>Those who agree with the argument have compared the immorality of taking away someone’s money with the immorality of not enabling someone to live a dignified life and concluded that the second violation of rights weighs heavier."
This is the crux of the issue right here.
Another key point is that the usefulness (to the holder) of a given unit of wealth is inversely proportional to how much total wealth they have.
$100 is worth a lot more to someone who has $3 than it is to someone who has $3,000,000. Therefore there is a certain utilitarian argument in favor of putting the wealth where it will have the most benefit. And yes, I know utilitarianism is horribly flawed when you force it to its logical conclusion, that isn't the point here.
Think of it a bit like spreading fertilizer on a field. If you want a good harvest, it doesn't really make any sense to distribute it in any way except according to its need.
As the parent said: this is just one argument. I'm not saying that it is conclusive, nor do I expect you to agree with it.
This is the crux of the issue right here.
Another key point is that the usefulness (to the holder) of a given unit of wealth is inversely proportional to how much total wealth they have.
$100 is worth a lot more to someone who has $3 than it is to someone who has $3,000,000. Therefore there is a certain utilitarian argument in favor of putting the wealth where it will have the most benefit. And yes, I know utilitarianism is horribly flawed when you force it to its logical conclusion, that isn't the point here.
Think of it a bit like spreading fertilizer on a field. If you want a good harvest, it doesn't really make any sense to distribute it in any way except according to its need.
As the parent said: this is just one argument. I'm not saying that it is conclusive, nor do I expect you to agree with it.