I have another intuition for egalitarianism: the distribution of power.
Most resources in our world can be traded for influence/power, such as money, time and materials.
Therefore, in the real scenarios that guide our intuitions, inequality is associated with concentration of power.
To put it in a charicature example: I don’t care if TechnoBro 3000 celebrates his birthday in the asteroid belt with his 10^30 gold plated robot friends, but I do care if he can buy the elections of Democratistan.
This is not a rebuttal of the narrow definition of egalitarianism, but is close enough to work as an intuition pump if we are not being very theoretical.
I don’t care if TechnoBro 3000 celebrates his birthday in the asteroid belt with his 10^30 gold plated robot friends, but I do care if he can buy the elections of Democratistan.
You care about whether he can buy the elections intrinsically or instrumentally (in particular, because of its impact on the welfare of the people in Democratistan)? The latter is still very much compatible with rejecting egalitarianism and prioritarianism. Buying elections may decrease total welfare.
I care instrumentally, because it may impact negative on the welfare of other people.
And yes, I agree that this is totally compatible with rejecting egalitarianism and prioritarianism, but it’s not so obvious.
I was trying to illustrate why I think many people endorse some sort of egalitarianism and have thoughts like “inequality bad”, which are easy to confuse with “inequality intrinsically bad”.
I have another intuition for egalitarianism: the distribution of power.
Most resources in our world can be traded for influence/power, such as money, time and materials.
Therefore, in the real scenarios that guide our intuitions, inequality is associated with concentration of power.
To put it in a charicature example: I don’t care if TechnoBro 3000 celebrates his birthday in the asteroid belt with his 10^30 gold plated robot friends, but I do care if he can buy the elections of Democratistan.
This is not a rebuttal of the narrow definition of egalitarianism, but is close enough to work as an intuition pump if we are not being very theoretical.
Hi Clara.
You care about whether he can buy the elections intrinsically or instrumentally (in particular, because of its impact on the welfare of the people in Democratistan)? The latter is still very much compatible with rejecting egalitarianism and prioritarianism. Buying elections may decrease total welfare.
Hi,
I care instrumentally, because it may impact negative on the welfare of other people.
And yes, I agree that this is totally compatible with rejecting egalitarianism and prioritarianism, but it’s not so obvious.
I was trying to illustrate why I think many people endorse some sort of egalitarianism and have thoughts like “inequality bad”, which are easy to confuse with “inequality intrinsically bad”.