I was sent a review copy of On Inequality, by Harry G. Frankfurt. On p. 11, he writes,
a preoccupation with the condition of others interferes with the most basic task on which a person’s intelligent selection of monetary goals for himself most decisively depends.
I imagine that an egalitarian could respond: yes, I need to focus on calculating what it is that I need to be happy. However, I also need to be concerned that others are taking more than they deserve. High levels of inequality are a symptom that some people are taking more than they deserve. They are defectors in that sense, and it is important that the rest of us punish defectors and reward cooperators, who are people who take only what they deserve.
In other words, I do not think that the book will persuade anyone who does not already agree.
>>a preoccupation with the condition of others interferes with the most basic task on which a person’s intelligent selection of monetary goals
Yes, in most cases, unless you happened to be an ‘intellectual’ — politician, journalist etc. But in other cases also it’s eventually an expression of marginal value preference. Even self-proclaimed selflessness is an expression of self-interest.
>>High levels of inequality are a symptom that some people are taking more than they deserve
Could be, yes. Are, no. There is no logical path from that one piece of information to any conclusion.
Hey! it’s always good to know “what’s out there” to be had, guess at how it was gotten; and, if you want to take a different track to get some.
“In other words, I do not think that the book will persuade anyone who does not already agree.”
Nothing will persuade people who have been socialized to regard the prevailing ethos of “egalitarianism” as the core moral principle. Equality for them is an end in itself, usually the supreme end, and is not instrumental to the attainment of any more basic good. Does this mean the rest of us should just shut up?
Incidentally, I apologize for my previous comment not being substantive enough to be allowed to stand. The same thought occurred to me before I posted it, but sometimes when you see a piñata, you just can’t resist taking a whack.
Inequality may be a symptom of a system that successfully identifies unequal potential. Figure that out first.
Unequal potential is irrelevant if you believe the principle by which wealth should be distributed is “to each according to his needs.”
Sentence structure like that won’t convince anyone either…
“I do not think that the book will persuade anyone who does not already agree.”
My moral intuition tells me that policy should not be driven by caveman moral intuitions. Concern for inequality is just PC drivel. People do not want real equality; they only want “less” inequality. But it sounds odd to my ears to argue how much inequality we are going to tolerate in the name of “equality”.