Monastery of the Holy Cross

  • Home
  • About
    • Benedictine Life
    • History
  • Visit Us
    • Guesthouse
    • Prayer Schedule
      • Christmas 2024
    • The Catholic Readers Society
    • Caskets
  • Vocations
    • Monastic Experience Weekend
    • Formation
    • Oblates
      • Oblate Podcast
  • Solemn Vespers
    • Chant
  • Contact
  • Donate

Opportunity and Outcome…and Fortuna

June 18, 2018

Kurt Vonnegut’s prescient short story Harrison Bergeron begins:

THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else.

Back in 1961, Vonnegut was lampooning the idea of “equality of outcome.” The most prominent critic of equality of outcome today is, undoubtedly, Jordan Peterson, who argues instead for “equality of opportunity.” Both Vonnegut and Peterson recognize that equality of outcome requires a tyrranical, interventionist State.

I’m sympathetic, however, to Peterson’s critics who point out that opportunity will never be equal as long as outcomes are unequal. As my sister, an adoption worker, once put it, the children of her wealthy, educated friends already enjoy opportunities denied to the children of the poor. Even in the womb, one group of children tends to get a higher level of nutrition, and in the critical early years of life, the children of the wealthy enjoy social and health benefits magnitudes better than what their impoverished peers are afforded.

In observing this, I by no means am advocating for equality of outcome.

It’s a false dichotomy. The acceptance of these as the only two options hides from us that what we are accepting is an immanentist, liberal, modern “Kingdom of this World,” and not the eschatological Kingdom of God.

These two efforts at equality reflect the two sides of liberal modernity, what Patrick Deneen calls the “classical liberal” side (which favors opportunity and accepts inequality of outcome) and the “progressive” side (which believes that liberalism will not have triumphed until everyone feels that they’ve gotten their fair share).

The big question for me regarding the bare notion of opportunity is, “Opportunity for what?” The assumptions behind the whole notion of opportunity are utilitarian. Individuals should have the opportunities necessary to maximize their own happiness, which is largely reduced to pleasure. The fact that opportunities for, say, growth in virtue, are perennially open to virtually anyone, doesn’t come up. Why? In part, this is because genuine virtue opposes individualized notions of economic advancement, social mobility, unbridled acquisition, and the like.

As for outcome, the fact that ultimate outcomes are at the heart of the preaching of Jesus Christ also never comes up. The fact that, in the end, the poor in spirit will obtain the Kingdom of Heaven and the meek will inherit the earth is, frankly, off our radar when we accept the debate between outcome and opportunity. The notion that we might need to attempt something manifestly unpleasurable, like pluck out an eye, in order to merit a good outcome doesn’t arise as a serious question when we wade into the debate as is it presented.

One of the most hopeful aspects of our Lord’s Incarnation is the light that it sheds on the spiritual world behind what we see in this age. Jesus Christ calls us to imagine and live in a vastly grander notion of existence than that on offer from liberal modernity. All of us have the opportunity to be called “children of God” and to live forever. Now those are worthwhile opportunities and outcomes!

The flip side of this eschatological viewpoint is the strong relativization of the world that is passing away. This vindicates the place of fortuna in the older worldview, the idea that the haves and have-nots will emerge without any obviously permanent pattern. One of liberal modernity’s goals is the elimination of fortuna and the replacement of this goddess with a more-or-less permanent meritocracy.

My last observation in this meandering reflection is that this is another place where we see Dr. Peterson attempting to rescue liberalism from within. I take it that Deneen has proven that this can’t work. What interests me greatly in Peterson’s work is that his instinct keeps pushing him toward a recognition that liberal modernity isn’t rescuable. The drama of his intellectual arc is whether this recognition will push him to a full-tilt pagan Nietzscheanism or toward Christianity.

« Previous article
Next article »

Categories: Jottings, Moral Theology Tags: fortuna, Jordan Peterson, Kingdom of God, liberal modernity, opportunity, outcome

Blog Topics

  • Beauty (11)
  • Contemplative Prayer (47)
  • Contra Impios (2)
  • Culture (18)
  • Discernment (21)
  • Formation (8)
  • General (40)
  • Going to the Father (18)
  • Gregorian Chant (5)
  • Holy Spirit (3)
  • Jottings (25)
  • Liturgy (78)
  • Meditations on Heaven (4)
  • Monastic Life (42)
  • Moral Theology (43)
  • Music (17)
  • Scripture (52)
  • Vatican II and the New Evangelization (20)

Blog Archives

  • May 2025 (1)
  • April 2025 (4)
  • March 2025 (4)
  • February 2025 (3)
  • January 2025 (5)
  • December 2024 (8)
  • November 2024 (3)
  • October 2024 (9)
  • September 2024 (8)
  • August 2024 (9)
  • July 2024 (9)
  • June 2024 (8)
  • May 2024 (9)
  • April 2024 (4)
  • November 2023 (1)
  • April 2023 (1)
  • December 2022 (1)
  • October 2022 (1)
  • March 2022 (1)
  • February 2022 (1)
  • August 2021 (2)
  • June 2021 (1)
  • May 2021 (1)
  • April 2021 (1)
  • February 2021 (2)
  • January 2021 (1)
  • December 2020 (1)
  • August 2020 (4)
  • June 2020 (1)
  • May 2020 (4)
  • April 2020 (9)
  • March 2020 (4)
  • February 2020 (1)
  • January 2020 (1)
  • December 2019 (1)
  • July 2019 (2)
  • June 2019 (1)
  • May 2019 (1)
  • April 2019 (2)
  • March 2019 (1)
  • February 2019 (3)
  • January 2019 (1)
  • December 2018 (1)
  • November 2018 (2)
  • October 2018 (2)
  • September 2018 (2)
  • August 2018 (1)
  • July 2018 (2)
  • June 2018 (4)
  • May 2018 (7)
  • April 2018 (1)
  • March 2018 (1)
  • February 2018 (1)
  • January 2018 (2)
  • November 2017 (1)
  • October 2017 (1)
  • September 2017 (1)
  • August 2017 (1)
  • July 2017 (2)
  • June 2017 (2)
  • March 2017 (1)
  • February 2017 (2)
  • December 2016 (1)
  • November 2016 (3)
  • August 2016 (2)
  • May 2016 (2)
  • April 2016 (5)
  • March 2016 (2)
  • December 2015 (1)
  • November 2015 (2)
  • October 2015 (3)
  • August 2015 (10)
  • July 2015 (12)
  • June 2015 (17)
  • May 2015 (2)
  • April 2015 (7)
 
© 2025 Monastery of the Holy Cross
  • Accessibility
Web Design by ePageCity