Answer:What does it mean for a society to be equal?
Is it all starting from the same point?
Is it all finishing at the same point?
Is it enough to give everyone a fair shot and may the best person win?
Or should we be making sure everyone gets their slice of the pie?
This is, in a nutshell, the essence of the opportunity vs outcome debate - two ways of thinking about equality pitted against each other.
On one side, you’ve got commentators such as Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson who, broadly speaking, argue that equality of opportunity has been de-railed by ‘social justice warriors’ in favour of equal outcomes, which is fundamentally unfair.
On the other side, advocates for equality of outcome believe that systemic inequality prevents genuine equality of opportunity, and so the only way to achieve equality is through a more even distribution of wealth - such as diversity quotas and universal income (both of which we’ll come back to later on).
Equality of opportunity advocates are accused of using it as an excuse to maintain the status quo and prevent us from working towards a more inclusive society.
And equality of outcome advocates are accused of pedalling an idealistic fallacy that we can and should all be equal - derailing innovation and economic progress in their wake.
Explanation:Equality of outcome looks to ensure people who are disadvantaged are making gains.
Equality of opportunity looks to ensure that everyone has the same opportunities to make those gains.
So, while equality of opportunity focuses on a level playing field for individual progress, equality of outcome is about overseeing results.
Thats your Answer proffesor out