It's a theme I notice across society. We no longer are consequentialists. We value the means over then ends. I believe this switch in ethics will hurt our society in the long run.
But the end to Telsa throwing out unreliable Not-Even-Close-to-FULL-SELF-DRIVING is to sell cars--not to usher in a glorious era without traffic collisions.
I find this hard to square with a large segment of society just matter-of-factly espousing "equity", which is a less obvious way of saying what was expressed in the past as "equality of outcome".
Of course, through societies of the past experimenting, it was largely recognized as only possible through systems that end up being miserable and authoritarian.
So it's easier to push it again to a new generation under a vague, benign-sounding new term.
For example an equitable approach to criminal prosecution is that people are exonerated or convicted based on the best available evidence, with no variance attributable to their ability to afford a lawyer (an equitable approach enshrined in our Constitution but still a challenge for society).
And an equitable approach of salary is that people are paid in proportion to their contributions to the business, with no variance attributable to the color of their skin (for example).
We have to measure inputs and outcomes to infer the state of equity because we don’t have a reliable deterministic model of society.
4 = 4
If one team wins the Super Bowl, and one team loses the Super Bowl, then those teams are not equal; that is not equality. But if the game was contested fairly, with no cheating or corruption, then the outcome is equitable, even though it’s not equal.
In the U.S. what we generally strive for is equality as an input and equity as an output. If you hire two people, each should have an equal chance of contributing to the business, i.e. neither should be inhibited by irrelevant factors. But it’s expected and ok if one contributes more and advances farther. If it’s based on a fair measurement of their performance, that unequal outcome will still be equitable.
That’s why you’ll often see folks talk about “equality of opportunity.” Not equality in general; equality as an input.
No I think you're loading the meaning of equal. No one would say "you and I are equal" and expect that we're clones.
> That’s why you’ll often see folks talk about “equality of opportunity.” Not equality in general; equality as an input.
People talk about equality of opportunity because that's the circumstances that people concluded recognize human dignity and autonomy.
As soon as you begin the path of equal outcomes, you're talking an expansive micro-managing state optimizing for variables they scarcely understand.
And fundamentally there's a lack of faith in people as capable human beings that can manage the affairs of their own life and work to lead the life they want by their own endeavor. It's paternalism.