Scribd
Upload
5 views3 pages

Unit2 Part2

The document discusses two main concepts of equality: equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. It distinguishes between conventional and radical equality of opportunity, highlighting the debates surrounding fair competition and redistributive measures. Additionally, it critiques equality of outcome for potentially stifling innovation and presents various philosophical perspectives on justice and fairness, including luck egalitarianism and democratic equality.

Uploaded by

hpking052
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
5 views3 pages

Unit2 Part2

The document discusses two main concepts of equality: equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. It distinguishes between conventional and radical equality of opportunity, highlighting the debates surrounding fair competition and redistributive measures. Additionally, it critiques equality of outcome for potentially stifling innovation and presents various philosophical perspectives on justice and fairness, including luck egalitarianism and democratic equality.

Uploaded by

hpking052
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Unit 2 – Part 2: Equality of Opportunity & Equality of

Outcome

Equality of Opportunity

Equality of opportunity is a central concept in political theory, referring to a


condition where individuals have comparable chances to pursue life plans.
Philosophers distinguish between conventional (formal) and radical
(substantive) equality of opportunity.

Conventional Equality of Opportunity

This version of equality of opportunity focuses on removing formal barriers


such as discrimination based on gender, race, caste, or religion. It emphasizes
that irrelevant factors—like family background—should not influence one’s
ability to compete for jobs or education.

Radical Equality of Opportunity

Radical equality of opportunity demands the equalization of deeper structural


factors, including family wealth, social upbringing, and natural talents. It
argues that fair competition requires correcting morally arbitrary advantages
that arise from birth.

Rawls and Equality of Opportunity

Rawls distinguishes between fair equality of opportunity and the difference


principle. Fair equality of opportunity requires that individuals with similar
abilities should have similar life chances regardless of their socio-economic
background.

Libertarian Critique
Libertarians like Nozick argue that redistributive measures violate individual
liberty. They hold that individuals are entitled to their talents and earnings,
and redistributive policies unjustly interfere with self-ownership.

Equality of Outcome

Equality of outcome refers to minimizing disparities in the actual distribution


of income, wealth, or other benefits. Supporters argue that equal outcomes
promote social cohesion and reduce the harms caused by structural injustice.

Critiques of Equality of Outcome

Critics argue that strict equality of outcome can stifle innovation and
economic progress, as differential rewards are necessary to incentivize
productivity. They also argue that enforcing equal outcomes disregards
individual autonomy and choice.

Background Inequalities & Moral Arbitrariness

Egalitarian theorists argue that many inequalities arise from morally arbitrary
factors such as birth, race, and gender. Correcting these requires redistributive
mechanisms that promote fairness without undermining freedom.

Cohen and Luck Egalitarianism

G. A. Cohen argues that justice requires neutralizing inequalities arising from


brute luck while allowing inequalities resulting from responsible choice. This
view focuses on personal responsibility as a basis for evaluating fairness.

Anderson’s Critique of Luck Egalitarianism


Elizabeth Anderson criticizes luck egalitarianism for being overly moralizing.
She argues that its focus on compensating for bad luck can stigmatize
individuals. Instead, she proposes democratic equality, which emphasizes
relationships of equality among citizens.

You might also like