Most people would sacrifice some life satisfaction in exchange for a more equal society
What kind of society would you rather live in: an equal one where everyone is just about getting by? Or an unequal one where most people are doing substantially better, but a small group consistently falls behind? Now imagine having to choose that society before you were even born, but with no idea of where you’ll end up in it. Seen this way, inequality becomes a question of risk. Would people gamble on the unequal world, knowing they might be among the unlucky few? Or would they stick with a basic but adequate life for all? Back in the 18th century, philosopher and social reformer Jeremy Bentham would probably have taken the gamble. Two hundred years later, egalitarian philosopher John Rawls, who was behind this thought experiment (which he called the “veil of ignorance”), argued against it. Economists call this an efficiency-equity trade-off; balancing fairness with the sometimes competing priority of making the most of society’s finite resources. Political scientists point to such attitudes on inequality as a fundamental difference between left and right. Yet …
