I shall spare you from long paragraphs. This is a simple question, should one value
Equality of Opportunity by Law over
Equality of Outcome by Law, or
Equality of Outcome by Law over
Equality of Opportunity by Law.DEFINITION:
Equality of Opportunity by Law - The assurance to individuals that they hold the freedoms to pursue a life they deem fulfilled regardless of social or economic disparities. (The government does not provide a platform for you to compete 'fairly', but rather there will be no laws that
forbid you from pursuing a fulfilled life)
Key: I used forbid, not hamper, for there will be obstacles varying in size for each individual on the basis of race, class, community, family, wealth
Equality of Outcome by Law - The assurance that there is an equal material wealth and income, or there be general economic conditions of peoples lives that are alike (Usually platformed by a centralized government)
If you disagree with such definitions, please feels free to debate within the context of your own definitions of these two terms (As long as you state your own specified definition within your rebuttals.
Enjoy!
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
My stance is that equality of the outcome must only be assured legally up to the level that allows the person to use the equality of opportunity to start consistently generating wealth. Beyond it, it should be up to the person to use the equality of opportunity to achieve the desired outcome.
In this particular case, I see nothing wrong with guaranteeing everyone a permanent housing (homeless shelters serve that purpose to an extent), or removing the necessity to provide the address of residence when registering a business company for those individuals who do not have such address. When the opportunity is guaranteed and the fisher can open his fish selling business, then achieving the outcome is on his shoulders.
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
In your example of the fisherman, equal outcome would mean any fisherman who starts a business has the same outcome. They don't because they make different choices with their business. Everyone makes different choices. Different choices means different outcomes. Everyone has the opportunity, but their choices could start or ruin a business. Depends on the choice.
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
We have equal opportunity now but my last job the owners would NEVER higher black people. The owner taught me the N word in a foreign language, saying it very casually while watching soccer with me. Their son admits that he, and his father are both racist. Even when a black person applied that was going to an ivy league college, they wouldn't hire him. This is illegal, but impossible to prove that it was because of how race. So even though he had equal opportunity by law, he didn't have equal opportunity socially. I understand this falls under the category of social desparigies, but let's say a majority of businesses acted the same way. Do they really have equal opportunity then?
I think equal opportunity needs to take more into account that just laws. However, I don't believe equal outcome is the answer to this issue either. I just don't think equal opportunity is enough to believe that everything is ok and fair. Things can still be unfair with legel equal opportunity, but I'm not saying equal outcome is the way to make things fair.
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra