There have been many books, articles, and blogs written on the sociological concept of equal outcomes. The U.S. Vice-President and various social justice organizations call for it. Some say it is the only way to have a fair, just, non-racial, and non-sexist society. Others say it is the way to ensure that we will not have a society much longer. What is missing from the discussion is following equality of outcomes to its own logical outcome. I will put forth a partial attempt in this post.

The above image is used by quite a few proponents to represent the goal of equity or equality of outcomes. Each person receives what they need in order to be equal to the others. The image raises some issues that are not addressed by the social theory.

• First, who pays for the boxes they are standing on?
• The people on the boxes are watching the game for free, therefore, cheating the stadium, players, and team owners of revenue.
• The people inside paid to see the game. To reach the equality of outcome the cost was not equitable.
• If there has to be equality of outcome, the game is useless and there would be no winner or loser. Why play? And why watch, even for free?

It seems to me that sports is a good illustration of why equal outcomes will not perpetuate a strong society. In sports, if there is equal outcome at the end of regulation time, they keep playing until there is not an equal outcome. In sports, athletes who train and practice do better than those who do not put in the effort. If sports stars receive equal pay as the mediocre players, why train and practice. Competition is what makes sports enjoyable to watch and satisfying to play. It gives meaning to sports. If equal outcome is required, sports are meaningless. Art does not imitate life; sports imitates life—training and practice (i.e. personal effort) improves your chances for success. If you are going to get the same grades as everybody else, why study? If you know you are going to get the same pay as everybody else, why work hard?

The only time equal outcome is good is when you are trying to save people on a sinking ship. If everybody gets saved, that is a good equal outcome. If everybody drowns, that is a bad equal outcome. But if only some can be saved, they must drown with everybody else in order to achieve an equal outcome. Equal outcome will not work at the society level. It brings everybody down to the lowest common denominator. It is not livable and society based on it will not last.

The societal goal that is good and just is the one from the 1960s—equal opportunity to succeed regardless of where you start. That does not mean equal effort. Some people can make good grades in school with very little studying. Others require a lot of studying to obtain the same grades. Is that fair and just? Assuming the obtaining of good grades means the acquisition of a certain level of knowledge about the given subject, there is only equal outcome if the same level of knowledge is obtained which requires unequal effort. If good grades are awarded to students that have not acquired the knowledge, good grades become meaningless. Education at any level becomes meaningless. Job promotions become meaningless. Freedom of choice becomes meaningless. Life becomes meaningless.

And that is the logical outcome of requiring equal outcome.