Talk:Equality of outcome
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is this true, from a Rawlsian perspective?
- For example, it is only justified that a doctor make more money than a grocery clerk insofar as if this were not the case, insufficient numbers of people would train to be doctors, resulting in an unacceptable decline in the availability of medical care.
A counterexample to "it is only justified" would be that higher earnings are required to entice sufficiently able people to train as doctors, or else the quality of medical care would degrade unacceptably. I don't believe Rawls assumes all people are equally able. As such, I don't think "it is only justified" is, in fact, justifiable.
I have made some changes,
firstly a welfare state does not produce equality of outcome it just sets a lower level safety net. secondly progressive taxation doesnt produce more "equality" it just slow down the accumulation of wealth but does not prevent it. flat tax system and progressive taxation system both produce the same outcome but at different speeds.
Deus777
For me, this article fails to define precisely the answer to the question "what is equality of outcome?" and therefore fails to provide sufficient information to make this informative on that matter. It merely states what the concept hopes to provide without considering what this concept actually is. However it does raise some particularly interesting questions...
As I have little knowledge on this topic I do not feel best able to amend the article; however my preferred definition is that "everyone should end up equal regardless of their particular circumstances", which of course contradicts equality of opportunity. -Dan`C 15:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Straw man?
The article in its current form includes the following:
- 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.
Does anyone except a few cranks actually use the sort of argument countered here? If so, a citation of a source is in order. If not, then not only it is not "important to note," but also, this passage from the article is a meta-straw-man and should be deleted. Thanks. Doctor Whom 19:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Absent a source in over a month, I'm taking out that language. Doctor Whom 00:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Example of the kind of straw man argument discussed in that paragraph: Harrison Bergeron. -- Nikodemos 06:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm still not convinced. Even though that story is a work of fiction and may therefore be expected to exaggerate to make a point, not even the Handicapper General went to the lengths described in this article. Therefore, my request for a citation stands. Doctor Whom 17:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I concede the point. It appears that equality of outcome nearly always refers to equality of wealth, income, or some other money-related outcome. -- Nikodemos 17:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm still not convinced. Even though that story is a work of fiction and may therefore be expected to exaggerate to make a point, not even the Handicapper General went to the lengths described in this article. Therefore, my request for a citation stands. Doctor Whom 17:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Example of the kind of straw man argument discussed in that paragraph: Harrison Bergeron. -- Nikodemos 06:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel like this article is entirely neutral, in that it 1) doesn't directly define "equality of outcome" (as someone else mentioned) and 2) fails to indicate that the value of equality of outcome, and the means for achieving it, are not wholly agreed upon. What do others think?Aemilia 19:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)aemilia