Equality of outcome is a concept, realisable through state policies and systems, in which all individuals have approximately the same material wealth and income. Revolutionary socialists support equality of outcome. Marx and Engels believed in common ownership over means of production within a communist economy.

Equality of outcome eliminates personal responsibility Suggesting that all people not being in the same place is a result of systemic problems creates and perpetuates a victimhood narrative, and takes the spotlight off one’s own actions.

A good example of a distinction made between the two goes as follows: Equality of opportunity provides in a sense that all start the race of life at the same time. Equality of outcome attempts to ensure that everyone finishes at the same time.

Equality of opportunity is a political ideal that is opposed to caste hierarchy but not to hierarchy per se. The background assumption is that a society contains a hierarchy of more and less desirable, superior and inferior positions.

The term “equality of condition” can also be thought of as “equality of outcome.” In this context, it refers to the idea that people in a society/state have approximately the same overall quality of life, regardless of opportunity, socioeconomic circumstances, prejudicial treatment, advantages/disadvantages, etc.

What is the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of condition? equality of opportunity – a concept that no person should be held back because of race, religion, etc. equality of condition – not everyone is born with the same abilities but should have an equal share of worldly goods.

It doesn’t mean treating everyone the same and providing them with the same opportunity. Different people will have different barriers and in some cases multiple barriers, so you may need to treat them differently in order to ensure equality of access to learning for all.