Equality of opportunity vs. equality of results are two competing theories of an equality outcome in a just society. They are closely related to the concepts of negative rights and positive rights. A Negative right is a right, either moral or decreed by law, to not be subject to an action of another (usually abuse or coercion) so that restraint is incumbent upon another, as opposed to a positive right which is a right to be provided with something by the positive... A Positive right is a right, either moral or decreed by law, to be provided with something so that it is incumbent upon another to act, as opposed to a negative right which is a right to not be subject to the action of another. ...

Equality of opportunity means that every person is afforded the same access to a benefit as every other person. Equality of outcome means that every person actually receives the same benefit as everyone else.

For example, equality of opportunity would exist in a raffle for a cake in which each person received one raffle ticket. However, this would not provide equality of outcome, because in the end one person would have cake and everyone else would have none. Equality of outcome would be when the cake is divided into equal slices, apportioned to each person.

The legal consequences of this dichotomy relate to the role of the government. Traditionally, the government is thought to ensure equality of opportunity by its inaction -- through "negative rights", such as allowing everyone to speak freely, practice their religion, and keep their property safe from the government, irrespective of whether they are a member of a group that might be favored or disfavored. Likewise, the government is thought to ensure equality of outcome through its action -- such as the creation of social welfare programs for the poor, affirmative action for certain minorities, etc. To meet Wikipedias quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup. ...

Equality of opportunity and outcome are themselves somewhat open to interpretation -- equality of opportunity is sometimes derided with the joke that "X is a free country, in which every man, rich or poor, has the right to buy an elephant". Obviously, the poor man cannot exercise this so-called "right". Similarly, in the cake example, above, one could argue whether an equal-sized slice is the "outcome" or whether those who are hungrier should get larger slices, so that in the end everyone is equally sated.

Philosopher John Rawls created a thought experiment for evaluating societal outcomes such as the competing equality models called the veil of ignorance. In this experiment, Rawls imagined that the future citizens of a society did not know in advance what their situation would be (rich or poor, male or female, handicapped or able-bodied, etc.). Rawls speculated that behind this "veil of ignorance" rational people would choose to set up society so that the least well-off person was as well-off as possible. However "well-off" can be interpreted along either dimension -- equality of opportunity or equality of results. John Rawls (February 21, 1921 – November 24, 2002) was an American philosopher, a professor of political philosophy at Harvard University and author of A Theory of Justice (1971), Political Liberalism, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, and The Law of Peoples. ... In philosophy, physics, and other fields, a thought experiment (from the German Gedankenexperiment) is an attempt to solve a problem using the power of human imagination. ... The veil of ignorance is a concept introduced by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice. ...