4 ms·
How exactly has equality of outcome been "proven to be doomed"? At the aggregate level, at least?
by djur 3y ago
How exactly has equality of outcome been "proven to be doomed"? At the aggregate level, at least?
- kneebonian 3y agoEquality of outcome is just a fancy way of saying tyranny. Freedom can only exist and only be freedom if you have the right to fail or succeed, if no one can fail or succeed because everyone is made the same there is no freedom, there is no choice. Those that advocate for equality of outcome desire to make again a slave state, where they as "superior educated white people" can ensure that black people are "taken care of" by ensuring they all have jobs, they all have housing, they all have healthcare, they all have food, and that they have no freedom.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dcow 3y agoEquality of outcome can only be enforced currently by a tyrannical government. It’s wholly doomed unless we can identify and correct for every hidden variable affecting outcomes.
- akomtu 3y agoIf the outcome doesn't depend on your actions, there's no point in doing anything. Such a lethargic society cannot function, so to push it into motion the ruler has to use force and cruelty. The people will do the work, not because they hope to get something, for the outcome is always the same - cheap food and 4 hours of sleep - but because they want to avoid punishment.
- wizofaus 3y agoI don't think anyone seriously suggests "equality of outcome" should mean "regardless of any actions/decisions you take in life". I would treat it as meaning "given two different large subsets of society that differ markedly/measurably on key indicators, there shouldn't be a difference in average outcomes between those born into one subset vs the other". Depending on the indicators/subsets in question that may well be a worthwhile & achievable goal. Particularly if the "outcomes" being measured go beyond just material wealth (e.g. health/wellbeing outcomes).
- akomtu 3y agoThis premise about large subsets falls apart when you apply it to maples and oaks, even less it's applicable to free willed creatures gifted with intelligence. If you see a difference between two subgroups, it means your understanding of why these groups are the way they are is lacking.
- djur 3y agoMaples and oaks are different species. Humans are all the same species.
- akomtu 3y agoMen and women are the same species, yet they are markedly different in many ways.
- wizofaus 3y agoI literally have no idea what you mean. But if we see that, for instance, average life expectancy is markedly lower for the subset of population that identifies as "native American" vs that of those that identify as "white", that's clearly an inequality of outcome that there's reason to be concerned about. Which isn't to say it mightn't turn out to have a genetic basis that leaves us with limited options to compensate for, but it's surely worth ensuring better understanding the causes and doing what we can to ensure there aren't systemic barriers preventing particular subgroups from accessing the same degree of medical care etc. available to others.
- f154hfds 3y agoOne issue is there's infinite metrics to measure outcome, and any measurement you choose will have certain groups excel in compared to others. Once we achieve equality in a certain metric we will always have new ones to work on essentially forever. This may be a good goal for people/institutions but it can't contribute to discrimination being indefinite in scope. Another issue is we're talking about group level outcomes here - which means we're already accepting that there will be biases in measurements, otherwise the group wouldn't be a 'group' (unless it's literally just skin color which is - a pretty arbitrary/racist way to group people all else being equal).