Égalité is one of the three bastions upon which the French Revolution was fought. Equality as it’s better known in English. We hear it in the political discussion repeatedly to say the least. Recently the terms Equality of Opportunity and Equality of Outcome have dominated this discussion. So, what are they? Are they desirable for a society? How are they different? In this article I am going to try and differentiate between the two and explain why one of them is inherently better to pursue.
Most of the greatest strides forward made in the 20th century in terms of human rights were made with the goal of achieving Equality of Opportunity. Equal rights, giving the people an equal shot at doing what they wish in life. In the western world, these movements largely succeeded in achieving such equality before the law. In fact, in the west there are no rights that are exclusive to a particular group and exempt from another. (And I am not talking about abortion in this case). However, this is the crux of the
argument. Giving everyone equal rights does not mean that life is suddenly fair to everyone.
Proponents of Equality of Outcome are correct in pointing out that at any level of hierarchical structures there are inequalities and unfairness. For example, a rich person will obviously have more opportunities than a homeless person does even if they have the same rights. However, this is exactly what holds this philosophy back. By definition, equality of outcome looks at the equality of different groups at the outcome. So for example, how many men and women are working a particular profession. If it is not an even 50/50 split, there is no equality of outcome. This is problematic for two reasons. Firstly, there is an infinite number of demographics that one can split people in to. Therefore, instantly rendering equality of outcome impossible to achieve. Secondly, to even try and achieve that one must eliminate the most fundamental variable. Choice.
Equality of opportunity implies that two people, no matter what demographic they are a part of, have the ability to choose what profession they go into. But it does not eliminate the reality which is that some people would have it more or less difficult than others to go into whatever domain they wish to. Essentially everyone has a chance, but the chance can either be minimal or significant.
Trying to push Equality of outcome often fails as to achieve it you have to allow a government or company to impose very controlling nay tyrannical restrictions. The easiest professions to look at are
nursing or construction. Nursing is overwhelmingly female while construction is overwhelmingly male. Both males and female have the ability to go into both professions, but given their choice (equality of
opportunity) it does not produce equality of outcome (a 50/50 split).
In other words, to achieve either, you would need to eliminate the other. Therefore, one must ask which is better? Well to me it is rather simple. Give everyone a chance to make something of themselves or force everyone to stay within their boundaries to force equality of outcome. I would much rather stick with the former.
There is a deeply rooted philosophical aspect to this conversation as well. It’s the same old argument of group identity vs individual identity. To view group identity as more important is to reduce the individual to being a part of a demographic that is either in the majority or the minority. This is extremely problematic. That observation implies that if there is an inequality in outcome, there must be injustice between those groups, whatever they may be. So, morally one must eliminate that inequality so to be fair to the groups, NOT the individuals. Equality of outcome does not exist if one does not observe hierarchies as the difference between groups rather than individuals. It is the literal opposite of what a meritocratic nation should aim to achieve.
The appalling US doctrine of Affirmative Action is a manifestation of everything that can go wrong with the philosophy of groupthink and therefore equality of outcome policies. Affirmative Action is a policy
in the US that basically sets lower/higher criteria to be able to enrol in colleges based on RACE. For example, an Asian-American has a lower chance of getting into a college than an African-American has even if they have the same SAT scores. This discriminates heavily in two ways. It assumes that African-Americans need more help to enrol than Asian-Americans do. And that Asian-Americans have some
advantage based on their race. Privilege is the word used to describe this advantage. The basis is Race. Not the scores or the performances of those individuals. But the perceived unfairness that those groups
suffer. In essence it is a racist doctrine. It is the antithesis of judging people by the content of their character.
Conclusively, it is evident that one of these doctrines is more moral. Unfortunately, it is impossible to have fairness all around. One must accept that life is not fair. That is precisely what gives people who are
successful despite bad odds merit. This is what a meritocracy is supposed to promote. The ability to move up social hierarchies based on individual strides forward and not restrictions on others. And more
importantly, restrictions based on race.
This article was written by an independent writer whose views are not associated with The Third Eye. The Third Eye strives to be the student’s voice, and that entails giving them a platform to voice their opinions.