It should be clear from the above line of reasoning that economic egalitarianism is implicitly rooted, not in a desire to bring objective well-being to the "needy," but rather in a desire to narrow the gap, even when it requires depriving those judged "less needy" of some portion of their actual or potential well-being. No doubt, many advocates of "equality" are unaware of this implication and would renounce the egalitarian viewpoint if they were apprised of it. In any case, "economic equality" cannot be a valid ethical goal by the standards established in Section 3, where it was shown that a valid ethics must be based on human life and well-being, and more particularly on the standard of rational self-interest. The pursuit of a notion of mathematical "equality" is in fundamental conflict with the self-interest of all individuals, including even those whom most would regard as impoverished.

If "economic equality" is not a valid ethical goal, then what are some proper ethical motivations for endeavoring to assist those who find themselves in dire economic straits?

A rational egoist might wish to extend help to certain disadvantaged persons who, through no fault of their own, have encountered misfortunes preventing them from reaping the full rewards of their own actions. In some cases, they may even have suffered from the unjust actions of others. Such assistance would constitute, not an act of altruism, but a proper practice of the virtue of justice as described in pp. 3.10:19-34.

^Previous