Opportunity matters more than equality
Commentators, particularly those of a leftist persuasion, often focus on inequality, but for most people the opportunity to better their lot matters more to them than does the pursuit of greater equality. This is because of the way people typically experience fairness, motivation, and risk in everyday life, and what tends to shape their hopes for the future.
People tend to think in absolute, not relative, terms. For most people, what matters most is whether their own life can improve, with better pay, more security, and better education for their children, rather than whether outcomes are equalized across society. A rising income or improved living conditions feel valuable even if others are also doing well, or doing better. Inequality is often tolerated so long as one’s own situation is improving.
Opportunity aligns with personal empowerment. The idea of bettering one’s lot emphasizes effort, choice, and reward. People are strongly motivated by the belief that their actions can lead to improvement. Equality, by contrast, is often perceived as something imposed externally through policy or redistribution, which can feel less connected to individual agency and dignity.
Risk tolerance favours mobility over levelling because many people accept inequality when it comes with the possibility of upward mobility. Even those currently worse off may oppose strict equality if they believe it would limit future gains or cap success. The hope of moving up can matter more psychologically than the assurance that no one is too far ahead.
Inequality is abstract; opportunity is concrete. Equality is a statistical or moral concept, while opportunity is experienced directly via access to jobs, education, credit, housing, or healthcare. People are more responsive to tangible pathways that improve their lives than to abstract distributions of outcomes.
People prioritize fairness of process over equality of outcome. People are more concerned with whether rules are fair, with no discrimination, equal legal rights, and open competition, than with whether results are equal. If outcomes differ but the process is seen as fair, inequality is often judged acceptable.
There is historical and empirical support for prioritizing opportunity over equality. Societies that deliver rising living standards and visible opportunities often maintain legitimacy even with high inequality, while societies that promise equality but fail to improve living conditions tend to face dissatisfaction and unrest. This suggests that improvement prospects weigh more heavily than equalization.
For most people, the chance to improve their own lives, through work, education, and initiative, feels more meaningful, motivating, and fair than achieving greater equality in outcomes. Equality matters, but often as a safeguard against exclusion or injustice, not as the primary goal compared to opportunity and upward mobility.
Madsen Pirie