Egalitarianism and Species

Debates about Egalitarianism tend to be abstract, and, as has been previously discussed, equivocal.  Perhaps the only case in which the issue is concrete is in the determination of whether or not a transfer from A, who has more of something, to B, who has less of it, is justified.  In other words, Egalitarianism is a sub-topic in the topic of Justice.  Now, most of the arguments in the proto-scenario are familiar, though one that is rarely aired in the U. S., i. e. in disputes over taxation, is that the apparently initial inequality is itself the product of an arbitrary distribution.  But, regardless of the merits of arguments on both sides, they tend to share a fundamental premise--that the locus of the dispute is two individuals.  In contrast, if the locus is, instead, the Species, then the terms are completely transformed, and the uncertainty is merely over which arrangement is better for the Species, one resolution of which is simply that it depends on the circumstances.  In other words, the presumed cardinality of the debate over Egalitarianism is completely dissolved by a re-framing of the usual terms of the debate.