• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is equal opportunity (not equal outcome) best for society?

Is equal opportunity (not equal outcome) best for society?

  • Yes

    Votes: 28 75.7%

  • No

    Votes: 9 24.3%
  • Total voters
    37
M

MusicAdventurer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 15, 2011
Messages
1,034
Reaction score
268
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
It is very clear what equal opportunity means, or at least it should be…. Well, just to be clear for this post… by equal opportunity, I mean the following… do you believe that everyone should start life with the same opportunities (this = equal opportunity for the purposes of this post)? Or would this lead to a lack of adequate separation between the rich and the poor, leading to a lack of functionality. For example, if everyone were allowed the same amount of money at birth, the same amount of land, the same amount of education and so on … would this lead to an inadequate number of “worker bees” (the poor) and an overpopulation of possible business owners etc. … ? What do you think?
 
I don't believe that everyone *should* start life with the same opportunities (since this is impossible in the first place), and I don't believe that it would lead to inadequate numbers of "worker bees", because equal opportunity does not mean that equal skill, equal motivation, and equal success would occur.

I voted no to reflect what I see as reality, and not as a *wishful thought* ;)
 
Last edited:
Equal rights and the freedom to pursue opportunity but not provided. It simply wouldn't work.
 
lizzie said:
I don't believe that everyone *should* start life with the same opportunities (since this is impossible in the first place)
Click to expand...

I disagree, there are certain things, such financial wealth, land shares, access to education, that could be quite equally portioned out to every citizen at birth (and that is what I was referring to) - of course, one's talent, etc. cannot be portioned out equally and that is the whole point .. just as you've mentioned below ...

lizzie said:
and I don't believe that it would lead to inadequate numbers of "worker bees", because equal opportunity does not mean that equal skill, equal motivation, and equal success would occur.
Click to expand...

So, would equal opportunity as described in the OP be good or bad for society?
 
grip said:
Equal rights and the freedom to pursue opportunity but not provided. It simply wouldn't work.
Click to expand...

Right, right, right, we all know about "freedom to pursue opportunity" ... that's old news, but actual provided equal opportunity is new - remember, it does not mean equal outcome

So, I am curious, why do you think that it would not work?
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Right, right, right, we all know about "freedom to pursue opportunity" ... that's old news, but actual provided equal opportunity is new - remember, it does not mean equal outcome

So, I am curious, why do you think that it would not work?
Click to expand...

It's not new, it's called communism. You eliminate incentive, motivation for ingenuity and production, variety and who is going to apportion out the means? It will be a small minority of government of tyrannical leaders who are above reproach. If we could simply take what we've got and make it work appropriately you'd see the best possible outcome. The people who founded this country weren't exactly unenlightened. Unfortunately we are frail humans who make mistakes and learn and that's a process that's still evolving within our civilization. Two steps forward one step back.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
I disagree, there are certain things, such financial wealth, land shares, access to education, that could be quite equally portioned out to every citizen at birth (and that is what I was referring to) - of course, one's talent, etc. cannot be portioned out equally and that is the whole point .. just as you've mentioned below ...



So, would equal opportunity as described in the OP be good or bad for society?
Click to expand...

It would be neither good nor bad. It's an impossibility. The only way that equal opportunity would work, as described in your op, is for the very first generation of your make-believe society, requiring that babies be born, taken into custody by the state, raised in a homogenous environment, then set free to see what they could do. Some would succeed, some would fail, most would likely be mediocre.
 
Yeah I don't understand how that would be able to work either.
 
grip said:
It's not new, it's called communism.
Click to expand...

Not quite

the following is communism:

A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs

and

Any political philosophy or ideology advocating holding the production of resources collectively; Any political social system that implements a communist political philosophy; The international socialist society where classes and the state no longer exist

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=com....,cf.osb&fp=a76f04b08dc68692&biw=1252&bih=546

I am talking about private ownership of certain goods and production, not public
I am talking about a system where classes still exist

grip said:
You eliminate incentive, motivation for ingenuity and production, variety and who is going to apportion out the means? It will be a small minority of government of tyrannical leaders who are above reproach. If we could simply take what we've got and make it work appropriately you'd see the best possible outcome. The people who founded this country weren't exactly unenlightened. Unfortunately we are frail humans who make mistakes and learn and that's a process that's still evolving within our civilization. Two steps forward one step back.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that equal opportunity is bad for society because it would mean that there would be just enough for everyone (upon birth that is ... remember, this is only a one time distribution ... at least in this scenario), leading to a lack in motivation to move forward?

If this is the case, why wouldn't we start everyone out (remember just starting people out) with just enough to survive, but still providing them with motivation to move up?

Remember this is an experimental question - this is about whether equal opportunity (as defined in the OP) would be good for society - please do not assume any specific model (such as communism)

Try thinking about how things could both work and fail, then you'll be contributing to new ideas - this requires stepping outside of the box - thinking new
 
lizzie said:
It would be neither good nor bad. It's an impossibility. The only way that equal opportunity would work, as described in your op, is for the very first generation of your make-believe society, requiring that babies be born, taken into custody by the state, raised in a homogenous environment, then set free to see what they could do. Some would succeed, some would fail, most would likely be mediocre.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

I only referred to material things such as money, land and education

I was never referring to talent, environment etc.

Are you sure we are talking about the same OP?
 
melg89 said:
Yeah I don't understand how that would be able to work either.
Click to expand...

I am posing a question ... if it were possible ... would it be good or bad .. we can work out the details of what would have to be done for it to become possible after addressing the first question - what's the point in spending energy on figuring out how to do something, if that something were not valuable?
 
MusicAdventurer said:
It is very clear what equal opportunity means, or at least it should be…. Well, just to be clear for this post… by equal opportunity, I mean the following… do you believe that everyone should start life with the same opportunities (this = equal opportunity for the purposes of this post)? Or would this lead to a lack of adequate separation between the rich and the poor, leading to a lack of functionality. For example, if everyone were allowed the same amount of money at birth, the same amount of land, the same amount of education and so on … would this lead to an inadequate number of “worker bees” (the poor) and an overpopulation of possible business owners etc. … ? What do you think?
Click to expand...
I think some were born to lead, and many were born to follow. Starting everyone out with equal resources/opportunities wouldn't change much -- the cream would still rise to the top.
 
Last edited:
Sunbelt said:
I think some were born to lead, and many were born to follow. Starting everyone out with equal resources/opportunities wouldn't change much -- the cream would still rise to the top.
Click to expand...

Except that things would change ...

I do not believe that those born into wealth were "born to lead"

I believe we would see different leaders emerging
 
lizzie said:
I voted no to reflect what I see as reality, and not as a *wishful thought* ;)
Click to expand...

I challenge you to consider the possibility that everything in public policy that we know, can be changed

Thus, I challenge you to challenge every policy that exists

Wishful thoughts can lead to realities ;)
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Except that things would change ...

I do not believe that those born into wealth were "born to lead"

I believe we would see different leaders emerging
Click to expand...
Except you misunderstood my post. I meant things wouldn't change the outcome for born winners.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Except that things would change ...

I do not believe that those born into wealth were "born to lead"

I believe we would see different leaders emerging
Click to expand...

I don't think that's what he said?

I just don't think it's feasible so I can't come up with a "hypothetical answer." IDK one of those things...
 
MusicAdventurer said:
What are you talking about?

I only referred to material things such as money, land and education

I was never referring to talent, environment etc.

Are you sure we are talking about the same OP?
Click to expand...

You can't take out the human nature element in any discussion of equality, whether it be equality of opportunity, or equality of outcomes. In the world you describe, humans would have to amount to computers without any will of their own. No matter how equal the opportunity in property and goods, society would be just as it is now. It's not equality that makes us what we are. It's human nature and the many facets of it's manifestation.
 
Sunbelt said:
Except you misunderstood my post. I meant things wouldn't change the outcome for born winners.
Click to expand...

What does the term "leader" mean to you? Depending on your definition, we may not be in agreement.

At first I thought you were referring to "financial leaders"

Then I thought ... maybe you were just referring to leader type personalities

Which is it?
 
melg89 said:
I don't think that's what he said?

I just don't think it's feasible so I can't come up with a "hypothetical answer." IDK one of those things...
Click to expand...

Ah.. you are just in doubt? That's OK, many people are in doubt about many things
 
MusicAdventurer said:
I challenge you to consider the possibility that everything in public policy that we know, can be changed

Thus, I challenge you to challenge every policy that exists

Wishful thoughts can lead to realities ;)
Click to expand...

Dreams are all individualized. Creativity is inherent. Reality must exist within the context of its perceivers.
 
lizzie said:
You can't take out the human nature element in any discussion of equality
Click to expand...

Never tried to

lizzie said:
whether it be equality of opportunity, or equality of outcomes.
Click to expand...

I'll try saying it again and maybe it will stick this time ... "equal opportunity" is not the same thing as "equal outcome" (I am for the first, not the latter)

lizzie said:
In the world you describe, humans would have to amount to computers without any will of their own.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I described no world, only a set of policies, in that set of policies, humans would act just as they would in any system ... they would act like humans ... right?

lizzie said:
No matter how equal the opportunity in property and goods, society would be just as it is now.
Click to expand...

Not if such property and goods were equal for each new generation - you see this would remove the whole inherited wealth factor

lizzie said:
It's not equality that makes us what we are. It's human nature and the many facets of it's manifestation.
Click to expand...

I agree, equality does not make a human a human ... a human makes a human a human ... its really quite simple, lol!
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Not quite

the following is communism:

A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs

and

Any political philosophy or ideology advocating holding the production of resources collectively; Any political social system that implements a communist political philosophy; The international socialist society where classes and the state no longer exist

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=com....,cf.osb&fp=a76f04b08dc68692&biw=1252&bih=546

I am talking about private ownership of certain goods and production, not public
I am talking about a system where classes still exist



So are you saying that equal opportunity is bad for society because it would mean that there would be just enough for everyone (upon birth that is ... remember, this is only a one time distribution ... at least in this scenario), leading to a lack in motivation to move forward?

If this is the case, why wouldn't we start everyone out (remember just starting people out) with just enough to survive, but still providing them with motivation to move up?

Remember this is an experimental question - this is about whether equal opportunity (as defined in the OP) would be good for society - please do not assume any specific model (such as communism)

Try thinking about how things could both work and fail, then you'll be contributing to new ideas - this requires stepping outside of the box - thinking new
Click to expand...

Trust me forced social equality was the basis for communism. And you say you're talking about private ownership but how is that possible if there is a committee that enforces financial equality? I'm not against equal opportunity rather your definition of it. A one time distribution to create an equal opportunity start would not be financially fair to those who can provide more because you would have to limit their parental control. Also the public system and social safety nets already attempt to create an equal start to education and basic care as much as possible. I'm not sure in such a wealthy nation we do a great job of it but there has to be a cutoff point. Your advocating a utopian society which though noble is not completely fair in a competitive system.
 
grip said:
Trust me forced social equality was the basis for communism. And you say you're talking about private ownership but how is that possible if there is a committee that enforces financial equality? I'm not against equal opportunity rather your definition of it. A one time distribution to create an equal opportunity start would not be financially fair to those who can provide more because you would have to limit their parental control. Also the public system and social safety nets already attempt to create an equal start to education and basic care as much as possible. I'm not sure in such a wealthy nation we do a great job of it but there has to be a cutoff point. Your advocating a utopian society which though noble is not completely fair in a competitive system.
Click to expand...

To the bolded: Hell, it's not even a possibility. Human creativity, motivation, and self-will would overcome any attemtps to create an "equal" society.
 
lizzie said:
To the bolded: Hell, it's not even a possibility. Human creativity, motivation, and self-will would overcome any attemtps to create an "equal" society.
Click to expand...

The good intention is there and might be some truth to it but you have to learn history before you attempt to remake similar mistakes. As lizzie pointed out evolution will overcome any attempts to change the natural order but we can do a better job with the current system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom