Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare

1. Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare Richard Arneson

2. Central Question and Arneson’s Project • What is the ideal of distributive equality? When we care about an equal distribution, what space of measure do we want individuals to be equalized in? • Argue against equality of resources. • Argue against equality of welfare. • Argue for equality of opportunity for welfare as the best interpretation of the ideal of distributive equality.

3. Against Equality of Resources • Equality of Resources maintains that: everyone should have the same share of resources. • Problem of handicaps -- suppose Smith and Jones have similar tastes and abilities except that Smith has a severe physical handicap remediable with the help of expensive crutches, then if the two are accorded equal resources, Smith must spend the bulk of his resources on crutches whereas Jones can use his resource share to fulfill his aims to a far greater extent. • In general, in order for resources to matter people must be able to convert them equally well. If Smith and Jones both like ice cream, then equality of resources matters, only if they can convert their resources equally well to get ice cream.

4. Against Equality of Resources • The Problem of the Slavery of the Talented: If A and B are identical in all respects, except that A is more talented than B, then it is less likely that A will be able to get their life plan satisfied than B in a cooperative society that includes A and B and unequal distribution of resources. • The problem is basically that A’s time is more valuable than B’s because of the productive value of A’s talents over B’s talents. • Our basic intuition is that A and B should both have an equal chance of getting their life-plans off the ground. But in order for there to be a greater number of social good G so that it can be unequally distributed between the talented and the untalented, to equalize for the low social value of the untalented, the talented must work more.

5. Against Equality of Resources • One could reinterpret equality of resources so as to include the view that each individual is responsible for the preferences they form. On this view, if a person develops expensive tastes, and thus requires more resources to have their preferences satisfied, equality of resources does not require a redistribution. While we cannot be blamed for not having any singing talent, we can be blamed for aspiring to be a singer when we have no talent. • The Social Biological Problem – people cannot be held solely responsible for their tastes, since social factors and biological factors out of one’s control are partly responsible for the tastes one forms. In general, the issue is how do we draw a line between what is in our control and not in our control.

6. Against Equality of Welfare • Equality of Welfare maintains: goods are distributed equally among a group of persons to the degree that the distribution brings it about that each person enjoys the same welfare. The view requires that we can make cardinal interpersonal welfare comparisons. • Equality of welfare requires an interpretation of what ‘welfare’ means. One view of ‘welfare’ is that it means preference satisfaction. • The more a person P’s preferences are satisfied, weighted by their importance to that individual, the higher their welfare.

7. Against Equality of Welfare • A central question about welfare understood as preference satisfaction is: what kind of preferences matter? • Rational preferences matter: A person P’s rational preferences are those preferences that P arrives at through ideally reasoning with full information and no reasoning errors about what they prefer. • The process includes considering with full information their actual preferences and: • One’s actual resistance to advice regarding the rationality of their preferences • The costs of an educational program that would break down this resistance. • The probability that an educational program breaking down their resistance would be implemented in their lifetime.

8. Against Equality of Welfare • If we must insist on equality of welfare, when inequality in welfare is dueto voluntary choice, then equality of welfare is a poor ideal. • There are several cases in which two individuals start out with equality of resources, but through their own rational and voluntary choices end up unequal in welfare. • So, equality of welfare is a poor ideal. Suppose A and B are equal in resources, but A chooses pursuing welfare while B chooses pursuing saving the whales. Now suppose, that A ends up with 100 units and B ends up with 60 units. Would it be just to redistribute resources so as to allow B the chance of greater welfare?

9. Equality of Opportunity for Welfare • An opportunity is a chance of getting a good if one seeks it. Equal opportunity for welfare obtains among a number of persons A, B, and C, if each person faces an array of options that is equivalent to every other person’s in terms of the prospects for preference satisfaction it offers the person. • Let the x = total value, y = value of the state, and z = probability in x = (y * z). EOW occurs when total value is identical in every person’s ranked choices of life styles.

10. Effectively Equivalent Options • A number of persons face effectively equivalent options when either: • The options are equivalent and the persons are on a par in their ability to “negotiate” these options. • The options are non-equivalent in such a way to counterbalance exactly any inequalities in their negotiating abilities. • The options are equivalent and any inequalities in people’s negotiating abilities are due to causes for which it is proper to hold the individuals themselves personally responsible. EOW occurs when people face effectively equivalent options.

11. Egalitarian Options

12. Straight Equality vs. Equal Opportunity • It is morally appropriate to hold individuals responsible for the foreseeable consequence of their voluntary choices. • Straight equality does not hold individuals responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their voluntary choices. Equal opportunity allows for the possibility of holding individuals responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their voluntary choices. • So, equal opportunity for distributive good g is preferable to straight equality of distributive good g.

13. Resources vs. Welfare Equality of opportunity of resources obtains amongst a group of persons when the range of lotteries with resources as prizes available to each are effectively the same. The range of lotteries are effectively the same for A and B when for any lottery available to A, there is an equivalent lottery available for B. • Equal opportunity of resources faces the problem of the slavery of the talented. • Slavery of the talented is a morally unacceptable feature of a just distribution. • So, equality of opportunity for resources involves a morally unacceptable feature of a just distribution.

14. Equality of Opportunity for Welfare and the Capabilities Approach • Arneson agrees with Sen’s objection to the Rawlsian primary goods approach: • Equality of primary goods only matters fundamentally to justice if individuals are equal in their ability to convert primary goods into valuable ends. • People vary, due to physical, social, and environmental factors, in their ability to convert primary goods. • So, equality of primary goods cannot be of fundamental importance to justice

15. Equality of Opportunity for Welfare and the Capabilities Approach • Arneson has a point of disagreement with Sen that concerns the relation between EOW and (CA). • (CA) must specify an objective list of which capabilities matter. A list of this sort must come from a perfectionist doctrine of what is human perfection. • Either we cannot produce an objective list or we are lacking a perfectionist doctrine. • To the degree that EOW does not require a perfectionist doctrine or objective list, it is preferable to (CA). • So, EOW is preferable to (CA).