John Rawls, answered from the texts and cited to the page.
Fair equality of opportunity is the principle that positions in society should be open not merely in a formal sense — not merely in the sense that no legal barrier prevents anyone from applying — but in the deeper sense that those with similar native talents and the same willingness to use them should face similar prospects of success, regardless of the social class into which they were born.1
The contrast with what I call the system of natural liberty is essential to understanding what the principle adds. Under natural liberty, careers are formally open to talents, but no effort is made to preserve any equality of social conditions beyond what is required to maintain background institutions. The result is that the existing distribution of income and wealth becomes the cumulative effect of prior distributions of natural assets — talents and abilities as these have been developed or left unrealized, favored or disfavored by social circumstances and the contingencies of accident and good fortune.2
The injustice is that distributive shares end up improperly influenced by factors that are, from a moral point of view, entirely arbitrary.3 Fair equality of opportunity — what I call liberal equality — corrects for this by requiring that in all sectors of society there be roughly the same prospects of culture and achievement for those similarly motivated and endowed, irrespective of the class into which they were born.4
This is not self-executing. Accomplishing it requires that the basic structure be shaped by political and legal institutions that adjust the long-run trend of economic forces so as to prevent excessive concentrations of property and wealth, particularly those likely to lead to political domination, and that society establish equal opportunities of education for all regardless of family income.5
Inheritance fits into this framework in a specific way. The unequal inheritance of wealth is no more inherently unjust than the unequal inheritance of intelligence; the essential requirement is that, as far as possible, inequalities founded on either should satisfy the difference principle. Inheritance is permissible, then, provided that the resulting inequalities are to the advantage of the least fortunate and are compatible with liberty and fair equality of opportunity itself.6
One point worth stressing: fair equality of opportunity, as I have described it, is a difficult and not altogether clear idea, and I have always acknowledged as much.7 Its role is best understood negatively — by seeing what it corrects — before its positive content can be specified. What it corrects is the defect in formal equality, which leaves distributive shares hostage to morally arbitrary contingencies.
What it requires, positively, is a set of institutions that assures similar chances of education and culture for persons similarly motivated, and keeps positions open to all on the basis of relevant qualities rather than social origin.8
those at the same level of talent and ability and who have the same willingness to use them, should have the same prospects of success regardless of their initial place in the social system, that is, irrespective of the class into which they were born.8 Distributive Justice: Some Addenda, pp. 175–176
The existing distribution of income and wealth, say, is the cumulative effect of prior distributions of natural assets, that is, natural talents and abilities, as these have been affected and their use favored or disfavored over time by social circumstances and such chance contingencies as accident and good fortune.8 Distributive Justice: Some Addenda, pp. 175–176
The injustice of the system of natural liberty is that it permits distributive shares to be improperly influenced by these factors.8 Distributive Justice: Some Addenda, pp. 175–176
supposing that there is a distribution of native endowments, those who have the same level of talent and ability and the same willingness to use these gifts should have the same prospects of success regardless of their social class of origin, the class into which they are born and develop until the age of reason. In all parts of society there are to be roughly the same prospects of culture and achievement for those similarly motivated and endowed.Justice as Fairness A Restatement, p. 7
A free market system must be set within a framework of political and legal institutions that adjust the long-run trend of economic forces so as to prevent excessive concentrations of property and wealth, especially those likely to lead to political domination. Society must also establish, among other things, equal opportunities of education for all regardless of family income.Justice as Fairness A Restatement, p. 7
inheritance is permissible provided that the resulting inequalities are to the advantage of the least fortunate and compatible with liberty and fair equality of opportunity.A Theory of Justice, p. 245
This is a difficult and not altogether clear idea; its role is perhaps best gathered from why it is introduced: namely, to correct the defects of formal equality of opportunity—careers open to talents—in the system of natural liberty.Justice as Fairness A Restatement, pp. 6–7
fair equality of opportunity means a certain set of institutions that assures similar chances of education and culture for persons similarly motivated and keeps positions and offices open to all on the basis of qualities andA Theory of Justice, p. 245