measure very advantage, disadvantage, and make admissions absolute equal opportunities. But they can do something Like the University of Texas did, accept the top 3% of graduates from each Texas high school. This provides a more common use of equal opportunity. [STA-CITE]> all people should be treated similarly, unhampered by artificial barriers or prejudices or preferences, except when particular distinctions can be explicitly justified. [END-CITE]Even the ever popular goal of "Freedom" is limited, when particular distinctions can be explicitly justified...

[caw81]

[STA-CITE]> If one says that all students should leave primary school being able to read to a minimum standard, that is an intelligible and mostly achievable goal. If one says that all students should have the opportunity to learn how to read to a minimum standard the goal is not at all obvious, and even seems to invite failure on the part of the state. [END-CITE]"In the interests of equality, all children need to leave grade 3 with this level of reading" - this is intelligible and achievable goal since its an end goal. "In the interests of equality, all children need to start grade 4 with this level of reading" - this is an unintelligible and unachievable goal since its a beginning opportunity. In a practical sense, there is no difference. The end goal is the opportunity starting of another.

[TechJesus]

Not sure I follow you. That seems to be an equality of outcome proposition though.

[Raintee97]

I don't think the state should make sure everything is equal, but they should make sure that with something like a public school one's students experience should be very close to another's. Having public schools being based on property tax is one of the most unequal ways we allocate educational funding. If one school district only has 12 k per student and the other has 28 k per students are those students really in an equal setting in the slightest. Let's give everyone equal funding and the top will rise to the top. Everyone will have to work hard to be at the top. Off course families will differ on their outlook on education and the state shouldn't mess with that but let's make the public part in public school equal. As for the legal system, part of me thinks that defendants should be simple composites when placed on trial. Let's leave race out of things because our legal system does messed up things when race is factored in. There are probably some good problems to that idea, but we seem to currently have two different legal systems. One if you're white and one for the rest. I can't really make the claim that we have a non biased legal system. Hell we used to have people who were selling crack get sent to prison longer than people selling the exact same amount of powder. Don't even get me started on forced confessions or the racial differences on who goes to death row. That's my two cents.

[DashingLeech]

Yes, but the ambiguity you suggest is exactly why there can never be a "correct" answer. This is an optimization problem with a moving target, imperfect measurement, and disagreement over the relative weights of metrics to be balanced in the optimizations. I usually describe it this way: *equal opportunity* is a level playing field (and impartial referees); *equal outcome* is a tied score. Everybody supports a level playing field (and impartial referees), and essentially nobody supports a tied score -- regardless of talent, effort, or value -- because then there is no incentive to put in effort. Fine. But what if the tilt of the field is tied to the score; the higher your score, the higher your side of the field is, making it easier for you to score. What how do you make such a game fair? This feedback loop of score to tilt models the ability of wealth to make you wealthier: you have a higher percentage of your wealth that can go into earning you investment returns -- with no effort on your part -- and get better investors to give you better returns, all as compared to people with less wealth. Also, being born into wealth means better education, better health care, better inheritance, better opportunities, and so forth. So what is fair and equal? I think a Rawlsian "[veil of ignorance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice)" approach works best here. If you were popped into existence somewhere in society, but don't know where you'll show up (race, sex, social status, wealth), what rules would you put in place. This consideration goes for everything from law to economic policy to social policy. After decades of understanding complex system behaviour, I am convinced (by the mathematics and dynamics of system behaviour) that the optimization *must* be some form of compromise that involves the equivalent of constantly re-leveling the field and diminishing returns on scores, meaning each metaphorical "goal" is worth less and less the more you score. (Your score goes up, but smaller amounts each time.) This translates in reality to things that result in some re-distributions (progressive taxes for social services and safety nets), perhaps some affirmative action style promotion -- but only in cases where under-representation actually affects the future of the group under-represented ("tilt of field"), and other forms of equalizing outcomes. It *does not* mean that the raw gender gap in pay needs to go to zero, but where it does not there still needs to be some means of keeping, say, men from getting a higher and higher percentage of the societal wealth over women because that tilts the field. If the gap is due to women having children and harming their career, there may need to be some benefit given to those women directly. Not to completely compensate (tie the score), but at least to re-level the playing field. Yes, these mitigation solutions do come with economic costs as well as benefits, but that is the nature of system optimization; there will always be tradeoffs and imperfections in any single parameter. Designing an airplane for steady flight loading means it will fail upon landing, and designing it for landing/ground loading means it will be inefficient in flight. You can't have it all. Some compromises are very hard to deal with. Affirmative action may mean putting less qualified people into roles and more qualified people suffering as a result. How do we fix that? Effectively we're taking a statistical system property of people's traits and using it to benefit and harm *individuals*. That's not a very fair society, possibly violating the Rawlsian consideration. But doing nothing results in a tilted field, so how do we best compensate? There is no ideology that has this optimization solved. Ideologies are the ingredients, not the recipe. Ultimately I agree with you, but rather than dismiss the "opportunity" vs "outcome" nomenclature, I think it is more useful to embrace both concepts and talk about how they are invariably linked and the solution has to be a weighted optimization somewhere between them.

[TechJesus]

[STA-CITE]> After decades of understanding complex system behaviour, I am convinced (by the mathematics and dynamics of system behaviour) that the optimization must be some form of compromise that involves the equivalent of constantly re-leveling the field and diminishing returns on scores, meaning each metaphorical "goal" is worth less and less the more you score. (Your score goes up, but smaller amounts each time.) [END-CITE]I think this idea is the most sensible interpretation of the concept of equality, striking a balance between the economic dividends of letting talent flourish, while also ensuring that some of the unfairness of being born into disadvantaged circumstances are compensated for. I remain sceptical as how this would actually be achieved and how good an idea it is, but I think you deserve a delta for a well written post that has somewhat changed my view. ∆ On another note, I don't see why a society in which different races have different prominence in certain wealth brackets is any worse than one in which they are equally dispersed. Either way, it's individuals who are rich and poor, and the same amount in both scenarios.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/DashingLeech. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/DashingLeech)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[zomskii]

Just because an ideal cannot be realised practically doesn't make it any less valuable. For example, no country in the world has freedom of speech. Sedition, libel and slander are often outlawed. But just because we don't have absolute freedom of speech doesn't mean that freedom of speech isn't something we place a high value on. Equal opportunity is another ideal that we hold. But it is not the only goal that a society should strive for. Others would include prosperity, security, cultural expression, freedom of speech etc. You are right that if we focused only on equal opportunity we would need to sacrifice some of these other goals. But sacrificing equal opportunity when other goals take precedence, doesn't make the goal of equal opportunity meaningless. Don't try to compare a society with equal opportunity vs one without, because these are absolute terms and therefore as you say, meaningless. Instead lets look at degrees of fairness. Historic societies had virtually no social mobility, with class, race, gender and even slavery as contributing factors. Many countries around the world still struggle with these problems. Statistics, research and also common sense show that there is a positive correlation between happiness and equality of opportunity. I think you'd agree that one of the benefits of living in a developed country is that our development has allowed for greater opportunities for a greater number of people. If you are willing to accept the progress made in the past, which has allowed for more fairness between gender, race and socioeconomic background, then shouldn't you want this progress to continue? To conclude, equality of opportunity is an ideal that we will never achieve, if nothing else, because of the genetic disparities. But it should be a goal that as humanity progresses we should be walking towards. And I feel that the "basic standards" you've mentioned are exactly a step in that direction.

[TechJesus]

[STA-CITE]> Statistics, research and also common sense show that there is a positive correlation between happiness and equality of opportunity. I think you'd agree that one of the benefits of living in a developed country is that our development has allowed for greater opportunities for a greater number of people. If you are willing to accept the progress made in the past, which has allowed for more fairness between gender, race and socioeconomic background, then shouldn't you want this progress to continue? [END-CITE]I feel what you describe here is not really equal opportunity, but basic standards, which is not the same thing. Greater opportunities for a greater number is indeed a good goal, but does not necessarily have much to do with equality, as evinced by the "rising tide raises all boats" philosophy that underpins market liberalisation, and has been proved to work at least somewhat in China and India over the last few decades. Or to put it another way, it is easier to raise living standards by creating more wealth than by distributing it more evenly. (Obviously, your mileage may vary.) Psychologically we do seem to rebel against inequities we perceive as unjust, but I think the greater problem is deprivation, which is why I would tend towards basic standards. I'm of a middling income, and don't feel unhappy at all that people in my city own yachts or penthouses. To my mind wealth is not the problem, but poverty. As I think I said in the OP, spurious discrimination is bad, but not because people are equal. Even if one gender, race or class could be proved to be inherently inferior to others I don't believe that would be good reason to deprive them of basic rights, any more than we would deprive individuals that could be proved to be inferior of those rights, save in very select circumstances (eg disability). [STA-CITE]> Just because an ideal cannot be realised practically doesn't make it any less valuable. For example, no country in the world has freedom of speech. Sedition, libel and slander are often outlawed. But just because we don't have absolute freedom of speech doesn't mean that freedom of speech isn't something we place a high value on. [END-CITE]The difference between freedom of speech and equality is that there are obvious practical goals implicit in the former. To protect freedom of speech one merely has to restrain government, as well as providing adequate policing and rules so that individuals may not intimidate or threaten one another. The caveats in freedom of speech do contravene it, but always so that other antagonistic goals can be accommodated. Very few believe that one should be able to incite extrajudicial violence on another for instance, and so we have laws prohibiting that in some circumstances. But the broad goal of freedom of speech remains intact, and is not violated without good reason. I don't feel any such logic applies to equality.

[zomskii]

[STA-CITE]> does not necessarily have much to do with equality, as evinced by the "rising tide raises all boats" philosophy [END-CITE]As I understand it your argument is that the reason for increased happiness is an increase in wealth, not an increase in opportunity. Well, since there is such a strong correlation between equal opportunity and wealth this is a difficult point to argue, and something which from a little time on google seems understudied. I did find [this article](http://www.forbes.com/sites/daveserchuk/2011/12/07/happy-countrysocial-mobility/) which shows that 7 of the 10 happiest nations are in the top 10 of social mobility. Interestingly, there are fewer of the countries in the [top 10 by GDP](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita) in the top 10 happiest. Anyway, I doubt you'll be convinced because you seem stuck on the idea of basic needs. So I'll move on. [STA-CITE]> I feel what you describe here is not really equal opportunity, but basic standards, which is not the same thing. [END-CITE]I feel that you've misunderstood my point. I am trying to distinguish between an ideal (equality of opportunity) which should be set as a goal and a practical method of working towards that goal (for example, giving people basic needs). Perhaps if I just focus on the ideal you'll have a better understanding of what I mean. Philosopher John Rawls wrote about the “Original Position”. Basically, his idea is as follows: Imagine that you are charged with designing a society that you want to live in. The catch is that you don’t know which member of that society you will be. You can’t decide if you’ll be male or female, black or white, gay or straight, rich or poor. By not knowing who you will actually be, it would be irrational to favour one group over another. And by attempting to think in an impartial way, you’re more likely to design a fair society. Essentially, it is better that hard work, innovation and talent are rewarded more than luck. And by luck I refer to someone having won the lottery of being born with wealthy parents. This is the way to think about equality of opportunity. Your comments about the state arranging human affairs so that every child can have an equal chance of prospering at school is a secondary issue. This is about how to achieve equality of opportunity given competing goals. But to me this is a separate discussion. Before considering how important a goal it is, and whether or not it is possible, and what else would be sacrificed in favour of it, I simply ask, what is bad about equality of opportunity?