Most people would sacrifice some life satisfaction in exchange for a more equal society

When given a choice between an equal society with modest life satisfaction for all, or an unequal society with higher average life satisfaction but a few individuals faring poorly, most people prefer the former. This reflects a fundamental philosophical dilemma: balancing fairness and personal well-being. This thought experiment, known as the "veil of ignorance," was famously proposed by 18th-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham and later refined by 20th-century philosopher John Rawls.

Economists describe this as the trade-off between efficiency and equity, the sometimes conflicting priorities in resource allocation. While this dichotomy has long been a political divide, separating left-leaning advocates of redistribution from right-leaning proponents of individual incentives, this study finds that the public's preferences align more closely than expected.

Across hypothetical scenarios, ranging from medical treatments to pandemic responses, people demonstrated a cautious approach to risk, particularly regarding the well-being of others. Remarkably, 87% of respondents would willingly sacrifice some of their own life satisfaction to achieve greater equality. This willingness to prioritize fairness over personal gain suggests that people may value social justice more than they realize.

The researchers utilized a well-being measure—subjective life satisfaction rated on a zero-to-10 scale—commonly used in public policy to gauge public experiences. By quantifying the trade-offs, they determined that the average person would accept roughly a one-point drop in average life satisfaction to attain a fully equal society.

This provides a useful metric for assessing how much people value equality in well-being. While the study acknowledges the limitations of such an extreme scenario, it underscores the public's preference for a more equitable distribution of life satisfaction. The findings emphasize that policy decisions should not only focus on maximizing overall well-being but also ensure fairness, particularly for the most disadvantaged.

This approach aligns with existing UK government policies that give greater weight to the welfare of the worst-off. However, the research goes a step further by quantifying fairness, offering a more precise framework for decision-making. The study also highlights the potential role of artificial intelligence in assisting policymakers, advocating for the incorporation of fairness metrics into AI systems.

Ultimately, this research challenges the notion of a stark political divide on inequality, instead revealing a surprising degree of consensus among the public regarding the importance of fairness in well-being.