I know during the last class we decided that the part of Rawls’ Difference Principle stating that inequalities should be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged was in fact just. However, I’m still having trouble accepting that this is just. If the system is set up to where those that are the least advantaged benefit, those that are neither highly advantaged nor disadvantaged will still suffer.
An example I think of where the least advantaged benefit and those who are slightly more advantaged suffer is the public education system’s reduced lunch plan. For students whose parents make $14,079 a year, they can receive free lunch provided by their school. However, if a students parents make $14,080 a year, the parents must pay for their child’s lunch. A dollar extra a year does not make up for the amount of money the second set of parents would have to pay.
With this situation in mind, I have a hard time believing that a system where there is the greatest benefit for the least advantaged is just. The second set of parents must suffer due the system being set up according to Rawls’ theory whereas the first set of parents will be better off in the long run. Since one set would benefit while the other must suffer, the system is indeed unjust. Rawls’ theory is logical in the sense that everyone is covered if anything were to happen and they were to become disadvantaged. By providing a safety net, the society could continue to flourish despite the changes. I just personally feel that trying to implement such a system justly would be impossible since at one point, the benefits the disadvantaged received would be greater than those who are slightly more advantaged.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I read a story in a magazine recently about a woman who qualified to have the costs of most of her prescription medicines (she had severe asthma) covered by a government medical program, but then when she received a slight raise at work she was no longer eligible for that program, and become a whole lot poorer because she had to begin paying for those medicines out of pocket.
ReplyDeleteI think this ties in quite nicely. Is that justice? I don't know. But it's just a tricky argument to make about the lunches because it is unfortunate that a parent who makes one dollar more does not qualify, but the truth of the matter is, that's almost a coincidence. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and no matter where it is drawn, it will be between 2 dollar amounts.
This problem is inherent in any and all social welfare programs. The National School Lunch program is a product of the federal poverty guidelines, which also includes things like Head Start and financial assistance programs. The poverty guidelines are what dictates who is eligible for services--in your example, those who make less than $14,079 per year.
ReplyDeleteThere is also a federal poverty threshold that the Social Security Administration uses to estimate the number of people in poverty. The threshold was instated in the 1960s, and the way they determine it is by assuming that familiies spend 1/3 their income on food, so they triple the cost of an estimated yearly food plan. That number is the poverty threshold, and those who are below it are "poor" while those above it are "not" poor. Beyond eligibility for free lunch, (to again use your example), the government is basically saying that if you make less than $14,079, you are poor, and more than $14,080 you are not poor. I think looking at the "big picture" allows us to realize how deeply the injustice truly runs.
The fact of the matter is, the line must be drawn somewhere.
yeah, most values for any program are arbitrary but lots of people work right up to but not surpassing the dollar amount for the next tax bracket on income tax so they don't have to pay more money. Capitalism rewards individuals who can "play" the system in this way so it continues.
ReplyDeleteok while I agree that the line must be drawn somewhere, it does not need to be an all or nothing type of deal. What the government could do is gradually give less and less to families as the income increases. That way it would be more just, and benificial to the least wealthy...
ReplyDelete