The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! Equality of Opportunity by Law vs Equality of Outcome by Lawin Politics

Marcus_Antonius

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!

MayCaesar

I do not think these two are mutually independent; in fact, one cannot exist without the other. Consider a person who starts out as a homeless fisher living in the wilds. The fisher wants to organize a fishing business, but he does not even have the address of residence, hence he cannot register his company. The opportunity to do business is intrinsically connected to a certain outcome: having a roof above one's head.

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.

LogicVault

@MayCaesar
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.

WordsMatter

I wish equal opportunity was the way things could work, but sadly humans just can't function that way. O struggle with something similar to this daily and can't find an answer for myself. My struggle is I believe every single person should be able to say anything they want, as long as they don't hurt others. So I believe the KKK should be allowed to say terrible things about other races as long as they don't use any violence. However the issue I can't get over is that if everyone in the society became a part of the KKK then black people are essentially excluded from all of society even though there aren't any laws to force them to be excluded. 

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.