• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

The problem of distribution of income and wealth has traditionally been a plague upon our society.

Extracts from this document...


Nikhil Mavinkurve Philosophy 355 First Paper The problem of distribution of income and wealth has traditionally been a plague upon our society. The prevailing question that we are to answer is how much income and wealth should people rightfully possess? Some believe that people deserve to have their needs fulfilled whereas others feel what people deserve or should rightfully possess is what they can produce. Tied into this dilemma is the idea of justice and charity. We should assume that justice is what we should do as a matter of obligation or duty, while charity is what we should do if we cant to choose the morally best possible action available. And so, should a person have an obligation to give charity and forgo his own right to happiness, and furthermore liberty? There are many views on how to find a solution to this problem of the balancing of justice and charity. Of the three ideas presented by Hospers, Nielson, and Rawls, in the debate of the nature of moral rights, the Rawls view strikes me as most plausible. However, to begin this debate we will first briefly discuss the other two views and understand why their ideas are seemingly less plausible than Rawls idea of Welfare Liberalism. ...read more.


The prevailing idea of arranging certain equalities so that they help to benefit the least advantaged can be considered a useful system. While the distribution of wealth and income need not be equal, it must be to everyone's advantage. Unlike the views of Hospers and Nielson, this ideal allows the movement of persons up the social and economic ladder. The idea is that since everyone's well-being depends a upon a scheme of cooperation without which no one could have a satisfactory life, the division of advantages should be such as to draw forth the willing cooperation of everyone taking part in it, including those at a less advantage. Thus, this allows people to move up the economic ladder, while still maximizing the minimum benefits for all within this system. The two principles mentioned earlier, not only include that individual rights are preserved but that society as a whole is protected. By this I mean, the first principle is a protection of individuals and thus requires equality in the assignment of basic rights and duties, while the second, inequalities are justified if and only if they result in benefits for everyone in the society. It is interesting to note that our society basically evolved into a system such as this one. ...read more.


And therefore, by securing a minimum payoff, their seems to be a safety net in which person's can advance themselves without losing everything. In conclusion, a system of Welfare Liberalism is the best choice of the three views we have seen. The two views of Hospers and Nielson, in my view, fail to allow persons to move within the system. It seems that once you have found a certain niche, you are bound into that for an indefinite amount of time. However, a system of Welfare Liberalism allows not only for people to move up and down the social and economic barrier, but also helps by improving the injustice against those who are at a lesser advantage. Of course it is important to note that no system is perfect and thus Welfare Liberalism does have its faults; one being that it fails to understand that a "veil of ignorance" is impossible to place upon people who already have, in contemporary time, formed conceptions of what is right and wrong. i Hospers, John. The Libertarian Manifesto. Pg. 21. ii Nielson, Kai. Radical Egalitarianism. pg. 30. iii Rawls, John. A Social Contract Perspective. pg. 40. iv Inferred by John Rawls on pg. 41-43. v Rawls, John. A Social Contract Perspective. pg. 46 and pg. 51. vi Marin, Peter. Homelessness. pg. 69. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Political Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Political Philosophy essays

  1. How and why does Locke explain the creation, value and protection of property?

    All reason and reflection is based on personal experience and reference. Personal experience must be completely individual as no one can experience anything quite the same as another. This leads to determining why Locke theorized that all humans, speaking patriarchially with respect to the time "why all men," have a natural right to property.

  2. Is Liberalism compatible with democracy?

    Rousseau saw democracy as being fundamentally majority rule. In Rousseau's view even if 99% of the people supported one course of action, it would not necessarily be for the common benefit if it were simply the sum of the self-interested motives of the individuals who formed the majority.

  1. Notes on John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

    It is clear that Mill would allow for all of these exceptions, and his theory should be understood as including them. I state them here for two reasons, so that you will have a greater understanding of Mill's theory, and so that no one can try to object to Mill

  2. Power and Politics in Organizations: Public and Private Sector Comparisons

    is learned that something needs changing because methods are wrong or because the policy is misguided. Energy displacement is guaranteed, for example, when errors lead those involved to try to fix blame or to find scapegoats as opposed to working for amelioration (LaPorte 1975: 348-52).

  1. Communism VS Democracy

    entails that the majority of the people will get what they want, and if there is a choice to be made between economic hardship through socialism, and economic prosperity for the majority through capitalism, then the majority will chose to have prosperity over hardship, because it is common sense.

  2. So, whats wrong with Anarchism?

    The Spaniards baked Bakunin when he broke with Marx in 1872 over the First International. By 1915 they had over 1 million supporters and in 1921 when the Spanish Communist Party was formed they had four times as many members as the communists10.

  1. Assess popper's treatment of the problem of induction

    If we adopt the PSC method then we find it most difficult to decipher inductive arguments. Nonetheless, if we conduct the OTU inductive process then the problem becomes: are any inductive methods justifiable? I will follow in the footsteps of Hume and Popper and concentrate, more appropriately, on OTU inductive reasoning.

  2. Russia's Political Party System as an Obstacle to Democratization

    outcome of these elections than they had in previous election years (McFaul 2000b, 14-15).3 Although space constraints preclude an extended discussion of the development of local and regional political structures, suffice it to note that politics at this level is organized around informal "parties of power"-networks of local elites, such

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work