In recent years, there has been growing interest in the relationship between equality and personal achievement. Some people believe that individuals can achieve more in egalitarian societies. Others believe that high levels of personal achievement are possible only if individuals are free to succeed or fail according to their individual merits.
Discuss both sides and give your own opinion.
The equality of opportunity and its impact on personal success is a widely discussed topic these days. While some people try to make the case for egalitarian societies, claiming that they would lead to the greatest personal achievement, others argue that only meritocratic societies can help people reach high levels of success. Personally, I support the latter view.
On the one hand, giving everyone an equal opportunity regardless of their background can ensure that no hidden talent is wasted. The reason for that is many individuals with huge potential might never succeed in life just because they have no means to put their skills and talents to use. A famous American investor and billionaire, Warren Buffet’s case clearly illustrates the point. Although the US is not perfectly egalitarian, it nevertheless gives its people access to basic necessities in life such as education and health care. As Buffet himself noted, even his unique skill of analyzing financial markets and choosing the right stocks would be of little or no value had he been deprived of these opportunities and been in different circumstances where he had no chance to use these skills to make his fortune. Thus, equal opportunities help to give everyone a chance to achieve success no matter the circumstances they are born into.
However, such societies might eliminate or, at least, significantly reduce incentives to work hard. If people are given the same resources without regard to their individual merits, it is likely that they will have little incentive to apply themselves. In such societies, it is the nation as a whole that benefits even if people were to succeed thanks to their unique abilities and diligence. As such, individuals themselves may not have much motivation to put in the effort. For example, Soviet engineer Mikhail Kalashnikov, the inventor of one of the most famous assault rifles in history, lived a modest life despite his incredible achievement and tremendous contribution to the nation’s progress. This was precisely because the Soviet Union was built around the idea that everyone should have fairly equal opportunities and all the progress had to be evenly shared by the community. It is not surprising, then, such social values discourage people from applying themselves, thereby hampering growth and preventing people from achieving their full potential.
In conclusion, although providing people with equal opportunities has its own advantages, I believe that it is an obstacle to personal growth because it removes incentives to work hard and put their skills into practice.
415 words
Discuss both sides and give your own opinion.
The equality of opportunity and its impact on personal success is a widely discussed topic these days. While some people try to make the case for egalitarian societies, claiming that they would lead to the greatest personal achievement, others argue that only meritocratic societies can help people reach high levels of success. Personally, I support the latter view.
On the one hand, giving everyone an equal opportunity regardless of their background can ensure that no hidden talent is wasted. The reason for that is many individuals with huge potential might never succeed in life just because they have no means to put their skills and talents to use. A famous American investor and billionaire, Warren Buffet’s case clearly illustrates the point. Although the US is not perfectly egalitarian, it nevertheless gives its people access to basic necessities in life such as education and health care. As Buffet himself noted, even his unique skill of analyzing financial markets and choosing the right stocks would be of little or no value had he been deprived of these opportunities and been in different circumstances where he had no chance to use these skills to make his fortune. Thus, equal opportunities help to give everyone a chance to achieve success no matter the circumstances they are born into.
However, such societies might eliminate or, at least, significantly reduce incentives to work hard. If people are given the same resources without regard to their individual merits, it is likely that they will have little incentive to apply themselves. In such societies, it is the nation as a whole that benefits even if people were to succeed thanks to their unique abilities and diligence. As such, individuals themselves may not have much motivation to put in the effort. For example, Soviet engineer Mikhail Kalashnikov, the inventor of one of the most famous assault rifles in history, lived a modest life despite his incredible achievement and tremendous contribution to the nation’s progress. This was precisely because the Soviet Union was built around the idea that everyone should have fairly equal opportunities and all the progress had to be evenly shared by the community. It is not surprising, then, such social values discourage people from applying themselves, thereby hampering growth and preventing people from achieving their full potential.
In conclusion, although providing people with equal opportunities has its own advantages, I believe that it is an obstacle to personal growth because it removes incentives to work hard and put their skills into practice.
415 words