The Effects Of Income Inequality And Its Normative Significance

Since the advent of Justice in the 1970 s,equality has become one of the most important values of philosophers' attention.At the same time,income inequality has been expanding,and people have begun to face up to the reality of income inequality.In many economically developed countries,income inequality is shocking.Serious income inequality will cause serious harm to social development and many aspects of people's lives,and hinder economic and social development.This paper mainly discusses the effect of income inequality and its normative significance,and studies the impact of income inequality on people's normative theoretical judgment.Income inequality mainly produces the following effects: First,income inequality damages economic development and democracy.Income inequality leads to economic instability,and to lower economic efficiency and productivity.Excessive income inequality enables the upper class to shape the political process and policy perception with the influence of money,thus excluding the middle and lower groups from political participation,depriving them of their rights and interests,and depriving democracy of its due value.Second,income inequality reduces social well-being.Income inequality reduces people's subjective well-being and harms people's health.These effects of income inequality have certain normative significance and can affect people's normative judgment.Utilitarianism emphasizes the principle of maximizing social benefits.Income inequality can generate incentives,promote economic growth,and then maximize social benefits.Therefore,utilitarianism will support income inequality.In fact,income inequality will damage economic development,reduce social well-being,and is not conducive to maximizing social benefits,while relatively equal income distribution policies can maximize social benefits.Therefore,utilitarianism has reason to support a relatively equal income distribution policy.Equalism holds that equality is valuable,but it faces the criticism of "levelling down objection" and can not prove it,so it can not support the equalincome distribution policy.Based on the relevant empirical facts,income inequality damages economic development and reduces social well-being,while equal income distribution policy can promote economic growth and increase social well-being.Therefore,relatively equal income distribution policy may not necessarily reduce well-being,or even increase well-being.Therefore,to some extent,the "levelling down objection" is not valid,and equalitarianism has reason to support it.Relatively equal income distribution policy.Adequacy holds that justice can be achieved as long as there is enough.In terms of income,justice can be achieved as long as everyone has enough income,so adequacy may support income inequality.According to relevant empirical evidence,income inequality can undermine democracy and lead to political inequality.It is unjust that political inequality will lead to inadequate capacity of this kind.In order to enable all people to have sufficient such abilities,everyone should enjoy equal political rights,which requires a relatively equal income distribution policy.Therefore,to some extent,adequacy has reason to support a relatively equal income distribution policy.The principle of difference holds that income and wealth in society should be equally distributed unless inequality in income and wealth benefits all,especially the least beneficiaries.Income inequality can provide effective incentives,enhance people's enthusiasm for production,and promote the overall well-being of society.All people,including those with relatively low incomes and the poor,can benefit.Therefore,the principle of difference will allow income inequality.After providing relevant empirical evidence,income inequality impairs the health of relatively low-income people and poor people,and reduces their subjective well-being.They can not benefit from income inequality.Therefore,the principle of difference does not allow income inequality and supports a relatively equal income distribution policy.