This essay will discusses three different theories of justice. Utilitarianism, Rawls’ liberalism, and libertarianism are all defined and analyzed in relation to poverty. Libertarianism is the most just of the theories because of the well defined property rights and incentives for work. Earning what you have is morally right and takes precedence over the reduction of poverty if that involves mandatory giving. While the reduction of poverty is a societal issue that should be addressed, it is not the responsibility of the government to do so. Rather, leave it up to voluntary giving and charitable donations.
_______________________________________________________________________
For some, justice and the reduction of poverty go hand in hand. However, this paper will argue that what is morally right, is not the reduction of poverty, but rather earning what you have through hard work and property rights. Utilitarianism and liberalism come up short because they may require the forceful redistribution of wealth through taxes or other means. Libertarianism is just because it incentivizes work and allows for the voluntary charitable giving over forced taxes. It is not a moral obligation to alleviate poverty if you have the means, it is a choice. While those on both sides make reasonable arguments, it is unfair to take what someone earned and give it to someone who did not earn it. Some are made poor by their own irresponsibleness and that burden should not fall on those who are responsible. This paper will show this through defining utilitarianism and its dependence on happiness in a society. This will be followed by disputing the theory and examining the problems with ignoring the process to look solely at outcome, as is the in utilitarianism. Rawls’ liberalism and his idea of a “veil of ignorance” is then defined. The issues with this theory of liberalism and its overvaluation of financial equality are analyzed. Finally, libertarianism is defined and then evaluated. The benefits to libertarianism such as incentives for hard work and voluntary charity are investigated. Some common oppositions to libertarianism are explained as well as their flaws and incompatibility with reality.
Utilitarianism is the belief that doing what is right and just means doing what makes the overall happiness of people increase the most (Richter). “The greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people” is how to decide what is right. David Hume, a utilitarian, believes that while we should protect property rights, they can be violated if overall happiness would increase. Utilitarianism is not incompatible with libertarianism nor liberalism but prioritizes different things.
The main problem with utilitarianism is that it ignores the process, meaning it only looks at the outcome of an act. The issue with this is obvious. If something was acquired by theft, even though this would seem wrong, as long as it makes more people happier, then a utilitarian would agree that this is okay. Even by making one person less happy, as long as the overall happiness of the society goes up, that is acceptable. There is an economics principle called the law of diminishing marginal utility. This law states that at a certain point, each additional item of a good does not increase happiness as much as the previous one did. Relating this back to poverty, a utilitarian might be fine with taking from the rich for the poor. For simplicity, think about money. The wealthy have a lot of it, so an additional thousand dollars or so would not make them a lot happier. However, an additional thousand dollars to someone who did not have a thousand dollars is going to increase their happiness a great deal more. Because of this, utilitarians would be alright with the taking of money and redistributing it to the poor since the overall happiness of society would increase more. If the money was taken from someone who earned it and given to someone who did not do anything, that seems inherently unfair. Think of a minority, just because they might not raise the overall happiness as much as a larger group, that does not mean they are not just as important. While the greater good is important, individual rights are more important. Additionally, utility is extremely hard to measure. For these reasons, utilitarianism is unjust.
The next theory is liberalism, specifically Rawls’ idea of liberalism. He believes that what is just and fair is determined by what people would agree to if they did not know their position in the world. He suggest what he calls a “veil of ignorance” (Davies). The person behind this veil would not know what race, gender, social status, age, or any other identifying factors about themselves (Davies). What they would agree to is what would be fair. He argues that they would agree to helping the poor since you have no way of knowing if that might be you. Rawls believes in two main guiding principles. The first, and most important, is that “Each individual is to have as much liberty as possible compatible with equal liberty for all” (Richter). The second is that “Social and economic advantages are to be equally open to everyone and may only exist when they are to the advantage of all” (Richter). These two principles are those that he believes would be agreed upon behind the veil of ignorance. In this theory, there is room to benefit, but only if there is also benefits to everyone, although it does not have to be in the same amount.
The main issue with Rawls’ liberalism is that it overvalues equality. He determined through this veil of ignorance that justice means helping those the worst off. The problem with this is that it can be the fault of that person that they are worse off. If they are spending all their money on drugs or gambling, then even trying to make them better off is counterproductive. Helping those worse off, creates a disincentive for working hard. Some jobs are more difficult than others, and those who do them deserve to be at an economic advantage because of it. Improving the state of those at the bottom seems inherently unfair if we do not improve the state of everyone else. Equal opportunity is what matters, not financial equality. Financial inequality is fair because not everyone deserves the same things. People deserve what they work for. Additionally, the resources to improve the lives of those who are worst off has to come from somewhere. This would likely include the infringement of liberty which is Rawls’ first principle. Liberalism ignores the fact that some people deserve to be better off than others. It would be unfair to take what people earned. While it might be a tough pill to swallow, inequality is not always a bad thing. For these reasons, Rawls’ liberalism is unjust.
The theory of libertarianism rests solely on property rights. If something is not claimed, like a natural good, and you happen upon it, you can keep it. If it is something you created, it is yours. The only reason that there is a need for government is to protect these rights. Libertarians believe that taxation is theft (“Robert Nozick”). Taxation means that you are working for free some of the time since that money is going to the government. This is forced labor, which is a no go. The only exception to taxation is to provide a military and police force. The reason that these are acceptable is because they are used for the protection of property rights. Since everyone will benefit from this protection, everyone should be taxed for this.
The reason libertarianism is the most just of the three theories is that it rewards hard work by having very little government involvement, only enough to protect property rights. If somebody is poor, as long as you did not do anything to make them poor, then it is not your responsibility to improve their state of living. While nobody wants other people to be in poverty, that does not mean that you need to do anything about it. Of course, if you want to, then that is allowed. Helping people should not be forced, it should be voluntary. The taking of money by taxation for redistribution, as seen in liberalism or even utilitarianism, is unjust. It disincentivizes working hard for what you have if it could just be taken away. The protection of property is the most important for this reason. Not giving handouts to the poor encourages people to take care of their own family and friends. Removing the safety net forces a stronger work ethic as well as participation in our economy and lassiez-faire market. Libertarianism is the best because it clearly defines property rights, allows people to choose what they do with their resources, and incentivizes hard work.
There are a couple of oppositions to libertarianism. Firstly, what happens if there is not enough voluntary aid for those that are impoverished leading to death by starvation? While this is not ideal, it is still, technically, just. As long as those that are impoverished are not impoverished because of someone else, then there is nothing further that should be mandatory. However, as a society, we should find this morally unacceptable and help out, but there should be no mandate. Another question that arises is how to correct past injustices? For example, should decedents of slave owners be allowed to keep their wealth? While the principles of libertarianism would never find slavery to be acceptable, there must also include rational thought. It is impractical to believe that our society can go back that far and correctly rectify those unfortunate circumstances. At this point, the decedents are too far removed, and it would be impossible to accurately account for this.
Therefore, it is not the responsibility of citizens to help the poor. Those who worked for what they have and earned it fairly are entitled to it and should not be forced to redistribute their wealth. People tend to think that those opposed to welfare and in favor of a more libertarian style government are immoral; however, keeping what you earned should not be viewed as such. Private charities should be welcome as an alternative to the public welfare system since donating is a voluntary decision.
Bibliography:
Davies, Ben. “John Rawls’ ‘A Theory of Justice’.” 1000-Word Philosophy, 20 Dec. 2018, 1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/07/27/john-rawls-a-theory-of-justice/.
Dr. Richter. Distributive Justice: Three Main Kinds of Theory. Distributive Justice: Three Main Kinds of Theory, Poverty & Human Capabilities, 2019.
“Robert Nozick.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, www.iep.utm.edu/nozick/#H2.