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

    given to developing the kind of leaders and leadership that the 'learning organization' requires (Coopey 1995). According to Pinchot and Pinchot (1993: 39-50), such basic change supports the notion that the future belongs to the 'intelligent organization', which is more sensitively attuned to the market and less attached to and encumbered by outmoded bureaucratic practice than other kinds of organizations.

  2. So, whats wrong with Anarchism?

    So the reason why we should have a state is that it protects us from harm as well as protect anything which may belong to us. It guarantees us peace and order and by using the police it reduces crimes.

  1. Is Liberalism compatible with democracy?

    do not try to abolish it but see their job as limiting, dividing up and controlling power and preserving the chance of replacing those in power. Liberalism and democracy happily coexist in many countries. Although Liberalism is closely associated with the modern development of democracy and democratic institutions, there have been a number of problems in its relationship with democracy.

  2. America Liberalism

    The formal arguments in the document are based on very liberal ideas. The Declaration argues for the equality of man, it says that, "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; they are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."(American Political Thinking).

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

    In effect, this erects a barrier that prevents the electorate from judging who is accountable for the work of the legislature and thus insulates the legislators from the demands of the electorate. Another factor that explains the state of Russia's party system is the electoral system which, for the most part, contributes little toward party system formation.

  2. Notes on John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

    Further, Mill claims that there is good reason to believe that it is beneficial to society for the government to have a strict policy of never passing laws which restrict actions which do not involve harm to others. Brief statement of the Harm Principle: Mill formulates what is called the

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

    Locke believed primitive man existed in a state of nature, which was one of peace, goodwill, and preservation. In this state, property was common in the sense that everyone had an equal right to draw subsistence from whatever was offered in nature.

  2. 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.

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