Equal Opportunity vs. Equal Results (what's the right way towards Equality?)

[Com Fox]

It's a tale that isn't really spoken of.

There are debates in terms of how to approach equality. Some choose to good discrimination and get the results into the more equal field, while others just let it flow regardless of the results as long as everyone has a fair opportunity.

In my opinion, it is impossible to get Equality if your goal is to show Equal Results. In a world where free will is important to our lives, rigging processes to favour less represented groups to make them more represented is discrimination, and I personally don't believer that there is such thing as good discrimination. You are hand picking people based on their identity, instead of if they're qualified or not. This is what we had problems with racism but apparently it is now ok, because it is meant to "show equality".

However, I understand why people would do this, it is almost impossible to showcase your support of equality when opportunity is almost impossible to document.

I guess it is a battle of How vs. What, and I'm on the side of How.

 

[Liquid]

Opportunity.

Removing barriers to enable people from all socio-economic backgrounds to study medicine isn't the same as making everyone qualified surgeons and nor should the latter ever be how things are done.

And for what it's worth, this is spoken about. A lot.

 

[Com Fox]

it's worth, this is spoken about. A lot.

I never see the Oppurtunity vs Results debate be brought up in today. If you have any links to discussions based on this topic, that would be nice.

 

[BobK]

Equality of opportunity is clearly more important. "Equality" of results is nothing more than discrimination, whether it be race, religion, or whatever. It's the mentality that leads to "participation trophies" instead of recognizing actual achievement.

 

[Lizard]

It has always been about opportunity, the results issue comes about through ways of trying to improve opportunity.

No one wants to limit hiring to women for example but they do it because without it, you have an 80% male workforce no matter the skills of people.

 

[PeterJB]

Opportunity. You get out of life what you put in to it, not taking out what others have put in to it.

 

[Com Fox]

It has always been about opportunity, the results issue comes about through ways of trying to improve opportunity.

No one wants to limit hiring to women for example but they do it because without it, you have an 80% male workforce no matter the skills of people.

That sounds like trying to get results of equality instead of equal opportunity.

 

[Danoff]

It's a tale that isn't really spoken of.

There are debates in terms of how to approach equality. Some choose to good discrimination and get the results into the more equal field, while others just let it flow regardless of the results as long as everyone has a fair opportunity.

In my opinion, it is impossible to get Equality if your goal is to show Equal Results. In a world where free will is important to our lives, rigging processes to favour less represented groups to make them more represented is discrimination, and I personally don't believer that there is such thing as good discrimination. You are hand picking people based on their identity, instead of if they're qualified or not. This is what we had problems with racism but apparently it is now ok, because it is meant to "show equality".

However, I understand why people would do this, it is almost impossible to showcase your support of equality when opportunity is almost impossible to document.

I guess it is a battle of How vs. What, and I'm on the side of How.

I'm not sure what you mean by equal opportunity. Let's take an example. Let's supposed to Richie has wealthy parents who give him a $1M trust fund to start out his life. He uses this to go to Harvard, and ultimately bankroll an expensive first year of a startup company that goes on to making big bucks. Let's suppose that Mallory has poor parents. She goes to a community college and has a lot of debt coming out because her parents couldn't pay for her tuition. She gets a job to pay off the debt and makes smaller bucks. Let's also suppose that the laws of the country that Richie and Mallory live in treat them equally (ie: do not discriminate against them based on race, gender, etc.).

Is that equal opportunity? Or do we need kids that get exactly the same start in life to have equal opportunity?

 

[Com Fox]

I'm not sure what you mean by equal opportunity. Let's take an example. Let's supposed to Richie has wealthy parents who give him a $1M trust fund to start out his life. He uses this to go to Harvard, and ultimately bankroll an expensive first year of a startup company that goes on to making big bucks. Let's suppose that Mallory has poor parents. She goes to a community college and has a lot of debt coming out because her parents couldn't pay for her tuition. She gets a job to pay off the debt and makes smaller bucks. Let's also suppose that the laws of the country that Richie and Mallory live in treat them equally (ie: do not discriminate against them based on race, gender, etc.).

Is that equal opportunity? Or do we need kids that get exactly the same start in life to have equal opportunity?

No, and unfortunately I don't know how that would be controlled.

What I meant by equal opportunity was barriers like discrimination holding people back which can be controlled.

 

[SagarisGTB]

What I meant by equal opportunity was barriers like discrimination holding people back which can be controlled.

Great, so what is your proposition for eliminating prejudice from the hiring process? How do you get, in North America for example, potential employers to hire young and old, male and female, white and non-white, cisgender and transgender, etc. without bias?

 

[Danoff]

No, and unfortunately I don't know how that would be controlled.

Some on this site have argued for it.

What I meant by equal opportunity was barriers like discrimination holding people back which can be controlled.

Do you mean within law, government interaction, public interaction among private citizens, or private interaction among private citizens?

 

[Com Fox]

Great, so what is your proposition for eliminating prejudice from the hiring process? How do you get, in North America for example, potential employers to hire young and old, male and female, white and non-white, cisgender and transgender, etc. without bias?

Do you mean within law, government interaction, public interaction among private citizens, or private interaction among private citizens?

I'm mainly talking about law and government and public interaction with private citizens. Pretty sure private interactions can lead to problems of false accusations as well as rightful claims but without any proof that can spiral out of control more than it even was.

 

[Spurgy 777]

It has always been about opportunity, the results issue comes about through ways of trying to improve opportunity.

No one wants to limit hiring to women for example but they do it because without it, you have an 80% male workforce no matter the skills of people.

What do you mean the workforce will be 80% male unless the hiring is limited to women only? If it's for specific jobs, why does it matter that the workforce is 80% male and what evidence do you have that it's because they ignore women regardless of qualifications, and if it's for the workforce in general, you're talking complete nonsense.

 

[Vegard]

No, and unfortunately I don't know how that would be controlled.

Free tuition is a good start, as can be seen in Germany, France and several other European countries.

 

[Danoff]

Free tuition is a good start, as can be seen in Germany, France and several other European countries.

That comes at its own cost... like reduction in quality.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...he-best-colleges-and-universities-survey-says

In the US, we subsidize our universities, and even that has its problems.

 

[Joey D]

Free tuition is a good start, as can be seen in Germany, France and several other European countries.

It's not free tuition though, someone pays for it and it's typically the tax payer. The only fair way to have "free" tuition would be to have universities entirely ran off donations, but I don't think that's possible.

Plus, a college education isn't a right, it's a privilege. It's something that needs to be worked towards. And if you really want to go to college but can't afford it, there is millions of dollars in scholarships available in the US and several go unclaimed every year. You might need to work hard if you don't have the money, but it's by no means impossible.

 

[Vegard]

That comes at its own cost... like reduction in quality.

That story doesn't link free tuition to a reduction in quality though. It didn't even demonstrate a clear correlation; 3 of the top 10 have free tuition.

In the US, we subsidize our universities, and even that has its problems.

Yeah, I understand there are a lot of tax exemptions that are being take full advantage of.

It's not free tuition though, someone pays for it and it's typically the tax payer. The only fair way to have "free" tuition would be to have universities entirely ran off donations, but I don't think that's possible.

Free for the student, to an extent. I guess most students have some income and pay some taxes.

Plus, a college education isn't a right, it's a privilege.

In some parts of the world it is a right, if the academic requirements are met.

 

[Danoff]

That story doesn't link free tuition to a reduction in quality though. It didn't even demonstrate a clear correlation; 3 of the top 10 have free tuition.

I find it hard to believe that the US would retain the top spot if we pulled money out of our universities, which is what would happen if we made them "free".

Yeah, I understand there are a lot of tax exemptions that are being take full advantage of.

We actually straight up ship federal subsidies to universities.

 

[Vegard]

I find it hard to believe that the US would retain the top spot if we pulled money out of our universities, which is what would happen if we made them "free".

If we assume for argument's sake that you are correct about that, would you be willing to "sacrifice" that top spot in order to climb to top spot in a "most educated population" index?

 

[Danoff]

If we assume for argument's sake that you are correct about that, would you be willing to "sacrifice" that top spot in order to climb to top spot in a "most educated population" index?

No, for moral reasons rather than assessing the utility of best education vs. most education. I was merely pointing out that even from the perspective of determining utility, it's not a slam dunk.

 

[Vegard]

No, for moral reasons

Would you care to elaborate on those?

 

[Danoff]

Would you care to elaborate on those?

Quickly, utilitarianism is an immoral practice. It is "the ends justify the means" which is never the case, in any circumstance. The beginnings are always the only justification for the means. I don't want to take this thread too far afield, especially into topics that have been covered in other threads such as the human rights thread.

 

[Mr Tree]

What do you mean the workforce will be 80% male unless the hiring is limited to women only? If it's for specific jobs, why does it matter that the workforce is 80% male and what evidence do you have that it's because they ignore women regardless of qualifications, and if it's for the workforce in general, you're talking complete nonsense.

I've encountered people hiring males for certeign jobs as this is a male dominated position. Not based on skill but based on the social.interaction of having 1 female in a group of 20males... You know as to not rock the boat, and I bet it happens the othrt way around in female dominated sectors.

Now I know this is anecdotal and I don't know how often this happens but it does happen.

It's not free tuition though, someone pays for it and it's typically the tax payer. The only fair way to have "free" tuition would be to have universities entirely ran off donations, but I don't think that's possible.

Plus, a college education isn't a right, it's a privilege. It's something that needs to be worked towards. And if you really want to go to college but can't afford it, there is millions of dollars in scholarships available in the US and several go unclaimed every year. You might need to work hard if you don't have the money, but it's by no means impossible.

Education (even college) should be a basic right. It's far from a priveledge.

And since this is the equality of oppertunity or outcome thread, when you don't consider college (education) a basic right how can you still call this equality? I think the rich kids son has more oppertunities in this case.

It's free tuition if it's patee by taxes mate. The basic idea behind taxes is we all put together some money so we can have some things we don't have to pay for ourselfs (what we consider as free, if you don't do this nothing is free), a propper society will choose to educate it's people with this money... Thus education is 'free' for those people.

 

[Spurgy 777]

I've encountered people hiring males for certeign jobs as this is a male dominated position. Not based on skill but based on the social.interaction of having 1 female in a group of 20males... You know as to not rock the boat, and I bet it happens the othrt way around in female dominated sectors.

Now I know this is anecdotal and I don't know how often this happens but it does happen.

Sounds like a pretty rubbish business if its employees can't do their job properly just because there's a woman working with them. Fair enough if it was a specific woman they thought wouldn't get along with everyone just as if it was a specific man, but to just not consider any women just makes it a bad business.

 

[Mr Tree]

Sounds like a pretty rubbish business if its employees can't do their job properly just because there's a woman working with them. Fair enough if it was a specific woman they thought wouldn't get along with everyone just as if it was a specific man, but to just not consider any women just makes it a bad business.

I agree this is not really fair practice!
But this shows how it still happens

We're moving in the right way. But we're not there yet.

 

[Spurgy 777]

I agree this is not really fair practice!
But this shows how it still happens

We're moving in the right way. But we're not there yet.

There's not really much we can do about it, not employing women because they're women is illegal here in the UK, and I imagine in Belgium too, as well as most Western countries, obviously employers can still discriminate as much as they want to because it's not like we can read their minds.

In a way I don't think it should even be illegal to discriminate against who you're employing, I wouldn't want some bigoted idiot being forced to hire me but maybe that's just me.

 

[Mr Tree]

There's not really much we can do about it, not employing women because they're women is illegal here in the UK, and I imagine in Belgium too, as well as most Western countries, obviously employers can still discriminate as much as they want to because it's not like we can read their minds.

In a way I don't think it should even be illegal to discriminate against who you're employing, I wouldn't want some bigoted idiot being forced to hire me but maybe that's just me.

I share your sentiment considering working for such a boss

And yes it is illegal but when some of them do they spin it off as this person fits more into our companies current workculture... And well yeah that kind of ends all conversation as something like that is not really measurable...

 

[Joey D]

Education (even college) should be a basic right. It's far from a priveledge.

And since this is the equality of oppertunity or outcome thread, when you don't consider college (education) a basic right how can you still call this equality? I think the rich kids son has more oppertunities in this case.

Education can be a right. College is not. There are plenty of ways to get an education without attending college.

It's free tuition if it's patee by taxes mate. The basic idea behind taxes is we all put together some money so we can have some things we don't have to pay for ourselfs (what we consider as free, if you don't do this nothing is free), a propper society will choose to educate it's people with this money... Thus education is 'free' for those people.

Nope, it's not free if someone's paying for it.

If you want something, exchange goods or services for it. If you don't want something, then don't exchange goods and services for it.

 

[Mr Tree]

Education can be a right. College is not. There are plenty of ways to get an education without attending college.



Nope, it's not free if someone's paying for it.

If you want something, exchange goods or services for it. If you don't want something, then don't exchange goods and services for it.

Yeah mate might be true where you live but to be honnest in belgium there are quite a few college educations that are actually replacing the people who used to learn these jobs in the equivalent of the american 'high school' system. So sorry if I don't think we can just tell60% of our population that within 40years there will not be a job they're considered qualified for. I'm sorry but I believe we should educate our population in a better way.


Now on the free part. Please tell me what in the world is free? Someone is paying for it... So yeah if I pay taxes I pay taxes not tuition fee's and if I don't have to pay the tuition it means my tuition is free. Off coarse we can then show someone pays for it. On education it means we all pay for eachother education but not only we do! If tuitions are payed by taxes it mez's companies also pay our tuition fee's. This is important as otherwise the companies are just shamelesly profiteering from the educationsystem we alone pay for...

I'm belgian btw are you american? Would put your disapproval of socialistic structures in perspective.

 

[Joey D]

Yeah mate might be true where you live but to be honnest in belgium there are quite a few college educations that are actually replacing the people who used to learn these jobs in the equivalent of the american 'high school' system. So sorry if I don't think we can just tell60% of our population that within 40years there will not be a job they're considered qualified for. I'm sorry but I believe we should educate our population in a better way.

You can educate people without having them go to college though, or to any institution for that matter. I have friends who were homeschooled and they turned out just fine in life. Not saying that's the case for everyone, but it can be done.

Now on the free part. Please tell me what in the world is free? Someone is paying for it... So yeah if I pay taxes I pay taxes not tuition fee's and if I don't have to pay the tuition it means my tuition is free. Off coarse we can then show someone pays for it. On education it means we all pay for eachother education but not only we do! If tuitions are payed by taxes it mez's companies also pay our tuition fee's. This is important as otherwise the companies are just shamelesly profiteering from the educationsystem we alone pay for...

I'm belgian btw are you american? Would put your disapproval of socialistic structures in perspective.

Nothing's free. At least with regards to material goods and services. Somewhere, someone pays for it.

And yes, I'm American.