Utilitarianism and Libertarianism Concerning Distributive Justice - Essay Example

Describe distributive justice and how it works. thoroughly and as specifically as you can the issues between Utilitarian’s and Libertarians concerning distributive justice. Which side are you on and why?  Distributive justice holds that any policy or rules which are imposed in any given society has a purpose of serving the common and greater good. The common good also entail a fair distribution of responsibility which everybody should shoulder. Utilitarianism justice on the other hand is a form of justice that should serve an end. Any acts or choices we make are directed towards the objective of increasing happiness or pleasure or to avoid pain. In a society, this is applied to adopting policies which should serve the greatest number of people or the majority of the population and the course of action that would be untaken should have a net effect of increasing happiness.  Advocates of libertarian principles, by contrast generally criticize any distributive ideal that requires the pursuit of economic ‘patterns’, such as maximization or equality of welfare or of material goods. They argue that the pursuit of such patterns conflicts with the more important moral demands of liberty or self-ownership (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). I am more inclined to side with utilitarian justice because it is more applicable in today’s modern society that any act, policy or idea should serve the greatest number of people. It has also practical applications which in fact is even used today such the concept of progressive taxation which is really Rawl’s idea of distributive justice because this taxation takes more from the rich and gives them more to the one who has less. 2. Explain as fully as you can John Rawls “Theory of Justice” Do you agree with theory of justice? Why or why not?  In Rawl’s theory of justice, he advance two kinds of justice which is the merit theory which as the title suggests, rewards the person depending upon one’s contribution to society. The other which is more applicable to this case is the need theory which posits that society has an obligation to help other members of society who are in need which will “balance” their disadvantaged position. In his Theory of Justice, Rawl envisions a “society of free citizens holding equal basic rights cooperating within an egalitarian economic system” (STandford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).  Thus, the issue of redistributive justice follows this principle that our government ought to redistribute wealth for the purposes of making the distribution of goods more equal. This principle of redistributive justice is not only ideal but also has practical implications. Ideal because the inequalities of society will be addressed through government mechanisms such as collecting more taxes from those who earns more so that it can give more to those who have less. I agree with Rawl’s theory of justice because of its practical implication that it minimizes or blunts the cause of social upheavals which is inequality, injustice and poverty. We all know that the chaotic countries in the Third Worlds are all caused by these elements; widespread poverty, injustice and inequality. By removing or minimizing the ill effect of widespread inequity through the government’s intervention, society will become more stable and less prone to social upheavals because those who have less, will also have less reason to complain and protest against the government. Elements in society who want to sow discontent, chaos or terror will not also prosper because the people are sympathetic to the government and they cannot be agitated to go against the government because they do not feel the injustice and poverty of which chaos, anarchy and terror breeds. The other practical implication of this redistributive justice is that there will be greater social mobility in society where people has equal chance to succeed even if they have less because the government will fill in the social equation where their poverty will not prevent them in pursuing their endeavors. 3. Explain fully as you can the Buddhist Theory of Morals. DO yo think that Buddhist have anything to say todays economy morally speaking? Why or why not?  One of the noble truths in Buddhism that is applicable today’s modern society is the Way leading to the Cessation of Dukka or suffering contained in the Fourth Noble Truth. Cessation of sufferingis central to Buddhist Theory of Morals and it meant taking the “Middle Path”because it avoids the two extremes of giving in to pleasure and the other of living in ascetic, self mortificating life (Rahula 33). Both are either low, common, painful, unworthy and unprofitable and the ideal is the path between them. This theory of morality has practical application in today’s modern economy. In the language of economics, the Middle Way is in fact the middle class which is neither rich or poor of which every society and every government strives their people to be. Being rich or having excessive wealth is not good because it leads to indulgence and frivolty making the mind trivial because it does not have to work. It also weakens the moral fiber because excessiveness in itself is a vice. Being poor is worst. It breeds a lot of problem and debilitatitng apart from the fact that life will be hard. With poverty, man is basically reduced physically, morally, intellectually adn socially. Poverty weakens a man’s constitution to pursue other endeavors and aspiration that would make him or her productive. His aspiration is reduced to survival of what to eat and other basic things that he could no longer grow as a person. Poverty is also a breeding ground of other social ills such as discontent, terror and criminality. If the Buddist could have their way in today’s modern society, all if not most of us will be middle class which has a means to pursue the things that we like. We also do not worry about our survival because we already know that we have the means to survive. So we are more focused on the higher hierarchy of needs which is self actualization making us more productive and beneficial to society. Work Cited Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Distributive Justice”. September 22, 1996. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/#LibPri Read More