Although I basically agree with PG&#x27;s essay, the one plausible critique I can think of is this:<p>1) We don&#x27;t care about wealth distribution <i>per se</i>. What we actually care about is utility maximisation (in other words, maximising the sum of &#x27;human happiness&#x27;).<p>2) Once we get pass some basic wealth level, to meet some set of basic needs like food and shelter, a person&#x27;s utility is a function of <i>relative</i> wealth rather than an increasing function of <i>absolute</i> wealth.<p>3) If you accept points 1 and 2, we therefore should care about wealth inequality in and of itself.<p>There&#x27;s also probably another argument to be made along the lines of &#x27;decreasing marginal utility with respect to wealth&#x27;. Which is a fancy way of saying: a poor person derives greater utility from an additional $1 in wealth than a rich person does. This would mean that the sum of human utility is increased by taking $1 from the richest person and giving it to the poorest person.