Equality if oppertunity is better than equality of results

May 24, 2015, 5:38 pm

Agree10 Disagree2

83%
17%

The debate "Equality if oppertunity is better than equality of results" was started by jonatron5 on May 24, 2015, 5:38 pm. 10 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 2 people are on the disagree side. People are starting to choose their side. It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.

PsychDave posted 1 argument, I_Voyager posted 2 arguments, toughgamer posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
amanofprogress posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.

jonatron5, PsychDave, toughgamerjerry, I_Voyager, soullesschicken, invincible_01, sdiop and 3 visitors agree.
amanofprogress and 1 visitor disagree.

I_Voyager
replied to...

That's a powerful argument. I wouldn't argue that today's "opportunity vs results" equation is well balanced. A very tiny few elders control a majority of wealth, the course of wealth, the destinations of wealth, the number-system of money, its issuance to businesses and governments, the purposes of that distribution, and who rises in power to receive their distribution. The equation is constantly being refined and the few corporations are becoming increasingly indebted to by people who work to earn their living, because by comparison to the wealth the wealthy already have their efforts seem meager. This is despite rapid advances in automation or outsourcing which is increasingly responsible for poverty when they should be responsible for reducing the general cost of living for workers so in our free time we can engage in more intellectual and communal labor. Alas we've let the rich enshrine their methods and desired incentives in laws, and have let them brainwash us into agreeing with what ought to incentivize or validate
a man. Because of this people who are incompatible fall through the cracks and like you said, people would rather piss on them and call them weak rather than face the harder reality of revolting against an oppressor, especially when a great majority get at least the food they need to fill full. We end up living in a society which resembles that "hang in there" kitty, always dangling on the string, justifying its piddly struggle with labor when it should bitch and strike and fight for its place in reality. I'd rather rebel against the power center than coddle for a great many more reasons still.

May I ask you to imagine if we resolved this. We conquered the king and distributed the wealth and fixed up the automation and all of us lived a life where we can input any kind of labor for a proportionate needed output... In this case, those two family's still exist, but parents get a stipend in proportion to the number of kids they have to support so two men working with the same job, one with with one child and the other with two, are both making as much as they need to make their lives as balanced with one another. If a manager or some such person approached them and offered them a raise or a bonus if they finished their labor with greater effort, speed or competency, and at the end the father of one accomplished more than the father of two, would the father of one deserve the bonus more than the father of two?

4 years, 2 months ago

Simple. Find another job that can support the whole family. My dad has a job that feeds me, my two brothers (20 and 8), and my younger sister (6). All you gotta do is find a job that pays you enough to support the family. And not a job where you work minimum wage. Full time.

4 years, 2 months ago

Imagine this, there is a man, he has a child he must take care of. he also has a job that pays depending on how hard he works. He consitantly works enough to care for his children adequitely. There is another man, he has TWO children. He has the same job that pays the same amount. He technically has the option to work hard enough to pay for hima AND his children, however to do so he must beyond his and any reasonable limits to do so. even though he works than the other man with one kid, cannot support his family. The oppurtunity is there, but that does not make it reachable. now the 2 children suffer, as they watch his father toil for them even though it will never be enough. the other man critizes the 2nd man for complaining as "he shouldn't had that many kids". now the children watch as their existance is considered a mistake. Now stop imagineing it. beacuse this happens. that's how the world works in america. in fact I could say that exact scenario is happening right now, in 50 different cases (at least).

4 years, 2 months ago

Generally, I agree. We must have all the same access to develop or prove our worth. But not necessarily access to the same amount of reward in the end. We inform the world around us as to our value by our actions and thoughts. The ends are not controlled. The means are controlled.

Do the means justify the ends?

4 years, 2 months ago

Equality of opportunity means that everyone gets a fair shot at success. If people work for it, they deserve the rewards that come with it. If people are lazy and don't try, they don't deserve the rewards.

Equality of results would mean that both people receive the same reward, no matter how hard they worked. The end result is that very few people will try. Anyone who has ever worked with someone who was not pulling their weight will know the effect that can have on moral.

Opportunity should be equal, but achievement must remain individual (paraphrased from the Sword of Truth book series).

4 years, 3 months ago
Discuss "Equality if oppertunity is better than equality of results" philosophy
Add an argument!
Use the arrow keys to navigate between statements. Press "A" to agree and press "D" to disagree.