Equality of outcome
From Free net encyclopedia
Equality of outcome, also known as equality of condition, is a form of egalitarianism which seeks to reduce or eliminate differences between individuals or households in a society. It is important to note that advocates of equality of outcome most often want to eliminate a very specific kind of difference between people, not all differences in general. For example, one may argue perfectly well for equality of outcome in terms of wealth without advocating equal hair length. The argument that supporters of one kind of equality of outcome must also support all other possible types of equality of outcome is a fallacy known as a straw man.
In theory, equality of outcome can be distinguished from equal opportunity (which is a much more commonly held belief). Outcomes can usually be measured with a great degree of precision, opportunities cannot. That is why many proponents of equal opportunity use measures of equality of outcome to judge success. To the extent that inequalities can be passed from one generation to another through substantial gifts and wealth inheritance, it is unclear that equality of opportunity for children can be achieved without greater equality of outcome for parents. Moreover, access and opportunity to various social institutions is partially dependent on equality of outcome. Proponents recognize that greater equality of outcome can be a force preventing co-optation of non-economic institutions important to social control and policy formation, such as the legal system, media or the electoral process, by individuals and coalitions of wealthy people.
A progressive taxation system is likely to increase equality of outcome, and so is a welfare state. However, these will tend only to reduce social inequality, not eliminate it entirely. A much further reduction in social inequality is the goal of most forms of socialism.
Greater equality of outcome is likely to reduce relative poverty, leading to a more cohesive society. However, at the same time it is likely to raise absolute poverty ("in socialist states, everyone is equally poor"), as it interferes with essential mechanisms needed for a healthy economy. One of the professed virtues of progressive taxation is that it can put money into the pockets of the sections of the populace with the most propensity to spend (workers and the poor), leading to economic growth driven by high aggregate demand. Some critics believe that equality of outcome damages incentives to work harder, and that the standard of living of the poorest in absolute terms is more important than their relative position; and some, whose thoughts are commonly associated with meritocratic traditions, disagree with the concept of equality of outcome on purely philosophical grounds ("If you work harder or smarter, it is right for you to earn more").
John Rawls, in his A Theory of Justice, developed a "second principle of justice" that economic and social inequalities can only be justified if they benefit all of society, especially its most disadvantaged members. Furthermore, all economically and socially privileged positions must be open to all people equally. Rawls argues that the inequality between a doctor's salary and a grocery clerk's is only acceptable if this is the only way to encourage the training of sufficient numbers of doctors, preventing an unacceptable decline in the availability of medical care (which would therefore disadvantage everyone).