Hace un año escribí un artículo en el que ponía en relación la redistribución de la riqueza con la redistribución de talentos, inteligencia y guapura, argumentando que si los progresistas fueran coherentes deberían reivindicar también la redistribución de esos atributos en un hipotético escenario en el que eso fuera posible. Citoyen objetó (en los comentarios) que el ejemplo era ficticio, como si el ejercicio de ponerse detrás del velo de la ignorancia rawlsiano que tanto le gusta no lo fuera también. En ambos casos hacemos un experimento mental para indagar cuáles son las intuiciones morales de las personas.
Pero no es necesario irse al terreno de la ciencia ficción: el hecho de que no pueda redistribuirse la "guapura" en sí misma no implica que los guapos no puedan compensar monetariamente a los feos. En esta entrada contestaba a Citoyen en sus propios términos:
Las personas derivamos satisfacción de nuestro atractivo físico (una causa exógena), esa satisfacción tiene un valor monetario que deberíamos estar dispuestos a compartir con los que tienen menos atractivo físico y no derivan ninguna satisfacción por ello (o incluso puede ser fuente de infelicidad).
Visto desde otro ángulo: no hay motivo para distinguir entre guapura y rentas, ambos están en nuestro "pool" o fondo común de atributos/recursos que nos proporcionan satisfacción/utilidad/felicidad. El fondo común, en la medida en que resulta de causas exógenas, en la medida en que no es producto de elecciones personales, debería ser el mismo para todos. Da igual que lo que se redistribuya sean solo rentas (un componente del fondo común), lo que importa es el total del fondo común (alguien muy atractivo, que extrae inmensa satisfacción del hecho de serlo, podría ser forzado a ser prácticamente pobre).
Traigo el tema a colación otra vez porque vía Robin Hanson (HT: Capella) leo un artículo impagable en el Washington Post, Workers of the World, Exfoliate!, que desarrolla un argumento similar. Copio un fragmento largo:
Nonetheless, most champions of the less privileged have never made a practical effort to mitigate the social differences caused by the inequitable distribution of what, nowadays, is a factor with an enormous socioeconomic impact: beauty. (...)
[G]overnments should nationalize beauty industries in order to ensure the supply of low-priced makeup, anti-wrinkle creams, aesthetic plastic surgery, etc. This would help to improve people's appearance, thus reducing the differences between the beauty icons and the common people. This would have a significant cost, which, according to a clear principle of solidarity, should be financed through a tax on the beautiful people in each country.
By law, companies should be obliged to guarantee minimum employment quotas for less attractive people, especially in the movie industry, television, modeling and beauty pageants. Such affirmative action would help compensate for so many years of hateful discrimination based on looks.
The importation of "models" from countries with a high proportion of attractive people should be prohibited. This practice has provided an unfair competitive edge within the global beauty industry, and the asymmetrical competition displaces local specimens from sources of employment. Hence, in a clear exercise of their sovereignty, countries with an abundance of ugly people should include the necessary safeguards in their free-trade agreements.
Hanson también cita John Nye planteando el mismo argumento:
Perhaps the real issue … [is] why certain inequalities which are also unevenly distributed — such as looks, intelligence, ability, or personality — do not invite as much social envy or opprobrium as disparities in income or wealth resulting from hard work or shrewd dealing. These differences are probably as large or larger than the measured inequalities in dollar income, yet go unmeasured and often excite no commentary in discussions of inequality.
El propio Robin Hanson da la puntilla:
Searching for thoughtful critiques replying to Perez’s oped, I could fine none – only a few short snippy comments. (Same for Nye.) Why the deafening silence?
Let’s be clear: the issue is why those concerned about other inequalities, such as re genders or ethnicities, seem so uninterested in inequalities associated with beauty, etc. Not only could we cause some people to look less pretty, we could use money to compensate ugly folk, reducing total inequality of utility (and increasing total utility if we are risk-averse in status). Yes we can influence our beauty to some extent, but compensation could be tied to more fixed features such as height, skin smoothness, or body symmetry.
One theory is that what we have seen are somewhat random coalitions: the strongest support for reducing certain inequailties come from member groups who are either on the losing end of an inequality, or get signaling benefits by showing sympathy to such groups. But no coalition wants to help groups that are too intrinsically weak, producing disgust and derision instead of sympathy from onlookers. So the ugly, the stupid, or beta males, for example, tend to make unlikely coalition partners.
Entradas relacionadas:
