Equality of opportunity vs equality of results
Encyclopedia : E : EQ : EQU : Equality of opportunity vs equality of results
''Equality of opportunity vs. equality of results" are two competing theories of an equality outcome in a just society. They are closely related to the concepts of negative rights and positive rights.
Equality of opportunity means that every person is afforded the same access to a benefit as every other person. Equality of outcome means that every person actually receives the same benefit as everyone else.
For example, equality of opportunity would exist in a raffle for a cake in which each person received one raffle ticket. However, this would not provide equality of outcome, because in the end one person would have cake and everyone else would have none. Equality of outcome would be when the cake is divided into equal slices, apportioned to each person.
The legal consequences of this dichotomy relate to the role of the government. Traditionally, the government is thought to ensure equality of opportunity by its inaction -- through "negative rights", such as allowing everyone to speak freely, practice their religion, and keep their property safe from the government, irrespective of whether they are a member of a group that might be favored or disfavored. Likewise, the government is thought to ensure equalty of outcome through its action -- such as the creation of social welfare programs for the poor, affirmative action for certain minorities, etc.
Equality of opportunity and outcome are themselves somewhat open to interpretation -- equality of opportunity is sometimes derrided with the joke that "X is a free country, in which every man, rich or poor, has the right to buy an elephant". Obviously, the poor man cannot exercise this so-called "right". Similarly, in the cake example, above, one could argue whether an equal-sized slice is the "outcome" or whether those who are hungier should get larger slices, so that in the end everyone is equally sated.
Philsopher John Rawls created a thought experiment for evaluating societal outcomes such as the competing equality models called the veil of ignorance. In this experiment, Rawls imagined that the future citizens of a society did not know in advance what their situation would be (rich or poor, male or female, handicapped or able-bodied, etc.). Rawls speculated that behind this "veil of ignorance" rational people would choose to set up society so that the least well-off person was as well-off as possible. However "well-off" can be interpreted allong either dimension -- equalty or opportunity or equality of results.
From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.