The lottery of birth theory refers to the idea that where and to whom a person is born is completely random, similar to a lottery. This random assignment of place and circumstances of birth can have a profound impact on an individual’s opportunities, resources, and quality of life. The basic premise is that all humans are born equally valuable, but their life outcomes are largely determined by factors outside of their control. As a result, inequality of opportunity arises from the “lottery” of where and to whom a person is born.
What does the lottery of birth theory state?
The lottery of birth theory makes the following key claims:
- The circumstances into which a person is born (their family, country, socioeconomic status, etc.) are morally arbitrary.
- These arbitrary circumstances have an outsized influence on a person’s opportunities, resources, and overall outcomes in life.
- Factors like geography, era, and social status are outside of an individual’s control yet greatly affect their access to things like education, healthcare, nutrition, and economic opportunities.
- Therefore, inequality of opportunity across societies is largely the result of this “birth lottery” rather than differences in individual merit or effort.
In summary, the lottery of birth theory argues that life outcomes are more so the product of luck in the circumstances of one’s birth rather than hard work or innate skill. It highlights how arbitrary factors related to birth impact access to resources and opportunities for human development.
What are some examples of the birth lottery?
Here are some concrete examples of how the metaphorical “birth lottery” influences opportunities and resources:
- Country of birth: Being born in a developed country versus a developing country impacts access to healthcare, education, economic opportunities, and more. For instance, the life expectancy in Japan is 84 years old compared to 64 years old in Afghanistan.
- Wealth of family: Wealthier parents have more resources to invest in their children’s health, education and development. Upbringing in poverty can negatively impact cognitive development, school performance, and physical health.
- Race and ethnicity: Due to systemic racism and discrimination, opportunities are not equal across racial and ethnic groups within countries. For example in the U.S., the median wealth of White households is over 10 times higher than Black households.
- Gender: Women and girls still face discrimination and restricted opportunities in many societies. Factors like gender gaps in education, healthcare, and workforce participation limit equality of opportunity.
- Disability status: Persons with disabilities face physical and social barriers to accessing equal education, employment and healthcare opportunities in many parts of the world.
These are just some examples of how external circumstances outside one’s control can greatly shape access to resources and opportunities. Proponents of the lottery of birth theory argue we should take these arbitrary factors into account when examining inequality.
How does the theory view merit and effort?
The lottery of birth theory acknowledges that personal choices and efforts do matter for outcomes. However, it argues that merit and effort alone cannot overcome the influences of the circumstances into which someone is born.
Advocates of the theory claim that meritocratic systems which focus only on merit and effort ignore the inherent advantages and privileges some people are born into. For example, even talented individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds often lack access to the same quality of:
- Healthcare and nutrition needed for proper development.
- Education and enrichment resources to nurture their abilities.
- Business loans, networks and role models to actualize entrepreneurial merit.
Therefore, the theory contends that merit-based systems are not truly fair unless they account for and actively reduce the inequality of opportunities. Focusing solely on merit ignores the inherent barriers faced from birth by large segments of the population based on gender, race, disability status and socioeconomic class.
How does birth lottery impact views on economic inequality?
The lottery of birth theory is highly critical of extreme economic inequality across societies. Huge divides in wealth and living standards between rich and poor people, or between rich and poor nations, are seen as largely unjust from this perspective.
This is because much of that economic inequality stems from arbitrary circumstances of birth rather than merit. The theory argues it is unjust for a small elite to control the bulk of resources and capital primarily due to lucky circumstances of birth.
For example, around half of all household wealth in the U.S. is inherited rather than earned. The theory contends this undermines meritocratic notions that “hard work pays off” when so much capital is passed down through generations.
Therefore, the birth lottery perspective sees extreme inequality as unfair and believes steps should be taken to remedy those unequal starting points. However, there is debate around how exactly to implement policies to reduce inequality stemming from birth lottery imbalances.
What are some proposed policies based on the theory?
Some policies that have been proposed based on the lottery of birth theory include:
- Progressive taxation – Taxing higher incomes at increased rates to fund social programs that expand opportunity.
- Universal basic income – Providing citizens with a guaranteed minimum income to reduce poverty.
- Universal healthcare – Ensuring equal access to healthcare regardless of socioeconomic status.
- Affirmative action – Programs that consider disadvantageous circumstances to promote equal access to education and jobs.
- Universal basic assets – One-time inheritance payment to all citizens reaching adulthood to even out unequal transfers of family wealth.
- Investing in early childhood programs – Focus educational and developmental resources towards young low-income children.
However, there is considerable disagreement around which policies are most fair and effective for remedying birth lottery inequality. Critics argue some programs unfairly limit meritocracy or are unrealistic in cost and implementation. There are also debates around how much influence birth circumstances versus individual agency truly have on outcomes.
What are some of the limitations of the theory?
While the lottery of birth theory highlights important influences on inequality, there are some limitations to consider:
- It may underestimate individual agency. Some critics argue the theory depicts people too fatalistically as passive products of their circumstances.
- Not all children from poor or disadvantaged backgrounds fare poorly, and some overcome their circumstances through talent and effort.
- It does not fully explain cultural differences in achievement across groups facing similar barriers.
- There are concerns around how much redistribution of resources is truly justified based on birth privilege alone.
- It is difficult to implement policies or define metrics that properly account for each person’s level of disadvantage/advantage from birth circumstances.
In summary, the lottery of birth theory focuses heavily on arbitrary circumstances while potentially undervaluing personal responsibility and decision-making. There are also practical hurdles around policy solutions and concerns that some applications overreach on equalizing outcomes. Nonetheless, many see the theory as highlighting important moral and practical truths about the origins of unfair inequalities in society.
How does the theory relate to equality of opportunity?
The lottery of birth theory is deeply connected to concepts around equality of opportunity. It argues that true equality of opportunity does not exist, even in meritocratic systems, unless the influence of the birth lottery is actively counteracted.
Advocates of the theory contend we cannot claim to have fair merit-based systems while allowing arbitrary circumstances of birth to confer such unequal access to opportunities. Some inequality will always exist due to differences in effort and decisions. However, the theory claims we have a moral imperative to remedy inequalities that have roots in arbitrary birth circumstances rather than merit.
In this view, actively compensating for birth lottery imbalances, often through public policy, is seen as necessary to ensure we are as close as realistically possible to true equal opportunity across society. This perspective sees unequal outcomes primarily as failures of social systems rather than simply individual failures.
How has the theory evolved and been critiqued over time?
The basic notion that birth circumstances confer unequal life chances dates back centuries in political philosophy. But John Rawls’ seminal 1971 work, A Theory of Justice, was influential in crystallizing this into a comprehensive theory of justice.
Rawls argued that moral principles of justice should be established from behind a “veil of ignorance” where no one knows what circumstances they will be born into. From this “original position”, he claimed people would choose to structure society to maximize the well-being of the least advantaged.
His arguments helped inspire a wave of political philosophy examining justice and inequality through the lens of birth lottery impacts. Philosophers like Ronald Dworkin built upon Rawls’ theories around “starting-gate” equality.
Critiques and debates have focused on:
- How to balance birth lottery factors versus individual responsibility.
- When redistribution becomes excessive/”leveling down” versus promoting opportunity.
- Implementation hurdles of policy solutions.
- Whether positive discrimination itself becomes unjust.
- If the theory overly diminishes individual free will and effort.
While aspects are still debated, the birth lottery perspective remains influential in broader discussions around justice, equality, and overcoming barriers to opportunity in society.
How prevalent is support for the theory among the general public?
There has been limited polling data on public attitudes specifically towards the academic lottery of birth theory. However, there is some related data on perspectives regarding related concepts of equal opportunity and privilege.
A 2019 U.S. survey by Pew Research found that 71% of Americans believe that everyone should have an equal opportunity to succeed, suggesting broad concern over inequality of opportunity.
Additionally, 61% agreed that “our country needs to continue making changes to give blacks equal rights with whites.” This indicates recognition of systemic disadvantages faced by certain racial groups.
At the same time, there is less consensus around policy solutions: only 23% favored preferential hiring and promotions to help minorities, while 75% focused on improving education quality starting at early ages.
A 2019 survey of nine countries by the World Economic Forum and Ipsos found that majorities in most countries acknowledge advantages in their lives that others do not have due to circumstances beyond their control. But there was variation between countries, with Sweden, Argentina and Mexico expressing the highest recognition of unequal advantages.
In summary, data indicates general public concern over inequality of opportunity, but less consensus on how to address it or support for some direct redistributive policies implied by the lottery of birth theory. Views differ considerably based on country context, individual political orientation, and specific policy approaches.
Conclusion
The lottery of birth theory argues that arbitrary circumstances related to where, when and to whom someone is born are the primary drivers of outcome inequality, rather than meritocratic factors. These unearned and random differences in starting places undermine notions of equal opportunity.
While not without limitations, the theory highlights how external factors such as race, gender, ethnicity, geography and family wealth inequality inherited at birth impact access to resources and development. Advocates contend we have a moral duty to remedy these sources of unequal opportunity to the extent possible.
Debates continue around how to properly balance correcting birth lottery imbalances with individual responsibility. There are also practical hurdles around which policy approaches are most fair, effective and politically viable. However, the basic moral intuitions around arbitrary privilege and disadvantage expressed in the lottery of birth theory remain salient across mainstream political discourse.