Introduction
Poverty in any given society implies a compromise in justice. While many reasons may account for the poverty, the disparities involved may be too enormous for the poor situation to be leveled against an individual. Such is the case in Canada according to a case study carried out. As such, I intend to use the ethical ideas advanced by John Rawls to demonstrate how morality has been gambled in Canada for the country to have extremes of ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’.
Is the government of Canada making the right decisions? Performing ethically translates to making right decisions and taking suitable actions which would in turn benefit people by making best use of ‘good’ and diminishing “bad.” Outcomes, consequences, or ambitions are the main focus rather than the action taken to accomplish them, Rawls would argue.
Discussion
The title ‘poverty in Canada’ itself evokes many ethical concerns. And the immediate question that arises is: why should some people be too poor in a country that is averagely rated to be rich? There are two possible reasons for that: one is that the poor individuals could be too lazy to work for their welfare, or, perhaps, the socio-political framework does not favor their growth as it does to their well-off counterparts in the same Society. While these may not be the only rationales behind the poverty, it is reasonable to work with the two.
The case study1 has indicated for instance, that the number of people living in poverty in 2003 is at 4.9 million (15.9%). The number of children in poverty has been rated at 4.9 million (17.6%). The surprising irony is that the same research illustrates that the country has registered steady upturn mobility in its economic growth.
It is this contrast that appeals to Rawls’ idea of justice. While justice has its various categories, fairness is Rawls’ idea of it. Justice as fairness is then brought by Rawls on head-on collision with utilitarianism, which would basically mean expediency or self-advantage. The two concepts that is fairness and utilitarianism, are mutually exclusive since it would be impossible to think of a fairness-minded individual as the same one who would be self-seeking or self-serving (Rawls, Theory 45).
From the foregoing argument, we would want to imagine of a fair person as one who thinks of every individual as deserving befitting treatment either from another person, the society, or the government. Consequently, the Canadian government would device a level playing ground for its citizens in order to curtail exploitation. This is particularly so because the report on the Canadian situation notes that the majority of its citizenry depend entirely on employment. Therefore, for one individual to be extremely richer than the other could directly imply the inequalities on the government’s payroll. This radically violates the principle of fairness, which should enable everyone earn equitably according to Rawls (Rawls, Philosophical 41).
On the contrary, utilitarianism, especially in its classical version would insist that only the benefits actions bring to the doer matter and not the effects on the victim. Thus in this case, even the most unthinkable injustices would go. For instance, it would not matter to the Canadian government the poverty and squalor majority of its citizens live in as long as it’s able to make its benefits, whether individually or as a clique. This then would give way to vices like expediency, capitalism, individualism and exploitation. Is this what the Canadian government could be doing? In capitalism for example, the rich individuals could be thriving over the poor ones because of exploiting their services at a cheap cost, like the Canadian employees by their government.
Rawls however argues that these utilitarians e.g.in the Canadian case, still don’t admit their malpractices and seek to shroud their ulterior motives by the wrong application of the social contract theory. In this theory, every individual in the society is considered selfish by nature and would, if given chance, seek only his personal gain. That being the case, conflicting interests would arise in the society and thus chaos. Hence, the theory suggests that it is necessary to enter into some social contract for the sake of fairness. Justice originates from such a contract because the contract ensures fair play and contains unfair treatment. A group of individuals would therefore be granted the mandate to lead the others in administering justice.
For Rawls, however, this is not what the leaders do and that’s why he finds it a cover up application of their so-called social contract. According to Rawls, leaders such as of Canada are actually exploitative self-seekers hiding behind the social contract theory, which in fact does not justify their style of administration (Rawls, Contemporary 52).
Conclusion
. If it were that Canada as a whole was a banana republic, this would be understood. However the situation elicits serious ethical implications: one is that the Canadian crop of leadership has failed in developing the political structure that would ensure equity in the sharing of national resources at various levels. And it is this structure to contain any undue elitist superstructure of exploiters.
Besides, it could be that the leaders are involved in the violation of the fairness they are supposed to safeguard and advocate.
Works Cited
Case 3.3 poverty in Canada Rawls, John” Justice as Fairness”, in Contemporary Political Philosophy, Blackwell Philosophical Anthologies, Goodin and Pettit eds., 1997.
Rawls, John, ‘Justice as Fairness’. Philosophical Review Vol. LXVII. 1958.
Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971.
Footnotes
- Case 3.3 poverty in Canada.