If the photography cost $100 and the fishing cost $20, both would have to be given $100 to allocate the same amount of money but the fisherman would be left with $80 after everything was paid for while the photographer would be broke. One might suggest giving $20 to the fisherman and $100 to the photographer, but Cohen notes that the question of "cost of taste" cannot be removed from this argument. The Cohen article is concluded by a talk about capabilities, not all that dissimilar from the Andreson offering, starting on page 941 (Cohen, 1989). Compare and Contrast

As for which author more clearly states the views of egalitarians, it is clear that Cohen had the better offering, at least to the author of this paper. The author of this paper holds this view because Cohen's depth in breadth in effectively eviscerating the ideas of everyone getting equal amounts of everything is simply genius while Anderson does much the same thing at a much higher level and a much lower level of detail.

Both authors, in their own ways, seem to advocate the "equity of opportunity" as opposed to the "equity of outcomes" argument while at the same time noting that access and bad luck can greatly impact the base chance of success that everyone has. For example, as noted by Anderson, some people are both into wealth and some are not. However, this is not to say that everyone should be eating filet mignon every day as the basic requirement of nutrition is the real condition and dimension...

The author of this paper has noted the many references to people in "poverty" in the United States having cars and cell phones, something that would be unheard of when speaking of poverty-stricken people in areas like the Middle East.
Conclusion

Basically, it is noted (but much better by Cohen) that equality of outcomes is not really possible and that allocation of resources (in any form) can become a bastardized and oppressive process quite easily depending on who is involved. There are some situations and events that throw the playing field into chaos (Cohen used disability as an example) but most people have an equal chance, all people have their own preferences/motivations/abilities and everyone should have the choice to go their own way and strive for their own level success with no nitpicking or other forms of interference from outside sources that need to leave people alone. Lastly, it has to be said that inequality of outcomes is quite often (probably most of the time) due to lack of planning, ineffectual use of opportunities and resources and is entirely the fault and result of the person that befalls a lesser fate or outcome than others. if, and only if, a person is doomed to a bad result because of the oppressive or insidious actions of others is when true inequality is occurring.

Works Cited

Anderson, Elizabeth. "What is the Point of Equality." Ethics 109.2 (1999):…