Egalitarianism Argument (my best argument)
Miles Stanton
Period 1/2
11/28
Egalitarianism Mini Essay
In a case study we read about Michael Jordan being taxed and his wealth distributed, in this example we are told to imagine that when you buy a ticket for the basketball game, every athlete on the team has a box to their name and you put five dollars in the box that goes directly to that player. Michael Jordan who is the star, inevitably gets the most money since he is the crowd favorite and has the most talent. So is it fair for Jordan to keep every penny of those extra earnings? Is this morally justified? To an egalitarian, taxing Jordan is the right thing to do. When reading about John Rawls’ philosophy he uses the difference principle to determine the worth of someone's efforts and that of their reward as well. When you are making a modest amount of money, you start to feel annoyed at the idea of taxes. So how would a rich person ever be able to see the positive effect that wealth distribution has on the impoverished? Thats easy, try using the veil of ignorance.
One of the supporting claims from the book “Justice” by Michael Sandel, is the veil of ignorance. My class and I did an exercise that helped me understand what this veil is exactly. In this exercise, we all were given social classes from filthy rich to homeless that correspond with your voting power. Then we voted on which philosophy we would live by. Obviously, the rich voted for something like libertarianism which lets you keep all your wealth and requires minimal taxation and the outcome was that of the desire of the rich. Then came the second round of voting, we all had the same voting power and our social classes were revealed to us after the voting and egalitarianism was unanimously chosen because it was the safest therefore most logical option. If the difference principle was applied to the taxing Michael Jordan case, I believe he too would want to live by egalitarian rules and logic therefore paying taxes for distribution of wealth.
So how do we determine whether someone is actually trying to be a good person and if we should reward them? In John Rawls version of egalitarianism we find another key concept/supporting claim, the difference principle. The difference principle favors those who help families in poverty, because of this they are taxed less in this type of society because they have already directly helped so why should they donate money as well as their time? That would be redundant. People who do not agree with egalitarian philosophy, may say: Taxing Jordan is not just because he is helping the less fortunate population by providing entertainment for them, so why should he give them his money also. This is true, but Jordan isn't performing strictly for the sole purpose of those fans. He is playing for them yes, but mostly the rich businessmen who are willing to spend thousands on sponsorships and thousand dollar VIP court level seating, it's the big spenders he’s playing for. So, since according to the difference principle Jordan is not directly helping poor families, he should still be fully taxed.
Period 1/2
11/28
Egalitarianism Mini Essay
In a case study we read about Michael Jordan being taxed and his wealth distributed, in this example we are told to imagine that when you buy a ticket for the basketball game, every athlete on the team has a box to their name and you put five dollars in the box that goes directly to that player. Michael Jordan who is the star, inevitably gets the most money since he is the crowd favorite and has the most talent. So is it fair for Jordan to keep every penny of those extra earnings? Is this morally justified? To an egalitarian, taxing Jordan is the right thing to do. When reading about John Rawls’ philosophy he uses the difference principle to determine the worth of someone's efforts and that of their reward as well. When you are making a modest amount of money, you start to feel annoyed at the idea of taxes. So how would a rich person ever be able to see the positive effect that wealth distribution has on the impoverished? Thats easy, try using the veil of ignorance.
One of the supporting claims from the book “Justice” by Michael Sandel, is the veil of ignorance. My class and I did an exercise that helped me understand what this veil is exactly. In this exercise, we all were given social classes from filthy rich to homeless that correspond with your voting power. Then we voted on which philosophy we would live by. Obviously, the rich voted for something like libertarianism which lets you keep all your wealth and requires minimal taxation and the outcome was that of the desire of the rich. Then came the second round of voting, we all had the same voting power and our social classes were revealed to us after the voting and egalitarianism was unanimously chosen because it was the safest therefore most logical option. If the difference principle was applied to the taxing Michael Jordan case, I believe he too would want to live by egalitarian rules and logic therefore paying taxes for distribution of wealth.
So how do we determine whether someone is actually trying to be a good person and if we should reward them? In John Rawls version of egalitarianism we find another key concept/supporting claim, the difference principle. The difference principle favors those who help families in poverty, because of this they are taxed less in this type of society because they have already directly helped so why should they donate money as well as their time? That would be redundant. People who do not agree with egalitarian philosophy, may say: Taxing Jordan is not just because he is helping the less fortunate population by providing entertainment for them, so why should he give them his money also. This is true, but Jordan isn't performing strictly for the sole purpose of those fans. He is playing for them yes, but mostly the rich businessmen who are willing to spend thousands on sponsorships and thousand dollar VIP court level seating, it's the big spenders he’s playing for. So, since according to the difference principle Jordan is not directly helping poor families, he should still be fully taxed.
Philosophy Final
Miles Stanton
Period 1/2
12/6
Philosophy Final
Flint is a city in Michigan with a population of roughly 97,000. In this city more than 41% are living below or at the poverty line. In April of 2014, Flints local government decided to switch the city’s water plan in order to save money. Everything was going well until families started to notice brown or rustic colored water. Families who used the water started to experience hair loss and noticed growth stunting and underdevelopment of bones in their children. After city officials and other organizations took notice to these abnormal changes, they later realized that the water was mistreated and slowly corroded the pipes and brought lead into their homes. Now we all need to start looking for solutions to this life threatening problem. Egalitarianism is the solution to Flint's water crisis.
One way I like to think of solutions for this crisis is, thinking about things from an egalitarian perspective. The type of Egalitarianism I am going to be referring to is the one made/critiqued by John Rawls, a famous philosopher. One key concept egalitarianism uses is veil of ignorance. The veil of ignorance is a hypothetical situation in which you do not know your social class. In this situation we did two rounds of voting, in the first round, you are given social classes from filthy rich to homeless that correspond with your voting power. Then you vote on which philosophy you would live by. Obviously, the rich would vote for something like libertarianism which lets you keep all your wealth and requires minimal taxation and the outcome is likely to be that of the desire of the rich. Then came the second round of voting, everyone has the same voting power and your social classes are revealed to you after the voting. Egalitarianism was unanimously chosen because it was the safest therefore most logical option. This applies to the dilemma in Flint Michigan because if the wealthy people in cities around Flint or even farther away would reason and try out this exercise I believe they would reconsider redistribution of wealth.
Privatization plays a huge role in this situation. Privatization is when a business or industry is turned into a privately owned, for profit organization. Let's say there was a library in a low income neighborhood. Before this library was privately owned, you could check out books for free and students we're able to study there without a problem. But now a corporation buys that library and now they are just seeking profit. They charge you to check out books and use their space for studying. It doesn't seem like that big of a deal because the prices arent that high, but these kids can't afford it so they have to stop all together. People like libertarians would argue that free market is a just solution for the Flint water crisis. But if you take a step back, privatization is what caused this whole mess in the first place. What did privatization have to do with this? Well, if you think about it the only reason they switched the water system is because the government wanted to save money, the people had no say in this, it was all for profit.
When a city chooses a new mayor, they are voted into office. However the governor can appoint an emergency manager to act in place for a mayor yet he got the job without the people's approval. The main problem with this is that he could cut funds and not care about anyone he hurts in the process. This is where becomes relevant. Emergency managers are not fair in an Egalitarian society because they got to where they are automatically. If we thought of this as a race, all citizens would be starting in the same location, therefore the race is fair. But, when an emergency manager is appointed by a higher authority, he automatically starts ahead of everyone else, now the race is unfair.
Now that we know the important role that Egalitarianism plays in solving the issue at hand, we can firmly say that we should all be given equal opportunities and that would include that not only health care is a right, but water as well. We have a right to clean and drinkable water.
Period 1/2
12/6
Philosophy Final
Flint is a city in Michigan with a population of roughly 97,000. In this city more than 41% are living below or at the poverty line. In April of 2014, Flints local government decided to switch the city’s water plan in order to save money. Everything was going well until families started to notice brown or rustic colored water. Families who used the water started to experience hair loss and noticed growth stunting and underdevelopment of bones in their children. After city officials and other organizations took notice to these abnormal changes, they later realized that the water was mistreated and slowly corroded the pipes and brought lead into their homes. Now we all need to start looking for solutions to this life threatening problem. Egalitarianism is the solution to Flint's water crisis.
One way I like to think of solutions for this crisis is, thinking about things from an egalitarian perspective. The type of Egalitarianism I am going to be referring to is the one made/critiqued by John Rawls, a famous philosopher. One key concept egalitarianism uses is veil of ignorance. The veil of ignorance is a hypothetical situation in which you do not know your social class. In this situation we did two rounds of voting, in the first round, you are given social classes from filthy rich to homeless that correspond with your voting power. Then you vote on which philosophy you would live by. Obviously, the rich would vote for something like libertarianism which lets you keep all your wealth and requires minimal taxation and the outcome is likely to be that of the desire of the rich. Then came the second round of voting, everyone has the same voting power and your social classes are revealed to you after the voting. Egalitarianism was unanimously chosen because it was the safest therefore most logical option. This applies to the dilemma in Flint Michigan because if the wealthy people in cities around Flint or even farther away would reason and try out this exercise I believe they would reconsider redistribution of wealth.
Privatization plays a huge role in this situation. Privatization is when a business or industry is turned into a privately owned, for profit organization. Let's say there was a library in a low income neighborhood. Before this library was privately owned, you could check out books for free and students we're able to study there without a problem. But now a corporation buys that library and now they are just seeking profit. They charge you to check out books and use their space for studying. It doesn't seem like that big of a deal because the prices arent that high, but these kids can't afford it so they have to stop all together. People like libertarians would argue that free market is a just solution for the Flint water crisis. But if you take a step back, privatization is what caused this whole mess in the first place. What did privatization have to do with this? Well, if you think about it the only reason they switched the water system is because the government wanted to save money, the people had no say in this, it was all for profit.
When a city chooses a new mayor, they are voted into office. However the governor can appoint an emergency manager to act in place for a mayor yet he got the job without the people's approval. The main problem with this is that he could cut funds and not care about anyone he hurts in the process. This is where becomes relevant. Emergency managers are not fair in an Egalitarian society because they got to where they are automatically. If we thought of this as a race, all citizens would be starting in the same location, therefore the race is fair. But, when an emergency manager is appointed by a higher authority, he automatically starts ahead of everyone else, now the race is unfair.
Now that we know the important role that Egalitarianism plays in solving the issue at hand, we can firmly say that we should all be given equal opportunities and that would include that not only health care is a right, but water as well. We have a right to clean and drinkable water.