Economic Inequality Unjust John Rawl Analysis
Is Economic Inequality Unjust? Whether you are born into poverty or into the richest family in the world, all individuals would agree that they didn’t have a choice of what family and culture they wanted to be born into. Do you think it’s right to help those that are less fortunate or not help them because they have opportunities themselves for a better life? Throughout this essay, it will be looking at two philosophers, John Rawls and Robert Nozick, who have opposing views and arguments when it comes to dealing between the rich and the poor, along with the economic inequality problems amongst the world. . According to Rawls, he also has a strong view that economic inequality is only just if it is to the advantage of those who are worst-off. He explains that we are not all equal when it comes to wealth and income, but everyone should be allowed equal opportunities to become wealthy or to do good with their life. Rawls explains two principles of justice, the liberty principle and the difference principle. The liberty principle is when everyone has equal rights to liberties just like others enjoying the same liberties. Inequalities should be arranged so everyone has an equal chance and that no one person would be denied from occupying a position they wanted. Our basic freedoms include, freedom of speech, liberty, and the pursuit
…show more content…
of happiness along with the fair value of political liberties. For example, any individual should be able to hold office regardless of their social class. The difference principle is meant to show there can be any quality within a society as long as it makes the worst person better off. He also brings up financial inequalities and that the state should have whatever powers that are necessary to ensure those that are well-off are as well-off as they can be. The veil of ignorance is a very important concept that Rawls uses to explain his point.
It is to help people see that they are all the same, The veil of ignorance hides people’s place in society. For example, they don’t know if they are rich or poor, smart or unintelligent, so if they don’t know that they are these things, they will most likely choose the fairest principle. Rawls agrees that when we don’t know our position in society we will most likely be equally concerned for others. We would be concerned with individuals less fortunate in society because it could be possible (under the veil of ignorance) that we could be just like
them. We decide to use our advantages and disadvantages in life to get where we want to be. If people take advantages in life they will go further than others. It may look like everyone is unequal, but in reality we are equal, certain people just chose to work harder. Opportunity to be equal is always there, some people see it and some people don’t. I’m not saying it is always easy to go far in life. However, some people are born into a wealthy family, which may make it easier for them to get further in life than someone who is born into a lesser financial status. But Rawls’ main point is the opportunity is there for us to get where we want to be. Nozicks view on economic inequality on the other hand is completely against Rawls.
One claim he makes is about taxing the rich. He believes that the government shouldn’t be able to forcibly tax rich people to help the poor and that by doing this it is violating the liberty of the rich. He also has a hard time with people’s wealth that was achieved by hard work and talent should not just be handed over to the poor. In some cases, when someone accumulates a larger amount of wealth, they become very rude about it and this may seem unjust, but according to Nozick it’s a small price to pay for a system to make society richer as a whole. He believed that no one should have any business allowing for economic inequalities to take place at all only as long they arise from voluntary exchange. An example Nozick uses to show that we cannot govern economic inequality is with the basketball player, Wilt Chamberlain. In this example, he says basketball fans pay an extra .25 cents to watch him play and Wilt Chamberlain becomes rich through voluntary exchange. Even though the basket fans become poorer, while Wilt Chamberlain becomes richer, they are okay with it because it is what they wanted to do and in a sense they gained a utility of happiness. Nozick talks about patterned principles of justice and how they only focus on the recipient role and its supposed rights,. Like with the basketball player example, the fans received nothing physically, but only the mere fact to watch him play, while Wilt Chamberlain received a nice profit. The liberty upsets this pattern by people deciding voluntarily and by not being forced. After reviewing Nozick’s and Rawl’s different philosophies on economic inequality, I am indifferent on where I stand for multiple reasons. I see myself agreeing and disagreeing with each philosopher. For instance, I agree with Rawls argument that everyone should be given equal opportunities throughout life, but I do not agree with taxing the rich. In order for the poor to be somewhat equal with the rich, the rich should be taxed, but along with Nozick, I do not feel it is right to take money away from people who work hard to earn it. I also understand that people do not get to choose their financial status that they may be born into it, so sometimes that extra push from the people that are more fortunate can help get them off their feet. Like I said before, Nozick doesn’t think the rich should be taxed, therefore, public schools, police and fire stations cannot be built otherwise he believes that is a form of stealing from the rich. People should instead donate and volunteer in order to have these important factors in society. The problem I see with this is getting people to voluntarily give up their money can sometimes be like pulling teeth, especially for those who don’t have money to begin with. The ones who have money to donate will end up being the only ones who can donate and to me that is like taxing the rich. Going off of this, I cannot find myself to agree to one philosopher. Rawls and Nozick may not see eye to eye on this issue of economic inequality, but what they do have in common is the fact of wanting to do the the right thing for others. Rawls favors the side of the rich helping the poor, so everyone can be equal and Nozick favors the side of everyone making their own wealth. There will continue to be debate about economic inequality and whether it is just or unjust.
of happiness along with the fair value of political liberties. For example, any individual should be able to hold office regardless of their social class. The difference principle is meant to show there can be any quality within a society as long as it makes the worst person better off. He also brings up financial inequalities and that the state should have whatever powers that are necessary to ensure those that are well-off are as well-off as they can be. The veil of ignorance is a very important concept that Rawls uses to explain his point.
It is to help people see that they are all the same, The veil of ignorance hides people’s place in society. For example, they don’t know if they are rich or poor, smart or unintelligent, so if they don’t know that they are these things, they will most likely choose the fairest principle. Rawls agrees that when we don’t know our position in society we will most likely be equally concerned for others. We would be concerned with individuals less fortunate in society because it could be possible (under the veil of ignorance) that we could be just like
them. We decide to use our advantages and disadvantages in life to get where we want to be. If people take advantages in life they will go further than others. It may look like everyone is unequal, but in reality we are equal, certain people just chose to work harder. Opportunity to be equal is always there, some people see it and some people don’t. I’m not saying it is always easy to go far in life. However, some people are born into a wealthy family, which may make it easier for them to get further in life than someone who is born into a lesser financial status. But Rawls’ main point is the opportunity is there for us to get where we want to be. Nozicks view on economic inequality on the other hand is completely against Rawls.
One claim he makes is about taxing the rich. He believes that the government shouldn’t be able to forcibly tax rich people to help the poor and that by doing this it is violating the liberty of the rich. He also has a hard time with people’s wealth that was achieved by hard work and talent should not just be handed over to the poor. In some cases, when someone accumulates a larger amount of wealth, they become very rude about it and this may seem unjust, but according to Nozick it’s a small price to pay for a system to make society richer as a whole. He believed that no one should have any business allowing for economic inequalities to take place at all only as long they arise from voluntary exchange. An example Nozick uses to show that we cannot govern economic inequality is with the basketball player, Wilt Chamberlain. In this example, he says basketball fans pay an extra .25 cents to watch him play and Wilt Chamberlain becomes rich through voluntary exchange. Even though the basket fans become poorer, while Wilt Chamberlain becomes richer, they are okay with it because it is what they wanted to do and in a sense they gained a utility of happiness. Nozick talks about patterned principles of justice and how they only focus on the recipient role and its supposed rights,. Like with the basketball player example, the fans received nothing physically, but only the mere fact to watch him play, while Wilt Chamberlain received a nice profit. The liberty upsets this pattern by people deciding voluntarily and by not being forced. After reviewing Nozick’s and Rawl’s different philosophies on economic inequality, I am indifferent on where I stand for multiple reasons. I see myself agreeing and disagreeing with each philosopher. For instance, I agree with Rawls argument that everyone should be given equal opportunities throughout life, but I do not agree with taxing the rich. In order for the poor to be somewhat equal with the rich, the rich should be taxed, but along with Nozick, I do not feel it is right to take money away from people who work hard to earn it. I also understand that people do not get to choose their financial status that they may be born into it, so sometimes that extra push from the people that are more fortunate can help get them off their feet. Like I said before, Nozick doesn’t think the rich should be taxed, therefore, public schools, police and fire stations cannot be built otherwise he believes that is a form of stealing from the rich. People should instead donate and volunteer in order to have these important factors in society. The problem I see with this is getting people to voluntarily give up their money can sometimes be like pulling teeth, especially for those who don’t have money to begin with. The ones who have money to donate will end up being the only ones who can donate and to me that is like taxing the rich. Going off of this, I cannot find myself to agree to one philosopher. Rawls and Nozick may not see eye to eye on this issue of economic inequality, but what they do have in common is the fact of wanting to do the the right thing for others. Rawls favors the side of the rich helping the poor, so everyone can be equal and Nozick favors the side of everyone making their own wealth. There will continue to be debate about economic inequality and whether it is just or unjust.