3 ms·

It's worth remembering this next time you hear someone say something along the lines of, "I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome". If peo

It's worth remembering this next time you hear someone say something along the lines of, "I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome". If people are indeed born with unequal abilities, then equality of opportunity is impossible.

2devnull 3y ago
You seem confused. If people are unequal then equality of outcome is impossible and not worth pursuing[1]. The only possible equality is equal opportunity which as you rightly point out isn’t really equal. But it’s the only possibility. Equality of outcome denies free will. [1] edit to clarify, I mean “not worth pursuing” past the point of equilibrium. We can improve equality of outcome to a point but then will hit a plateau. Pretending that plateau doesn’t exist is one of humanities biggest problems. It’s a costly lie that doesn’t serve anyone but certain professional groups.
- silverquiet 3y ago
  Here's my simplified way of thinking about equality at times - let's say you've worked hard all your life and have saved $2.5 million dollars - quite a nice sum. I just looked and Bill Gates stands at $128 billion. So 51,200 times more money. Do you think Bill Gates worked 51,200 times harder? Is he 51,200 times smarter? Better? Some level of inequality just seems inherently unjustifiable. I have no specific quarrel with Gates; insert any other filthy rich person and imagine it.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    Bill Gates has probably had 51200 times more impact on the world than me or other more average people. Do you disagree about that? Maybe I could have had that level of impact given the same circumstances, but probably I wouldn't, most people with his circumstances didn't. And most likely I would have stopped working the moment I had enough money, I never would have gone on to push for more and more, expand for ever greater impact, I'd be happy as a millionaire like most other people would and stop growing. People who continue working to expand their impact even when they don't need to are rare.
    - porkbeer 3y ago
      Expanding your area of impact, when it is no longer your technical domain, is to put it mildly, dangerous and often counterproductive.
    - silverquiet 3y ago
      I think Dennis Ritchie and Linus Torvalds have had a roughly similar impact upon the world with the benefit that I also consider it a positive impact.
  - 2devnull 3y ago
    “Some level of inequality just seems inherently unjustifiable.“ Define justifiable. I would agree with “unfair.” Life is not fair. Is life “justifiable” to you? In nature, there are predators and prey, is that “justifiable”? I like to simplify my thinking too, but your view seems inherently suppose almost superhuman discernment, that you (or other humans individually or collectively) can judge what is justified on a case by case basis without any concrete principals or criteria, and without bias! Doesn’t seem simple to me at all! How to distinguish the bill gateses from the other guys is a problem as old as civilization. There is more law and tax code written on this than you can ever hope to capture in your thinking. Ignoring policy and centuries of human knowledge isn’t “simple” as much as it is ignorance.
Manuel_D 3y ago
That's not what equality of opportunity is referring to. It's about removing barriers and discrimination that would lead someone with equal or greater abilities to do worse than someone else with the same or lower abilities. The phrase, "I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome" explicitly acknowledges that equality of opportunity will not yield equality of outcome. In part, because of the unequal distribution of talent that you point out.
rtkwe 3y ago
The use of equality of opportunity there is about making sure a kid has the chance to perform as well as they can regardless of where they happen to be born and the socioeconomic status of their parents because today where you're born has a lot to do with how good of a school you get into unless your parents are well off enough to go private or have the time and energy to get you into a magnet/charter program that can bypass the geographic destiny of property and income tax levels.
ahartmetz 3y ago
Equality of opportunity means in a strict sense external factors, in an even stricter sense things that can be changed by policy. Otherwise, it would be asking for all people to be born with the same mental processing potential. Which is absurd, which I guess is your point. But it isn't that absurd if you define opportunity as "things society can actually do for the individual".
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

2devnull 3y ago

You seem confused. If people are unequal then equality of outcome is impossible and not worth pursuing[1]. The only possible equality is equal opportunity which as you rightly point out isn’t really equal. But it’s the only possibility. Equality of outcome denies free will. [1] edit to clarify, I mean “not worth pursuing” past the point of equilibrium. We can improve equality of outcome to a point but then will hit a plateau. Pretending that plateau doesn’t exist is one of humanities biggest problems. It’s a costly lie that doesn’t serve anyone but certain professional groups.

silverquiet 3y ago
Here's my simplified way of thinking about equality at times - let's say you've worked hard all your life and have saved $2.5 million dollars - quite a nice sum. I just looked and Bill Gates stands at $128 billion. So 51,200 times more money. Do you think Bill Gates worked 51,200 times harder? Is he 51,200 times smarter? Better? Some level of inequality just seems inherently unjustifiable. I have no specific quarrel with Gates; insert any other filthy rich person and imagine it.
- Jensson 3y ago
  Bill Gates has probably had 51200 times more impact on the world than me or other more average people. Do you disagree about that? Maybe I could have had that level of impact given the same circumstances, but probably I wouldn't, most people with his circumstances didn't. And most likely I would have stopped working the moment I had enough money, I never would have gone on to push for more and more, expand for ever greater impact, I'd be happy as a millionaire like most other people would and stop growing. People who continue working to expand their impact even when they don't need to are rare.
  - porkbeer 3y ago
    Expanding your area of impact, when it is no longer your technical domain, is to put it mildly, dangerous and often counterproductive.
  - silverquiet 3y ago
    I think Dennis Ritchie and Linus Torvalds have had a roughly similar impact upon the world with the benefit that I also consider it a positive impact.
- 2devnull 3y ago
  “Some level of inequality just seems inherently unjustifiable.“ Define justifiable. I would agree with “unfair.” Life is not fair. Is life “justifiable” to you? In nature, there are predators and prey, is that “justifiable”? I like to simplify my thinking too, but your view seems inherently suppose almost superhuman discernment, that you (or other humans individually or collectively) can judge what is justified on a case by case basis without any concrete principals or criteria, and without bias! Doesn’t seem simple to me at all! How to distinguish the bill gateses from the other guys is a problem as old as civilization. There is more law and tax code written on this than you can ever hope to capture in your thinking. Ignoring policy and centuries of human knowledge isn’t “simple” as much as it is ignorance.

Manuel_D 3y ago

That's not what equality of opportunity is referring to. It's about removing barriers and discrimination that would lead someone with equal or greater abilities to do worse than someone else with the same or lower abilities. The phrase, "I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome" explicitly acknowledges that equality of opportunity will not yield equality of outcome. In part, because of the unequal distribution of talent that you point out.

rtkwe 3y ago

The use of equality of opportunity there is about making sure a kid has the chance to perform as well as they can regardless of where they happen to be born and the socioeconomic status of their parents because today where you're born has a lot to do with how good of a school you get into unless your parents are well off enough to go private or have the time and energy to get you into a magnet/charter program that can bypass the geographic destiny of property and income tax levels.

ahartmetz 3y ago

Equality of opportunity means in a strict sense external factors, in an even stricter sense things that can be changed by policy. Otherwise, it would be asking for all people to be born with the same mental processing potential. Which is absurd, which I guess is your point. But it isn't that absurd if you define opportunity as "things society can actually do for the individual".

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]