To agree or not to agree with Paul Viminitz? That is the question. Paul Viminitz talks about 6 moral intuitions that have muddled our thinking about distributive justice(Artificial Prudence, p13). Viminitz talks about moral intuitions and political arrangements share a similarity of game theory and that distributive justice is arguably the largest part of morality and politics (A.P., p13). Egalitarianism is the moral intuition that I will talk about.Egalitarianism says that every person should have the same level of materialgoods and services. This principle is justified on the grounds that people are owed equal respect and that equality in material goods and services is the best way to give effect to this ideal of equal respect. But a few problems are created from this, one of the problems is how to measure these materials and specify them. A way of solving this could be, giving everyone the same of everything in the same amounts (1 car, 2 televisions, 5 kiwis, 1 watermelon, etc) but here we go again another problem is made by this solution because there are many other services and material goods that will make other people better off and at the same time wont make anybody worse off. I will be happier if I got 6 watermelons because I dont like kiwis that much while others may prefer 6 kiwis instead of the 1 watermelon. So everybody will for sure want to trade something off in order to get something back they will be better off with. So by distributing the same material goods in equal amounts will make people worse off instead of making them better off materially. So trying to solve this is very problematic.Another problem that arises from this is that when will these material goods be given. Will there be a time frame when these materials are given out but even then this will cause a problem because not everyone thinks a like. Some people may not like to spend as much money as others some dont need many material goods to be happy, so...
