I think by the most deterministic view of human behavior everything boils down to inequalities of opportunity, but that may be a little reductive. I was lookin

I think by the most deterministic view of human behavior everything boils down to inequalities of opportunity, but that may be a little reductive. I was looking at this more in the Rawlsian sense of “everyone should have the same chances, such that if they had the same ability they could achieve the same thing.” I don’t think I (or most “meritocratic” societies) believe that social equalizers should completely eradicate differences in outcome that arise from innate differences in ability—but perhaps those differences should be somewhat reduced. Concretely: if the same person were born rich or poor, they should be able to achieve mostly the same things. But if the same person were born stupid (or lazy) or smart, it’s probably ok if there is some resultant difference in outcomes, as long as all outcomes support basic dignity and needs, right?