4 ms·
Consider a multitude of people who are going to buy food at a fast food place, and they all have $10 to spend. They all have the same opportunity to buy food th
by ghufran_syed 4y ago
Consider a multitude of people who are going to buy food at a fast food place, and they all have $10 to spend. They all have the same opportunity to buy food there, but the outcomes (the actual items they buy) will likely be very different. If we then decide that "salads are good, meat is bad", then we can start to talk about "inequality of outcomes" with respect to salad eating. But is this really a problem? I would argue it's only a problem if we don't want humans exercising free will, and want to impose our "enlightened" views on them.
- Buttons840 4y agoI was thinking of "outcomes" in a broader, more meaningful sense. Yes, if one person orders a red bracelet, and another orders a blue bracelet, they both had the opportunity but got different color bracelets. Is that a different "outcome"? I guess so, but it's not quite what I was referring to in my question. To continue your example, I think the outcome of the people's meals would be how the meal makes them feel. This is a real outcome rather than the illustrative "salad good, meat bad" dimension you propose. The people who ordered healthy food feel more energetic, and thus they have more opportunities for several hours, because they have energy while their colleagues are bloated and lethargic. Their equal opportunity resulted in unequal outcomes, which resulted in unequal opportunity. So, I'm still seeking a desirable outcome (beyond red bracelet / blue bracelet, and "salad good, meat bad") which does not also increase opportunity. My original question remains.