I forgot the happiness side in a paragraph where I explicitly wrote about a 10% increase in happiness?
But even if it is an 80% increase for those at the top vs a 20% increase for those at the bottom, I would still choose increasing the outcomes for those at the bottom. I would choose a 20% increase for those at the bottom coupled with a 20% decrease for those at the top over an 80% increase for those at the top with no change for those at the bottom.
My apologies. I didn’t read close enough and since we are talking hypotheticals I missed your reference to happiness.
I agree with your calculus but don’t think it disproves my point.
Both your scenarios still end up with more good, measured in population or happiness.
A 20% lose at the top, in dollars, will result in little lose of happiness.
In the case where the three best-off get everything, what if the the bottom two, being well used to getting ripped off and fucked over, will shrug their shoulders and go back to whatever they were doing? In the case where the two worst-off get the benefits, what if the three best-off, being used to having their every whim catered to without question, are driven almost to suicide by the favour shown to the mere peasants at the bottom?