Society has a problem with the distribution of wealth and income. Traditionally philosophers agree that the distribution of wealth within a limited society is considered a problem of distributive justice. Over time there has been a collection of solutions recommended about how much income and wealth people deserve or have a right to possess. Distributive justice has appealed to political ideals as well as the ideas of socialists, libertarians and welfare liberals. Libertarians such as John Hospers who wrote The Libertarian Manifesto, shares some of the views libertarians have about how wealth and income is distributed. Hospers explains that libertarianism is the doctrine that every person is the owner of his own life and that no one is the owner of anyone else’s life. What he shares is that he believes that all should have the rights extended from the government protected which is the right to life, the right to liberty, and to property. He believes that each man should live the life that he chooses and that no man should take someone else’s property or there life and that government should never enter in to areas such as religion, social organization or economics. Hospers believes that if the government removed itself from these things then people would not go hungry because the economy would flourish and there would not be a need for anyone to distribute their wealth. Socialists have their own distinctive ideas on how society should distribute wealth and income. Kai Nielson defends the idea that it is the duty of society to have equality of need fulfillment. Nielson believes that everyone has the right to an equal share of the wealth in the world and states that this should be applied globally. He goes on to say that if only a... ... middle of paper ... ...my own family. After reading and completing the essay I realize that maybe my thought process is not necessarily that right or valuable one to have. I believe it would be important to make sure that the underprivileged did not go hungry and I would not want to be selfish. I do not agree in equality but I do think assisting others is the proper thing to do. I think I can conceptualize bringing all three points of view together to create one idea. It’s difficult for me now to make a decision on where I stand with distributive justice because I see both the good and bad in all of the arguments so, I would take the valuable arguments and create something different that holds true to what I feel is justified and reasonable. Works Cited Morality in Practice, seventh edition, James P. Sterba, 2004 http://dictionary.reference.com/ http://thesaurus.com/browse/search
The era that marked the end of civil war and the beginning of the twentieth century in the united states of America was coupled with enormous economic and industrial developments that attracted diverse views and different arguments on what exactly acquisition of wealth implied on the social classes in the society. It was during this time that the Marxist and those who embraced his ideologies came out strongly to argue their position on what industrial revolution should imply in an economic world like America. In fact, there was a rapid rise in the gross national product of the United States between 1874 and 1883. This actually sparked remarkable consequences on the political, social and economic impacts. In fact, the social rejoinder to industrialization had extensive consequences on the American society. This led to the emergence of social reform movements to discourse on the needs of the industrialized society. Various theories were developed to rationalize the widening gap between the rich and the poor. Various reformers like Andrew Carnegie, Henry George and William Graham Sumner perceived the view on the obligation of the wealthy differently. This paper seeks to address on the different views held by these prominent people during this time of historical transformations.
In the United States, there are political debates about the government’s role in aiding the poor and whether it is appropriate for the health of the poor to be their responsibility. This is also a relevant topic in the state of Texas alone because the distribution of wealth between the upper and lower classes in Texas can be described as unequal and unfair. However, people can also argue that those in the upper classes worked for their wealth and those considered poor in the lower classes should do the same. Therefore, in order to decide what the government’s role should be one must consider redistributing the wealth from upper income to the lower income households. It also must be determined if the current system
In the treatise named “Leviathan” published in 1651, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) proposed an early variant of equality among men that inequality did not exist in natural condition, meaning everyone is born equal; however, inequality's existence was the result of civil laws (Hobbes & Gaskin, 1998). In this sense, inequality is generally referred to social inequality which is characterized by the existence of unequal opportunities and rewards for different social positions or statuses within a group or society; plus, this negative social phenomenon contains structured and recurrent patterns of unequal distributions of goods, wealth, opportunities, rewards, and punishments (Crossman, 2012).
The issue of global wealth redistribution has become an increasingly fundamental topic in our globalized world. The vast amount of literature on this topic has left philosophers and economists to seek questions on whether there is a duty to redistribute wealth and in what way it should be distributed globally. The uncertainty over this remains a key impediment to real life progress. Nevertheless, the crucial aspect of this debate is to understand whether individuals have an obligation to redistribute wealth internationally. There are many deep controversial issues that conflict with the justness of responsibility. However in this paper, I will be using a cosmopolitan outlook by opening up the discussion of the current global situation and what duty an individual in the developed states has to redistribute globally. I will also analyze the poverty in the third world, and assess whether distributing wealth is the most effective mechanism compared to other alternatives.
The highest earning fifth of U.S. families earned 59.1% of all income, while the richest earned 88.9% of all wealth. A big gap between the rich and poor is often associated with low social mobility, which contradicts the American ideal of equal opportunity. Levels of income inequality are higher than they have been in almost a century, the top one percent has a share of the national income of over 20 percent (Wilhelm). There are a variety of factors that influence income inequality, a few of which will be discussed in this paper. Rising income inequality is caused by differences in life expectancy, rapidly increases in the incomes of the top 5 percent, social trends, and shifts in the global economy.
Income inequality not only harms us fiscally, but also affects our mental and physical wellbeing; therefore, it is important to identify the right ways to control wealth distribution among people.
With the libertarian model, it’s a free market built for you to compete and win. Some find this unfair; because of people can be at a disadvantage. For example, race, sex, family success, etc. The egalitarian model is a model which states that “Since we can’t undo the inequities of the natural lottery, he writes, we must find a way to address the differences in the rewards that result from them.” (Arora 88). In other words, if a child was born into a rich family, a family with fame, then that child doesn’t deserve the rewards that he/she may receive. Some may find this unfair, because some believe if you work hard for it you should deserve your rewards. However, you can make a case that these rich kids has an easier path to reaping their rewards than a child born in poverty, perhaps. Most people tend to favor the United States current economic model, the meritocratic model. With this model, it focuses more on the equality of opportunity, and an effort to decrease socioeconomic disadvantages. So even if you were born in poverty, you can still make it to the top, you can
Time and time again we hear politicians and office holders preach the need for a powerful middle-class. You may then be surprised to hear that “about 82% of America’s net worth belongs to the top 20%, the next 80% of people only own about 18% of America’s wealth” (UCSC). Some may argue that this disproportion is the beauty of capitalism, the chance to create an empire. I argue that the proportions are simply unfair. Why is it that “ the average CEO makes 350X as much as his/her employee” (UCSC)?
There is a problem in the United States that is growing and is causing issues in our country, but not everybody knows about it. The problem is the distribution of wealth in our society and the world as a whole, and how it is getting worse. Some people would say that it is an inequality due to the needs of the society, while others would say it is to the needs or individuals. This causes even more problems because of there being more than one supposed reason for the issue at hand. The problem is that the distribution of power is possibly starting to be lopsided, and for many reasons. There are two main views of why this is happening, the functionalist perspective and the conflict perspective, and they differ in many ways on what is wrong, why it is wrong and what to do about it.
“Convincing the non-elite that inequality is morally right. Those most advantaged are justified in giving orders and receiving a greater proportion of valued goods and services, or at least, creating doubts about alternatives. All, individuals strive for cognitive consistency and will develop principles of fairness, such as Distributive Justice. Lastly, there is some evidence for distribution based on need as a result of ability to understand the needs of others. This is called the process of legitimation […]” (2011:461).
Throughout the existence of man debates over property and inequality have always existed. Man has been trying to reach the perfect state of society for as long as they have existed. John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King are three great examples of men who broke down the basics of how property and inequality are related. Each historical figure has their own distinct view on the situation. Some views are similar while others vary greatly. These philosophers and seekers of peace and equality make many great arguments as to how equality and property can impact man and society. Equality and property go hand in hand in creating an equal society. Each authors opinion has its own factors that create a mindset to support that opinion. In this paper we will discuss the writings of John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King Jr. and the factors that influenced their opinions on inequality and property.
Liberty and equality belong to the same category as moral conceptions. Despite both aiming at improving lives of the people, their relationship is in conflict so that we have to choose between them. Liberty and equality have been discussed over and over and those discussions have been generally inconclusive. Philosophers and scholars who embarked on this discussion have ended up with different notions. From egalitarian point of view, liberty and equality cannot coexist peacefully and they clash in the area of property rights. Property is infringed by government to compensate those who naturally do not own much property. On the contention of the two concepts, Ronald Dworkin argues that if there really were a conflict between equality and liberty, equality would have to win (Dworkin, 2000). This sentiment implies that the two terms are rivals. Let us take equality of wealth as a goal; achieving and maintaining equal wealth amongst citizens would require violation of liberty. Maintaining equality of wealth would require a redistribution of resources over a time such as taking wealth from other people and give it to others infringing upon the right to private property. Dworkin stresses that egalitarians are mainly concerned with socio-economic equality imposed by the state through progressive taxes and welfare provision (Dworkin, 2000). Basing on the original position that all men have equal access to goods, it will be justifiable for the state to introduce redistributive taxes on the rich who do not have any justified claim to their property. This paper will further examine the conflict between liberty and equality by looking at their definitions from the perspective of different philosophers and scholars.
Wealth inequality is the uneven distribution of resources in a given state or population, which can also be called the wealth gap. The sum of one’s total assets excluding the liabilities equates the person’s wealth also known as the net worth. Investments, residents, cash, real estates and everything owned by an individual are their assets.In reality, the United States is among the richest countries in the world, though a few people creating a major gap between the richest, the middle class and the poor control most of its wealth. For more than a quarter of a century, only the rich American families have shown an increase to their net worth.Thisis a worrying fact for the less fortunate in the country and calls for assessment (Baranoff, 2015).
Income inequality continues to increase in today’s world, especially in the United States. Income inequality means the unequal distribution between individuals’ assets, wealth, or income. In the Twilight of the Elites, Christopher Hayes, a liberal journalist, states the inequality gap between the rich and the poor are increasing widening, and there need to have things done - tax the rich, provide better education - in order to shortening the inequality gap. America is a meritocratic country, which means that everybody has equal opportunity to be successful regardless of their class privileges or wealth. However, equality of opportunity does not equal equality of outcomes. People are having more opportunities to find a better job, but their incomes are a lot less compared to the top ten percent rich people. In this way, the poor people will never climb up the ladder to high status and become millionaires. Therefore, the government needs to increase all the tax rates on rich people in order to reduce income inequality.
In the world today there is a lot of poverty. There is a great divide