My main argument against ‘Equality of Opportunity’ would be to simply look at human history, all of humanity started their journey from Ancient Africa in this cruel wide world and now suddenly there’s inequality among people.
Thing about humans is, everyone likes to hate someone beneath them in social hierarchy according to the zeitgeist, everyone, be it an elitist condescending a commoner, noble culture to savages, upper class to less fortunates, White Caucasian to Black Africans, Black people to Asians, minority A to minority B, men to women and so on.
‘Equality of Outcome’ on the other hand raises the question of fairness, in humanity’s search for a just society, equality of outcome questions the entire premise of ethics and morality itself, that is, why would a ‘lesser man’ get the opportunity when there’s plenty of the elites left.
I mean, why give a desk job to a woman when the statistics suggest men are historically more productive?
Why give a senior position to a black man when you know a white caucasian is more likely to seal the deal?
Why give the role of Mary Kom to a northeastern women when you have Priyanka Chopra with stellar track record?
Why worry about accommodating queer people in your workforce when simply denying their existence and continuing with gender binary is more profitable and requires less managerial expenses?
Why would you give a dangerous job to a desperate man when you can get a machine to do that work without all the liabilities of involving humans?
Why bother electing Dilip Ghosh or Anubrata Mondal to power, when they are seen as expendables by their own parties and the people are very much accustomed to see their leaders with brahmin surnames?
Why bother thinking about others when you can in fact think about Yourself?