DWorking- Simplified

Equality is a widely embraced but complex political ideal. It's important to

specify what form of equality truly matters because achieving equality in one
aspect might result in inequality in others. For instance, equal income doesn't
guarantee equal life satisfaction, and vice versa. So, it's essential to clarify the
concept of equality.

Consider a scenario where a wealthy man has multiple children with various
needs and preferences. One child is blind, another has expensive tastes, a third
has ambitious political goals, one is a humble poet, and another is a sculptor
working with costly materials. How should he distribute his wealth in his will?
The approach he takes depends on whether he prioritizes equality of welfare
or equality of resources. If he aims for equality of welfare, he considers the
differences among his children and doesn't distribute equal shares. Instead, he
assesses their needs and preferences, which may include handicaps, expensive
tastes, or ambitions. On the other hand, if he seeks equality of resources,
assuming his children already have roughly equal wealth, he might opt for an
equal division of his assets. The guiding principles for his decision-making
process would differ significantly based on his chosen goal.

Equality of welfare holds an immediate appeal because it emphasizes what's

fundamental in life, as economists intended when they adopted the concept of
welfare. It was meant to measure the intrinsic value of resources - resources
are valuable insofar as they contribute to welfare. Therefore, if we value
equality but define it solely in terms of resources without considering their
impact on welfare, we risk mistaking means for ends and fixating on
instrumental aspects. To genuinely treat people as equals, we should aim to
make their lives equally desirable to them or provide them with the means to
achieve such desirability, rather than focusing solely on equal bank account
balances.

This notion of equality of welfare gains support from situations like distributing
wealth among children. Specifically, those who are physically or mentally
handicapped are often seen as deserving of more resources to achieve equal
welfare. This aligns with the idea that resources should be allocated to mitigate
disadvantages caused by handicaps. However, the concept faces challenges,
especially in dealing with individuals with expensive tastes. While it may seem
fair to provide extra resources to the handicapped, it's less clear whether
individuals with costly preferences should receive more. For instance,
someone with extravagant tastes may need additional resources to attain the
same level of welfare as someone with simpler preferences like beer over
champagne. Yet, it might not appear fair to grant them more resources solely
based on their preferences. Additionally, the situation becomes more nuanced
when dealing with individuals pursuing ambitious goals, such as a politician or
sculptor, who require substantial resources to achieve their aspirations.

This leads to the question of whether the ideal of equality in welfare can be
accepted partially, rather than as the sole principle, within a comprehensive
theory of equality. It suggests that equality of welfare might have a role to play
in shaping principles of fairness but might not be the exclusive or primary
consideration in every situation.

In summary, the concept of equality is intricate, and its interpretation depends

on whether one prioritizes equality of welfare or equality of resources. Equality
of welfare has an initial appeal, but it encounters challenges when addressing
individuals with expensive tastes or ambitious goals. Therefore, it prompts
consideration of whether it should be one element within a broader theory of
equality rather than the sole guiding principle.
There are two main groups of theories regarding the concept of welfare and its
relationship to equality:

**Success Theories of Welfare:**

These theories assert that a person's welfare is determined by their success in
achieving their preferences, goals, and ambitions. Equality of success, as a
conception of equality of welfare, suggests that resources should be
distributed and transferred until no further redistribution can reduce the
differences in the extent to which individuals have succeeded in achieving their
preferences and goals.
1. **Political Preferences:** These are preferences concerning how goods,
resources, and opportunities in society should be distributed. They can
encompass formal political theories (like merit-based distribution) or informal
preferences (such as favoring those you like).

2. **Impersonal Preferences:** These are preferences related to matters

other than one's own life or the lives of others. For example, some people care
deeply about scientific advancement or the preservation of certain types of
beauty.

3. **Personal Preferences:** These preferences pertain to an individual's own

experiences or situation.

- The broadest form of equality of success seeks to make people equal in the
fulfillment of all their various preferences.

- A more limited version focuses only on non-political preferences.

- The narrowest version considers only personal preferences.

**Conscious State Theories or Enjoyment Theories:**

These theories of welfare emphasize the quality of an individual's conscious
life. Equality of welfare, according to these theories, should aim to make
people as equal as possible in some aspect or quality of their conscious
experiences. While early utilitarians like Bentham linked welfare to pleasure
and pain, most proponents of conscious state theories believe these concepts
are too narrow. They propose a broader range of desirable and undesirable
conscious states, including enjoyment and dissatisfaction, to represent
welfare.
**Objective Theories:**
Objective theories of welfare differ from subjective theories in that they don't
rely solely on an individual's own evaluation of their well-being.

1. **Equality of Regret:** This objective theory suggests that people should be

made equal in the amount of regret they have about their present lives. It
requires evaluating whether an individual's judgments about what gives value
to life align with what is considered reasonable by societal standards.

2. **Resource-Based Objective Theory:** This theory posits that a person's

welfare depends on the resources available to them, which can include
physical and mental competence, education, opportunities, and material
resources. It asserts that two people have the same welfare level if they
possess the same designated resources, regardless of whether they make the
most of these resources or are content with them.

In summary, theories of welfare can be categorized into success theories,

conscious state theories, and objective theories. Success theories focus on
preferences and success in achieving them, conscious state theories emphasize
the quality of conscious experiences, and objective theories incorporate
external criteria like regret or available resources to assess welfare. These
theories provide various perspectives on what constitutes equality of welfare.
The issue of expensive tastes and how they relate to the concept of equality of
welfare poses significant challenges to the idea of equality. Let's break down
the key points made in this section:

**Expensive Tastes:**
- Equality of welfare, as an ideal, appears to recommend that individuals with
expensive tastes or ambitions should receive more resources to achieve the
same level of welfare as those with less costly preferences.
- This recommendation may seem counter-intuitive, as it implies that those
who deliberately cultivate expensive tastes should be entitled to additional
resources.
- The problem arises when considering whether society should grant extra
wealth to individuals like "Louis," who choose to develop expensive tastes,
even though they previously had equal resources with others in society.
- Louis believes that his life will be better with these new tastes, but society
has already chosen a particular conception of welfare to ensure equality
among its members.

**Compromise within Equality:**

- The issue with expensive tastes lies in the compromise within the concept of
equality itself.
- If society adheres strictly to its chosen conception of equality, it may resist
giving Louis more resources, even though he argues that he values those
resources differently.
- The objection is that Louis should not infringe upon the fair shares of others,
even if he views his choices as leading to a more successful life, as it would be
unfair to them.

**The Problem of Handicaps:**

- The idea that equality of welfare must accommodate the needs of the
handicapped does not necessarily hold.
- While it may seem that individuals with physical or mental handicaps should
receive extra resources due to their lower welfare, this is not always justified.
- Some handicapped individuals may already have higher welfare than non-
handicapped individuals.
- Beliefs about the handicapped receiving extra resources are not solely based
on equality of welfare but may be influenced by other factors.

**Objective Welfare and Utility:**

- Some argue that welfare-based theories may fail to provide clear guidance
when faced with certain situations.
- For instance, a totally paralyzed but conscious person might have lower
welfare than others, but the principle of equality of welfare alone might not
justify radical resource transfers to them.
- In contrast, the principle of utility may recommend some compromise
between efficiency and equality, but where to draw the line remains
challenging.

**A Violin vs. a Machine:**

- A hypothetical scenario involving a paraplegic who desires either a specialized
machine to lead a more normal life or a Stradivarius violin illustrates the
complexities of equality of welfare.
- Both choices might improve the paraplegic's welfare, but so would owning
the violin for another individual without a handicap.
- If the community denies the paraplegic the option to buy the violin and insists
on the machine, it may seem inconsistent since they granted extra funds to
increase welfare but restricted how he could use them.

In summary, the problem of expensive tastes and how to accommodate the

handicapped within the concept of equality of welfare poses challenges and
potential inconsistencies. These issues highlight the need for a more nuanced
approach to equality that considers various factors, including individual
preferences and the broader context of fairness and justice.