The higher the coefficient of inequality (Gini coefficient) in a society, the worse things tend to be for those at the bottom.

Highly unequal societies are morally defective because they get to be that way through the exploitation by the clever and well-positioned ones of the vulnerabilities and weaknesses of others. The well-off then use their acquired political power to refuse to make sacrifices for others. This system brings us a wonderful range of products and experiences for consumers at the top of the privilege scale, but it also degrades and benumbs the workers at the lower end, as Adam Smith and Marx both said.

I don't see how being a faster runner, or a better mathematician makes you 'deserve' access to a better life, or more influence on policy, in the absence of a social decision to play that game in the way it's proposed to be organised for some set of benefits.

There are people who organise the contest, winners, losers, and people who benefit from the contest taking place.

Claims like 'Slavery is wrong' are not fully common-sensical, so they must be at least partly theoretical.

Epicurus recommends bread and cheese as the staple, and his emphasis is more on avoiding pain than on seeking pleasure, insofar as pleasure-seeking tends to be followed by painful after-effects.

The Epicureans denied that the gods had created the world and also denied that they played any role in it.