Why people prefer unequal societies
nature.com
nature.com
That's not to say that's necessarily good ethics, I mean we have tons of cognitive biases that are potentially useful cognitive shortcuts, but end up leading to BS.
Of course, at some point, and it might already have happened, we'll have enough resources that nobody has to go without food, shelter, water, etc. Our intrinsic ideas about economic unfairness suggest that people who don't do anything don't deserve support, but most moral traditions teach charity, compassion for the poor, and so on.
And economically, we may all benefit overall if we provide enough resources to every person, in money or by other means. A lot of work goes into getting food, clothes, and shelter when one is poor. Plenty of unemployed or poor people would pursue more useful undertakings if they have the resources.
In the equality studies, the wealth (e.g. candies) are presented as a fiat acompli, baising the respondents with the notion that equal effort was put in by all participants.
Proportional to what? And how would it be measured?