Should states seek to promote equality of opportunity?

Word Count: 1438

Arguments about equality and justice are manifold and important, especially in a world in which the richest 10% consume 59% (World Bank Development Indicators 2008) and 1 billion people entered the 21st century unable to read or write. In this essay however, I will be focusing specifically on equality of opportunity within a state, and more on the theoretical arguments rather than the practical. I will argue that states should indeed seek to promote equality of opportunity, in terms of a base line of opportunity below which no person should fall, but that absolute equality of opportunity is unenforceable, unjust and inherently impossible. I will also briefly look at the concept of equality of outcome, and its relationship to equality of opportunity, arguing that it is an unlikely end result that cannot be forced upon the members of a state, and that it is in fact directly relational to equality of opportunity.

The concept of equality of opportunity can be reduced to the basic idea that one’s social standing is not preordained or predetermined as in a caste society, but achieved through some form of competition in which every member of society has an equal right to compete, on equal terms. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2002) This concept would seem to be admirable and sensible, however the problem comes when defining what exactly is meant by ‘equal terms’ and how indeed this competition will take place. I will now look at two problems we have with reaching the ‘equal terms of competition’ and then show why a base line of opportunity is the best solution when compared with absolute equality of opportunity.

A very basic problem comes when deciding what should be considered when measuring one’s equality. Humans possess many attributes, which may affect their lives to greater or lesser extents, and thus it is impossible to equalize every attribute for every person, as by equalizing one, we may cause inequality in others. A practical example of this would be the case of a blind man and a fully sighted man. The fact that they are born with different attributes will be considered later, however if society treats the two men equally in terms of giving them both the same amount of healthcare, they will not have the same outcome, as the blind man would need more healthcare. If on the other hand, the blind man is given healthcare proportionate to his needs, the two men are no longer being treated equally. The inequality would have been transferred from the sphere of “goods” to the sphere of “needs.” (Hoffman & Graham 2009: 61) Through this example we can see not only that equalizing one attribute will “deliver inequality on another” (Phillips 2004: 1), but also that even by applying equality of opportunity we cannot overcome natural factors such as disabilities or mental capacity.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The concept of equality must, according to Rawls’s ‘Theory of Justice’ (1993) be separated into formal equality and substantive equality. Formal equality is an idea that rules out discrimination on, for example, grounds of race, gender or political belief, as it causes desirable positions to be open to everyone. These positions will be filled relating to the skill level of the applicants, and how well they will perform their task, however it does not allow for any differences in past opportunities, or any barriers that some applicants may have overcome to reach their skill level. Substantive equality on the other hand holds that nothing over which a person has not had control should affect their likelihood of success. Those such as Rawls argue for substantive equality, but I believe that not only do the implications of this lead to a state in which people would essentially be punished or discriminated against if their parents were successful, but also is not the most effective means of running a state.

I will propose with reference to the ideas of Dworkin, Hayek and Nietzsche that what is most effective is the implementation of formal equality of opportunity combined with a basic level of equal “division of resources” (Dworkin 2000: 67) under which no one may fall. Rawls (1993: 73) wants to stop “excessive accumulation of property and wealth” but also believes that people should not be rewarded or gain from their native abilities (1993: 104). These two ideas imply not only massive taxation of the rich, but discrimination against those who work hard, and the creation of a society where there is no incentive to fulfill one’s intelligence or work especially hard. Since it is impossible to make someone less intelligent, and people have different capacities, there will always be differences in levels of talent or aptitude for a specific task, and thus to achieve Rawls’ ‘just’ system the only option would be to somehow reward those who have less ability. Nietzsche (1989: 48) described his distaste of the idea of a society in which everyone is equal, saying

“The doctrine of equality! There is no more poisonous poison anywhere: for it seems to be preached by justice itself, whereas it really is the termination of justice. "Equal to the equal, unequal to the unequal.”

Ronald Dworkin, who can be called a resourcist in that he “argues against equalizing welfare and for equalizing resources” (Hoffman and Graham 2008: 75), describes a much fairer system and uses the “hypothetical auction”, “hypothetical insurance” and the “envy test” (2000: 67- 94). In these hypothetical scenarios Dworkin imagines a group of people all starting in equal situations (in terms if means and resources) and then auctioning off all goods in society, so everyone gets a “bundle” they are satisfied with and which passes the “envy test” meaning they do not envy anyone else’s “bundle”. Dworkin then brings in the fact that of course everyone does not start with the same resources, and he appreciates the large part luck has to play in life, using the example of a smoker and a non-smoker getting lung cancer – one has been a victim of bad luck, the other taken a gamble which hasn’t been successful. (Dworkin 2000:74-75) To take into account this element of luck in people’s lives Dworkin introduces the “hypothetical insurance” scenario, which sees people knowing and then placing a worth on their talents whilst not actually knowing the outcome. Dworkin shows, using the example of JK Rowling, that people are better off taking out a cheaper policy, and once the ideal policy has been found this is the amount that should, in reality be transferred from the rich upper classes to the poor. (Dworkin 2000: 94-980 In essence, Dworkin is advocating a system whereby there is some amount of redistribution to make up for bad luck in life and bad luck in terms of what one is born with, but only to a specific level, or base-line. Friedrich Hayek, also believes it is impossible to try to impose equality of opportunity as the “spontaneous social order” (Hayek 1973: 88) that springs from the free market will not and can not be successfully overthrown. Hayek’s ideas also lead on to my final point, briefly looking at equality of outcome.

Some such as Anne Phillips sees equality of outcome as an ideal end result in some spheres of life (specifically the representation of females in Parliament (Phillips 2004: 8), but it is not a principle that can be applied to everything. True equality of outcome implies the removal of “individual choice...and responsibility” (Hoffman and Graham 2008: 72). It is a distinctly illiberal principle and even if not looking at the prescriptive nature of equality of opportunity, it would have a negative effect on society, as shown by Hayek who remarks, “the rich are a vanguard of socially useful change” (Hayek 1973: 88).

In conclusion, whilst neither total equality of opportunity or equality of outcome are possible, there is a middle ground which uses principles of equality of opportunity to set a lowest level of outcome below which nobody may fail. Equality of opportunity in terms of resources such as education are extremely positive when there is a base level of education which everyone receives, but there is also freedom of choice to pursue other means of education which may take one higher than this bottom level. Andrew Mason (2006: 2) describes the “metocratic ideal of equality of opportunity” as “fair access to qualifications” which in turn will lead to what is my ideal situation. A society in which two people from wildly different backgrounds (in terms of wealth and upbringing) who have the same will to work and native intelligence should and must have the same equality of opportunity and prospects.

Bibliography

Dworkin, R. (2000) Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality, London and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Hoffman, J. and Graham P. (2006) Introduction to Political Concepts, Chapter 3: Equality, Harlow: Pearson Education, pp. 58-78

Hayek, F.A. (1973) Law, Legislation and Liberty, London: Routledge

Mason, A. (2006) Levelling the Playing Field, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Nietzche, F. (1998) Twilight of The Idols (translated by Duncan Large), Oxford: Oxford University Press

Phillips, A. (2004), ‘Defending Equality of Outcome’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 12:1, pp1-19

Rawls, J. (1993[1972]) A Theory of Justice, Oxford: Clarendon Press

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2002) ‘Equality of Opportunity’, available at , accessed 20/01/10

World Bank Development Indicators (2008), available at ,

accessed 20/01/10

Should states seek to promote equality of opportunity?

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

Related Essays

Is equality essential to democracy?

What is Political Equality?

A Study of Nationalism and its relevance in Muslim States.

Does Rawls succeed in deriving his principles of justice from the condition...