One view is that there is a moral basis for equality of outcome, but that means to achieve such an outcome can be malevolent. In political philosophy, there are differing views whether equal outcomes are beneficial or not. Photo: Vladimir Lenin addresses a crowd in Moscow in 1920. Political philosophy File:Lenin-Trotsky Sverdlov Square (original).jpgĪfter the Russian Revolution of 1917, the political structure of the Soviet Union (1917–1989) tried to emphasize equality of outcome as a primary goal. This is an uncommonly used term meaning that "person should be perceived as being of equal worth." Equality of process is related to the general notion of fair treatment, and can be thought of as "dealing with inequalities in treatment through discrimination by other individuals and groups, or by institutions and systems, including not being treated with dignity and respect," according to one definition.In a teaching guide, equality of autonomy was explained as "equality in the degree of empowerment people have to make decisions affecting their lives, how much choice and control they have given their circumstances." Sen's approach requires "active intervention of institutions like the state into people's lives" but with an aim towards "fostering of people's self-creation rather than their living conditions." Sen argued that "the ability to convert incomes into opportunities is affected by a multiplicity of individual and social differences that mean some people will need more than others to achieve the same range of capabilities." This relatively new concept, a sort of hybrid notion, has been developed by philosopher Amartya Sen and can be thought of as "the ability and means to choose our life course should be spread as equally as possible across society." It is an equal shot at empowerment or a chance to develop up to his or her potential rather than equal goods or equal chances. It is generally seen as a procedural value of fair treatment by the rules. The essence is that job seekers have "an equal chance to compete within the framework of goals and the structure of rules established," according to one view. It entails the "elimination of arbitrary discrimination in the process of selection." The term is usually applied in workplace situations but has been applied in other areas as well such as housing, lending, and voting rights. This conception generally describes fair competition for important jobs and positions such that contenders have equal chances to win such positions, and applicants are not judged or hampered by unfair or arbitrary discrimination. The term has been seen differently from differing political perspectives, but of all of the terms relating to equality, equality of outcome is the most "controversial" or "contentious". Generally, the concept is most often contrasted with the concept of equality of opportunity, but there are other concepts as well.
3 Comparing equalities: outcome vs opportunityĮquality of outcome is often compared to related concepts of equality.A related way of defining equality of outcome is to think of it as "equality in the central and valuable things in life." The concept is central to some political ideologies and is used regularly in political discourse, often in contrast to the term equality of opportunity. This could involve a transfer of income and/or wealth from wealthier to poorer individuals, or adopting other institutions designed to promote equality of condition from the start. Achieving this requires reducing or eliminating material inequalities between individuals or households in a society. Although it is not always clearly defined, it usually describes a state in which people have approximately the same material wealth or, more generally, in which the general economic conditions of their lives are similar. Equality of outcome, equality of condition, or equality of results is a controversial political concept.
0 kommentar(er)
