Distributing Welfare vs. Welfare Goods

Many people accept pluralism about welfare or well-being: there is more than one thing that is finally good for us. Philosophers have discussed extensively the question of how welfare should be distributed, whether across people or states of nature. But how should we distribute individual welfare goods across these dimensions? I argue that certain principles connecting the distribution of welfare to the distribution of welfare goods fail, and explore the connection between these principles and the project of devising an appropriate quantitative measure of welfare. As it turns out, the failure of these principles corresponds to a conflict between different approaches to constructing a quantitative measure of welfare. I identify one such approach, based on tradeoffs across welfare goods, as superior to its alternatives, which are based on tradeoffs across people and states of nature respectively. I explain how this conclusion provides a measurement-theoretic argument for prioritarianism over utilitarianism, and for risk-sensitivity in welfare over risk-neutrality.