Equal Opportunity vs. Equal Results (what's the right way towards Equality?)

[McLaren]

Those are just a few reasons...
But it basicly boils down to: the USA is currently the biggest threat to worldpeace...

I remember the last time I read this. The same article revealed the US was also voted the place most foreigners would like to move to if they could. Funny that.

The pollsters also asked, “If there were no barriers to living in any country of the world, which country would you like to live in?” Some countries where the U.S.-as-greatest-threat view holds strong are also those where America would be a prized destination as a new home country.

 

[ryzno]

What nation is spreading over Europe? You've rather lost me.

I'll jump on a limb an say America or

meurica

as he likes to call us.

Did a google search for lolz, results are interesting. In Indonesia it means pepper spice...
Found a bunch of Youtube videos I don't understand too. Don't know if they like us or hate us, did't bother to watch them...

 

[HenrySwanson]

Continuing from another thread:

Equality of outcome should not be the goal of the government.

Shouldn't they strive to give everyone a fair shot?

Take for instance the recent controversy about providing food vouchers for children during the school holidays. The U-turn the government made was likely due in part to a prominent footballer's open letter to MPs. The Guardian had a piece on him that also discussed his beliefs:

Food poverty is a subject close to his heart. Rashford, a boyhood United fan who grew up in nearby Wythenshawe, has not lost touch with his roots. He remembers his mother working for the minimum wage and has said he would not have become an England player if he had not had free school meals when he was younger. “Without the kindness and generosity from the community there wouldn’t be the Marcus Rashford you see today: a 22-year-old black man lucky enough to make a career playing the game I love,” he wrote in an open letter to MPs this week.

We know malnutrition can affect development, both physically and mentally. If we want all children to grow up and have the same opportunity to succeed as an adult, isn't it the place of government to ensure there's a minimum standard in certain provisions?

 

[Dotini]

"the pattern is clear: Communities of color are being hit disproportionately hard by COVID-19."
https://www.npr.org/sections/health...s-racial-disparities-look-like-state-by-state

This is not equal results, but neither is it equal opportunity.

 

[Vegard]

Shouldn't they strive to give everyone a fair shot?

That's equality of opportunity, not outcome.

 

[Dotini]

In my opinion, if success is not attained, then that's inequality of opportunity. In the US, failure should not be an option, it should never be the default.

 

[HenrySwanson]

That's equality of opportunity, not outcome.

Yeah that's what I was saying the government should aim for.

 

[VBR]

You can tell when the left has gone too far when they start talking about equality of outcome...

Watch from 3:27 to 6:35.

 

[mustafur]

You can tell when the left has gone too far when they start talking about equality of outcome...

Watch from 3:27 to 6:35.

What is "the left"?

 

[Dotini]

I say the government should look for success. That's outcome.

 

[Danoff]

Shouldn't they strive to give everyone a fair shot?

Take for instance the recent controversy about providing food vouchers for children during the school holidays. The U-turn the government made was likely due in part to a prominent footballer's open letter to MPs. The Guardian had a piece on him that also discussed his beliefs:

Food poverty is a subject close to his heart. Rashford, a boyhood United fan who grew up in nearby Wythenshawe, has not lost touch with his roots. He remembers his mother working for the minimum wage and has said he would not have become an England player if he had not had free school meals when he was younger. “Without the kindness and generosity from the community there wouldn’t be the Marcus Rashford you see today: a 22-year-old black man lucky enough to make a career playing the game I love,” he wrote in an open letter to MPs this week.

We know malnutrition can affect development, both physically and mentally. If we want all children to grow up and have the same opportunity to succeed as an adult, isn't it the place of government to ensure there's a minimum standard in certain provisions?

Yeah that's what I was saying the government should aim for.

Which... equality of outcome or opportunity?

Neither equality of outcome or opportunity is possible, and equality of opportunity is not even particularly desirable given our currently level of technology. Maybe in the future equality of opportunity will be possible. Equality of outcome is basically immoral (maybe not technically, but practically speaking it will necessarily be).

Children are entitled to a minimum level of care, including a minimum level of nutrition. If children are not being properly fed, they're being neglected by their caregivers, who are demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to care for them. You're not entitled to care for a child. And if you can't do it, you shouldn't.

Now it might be preferable to have programs that enable those minimum standards to be met while keeping families intact... it might be preferable. It is not always preferable. That's a discussion that can be had for sure. But the bottom line is that everyone is entitled to a "fair shot". The fair shot being the minimum level of care that children must receive before they are considered neglected or abused by their caregivers.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Which... equality of outcome or opportunity?

Neither equality of outcome or opportunity is possible, and equality of opportunity is not even particularly desirable given our currently level of technology. Maybe in the future equality of opportunity will be possible. Equality of outcome is basically immoral (maybe not technically, but practically speaking it will necessarily be).

Children are entitled to a minimum level of care, including a minimum level of nutrition. If children are not being properly fed, they're being neglected by their caregivers, who are demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to care for them. You're not entitled to care for a child. And if you can't do it, you shouldn't.

Now it might be preferable to have programs that enable those minimum standards to be met while keeping families intact... it might be preferable. It is not always preferable. That's a discussion that can be had for sure. But the bottom line is that everyone is entitled to a "fair shot". The fair shot being the minimum level of care that children must receive before they are considered neglected or abused by their caregivers.

Hmmmm.

I'd say their aim should be to minimise the gaps in opportunity without being punitive to those in better off positions.

 

[Danoff]

Hmmmm.

I'd say their aim should be to minimise the gaps in opportunity without being punitive to those in better off positions.

What do you mean "gaps". You mean differences?

In terms of opportunity, having loving parents is one of the most important things. You're concerned about money, you're all so obsessed with money, it's not nearly as important as so many of you seem to think. You can be outwardly successful, pay your bills, own a nice car, live in luxury, and be suicidal. If you have none of those things but you had loving parents and learned how to develop and regulate your emotional connections with other people, you can be far happier. Parents who fail to love can seriously hamper their children.

So how would you say we should address love "gaps"? Having a private tutor, a nutritional coach, a personal trainer, an elite school, fancy clothes, none of it matters like having a healthy emotional connection.

You're entitled to a minimum level of clothing, food, education, shelter, and interaction provided by your caregivers as a child. If they cannot or will not provide it, they are not suitable caregivers.

 

[HenrySwanson]

What do you mean "gaps". You mean differences?

In terms of opportunity, having loving parents is one of the most important things. You're concerned about money, you're all so obsessed with money, it's not nearly as important as so many of you seem to think. You can be outwardly successful, pay your bills, own a nice car, live in luxury, and be suicidal. If you have none of those things but you had loving parents and learned how to develop and regulate your emotional connections with other people, you can be far happier. Parents who fail to love can seriously hamper their children.

So how would you say we should address love "gaps"? Having a private tutor, a nutritional coach, a personal trainer, an elite school, fancy clothes, none of it matters like having a healthy emotional connection.

You're entitled to a minimum level of clothing, food, education, shelter, and interaction provided by your caregivers as a child. If they cannot or will not provide it, they are not suitable caregivers.

But what if we control for "loving parents" since, as you rightly say, government can't address that. How can we reduce the difference in those making it into, say, medical school when looking at ethnic groups? Should that be a goal of government?

EDIT: I realise that is looking at an outcome, but I'm not sure how else we could measure the success of giving a fair shot at the outcome without looking at those stats....

 

[Danoff]

But what if we control for "loving parents" since, as you rightly say, government can't address that. How can we reduce the difference in those making it into, say, medical school when looking at ethnic groups? Should that be a goal of government?

EDIT: I realise that is looking at an outcome, but I'm not sure how else we could measure the success of giving a fair shot at the outcome without looking at those stats....

I'm saying that "medical school" is not so important (scholarship would be the way to address that). I'm saying that the obsession with material accumulation and trying to level the playing field so that everyone can afford overpriced trinkets, not just the wealthy, is missing the deeper point of life. I'm saying that focusing on leveling the playing field for opportunity when it comes to finances is missing basically the entire picture. If basic needs are met, what goes beyond that is far less important than other things, things you can't control for, things which give kids a very unlevel playing field and which have nothing to do with money.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Wonder what thoughts are on this:

What if a single, cheap, easy-to-administer, and race-neutral policy could help close the country’s chasmic racial wealth gap in less than a generation?

 

[Danoff]

Wonder what thoughts are on this:

What if a single, cheap, easy-to-administer, and race-neutral policy could help close the country’s chasmic racial wealth gap in less than a generation?

My thoughts are that it's poorly written. It's also a bad idea.

 

[Dotini]

Wonder what thoughts are on this:

What if a single, cheap, easy-to-administer, and race-neutral policy could help close the country’s chasmic racial wealth gap in less than a generation?

Interesting. Baby bonds. It might succeed over the long term, but is the nation prepared to wait that long? Must the babies be legitimate?

 

[Danoff]

Must the babies be legitimate?

Seriously, where do you get this stuff? Do explain what a "legitimate" baby is.

 

[Dotini]

The first big chance to achieve either equal opportunity or equal outcomes came with the failure of Reconstruction after the Civil War. The 14th and 15th Amendments were but baby steps, as were the civil rights movement and civil rights legislation over the following century. As "someone" has said, it's perfectly fine to be a racist in your speech, in your mind and in your heart. No legislation will ever change that. IMHO, the current social unrest over racial injustice and police brutality are just as likely to make things as worse as they are to make things better. Equality will never be achieved under the current paradigm. IMHO it will only get worse under the prevailing economic and pandemic conditions. Equality can only be achieved with radical social changes for which we are totally unprepared.

 

[JoeDaSnow]

Equal oppurtunity is the way for me, nuff said.

 

[Dotini]

IMHO, with ~9 billion dependent humans on Earth with no known viable economic support for most, equal results is the only humane path forward. We need to drop all pretense of individualism and grow a "hive-mind" as well a hive economy.

 

[Danoff]

IMHO, with ~9 billion dependent humans on Earth with no known viable economic support for most, equal results is the only humane path forward. We need to drop all pretense of individualism and grow a "hive-mind" as well a hive economy.

Not enough overlords!

 

[Dotini]

One day I was examining the activities of an ant colony, and saw clear signs of altruism. I suspect somewhere there was a queen.

 

[Danoff]

One day I was examining the activities of an ant colony, and saw clear signs of altruism. I suspect somewhere there was a queen.

It's covered in The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Workers don't procreate. They protect the queen, who shares their genes and is capable of disseminating those genes. The genes protect the propagation of copies of themselves, even if it's across individual members of the species. Some birds do it too.