Another fraught moral question. Does distribution matter? Is it really OK if the winners win really big if the losers are also a little bit better off.
Both evolotionart biology and behavioural experiments suggest that this does matter. People consistently refuse deals which feels unfair, even if they are obviously better off taking the unfair deal. This is a very well established result in behavioural economics. It's called the ultimatum game.
The surprising new learning is that chimps will accept unfair deals. This notion of fairness seems to be unique to our species. We probably evolved with this sense. It probably plays a key role in our success as a species, in making possible more complex social organization.
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9898270
2 comments:
Careful - you asked whether it mattered (in general), then answered whether it mattered to an individual. I also wonder (without having yet read the Economist article) if there is a degree of Maslow's hierarchy coming in here. I may object less to your 4 course banquet if the perceived alternative is me starving.
The thinking there is that if it matters to enough individuals, it matters in general. That is not obvious...that just the way it plays out in a political economy. Especially a democracy. It's never really been obvious why questions about income distribution dominate the political debate more than questions about absolute income.
You've promoted me to think deeper and turn this comment into a whole post...see part 2
Post a Comment