The argument for egalitarianism based on a pre-existing soul choosing the laws of society is one of the most inept philosophical arguments I have ever seen. It is an example of the bankruptcy of modern philosophy, that decides beforehand the conclusions and, then, it looks for arguments to support these conclusions, no matter how insane those arguments are. I am feeling sick and English is not my mother tongue. My powers of communication are greatly reduced, but I couldn’t resist saying that.
1) Basing a society in the self-interest of people is completely debatable. Utilitarianism is assumed in this argument as a fact without arguing for it. In fact, it is false (but this is a different debate).
2) In addition, self-interest is used in a contrived situation like not knowing your station in life but being able to decide the laws of society. The fact that such an unrealistic situation has to be made up to find an argument for egalitarianism is only an example of the difficulty of finding good arguments for egalitarianism and the gullibility of people when they find an excuse that support their pre-existing views.
3) In addition, the argument assumes that most people in this contrived situation would choose egalitarian laws. This is claimed but not proved or argued for. It is «because I say so!»
4) Even if you accept 1), 2) and 3), this mental experiment would only prove that most people are selfish and, in this contrived situation, they THINK that they will get the better deal with egalitarian laws. This does not mean that they would get a better deal (in fact, they would get a worse deal but I digress).
5) Even if you accept 1), 2), 3) and 4), this does not mean that having people individually making the best gamble of laws for their life would result in the best society, because society is not a sum of atomized individuals. You can’t ignore effects like the Tragedy of the Commons or similar.
The argument is fallacy over fallacy over fallacy. But, hey, it is in favor of egalitarianism. So let’s disconnect the brain!
And now for the personal part.
«If you were a pre-existing soul who couldn’t choose which station in society»
When you say «you», please don’t include me or most people here. Maybe replace «you» by «people that think like me». You can’t decide the opinions of other people.
Since pre-existing souls are not equal and they don’t have the same properties, I, as a pre-existing soul, would choose a society where each person has different station in life. Even if there are better people than me that have better station in life, I will get benefits because the society will be better. Even if I don’t get benefits about the society being better, I am not that self-centered that I think that the society has to adapt to my selfishness and self-interest.
I am not an envious person (envy being the thing that is beneath egalitarianism). When I see people having better station in life than me, I am happy for them. I don’t call to a complete redesign of society so there are no people above me.
And now back to bed.