Currently Online 
| Chrkeller said: Late to the party but I do not like the equity push. Equal outcome? Talent and hardwork play a huge role in outcome. People are not entitled to equal outcome. I'm not entitled to a Nobel Prize because there are more talented and harding working people than I am. And an un-level playing field drives motivation. I dont work 50 hours a week for me, I do it to give my children an edge over the competition. Equal outcome is de-motivating. |
Something that is true for individuals (outcomes should depend on decisions) don't generally apply to arbitrary groups/categories -- where different individuals within the group are making different decisions that should balance out on net in similar ways.
It makes sense (even if we assumed actual equal opportunity at birth, which would require no inheritance) for individuals to end up in different places. It doesn't make sense for arbitrary socially constructed groups -- like race for this to be the case, without considering some lurking variable(s) that applies generally to individuals in that arbitrary group.
We should really want equality between arbitrary groups even if we don't think individuals should have equal outcomes, because that means we are on the right track with regards to equal opportunity. Being born into arbitrary group #1 shouldn't have a strong effect on the decisions you can make when compared to being born into arbitrary group #2.
It is okay to suggest that we tolerate the inequality of opportunity that is inheritance to promote motivation (or long-term time-preference if you will) but there is a point where only prioritizing that just means society isn't equitable in any sense, including equal opportunity. There should be social institutions that allow one opportunities to fast- track past the decisions or luck of one's parents. Otherwise you have the opposite effect where motivation and productive capacity is stifled due to lack of opportunity inherited by the decisions or luck of others.
