Philosophical Theories of Equality: Opportunity vs. Outcome

Introduction: Equality as a Philosophical and Ethical Concept

Most philosophical approaches to the study of equality presume that equality is an ideal and suggest methods by which to achieve maximum equality. However, some philosophical approaches deny the inherent value of equality or an egalitarian society. All philosophical viewpoints relate equality to morals or ethics, primarily because equality is deemed an ethical objective. Using a utilitarian philosophical perspective, equality is an ethical ideal that presumably maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people. A deontological ethical perspective would similarly hold that equality is an ethical ideal — not necessarily because it leads to a consequence like happiness, but because equality is inherently good.

"Equality is a contested concept" in philosophy and politics, yet it is fundamental to all practical applications of political philosophy (Dworkin, 2002, p. 2). Decisions about things like taxes or due process of law hinge on a theory of equality. Similarly, access to health care, education, and other services considered essential depends on whether the people of a society value equality. Applying ethical theories to the concept of equality can help to define terms and therefore clarify equality as an ideal.

As Sen (1979) points out, there are three basic types of equality from a philosophical standpoint: utilitarian equality, total utility equality, and Rawlsian equality. These are not necessarily mutually distinct views, as there is considerable overlap in their approaches. Utilitarian equality is complex but basically refers to equality as a means to an end. Total utility equality and Rawlsian equality, on the other hand, suggest that equality is the end in itself.

Types of Equality: Formal, Proportional, Moral, and Natural

Gosepath (2007) outlines several essential categories of equality, including formal equality, proportional equality, and moral equality. Formal equality refers literally to equality of form — for example, two people with the exact same talents and even biology, such as identical twins. Proportional equality acknowledges diversity while still affirming equality of consideration, such as two siblings a year apart in age where one excels in mathematics and the other in writing. Moral equality refers to the equal moral consideration owed to all persons, regardless of their circumstances or actions.

Equality is frequently conceived of as referring to the essential equality of all human beings, grounded in "a background idea that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth or moral status" (Arneson, 2013). This view — that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth and moral status — is also known as natural equality and has roots in Stoic and Christian philosophical discourse (Gosepath, 2007). The implications of natural equality fall primarily in the realm of justice: if all human persons are deemed equal in fundamental worth and moral status, then theoretically there should be no preferential treatment or discrimination. In this sense, formal equality is similar to natural equality.

Nevertheless, various factors have been used within some philosophical frameworks to mitigate equality, including gender, race, social class, and genetics. The "separate but equal" doctrine that persisted throughout much of American history illustrates how easily equality can be conflated with subordination. When a group in power makes the laws, it can impose its own version of equality on others. It is more accurately supposed that, as Hobbes argued, "in their natural condition, individuals possess equal rights, because over time they have the same capacity to do each other harm" (Gosepath, 2007). Equal rights are often curtailed by law or social convention — for instance, convicted felons are not treated equally with those who have never been convicted of a crime. From a utilitarian standpoint, creating such inequalities as a form of retributive justice can promote law and order and ensure conformity with social norms. Theoretically, punishments are equally administered so that any person who commits the same crime receives the same treatment. This may not hold true in practice, but the philosophical premise is that each person begins with the same moral consideration and the same ethical duties.

Although most rational philosophies hold that each person is equally deserving of human rights, equality does not necessarily entail sameness. Two things that are exactly the same would already be presumed equal, which is why the concept of equality matters most when applied to things that differ. As Gosepath (2007) explains, equality refers to the "qualitative relationship" that exists between two or more objects or beings. Given that the world is comprised of diverse beings with diverse needs, abilities, interests, aptitudes, goals, and values, equality cannot be defined as sameness. As Dworkin (2002) puts it, a "flat, indiscriminate equality is not just a weak political value… it is no value at all" (p. 2).

Equality of Opportunity Versus Equality of Outcome

Equality can be most simply discussed in terms of equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity is a widely professed ideal in democratic societies, which encourage competition and a kind of meritocratic rising of those who either work harder or possess innate distinguishing abilities. This view — sometimes called meritocracy — acknowledges the potential for inequality in resource distribution. From this standpoint, equality of outcome is often considered unattainable given limited resources and human nature.

Some philosophical viewpoints prior to the modern era were not rooted in the assumption that all human beings are worthy of equal consideration. Patriarchal and racist philosophies, for example, are by definition premised on a preference for inequality as both a means and an end. No single ethical theory can address all aspects of equality; rather, each perspective sheds light on the value of equality, the role equality plays in human societies, and the methods by which equality might be attained.

Equality of outcome refers to the equitable distribution of resources — such as equitable wealth distribution or equal pay for equal work. Whereas the United States generally professes to be the land of equal opportunity, it is not a nation committed to equitable wealth distribution, nor does it guarantee equality of outcome in terms of gender and racial equity. Thus, the American conception of equality is philosophically rooted more in equality of opportunity than in equality of outcome.

Conclusion: Equality as a Contested but Essential Ideal

Equality is a contentious issue in political philosophy as well as the philosophy of ethics. Complicating the issue further is the variety of definitions the term encompasses. Equality can refer to moral, natural, or proportional equality, and it is often — though not necessarily — presumed to be an ethical ideal. One's view of whether equality means equality of opportunity or equality of outcome shapes public policy, and that view differs significantly from community to community, culture to culture, and person to person. Ultimately, no single ethical theory can fully capture all aspects of equality; rather, each perspective illuminates a different dimension of its value and its role in human society.

References

Arneson, R. (2013). Egalitarianism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egalitarianism/

Dworkin, R. (2002). Sovereign Virtue. Harvard University Press.

Gosepath, S. (2007). Equality. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/#DefCon

Rodrigues, T. C. (2014). Is Rawls's difference principle preferable to luck egalitarianism? 2014 Undergraduate Awards, Paper 7. Retrieved from http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=ungradawards_2014

Sen, A. (1979). Equality of what? Lecture at Stanford University. Retrieved from

Sensat, J. (n.d.). Utilitarianism and justice. Retrieved from