A 44-y perspective on the influence of cash on Ju/'hoansi Bushman networks of sharing and gifting.

Money has been portrayed by major theorists as an agent of individualism, an instrument of freedom, a currency that removes personal values attached to things, and a generator of avarice. Regardless, the impact of money varies greatly with the cultural turf of the recipient societies. For traditional subsistence economies based on gifting and sharing, surplus perishable resources foraged from the environment carry low costs to the giver compared with the benefits to the receiver. With cash, costs to the giver are usually the same as benefits to the receiver, making sharing expensive and introducing new choices. Using quantitative data on possessions and expenditures collected over a 44-y period from 1974 to 2018 among the Ju/'hoansi (!Kung) in southern Africa, former hunter-gatherers, we look at how individuals spend monetary income, how a partial monetary economy alters traditional norms and institutions (egalitarianism, gifting, and sharing), and how institutions from the past steer change. Results show that gifting declines as cash is spent to increase the well-being of individual families and that gifting and sharing decrease and networks narrow. The sharing of meals and casual gifting hold fast. Substantial material inequalities develop, even between neighbors, but social, gender, and political equalities persist. A strong tradition for individual autonomy combined with monetary income allows individuals to spend their money as they choose, adapt to modern conditions, and pursue new options. However, new challenges are emerging to develop greater community cooperation and build substantial and sustainable economies in the face of such centrifugal forces.

When and Why Antiegalitarianism Affects Resistance to Supporting Black-Owned Businesses.

Understanding how initiatives to support Black-owned businesses are received, and why, has important social and economic implications. To address this, we designed three experiments to investigate the role of antiegalitarian versus egalitarian ideologies among White American adults. In Study 1 (N = 199), antiegalitarianism (vs. egalitarianism) predicted viewing initiatives supporting a Black-owned business as less fair, but only when the business was competing with other (presumably White-owned) businesses. In Study 2 (N = 801), antiegalitarianism predicted applying survival-of-the-fittest market beliefs, particularly to Black-owned businesses. Antiegalitarianism also predicted viewing initiatives supporting Black-owned businesses as less fair than initiatives that targeted other (presumably White-owned) businesses, especially for tangible (vs. symbolic) support that directly impacts the success of a business. In Study 3 (N = 590), antiegalitarianism predicted rejecting a program investing in Black-owned businesses. These insights demonstrate how antiegalitarian ideology can have the effect of maintaining race-based inequality, hindering programs designed to reduce that inequality.

Social control is associated with increased reproductive skew in a wild mammal.

In group-living species, reproductive variation among individuals of the same sex is widespread. By identifying the mechanisms underlying this reproductive skew, we gain fundamental insights into the evolution and maintenance of sociality. A common mechanism, social control, is typically studied by quantifying dominance, which is one of many attributes of sociality that describes how individuals exert influence on others and is an incomprehensive measure of social control as it accounts only for direct relationships. Here, we use the global reaching centrality (GRC), which quantifies the degree of hierarchy in a social network by accounting for both direct and indirect social relationships. Using a wild, free-living population of adult female yellow-bellied marmots (Marmota flaviventris), we found a positive relationship between the reproductive skew index and GRC: more despotic social groups have higher reproductive skew. The GRC was stronger predictor for skew than traditional measures of social control (i.e. dominance). This allows deeper insights into the diverse ways individuals control other group members' reproduction, a core component in the evolution of sociality. Future studies of skew across taxa may profit by using more comprehensive, network-based measures of social control.

The optimal design of assisted reproductive technologies policies.

This paper studies the optimal fiscal treatment of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) in an economy where individuals differ in their reproductive capacity (or fecundity) and in their wage. We find that the optimal ART tax policy varies with the postulated social welfare criterion. Utilitarianism redistributes only between individuals with unequal fecundity and wages but not between parents and childless individuals. To the opposite, ex post egalitarianism (which gives absolute priority to the worst-off in realized terms) redistributes from individuals with children toward those without children, and from individuals with high fecundity toward those with low fecundity, so as to compensate for both the monetary cost of ART and the disutility from involuntary childlessness resulting from unsuccessful ART investments. Under asymmetric information and in order to solve for the incentive problem, utilitarianism recommends to either tax or subsidize ART investments of low-fecundity-low-productivity individuals at the margin, depending on the degree of complementarity between fecundity and ART in the fertility technology. On the opposite, ex post egalitarianism always recommends marginal taxation of ART.

Ideology selectively shapes attention to inequality.

Contemporary debates about addressing inequality require a common, accurate understanding of the scope of the issue at hand. Yet little is known about who notices inequality in the world around them and when. Across five studies (N = 8,779) employing various paradigms, we consider the role of ideological beliefs about the desirability of social equality in shaping individuals' attention to-and accuracy in detecting-inequality across the class, gender, and racial domains. In Study 1, individuals higher (versus lower) on social egalitarianism were more likely to naturalistically remark on inequality when shown photographs of urban scenes. In Study 2, social egalitarians were more accurate at differentiating between equal versus unequal distributions of resources between men and women on a basic cognitive task. In Study 3, social egalitarians were faster to notice inequality-relevant changes in images in a change detection paradigm indexing basic attentional processes. In Studies 4 and 5, we varied whether unequal treatment adversely affected groups at the top or bottom of society. In Study 4, social egalitarians were, on an incentivized task, more accurate at detecting inequality in speaking time in a panel discussion that disadvantaged women but not when inequality disadvantaged men. In Study 5, social egalitarians were more likely to naturalistically point out bias in a pattern detection hiring task when the employer was biased against minorities but not when majority group members faced equivalent bias. Our results reveal the nuances in how our ideological beliefs shape whether we accurately notice inequality, with implications for prospects for addressing it.

Discrimination Based on Personal Responsibility: Luck Egalitarianism and Healthcare Priority Setting.

Luck egalitarianism is a responsibility-sensitive theory of distributive justice. Its application to health and healthcare is controversial. This article addresses a novel critique of luck egalitarianism, namely, that it wrongfully discriminates against those responsible for their health disadvantage when allocating scarce healthcare resources. The philosophical literature about discrimination offers two primary reasons for what makes discrimination wrong (when it is): harm and disrespect. These two approaches are employed to analyze whether luck egalitarian healthcare prioritization should be considered wrongful discrimination. Regarding harm, it is very plausible to consider the policies harmful but much less reasonable to consider those responsible for their health disadvantages a socially salient group. Drawing on the disrespect literature, where social salience is typically not required for something to be discrimination, the policies are a form of discrimination. They are, however, not disrespectful. The upshot of this first assessment of the discrimination objection to luck egalitarianism in health is, thus, that it fails.

Is a larger patient benefit always better in healthcare priority setting?

When considering the introduction of a new intervention in a budget constrained healthcare system, priority setting based on fair principles is fundamental. In many jurisdictions, a multi-criteria approach with several different considerations is employed, including severity and cost-effectiveness. Such multi-criteria approaches raise questions about how to balance different considerations against each other, and how to understand the logical or normative relations between them. For example, some jurisdictions make explicit reference to a large patient benefit as such a consideration. However, since patient benefit is part of a cost-effectiveness assessment it is not clear how to balance considerations of greater patient benefit against considerations of severity and cost-effectiveness. The aim of this paper is to explore the role of a large patient benefit as an independent criterion for priority setting in a healthcare system also considering severity and cost-effectiveness. By taking the opportunity cost of new interventions (i.e., the health forgone in patients already receiving treatment) into account, we argue that patient benefit has a complex relationship to priority setting. More specifically, it cannot be reasonably concluded that large patient benefits should be given priority if severity, cost-effectiveness, and opportunity costs are held constant. Since we cannot find general support for taking patient benefit into account as an independent criterion from any of the most discussed theories about distributive justice: utilitarianism, prioritarianism, telic egalitarianism and sufficientarianism, it is reasonable to avoid doing so. Hence, given the complexity of the role of patient benefit, we conclude that in priority practice, a large patient benefit should not be considered as an independent criterion, on top of considerations of severity and cost-effectiveness.

What isn't social tolerance? The past, present, and possible future of an overused term in the field of primatology.

In the past four decades, the term social tolerance has been utilized to describe, explain, and predict many different aspects of primates' sociality and has been measured with a large range of traits and behaviors. To date, however, there has been little discussion on whether these different phenomena all reflect one and the same construct. This paper opens the discussion by presenting the historical development of the term social tolerance and a structured overview of its current, overextended use. We argue that social tolerance has developed to describe two distinct concepts: social tolerance as the social structure of a group and social tolerance as the dyadic or group-level manifestation of tolerant behaviors. We highlight how these two concepts are based on conflicting theoretical understandings and practical assessments. In conclusion, we present suggestions for future research on primate social tolerance, which will allow for a more systematic and comparable investigation of primate sociality.

Racism without racists and consequentialist life-maximizing approaches to triaging.

Consequentialist life-maximizing approaches to triaging prescribe that everyone ought to have an equal chance of living a typical lifespan, through the saving more life-years (or saving most lives) principle, which emphasizes the youngest-first principle and in some cases a lottery approach, often at the expense of the old and the sick. Although this approach has already been criticized by several bioethicists, this article provides a different kind of criticism to the life-cycle viewpoint, one that has not yet been explored at length; namely, we contend that the life-maximizing approach entails a form of racism without racists in its attitude towards Black people. More specifically, we contend that by neglecting the idea that current societies are not post-racial, it privileges White individuals and disadvantages Black people in the triaging process, curtails equal opportunities for Black people, reinforces white normativity, and neglects African culture. We end the article by pointing towards an Afro-communitarian relational triaging approach that does not face the same difficulties as consequentialist life-maximizing approaches do.

Political ideology shapes the amplification of the accomplishments of disadvantaged vs. advantaged group members.

Recent years have witnessed an increased public outcry in certain quarters about a perceived lack of attention given to successful members of disadvantaged groups relative to equally meritorious members of advantaged groups, exemplified by social media campaigns centered around hashtags, such as #OscarsSoWhite and #WomenAlsoKnowStuff. Focusing on political ideology, we investigate here whether individuals differentially amplify successful targets depending on whether these targets belong to disadvantaged or advantaged groups, behavior that could help alleviate or entrench group-based disparities. Study 1 examines over 500,000 tweets from over 160,000 Twitter users about 46 unambiguously successful targets varying in race (white, black) and gender (male, female): American gold medalists from the 2016 Olympics. Leveraging advances in computational social science, we identify tweeters' political ideology, race, and gender. Tweets from political liberals were much more likely than those from conservatives to be about successful black (vs. white) and female (vs. male) gold medalists (and especially black females), controlling for tweeters' own race and gender, and even when tweeters themselves were white or male (i.e., advantaged group members). Studies 2 and 3 provided experimental evidence that liberals are more likely than conservatives to differentially amplify successful members of disadvantaged (vs. advantaged) groups and suggested that this is driven by liberals' heightened concern with social equality. Addressing theorizing about ideological asymmetries, we observed that political liberals are more responsible than conservatives for differential amplification. Our results highlight ideology's polarizing power to shape even whose accomplishments we promote, and extend theorizing about behavioral manifestations of egalitarian motives.

Wealth Without Limits: in Defense of Billionaires.

In this essay we argue against preventing people from amassing extreme wealth via increased taxation. The first argument in favor of such a proposal, recently advanced by Ingrid Robeyns (2018), states that billionaires' resources would be better spent addressing morally important goals such as meeting disadvantaged people's needs and solving collective action problems. In response to this claim, we argue that billionaires are typically in a better position to benefit the poor and to solve collective action problems than public officials. The second argument in favor of preventing extreme wealth accumulation, advanced by Robeyns and Robert Reich (2018), states that billionaires have an inappropriate amount of influence in public life, which undermines political equality. We argue that corporate leaders tend to be more accountable to their fellow citizens than public officials. We then consider and criticize the objection that billionaires' success is typically a result of public investment, which entitles public officials to enforce taxes that demand a return on the public investment.

Rethinking the Ethics of Pandemic Rationing: Egalitarianism and Avoiding Wrongs.

This paper argues that we ought to rethink the harm-reduction prioritization strategy that has shaped early responses to acute resource scarcity (particularly of intensive care unit beds) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although some authors have claimed that "[t]here are no egalitarians in a pandemic," it is noted here that many observers and commentators have been deeply concerned about how prioritization policies that proceed on the basis of survival probability may unjustly distribute the burden of mortality and morbidity, even while reducing overall deaths. The paper further argues that there is a general case in favor of an egalitarian approach to medical rationing that has been missed in the ethical commentary so far; egalitarian approaches to resource rationing minimize wrongful harm. This claim is defended against some objections and the paper concludes by explaining why we should consider the possibility that avoiding wrongful harm is more important than avoiding harm simpliciter.

Delay of Gratification, Gender Role Attitudes, and Death Reflections Predict Death Anxiety.

Previous work has established that gender, age, and self-control can predict Death Anxiety (DA), the distress that centers around thoughts of one's mortality. However, it has not been determined if DA is associated with Delay of Gratification (DG; a tendency to forgo immediate rewards to receive a more favorable outcome in the future), attitudes toward gender roles (as compared to gender identity itself), and Death Reflections (DR; positive goals that occur when contemplating death). To examine these relations, 131 adults (45% women; aged 23-67 years) completed questionnaires that assess these constructs. We found that greater DG, egalitarian gender role attitudes, and engagement with DR were all associated with reduced DA. Gender identity was not associated with any variable, including DA. Age correlated independently with DA, but not when included in the regression models. These results demonstrate that elements of self-regulation and prosocial attitudes may predict baseline DA.

Collective Reflective Equilibrium in Practice (CREP) and controversial novel technologies.

In this paper, we investigate how data about public preferences may be used to inform policy around the use of controversial novel technologies, using public preferences about autonomous vehicles (AVs) as a case study. We first summarize the recent 'Moral Machine' study, which generated preference data from millions of people regarding how they think AVs should respond to emergency situations. We argue that while such preferences cannot be used to directly inform policy, they should not be disregarded. We defend an approach that we call 'Collective Reflective Equilibrium in Practice' (CREP). In CREP, data on public attitudes function as an input into a deliberative process that looks for coherence between attitudes, behaviours and competing ethical principles. We argue that in cases of reasonable moral disagreement, data on public attitudes should play a much greater role in shaping policies than in areas of ethical consensus. We apply CREP to some of the global preferences about AVs uncovered by the Moral Machines study. We intend this discussion both as a substantive contribution to the debate about the programming of ethical AVs, and as an illustration of how CREP works. We argue that CREP provides a principled way of using some public preferences as an input for policy, while justifiably disregarding others.

Individual and social-psychological factors to explain climate change efficacy: The role of mindfulness, sense of global community, and egalitarianism.

This article focused on the study of individual and social-psychological determinants of a sense of efficacy on climate change mitigation. A correlational study investigated the predictive role of mindfulness, egalitarianism, risk concern, knowledge, and psychological sense of global community (PSGC). An online survey was administrated to US College students (N = 277). The main predictors of climate change response efficacy (CCRE) were PSGC and egalitarianism, followed by risk concern and climate knowledge. Among the facets of mindfulness, observing, and describing were the only ones associated with CCRE. The results found that mindfulness observing predicted response efficacy both directly and through the mediation of risk concern and sense of global community. Conversely, egalitarianism was not a significant mediator. Community psychologists should promote a sense of belonging to all humanity, and a more egalitarian view of the world, beyond risk concern, to increase climate efficacy. Training the skill of mindfulness observing could be a way to produce a sense of global community and affect climate change efficacy.

Assessing Rationing Decisions through the Principle of Proportionality.

Rationing policies necessarily discriminate, as they must identify bases on which to discriminate between patients in order to prioritise. Treatments may provide a greater benefit to some people than others and this may be a morally relevant difference that justifies discrimination. But it is difficult to identify when a reduced capacity to benefit from treatment is a sufficient basis deny a person access to treatment. We argue that a clearer test is required to hold governments to account. Discriminatory policies should be assessed by incorporating the principle of utility into the proportionality test. This would mean that discriminatory policies could only be justified if the benefit to the community in discriminating outweighed the cost to the individual of being discriminated against.

Not the doctor's business: Privacy, personal responsibility and data rights in medical settings.

This paper argues that assessing personal responsibility in healthcare settings for the allocation of medical resources would be too privacy-invasive to be morally justifiable. In addition to being an inappropriate and moralizing intrusion into the private lives of patients, it would put patients' sensitive data at risk, making data subjects vulnerable to a variety of privacy-related harms. Even though we allow privacy-invasive investigations to take place in legal trials, the justice and healthcare systems are not analogous. The duty of doctors and healthcare professionals is to help patients as best they can-not to judge them. Patients should not be forced into giving up any more personal information than what is strictly necessary to receive an adequate treatment, and their medical data should only be used for appropriate purposes. Medical ethics codes should reflect these data rights. When a doctor asks personal questions that are irrelevant to diagnose or treat a patient, the appropriate response from the patient is: 'none of your business'.

The Mismarriage of Personal Responsibility and Health.

This paper begins with a simple illustration of the choice between individual and population strategies in population health policy. It describes the traditional approach on which the choice is to be made on the relative merits of the two strategies in each case. It continues by identifying two factors-our knowledge of the consequences of the epidemiological transition and the prevalence of responsibility-sensitive theories of distributive justice-that may distort our moral intuitions when we deliberate about the choice of appropriate risk-management strategies in population health. It argues that the confluence of these two factors may lead us to place too much emphasis on personal responsibility in health policy.

Better in theory than in practise? Challenges when applying the luck egalitarian ethos in health care policy.

Luck egalitarianism, a theory of distributive justice, holds that inequalities which arise due to individuals' imprudent choices must not, as a matter of justice, be neutralized. This article deals with the possible application of luck egalitarianism to the area of health care. It seeks to investigate whether the ethos of luck egalitarianism can be operationalized to the point of informing health care policy without straying from its own ideals. In the transition from theory to practise, luck egalitarianism encounters several difficulties. We argue that the charge of moral arbitrariness can, at least in part, be countered by our provided definition of "imprudent actions" in the health area. We discuss the choice for luck egalitarianism in health care between ex ante and ex post policy approaches, and show how both approaches are flawed by luck egalitarianism's own standards. We also examine the problem of threshold setting when luck egalitarianism is set to practise in health care. We argue that wherever policy thresholds are set, luck egalitarianism in health care risks pampering the imprudent, abandoning the prudent or, at worst, both. Furthermore, we claim that moves to mitigate these risks in turn diminish the normative importance of the ethos of luck egalitarianism to policy. All in all, our conclusion is that luck egalitarianism cannot be consistently applied as a convincing and relevant normative principle in health care policy.

Strategies for Sharing Limited Resources among Children and Adolescents in Three Traditional Societies of East Africa: Sociocultural and Genetic Factors.

Egalitarianism, pursuit for equality, and altruism are the most important evolutionarily stable strategies in the human society. This study presents data on the results of economic games for sharing with a potential friend or unfamiliar peer in three ethnic groups of East Africa (Hadza, Iraqw, and Meru). The total sample was 583 children and adolescents; mean age, 13.5 ± 3.1 years. In addition, DNA analysis was carried out and the OXTR gene rs53576 single nucleotide polymorphism was genotyped for 162 Meru individuals. The pronounced individual variability in making decisions on sharing with a potential partner was established. Children and adolescents behaved altruistically towards friends significantly more frequently as compared with strangers. Carriers of the OXTR rs53576 GG variant displayed altruism significantly more frequently both to friends (U = 3376.500, p = 0.047; OR = 3.075, p = 0.032) and to strangers (U = 3478.000, p = 0.025; OR = 3.133, p = 0.007). Significant intergroup differences in egalitarianism, egoism, and altruism were also demonstrated. Data obtained suggest a positive group selection towards altruists.