The Problem of Well-Being: Respect, Equality, and the Self

I will argue that we humans are built for inequality. Inequality across individuals, to be sure. We are descended from social apes for whom group membership, group exclusion, and social hierarchy are fundamental facts of life. But in an especially deep sense, I want to suggest, we are built for inequality across time. Some puzzles about well-being—at least, the sort of well-being that appears to matter to people when asked about their current feelings or overall satisfaction with their lives—can be resolved in light of this profound fact about us. The upshot is, I believe, that some rethinking is needed in ethics about both equality and well-being. Better understanding the sources of our motives and of our sense of well-being, and the ways in which our aspirations, motives and wellbeing are tied to inequality will, I think, lessen in some ways the moral importance of equality as such. It will likewise shift the way we should think about the relation of morality to well-being— whether one is a consequentialist, like myself, or simply someone who recognizes a prima facie duty of beneficence or self-concern. Consequentialism has always, I believe, been a good candidate for “a morality of respect for persons”. One interesting result of the reflections below, if sound, is that this case can be made even stronger. All this sounds impossibly ambitious. It is. To begin, I’d like to express a few reservations about the notion that equality has intrinsic moral or non-moral value.