Discussion about this post

User's avatar
David Jinkins's avatar

As Mike well knows (he literally wrote the book) and the comments here verify, we still need to appeal to intuition for this proof to work, since we have to accept the axioms.

Derek Parfit has another "intuition" argument against intrinsic egalitarianism. He imagines two islands separated by an ocean, so that island residents cannot communicate. In fact, they don't even know that the other island exists. One island has beautiful weather and abundant fruit trees, which make its residents rich and happy. The other island has crappy weather and its food is only barely palatable (locals call it "fish and chips"). Parfit asks if there is any way which we improve the value of the world by making the rich island residents poorer, without improving the lives of the poor island residents. According to intrinsic egalitarians, there is one way in which the world is better: there is less inequality. This seems to contradict many peoples' intuition.

Expand full comment
Wallet's avatar

Wouldn't an analogous "proof" work against any good that applies to an individual's life as a whole (i.e. any good that has an analogue to Principle A)?

If so, then doesn't this "prove" too much (e.g. doesn't it prove that there can be no such thing as a good life considered as a whole)? If not, why not?

Expand full comment
18 more comments...

No posts