Equality, and equality of opportunity compared with equality of outcome

Introduction

Equality means that all human beings have equal worth and deserve equal respect. The question asks for a definition of the term and an explanation of two ways in which it is pursued.

Meaning of equality

As a political ideal equality means that all human beings have equal worth regardless of colour, gender, race or nationality, and deserve equal consideration and respect because of their common humanity. That does not mean identical treatment in every respect: society divides work and functions, and differences of status or reward that follow from it may be acceptable, as long as privileges are not misused. What the ideal rules out is treatment or opportunity that is pre-determined by birth or social circumstance, such as religion, race, caste or gender. A distinction is often drawn between natural inequalities (of talent and capability) and socially produced ones (from unequal opportunity or exploitation); but the line is not always clear, since inequalities long in place were often defended as natural (women as the weaker sex, black people as inferior) and have since been seen as products of power. Many theorists therefore prefer to distinguish inequalities that arise from our choices from those that arise from the family or circumstances into which we are born, and it is the latter that advocates of equality want to reduce.

Equality of opportunity

Equality of opportunity does not ask that everyone should end up with the same status, income or standing. Its test is whether people have fair access to the goods on which a decent life is built, such as a safe home, medical care and schooling, because it is unequal access to these, rather than unequal wealth or rank as such, that makes a society unequal and unjust. Once that access is secured, different results are to be expected: people choose different paths and bring different abilities and effort to them, so a school class that produces one Olympic shooter, one start-up founder and many people in ordinary jobs shows no unfairness on that count alone. Behind the idea lies a claim that every person holds simply as a human being: an equal right, and an equal chance, to develop one's abilities and to pursue the goals one sets.

Formal and substantive. Formal (legal) equality of opportunity removes legal barriers: nobody is excluded by law from an office or a school because of birth, caste or sex. Substantive or fair equality of opportunity goes further, because a race with open entry can still be unfair if some runners start far behind. Think of a girl whose village school has one teacher for five classes and who works on the family farm after school, set beside a city child with books at home and a quiet room to study in: the law treats them alike, but their chances are not alike, and those from deprived groups need some special help if they are to compete fairly. The substantive view therefore asks the state to soften the effects of social and economic inequality and to secure certain minimum conditions of life for everyone; a society that fails to do so loses much of the talent born into it. Liberals add a qualification. State action to secure a minimum standard of living and equal opportunities may be needed, they accept, but it cannot by itself produce equality and justice; what shares out rewards, jobs and college places most fairly and efficiently is open competition held under free and fair conditions. On this view a bank that recruits its officers through one written test, open to every graduate and run under the same rules for all, distributes its jobs fairly, and the result is left to each candidate's ability and effort.

Difficulties. (a) Equality of opportunity cannot be perfect so long as family background, caste and wealth differ; (b) differential treatment aimed at it, such as reservations, raises disputes about fairness to others; (c) critics say that a ladder of competition can still leave those at the bottom badly off, which leads to demands for a "social minimum" or equality of outcome.

Equality of outcome

Equality of outcome (or of result) asks that rewards such as income, wealth and other social goods be shared equally, whatever people's backgrounds, talents or efforts. Socialists, communists and anarchists, IGNOU notes, treat equality of income as the most vital form of equality. Marx's own goal was different: he set common ownership of productive resources against equal or more equal private property, and held that full social equality needs the abolition of private property, however evenly it is spread. Marxists and socialists also hold that economic inequality supports other forms of inequality, so that public control of key resources is needed. Equality of outcome differs from equality of opportunity, which only requires fair chances to compete and accepts unequal results from fair competition.

Arguments for. Opportunities cannot really be equal where family wealth passes down the generations; entrenched inequality divides society and breeds resentment; and some material equality is a condition of real liberty, since legal and civil rights mean little to a person with no job or home.

Arguments against. It overrides individual effort and choice, weakens incentives, and can only be maintained by heavy intervention in people's lives; critics say its pursuit ends in stagnation, injustice and even tyranny. Liberals therefore prefer to leave rewards to free and fair competition.

Middle positions. Most democracies adopt neither pole: they pursue equal opportunity together with a minimum of living conditions for everyone. Rawls's difference principle allows inequalities only if they work to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, which is neither equality of outcome nor mere equality of opportunity.

Difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome

Conclusion

Equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are different ideas of what the ideal demands. Most societies adopt a mixture: equal opportunity as the base, with enough redistribution and basic provision to keep inequalities from becoming entrenched.