Rawls and Utilitarian Reaction to Massive Injection of Capital by Government Borrowed From Foreign Nations
One of the outstanding features of Rawl’s theory is that he strongly propagated for wealth redistribution where privileged members of society could contribute part of their wealth towards the less fortunate within the welfare state. In the situation under analysis, the government is considering borrowing vast amounts of capital from foreign governments to curb unemployment and poor economic performance. Rawls would argue that this is a very plausible idea. It signifies wealth creation which would contribute towards greater rights – a key element in Rawl’s theory. Rawls would add that failure to boost unemployment levels in the country could cause vast indifferences between the poor and the rich and this undermines their liberty. Such persons would be unable to afford decent education, healthcare, housing and other necessities and this is immoral or unacceptable in Rawl’s viewpoints. Rawls said that inequality can be justified if it creates a better position for the least privileged in society. Therefore, injecting capital into the economy can produce a positive impact on the lives of both the poor and the rich because it would lead to the expansion of business for asset owners and also produce employment opportunities for the poor. Therefore solely depending on individual merit or talent alone to solve economic solutions should not be an ethical alternative as no one has control over these factors. The government would therefore be acting rightfully by looking out for the interests of the nation. (Rawls, 212)
Utilitarians advocate for the maximization of utility to the highest number of people. In the face of a crisis, the government has two alternatives – either to let the rules of demand and supply take care of the situation or to inject these vast sums of capital to stimulate it. If one chooses to look at the matter from a cost of production point of view, it can be argued that a stable economy encourages greater investment and greater flow of wealth for all members of society. This argument was frequently used by critically acclaimed utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill. On the other hand, one can look at the intervention from a marginal utility point of view where it can be argued that there are various ways in which the economy can be inefficient when left alone and this is through price discrimination, market externalities, monopolies, oligopolies or other market structures, lack of access to information and inefficient factor allocations. Consequently, the marginal utility of most consumers would be worse in situations where the latter inefficiencies operate greatly. (West, 15) Acting to minimize these interferences can therefore result in a better state for most. It may be common to find rising inflation in such a state hence curbing unemployment could be done at the expense of inflation. However, the effects of inflation tend to last for a shorter period than do capital investment. The donor will also benefit from issuing out a loan because he will be earning interest on it and that would boost the lender’s economic wellbeing. This is a win-win situation for both parties. In fact, government intervention in the economic situation of a country is an aspect that has been supported by many latter-day utilitarians. Additionally, if unemployment is left to continue then the underprivileged may be pushed into committing crimes or engaging in other vices so as to survive. Such actions would undermine the rights and liberties of the privileged thus minimizing the overall well-being of the entire population. (Just, 43)
I would support government intervention in this situation because repayment of the loan will be done over a period of a hundred years. This means that only minimal amounts will be deducted from the country’s earnings and the public would not feel this effect adversely. Also, both the rich and the poor would benefit from injection of capital in either of the two theories.
Advice for the Minister of Health Based on Nozick’s and Rawls’ Stance on Imposing Additional Fees in Healthcare
Contrary to popular opinion on the application and relevance of philosophy to daily life, Nozick and Rawl’s ideas provide unique opportunities for analyzing the repercussions of politics and governance. In fact these philosophers’ insights provide a unique platform for understanding the purpose of government and how this translates to the affected societies. (Brown, 4)
Rawls believed that one should make ethical decisions from first principles. This involves assuming that one was engaging in some form of social contract. To achieve the latter, one should operate under a veil of ignorance where the ethicist assumes that he/she does not know anything about the concerned parties such as their class, wealth and natural endowments. By wearing this veil of ignorance, it would follow that the decision-maker would be concerned with equality and the condition of the underprivileged because poverty is what most people would fear facing. Therefore in the health minister’s scenario of deciding whether to impose an additional ten-dollar fee for all health services, Rawls would argue that every person has a right to equal liberty. Consequently, the minister must investigate whether the ten-dollar addition would promote or diminish access to liberty for everyone. The answer to this question would probably be no since not everyone can access that ten dollars to seek medical care and this may hamper their well-being.
Central to Rawl’s arguments is the difference principle where changes to society need to be made only when it has been ascertained that those political and social changes can bring greater benefit to the poorest in society. He bases this argument on the theory of marginal utility where an equal amount of money or substance cannot provide the same value to persons of different economic abilities in societies. In other words, giving a rich man ten dollars would be relatively valueless for him as he already has so much. However, the same amount can make the difference between eating a meal or going to bed hungry for a poor man. Therefore, the same action has produced very different consequences amongst the two parties owing to the value that the money has added to their lives. Adding a compulsory fee would make things better for the rich since they could benefit from minimal tax cuts as well as better health services. However, the poor who may not afford the ten dollars could be in for a very hard time. This is a consequence that Rawls bitterly opposes.
Conversely Robert Nozick would make a different argument. It should be noted that this stems from the fact that the latter author was a heavy critic of Rawl’s theory. Nozick claimed that Rawls was trying to advocate for liberty yet contradicting this by supporting a welfare state. In a welfare state, money is taken from the unwilling rich and used to improve the lives of the poor. Therefore one man’s advantages are obtained at the expense of the other. As if that is not enough, Nozick asserted that wealth redistribution assumes all wealthy men got to their position through their social privileges yet this may not be the case; some do so as a result of hard work or specific talents. (Brown, 12) Governments in welfare states are therefore engaging in the very ideas that they are opposed to. A moral government to Nozick would therefore engage in less interference and does not undermine the rights of others – whether rich or poor. In the case study about the Minister of health’s dilemma, Nozick would assert that free public services such as a healthcare system with no additional fees are just another way of forcing rich people to pay for a service that would not benefit them. Consequently, every individual needs to pay for their keep. Adding an extra ten dollars for all health services would be a step in the right direction for Nozick as this could promote more independence among the populace. (Daniels, 174)
Procedural Theories in Social Ethics That Are More Respectful of Democratic Procedures Than Substantive Theories
Theories that are more respectful of substantive theories tend to discuss matters such as determining what could be the right actions to commit when faced with certain circumstances. In other words, these theories tend to look for justifications for a judgment made. (Schaefer, 165) Such theories make philosophical premises based on certain values of theories such as the right to liberty and everything therein is determined by these theories. Examples of key proponents include Rawls of Rawls’ theory, John Stuart Mill of the utilitarian theory, Immanuel Kant in Kantian ethics, and Nozick. On the other hand, procedural theories respectful of democratic procedures will base their judgments of what is morally right or wrong on the citizen or the human agency involved in the action. To this end, human nature is a critical component of such theories and their consent in governance or judgment needs to be given due respect. Examples of major theorists include Aristotle and Locke.(Solum, 181)
Theories that tend to lean towards democratic procedures usually define equality based on numbers and not merit. In other words, they affirm that all individuals have the right to rule and be ruled as a way of expressing their freedom. Conversely, theories that lean towards substantive views tend to define equality based on moral stances and theories. They affirm that certain rules determine one’s actions and in them are contained the basic principles of freedom and justice. Therefore, both types of theories advocate for liberty, however, in democratic procedural theories, the public is the final decision maker and whatever the majority believes is right should be given precedence over the rights of one individual. Participation is a key element in the latter theories.(Welzel & Inglehart, 44)
Despite these differences, both types of theories also possess some similarities. For instance, substantive theories sometimes undermine the very concepts that they advocate for and this eventually contributes to their respective criticisms. Rawls and Nozick affirm that Libertarianism is desirable in society. However, this can lead to deprivation of moral underpinnings of those same societies. Similarly, theories leaning towards democratic procedures have to face the fact that these procedures may sometimes result in instability through different prescriptions and policies held by various actors and it may also perpetuate inequality when the majority is oppressive. Both types of theories show that there may be no single prescription to problems to ethical concerns as adherence to one school of thought does not necessarily imply that one’s problems will be solved. Indeed the many variations found under each theory are a testimony to this very fact. There are still impending debates among proponents of one type of theory with some forming sub-theories to support their values, beliefs or assumptions.
References
Brown, Lachlan. “Rawls vs Nozick.” Sydney Morning herald, 2003. Web.
Rawls, John. A theory of Justice. NY: Belknap, 1971. Print.
Daniels, Timothy. “Programmatic worries: rights to healthcare.” Medicine and philosophy journal 4.2(1979): 174-191. Print
Just, Richard. Welfare economics in public policy. Northampton. Elgar Publishers, 2004. Print
Welzel, Christrian & Inglehart, Ronald. Democracy, cultural change and modernization. Cambridge: CUP, 2005. Print
Solum, Lawrence, “Procedural justice.” California law review 78.3(2004): 181. Web. 2010
Schaefer, David. “Substantive versus procedural justice.” Social policy and philosophy journal 24.1(2007): 165-186
West Henry. Utilitarianism. 2009. Web.