Equality of Opportunity and what exactly differentiates it from the Equality of Outcome.
Richard Arneson, an American political philosopher believes that “When equality of opportunity prevails, the assignment of places in the hierarchy is determined by some form of competitive process, and all members of society are eligible to compete on equal terms.”
Equality of opportunity refers to fairness of processes through which individuals can compete on equal terms, and there is no discrimination in particular outcomes such as educational or professional goals based on caste, creed, religion, sex, or place of birth. I believe that equality of opportunity is undesirable, and that equality of outcome varies from equality of opportunity. Thus, it is not a fair way to decipher who deserves what.
In my opinion, equality of opportunity is neither comprehensible nor desirable as it creates a stricter life for the people on top, when its aim should be making it easier for the people at bottom to rise. Good Will Hunting, a movie based on inequality, portrays the title character Will and his friend Chuckie (played by Ben Affleck) working menial jobs their entire lives as they were born in the working class. Will, due his genetic fluke of being a mathematical prodigy escapes poverty, leaving Chuckie behind to work multiple jobs. Equality of opportunity abandons people like Chuckie and promises to help people like Will. Good Will Hunting is a romanticisation of the ideology that a large chunk of people’s success is determined by genetic variations (Matthews, 2015). This reflects the concept of equality of opportunity being defined in opposition to equality of outcomes.
A simple way to distinguish equality of opportunity from equality of outcome is by saying that equality of opportunity in a sense provides that all start the race at the same time. Equality of outcome assures that everyone finishes at the same time (Werdmüller, 2018). Equality of outcome requires individuals to have the same share of goods. This is not possible as everyone is unequal when their strengths and weaknesses are considered (Kiff, 2009). Highlighting the importance of outcomes, equality of outcome can only be considered when a group of people belonging to the same economical class possess equal amounts of wealth which absolutely contradicts the idea of equality of opportunity which proves they do not go together. The real possibility of reaching a goal should be considered in a competitive situation with well-defined ending lines for everyone participating in that race which would further help to recognize the varying degrees of opportunities.
Moving on, when we talk about who deserves what, equality of opportunity establishes a major gap between the deserving and the undeserving (Mill ,2021). For example, a student who has undergone the troubles of getting a high school diploma for a college degree should not be anyhow devalued. This could happen if there are job opportunities created for students without these degrees. Another way to look at it is, that there will be inefficiency faced by people who are granted equal opportunities if they are not qualified enough for the field. To simplify, only if a person is fluent, he or she has a wide range of opportunities available. due This diversity leads to the recognition of inadequacy and inequality. In addition, just because these inequalities emerge solemnly from an individual’s hard work and talent does not mean that they are sustainable. This intake leads to a whole new problem altogether. Isn’t a person’s talent as groundless as their race, class, or gender? Is that not an inaccurate way of measuring a person’s source of inequality? In my opinion, it would be a struggle to determine what we deserve if we lived in a community where each one of us has the same starting pointing.
In conclusion, equality of opportunity is detrimental as it establishes disparity, equality of outcome differs from equality of opportunity and leads to unbiasedness.
