44

I feel like this question is conflicted on the issue of 'disproportionate' inequalities. To be clear, most academic and scientific experts are paid well, proportionately more than many other workers in society. Few people become conspicuously wealthy as an intellectual expert, but it is a comfortable lifestyle when one achieves it. So the question isn't ...


32

I disagree with the premise that these two views are in some way contradictory or conflicting to hold at the same time. The alleged discrepancy you're pointing out, when you boil it down to its core, effectively argues that "comparable" and "equatable" are synonymous, which they are not. Note that this answers mainly focuses on the ...


11

Let me set Rawls to one side and bring Marx on stage. It may be a mistake to translate the complex, abstract idea of "equality" into the monetized value measurements of a modern economy. Even Marx recognized that is was silly to suppose socialism meant no more hierarchies or expertise or status systems, some sort of social flattening. Equality is a ...


8

1. It was never "your" income to begin with There is a key idea one should realize before going any further: there is no such thing as "your" income (unless you have earned it on an inhabited island, or in a lawless jungle, relying on yourself and no one else). When you are earning money within a societal framework, leveraging on its laws ...


7

(From a utilitarian perspective.) There's a tradeoff here that arguably Rawls perspective doesn't fully recognize. It all comes down to the diminishing marginal utility of wealth. On the one hand, the existence of inequality is necessary because most people are motivated by incentives and selfish goals. If it weren't for inequality, there'd be no selfish ...


5

One important aspect is that people do not get rich because of hard work, people get rich because they take risks in business. Jeff Bezos is not extremely rich because he has worked hard. He is rich because he has taken several risks that has payed very well off. That is not to say that knowing what risks to take or not is a skill, and as such can be valued. ...


4

By the logic of who contributes most to the group and/or society as a whole, if we acknowledge that some individuals contributes significantly more to society (based on their formally recognized expertise and training) to the point that their decisions and opinions override those of 1000s or 10s of 1000s that disagree with them, then how can we object to the ...


4

Something to think about is the distribution of the inequality matters. If you took the entire human population and graphed physical traits like height, weight, strength, you would see a normal distribution, or to simplify a bit, a bell curve with most people within 1 standard deviation of the mean and very very few people on the edges. This gets a bit ...


2

Technically, both are allowed. But that's not the real question here. The question is which scenario would be chosen in a Rawlsian Original Position. To decide that, I would argue, there isn't enough information. That is, Nozick's claim is unjustified and probably mere polemics. 1. Distribution vs. political system What we are given are allocations (...


2

An answer in response to the question's update. You are asking about an apparent contradiction in these two statements: We should listen to advice of "top experts" much more than others. It is unfair or unjust that "top earners" make so much more money than others. I think the analogy you have in mind may be: It is unfair or unjust ...


1

Edit: I think this is a good answer, but not to OPs original question Haha. I went off on a bit of a tangent. Mea culpa. I will look at revising it tomorrow morning. A. We as a society do better if we as individuals are rewarded for our efforts, because, well we're are more motivated that way. (n.b., Money is only one form of reward) B. We as a society are ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible