Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Equality of Outcome vs Equality of Opportunity
Equality of Outcome
is better than
Equality of Opportunity
Equality of outcome should be prioritized over equality of opportunity to decrease the risk of violence and conflict (see
Since everybody is born equal, the state should ensure that all citizens have equal outcomes.
Current economic systems could create substantially more equality of outcome without being significantly detrimental to equality of opportunity.
If the state ensured all individuals had equality of outcome, people would be free do what they love the most with their time.
Inequality of outcome breeds inequality of opportunity.
In a society with unequal outcomes, the poor will suffer
than other groups from illness.
No one believes or expects literal equality of outcomes -- people are different, so the same outcome could not make everyone happy. What we should strive for is equality of fairness of outcomes.
Achieving equal outcomes for all citizens contravenes rewarding people based on the merit of their contribution.
The main goal of any society should be to ensure that individuals have material security and that they live fulfilling lives. It is not necessary for society to focus on achieving 'equality of outcome' in order to achieve this goal.
Equality of outcome is possible only if the state violates the property rights of its citizens. This is unacceptable. Citizens should expect the state to protect their rights.
When societies try to achieve equality of outcome for their citizens, the citizens end up suffering.
Objectively defining, measuring or achieving equality of outcome is impossible.
Should everyone's wealth and income information be publicly available?
Does Feminism Strive For Equality?
Should The 'Poor' Be A Protected Equality Group?