Is economic inequality consistent with justice? Watch

LouisJackson2
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
Trying to write this essay titled, "Is economic inequality consistent with justice?" and I'm having a bit of a hard time getting my head around it. I'm going to argue that economic inequality is consistent with justice, under certain conditions. This aligns with Rawls' "Difference Principle", Nozick's "Entitlement Theory" and Dworkin's theory of brute luck. I will use these to support my argument, however I need to address potential counter arguments and essentially shoot them down. I guess a counter argument entails arguing that economic inequality is not consistent with justice under any conditions, but I can't find or think of any sort of argument that supports this??

This is also where my problem lies. Why do political philosophers, particularly the "egalitarian" Rawls, even advocate economic inequalities in their theories? I know that he says that inequalities are allowed to exist if they benefit the worst off in society, but I cannot comprehend why he would even want economic inequality to exist in the first place? So essentially, I need an answer to this question, "why is economic inequality fair under certain conditions?" Like why would we even want economic inequality in the first place, and why does Rawls want economic inequality?

Any help would be appreciated because I need to get this essay done so I can actually enjoy my Christmas!
0
reply
22.22
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
(Original post by LouisJackson2)
Trying to write this essay titled, "Is economic inequality consistent with justice?" and I'm having a bit of a hard time getting my head around it. I'm going to argue that economic inequality is consistent with justice, under certain conditions. This aligns with Rawls' "Difference Principle", Nozick's "Entitlement Theory" and Dworkin's theory of brute luck. I will use these to support my argument, however I need to address potential counter arguments and essentially shoot them down. I guess a counter argument entails arguing that economic inequality is not consistent with justice under any conditions, but I can't find or think of any sort of argument that supports this??

This is also where my problem lies. Why do political philosophers, particularly the "egalitarian" Rawls, even advocate economic inequalities in their theories? I know that he says that inequalities are allowed to exist if they benefit the worst off in society, but I cannot comprehend why he would even want economic inequality to exist in the first place? So essentially, I need an answer to this question, "why is economic inequality fair under certain conditions?" Like why would we even want economic inequality in the first place, and why does Rawls want economic inequality?

Any help would be appreciated because I need to get this essay done so I can actually enjoy my Christmas!
Hi! It's difficult to think of political philosophers who have advocated complete economic equality, although i suppose you could look into some strands of communist/anrachist thought. But i'd recommend looking at Gary Cohens 'Freedom and Money' and Elizabeth Anderson's 'What is the point of equality?'. The former could be used as a counterpoint to Nozick, the latter as a counterpoint to Dworkin.

As to the second question, political philosophers usually accept economic inequalities due to the fact there are other competing social, such as liberty. So with many political philosophers in the liberal tradition, it is a case of balancing competing social virtues. Nozick for instance thinks his conception of liberty is the be all and end all of liberal socieities, and economic ineqaulities are simply a by-product of people acting freely. With Rawls, he accepts economic inequalities simply because he thinks that in the Original Position people would accept economic inequalities. Remember with Rawls, Justice is found exclusively in the Original Position; he doesn't want inequality, he just thinks people would accept economic inequality as long as it benefits the poorest.

Hope this helps
0
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
What has economic inequality to do with justice? People are different that reality predicates economic outcomes of different magnitudes, some work harder than others some are fortunate in the economic area in which they are engaged. Depending on the path that people follow to arrive at their position of inferior/superior remuneration one could argue that discrimination and therefore injustice or favouritism was afforded them. Any employers subjectivity is usually directed to obtaining competent staff but no doubt given the foibles of human nature many instances of nepotism and favouritism occur. Only by examining individual cases could you determine the extent of the injustice done to job interviewees.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How old were you when you first saw porn?

I've never seen it (97)
22.05%
Before I was 12 (147)
33.41%
13 (71)
16.14%
14 (54)
12.27%
15 (33)
7.5%
16 (11)
2.5%
17 (5)
1.14%
18 (4)
0.91%
Between the ages of 19 - 24 (4)
0.91%
Over 25 (0)
0%
12 (14)
3.18%

Watched Threads

View All