Equality of Opportunity
the principle of creating such conditions that everyone has the same or similar start, and the outcome depends on individual ability.
Equality of Outcome
the principle of creating such conditions that everyone achieves the same or similar outcome.
Equality of outcome sounds like a fair and just principle: eliminate unfairness and inequality so that everyone can benefit. Right? Well, let's test this in a theoretical exercise.
Take, for example, the 100 meter sprint in Athletics. What would these two principles look like when applied to a clean, streamlined form of direct competition?
- Equality of Opportunity: all runners are lined up in the most fair way possible. The rules and conditions apply the same for everyone. Regulations are in place to try and minimize the possibility of cheating. There is no interference during the race.
CONSEQUENCES: The record time is the fastest a human can achieve, and it becomes a benchmark for future progress. Improved performances and better achievements are heavily encouraged.
- Equality of Outcome: Starting positions, rules and conditions, regulations and refereeing are put in place in such a way that faster runners are held back to give a chance to slower runners to catch up.
CONSEQUENCES: The record time depends on the slower runners, and serves no purpose since winning is heavily discouraged.
Which one sounds like the better idea? An environment that fosters achievement and in which the best performance is rewarded, or an environment in which the best are discouraged, and the worst receive more than they objectively deserve?
IS THIS A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT?
In my opinion, it is not. The example with sprinters is merely an illustrative exercise of the principle. It serves the purpose of showing the core idea in a streamlined fashion. This does not make it irrelevant, fallacious or dishonest.
A sports discipline like the 100m sprint is the purest form of competition. While competition for jobs and salary, business opportunities, education, prestige, academic and scientific achievements, intimate partnership, etc. are much less streamlined, with a significantly wider variety in starting and ongoing conditions, rules and regulations, interactions, and so on, the underlying principle is not different.
In all of these cases the core premise is identical: a combination of cooperation and competition based on a certain set of individual abilities, opportunities, restrictions, obligations, conditions, rules, and purpose.
What is the difference between holding back a faster runner to stop her from gaining distance on the slower ones, and holding back a more talented and hardworking surgeon to stop her from gaining more money and prestige than the less competent and the lazier ones?
EQUALITY OF OUTCOME COUNTERS OPPRESSION, INJUSTICE, INEQUALITY
This argument is dishonest, which distracts from the fact that it makes no sense. A system based on Equality of Outcome discriminates heavily and does serious injustice to all people who fulfill two criteria: 1. they are honest, trustworthy and ethical (do not belong to the group that oppresses or does injustice); and 2. they are significantly more talented, hard-working, and driven than average. By ensuring that everyone achieves the same outcome, the system has to ensure that no one achieves more, and that includes people who perform better and do so purely on personal merit.
In other words, it's a system that discriminates against the very best humanity can offer.
The bottom line is this: if a principle looks stupid in theory, it's probably not a good idea in reality.
