> To address your examples, the state should try to help people with abnormally low life expectancy achieve higher life expectancy
But we don't, and that's generally accepted, isn't it? There's a strong (and recent!) difference between male and female life expectancy, but we accept that, because "men" aren't one of the chosen minorities.
The issue is exactly what you mentioned there: "abnormally low life expectancy". Once we declare something normal, we're done, no more intervention necessary. We could just do the same with poor people and only help those that are abnormally poor. But we don't, because reasons.
> We could just do the same with poor people and only help those that are abnormally poor. But we don't, because reasons.
I have to disagree. If at all, the people who make the decisions whom to help and whom not to help are Prioritarians (due to the popularity of Rawl's famous book), which is exactly the position you describe. I have inadvertantly slipped into Prioritarian language when I used "abnormally."
What I had in mind and you criticize is Luck Egalitarianism. That's a fringe position that I've never heard from any politician or decision maker. Larry Temkin defends it, for instance, in case you're interested in the actual reasons rather merely dismissing them with a phrase like "because reasons." There are good reasons for it, and I personally find luck egalitarianism more compelling than Prioritarianism.
But we don't, and that's generally accepted, isn't it? There's a strong (and recent!) difference between male and female life expectancy, but we accept that, because "men" aren't one of the chosen minorities.
The issue is exactly what you mentioned there: "abnormally low life expectancy". Once we declare something normal, we're done, no more intervention necessary. We could just do the same with poor people and only help those that are abnormally poor. But we don't, because reasons.