Income Inequality Is Morally Wrong?

“To egalitarians, having more wealth than someone else is morally permissible only to the degree that the person guilty of having more wealth continually apologizes for it and self-sacrificially works to eliminate the disparity” (Ari Armstrong, 2014). Egalitarians do not believe in a difference between men and women. They are mostly against traditional gender roles and believe that people should be treated as equals from birth therefore any egalitarian would stand in a position that favors equality. Having stated that, an egalitarian would therefore have agreed with the statement that income inequality is morally wrong as they automatically become morally suspicious regardless of the context if one person earns more income than another or even acquires
Rawls came up with the “under a veil of ignorance” principle by which one should approach such argument without knowing the advantages or disadvantages to the situation. This ensures procedural equity in which decisions are led by justice, without the temptation to alter social conditions, therefore avoiding individuals acting by their own “self-interest” in order to promote personal goals. A Rawlsian’s response would be to disagree with the argument that income inequality is morally wrong, however only if the inequalities are arranged in such a way that it will assist the previously disadvantaged and that all people should have equal opportunity when it comes to attaining offices, positions or jobs. Like a utilitarian view, income inequality is also seen as an incentive for those in society with talent to work harder in order to make society as a whole better off, especially considering the state of the South African economy at the moment - wealth is used as an incentive as South Africa does not have the necessary finances to address those suffering from living in