Many Contemporary Philosophers Disagree; They Believe That W ✓ Solved

Many Contemporary Philosophers Disagreethey Believe That We Shoulds

Discuss the application of three major theories of justice in economic distribution—utilitarian, libertarian, and Rawlsian (egalitarian)—to a company earning substantial profits during the 2020 Covid pandemic and economic downturn. Analyze how each theory evaluates the company’s actions and the implications for social justice.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

The COVID-19 pandemic, which began in late 2019 and significantly impacted global economies throughout 2020 and beyond, has raised critical questions about economic justice and corporate responsibility. Some companies, despite the widespread economic downturn, managed to report substantial profits. Examining this phenomenon through the lens of three prominent theories of justice—utilitarianism, libertarianism, and Rawlsian (egalitarian)—provides insight into the ethical implications of such corporate success.

Utilitarian Perspective

Utilitarianism, pioneered by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, evaluates actions based on their overall contribution to the greatest happiness or well-being of the majority. From this standpoint, a company's profitability during a crisis can be justified if it results in net positive outcomes for the society. For example, a profitable company might create jobs, pay taxes, and contribute to economic stability, thereby increasing overall societal happiness despite the hardships faced by others.

In the context of the pandemic, if the company's profits enable it to invest in community support, healthcare, or employee welfare, a utilitarian might argue this aligns with the greatest good. Conversely, if these profits come at the expense of workers’ health, lower wages, or exploiting government aid, the utilitarian evaluation could be negative, emphasizing the importance of maximising societal benefit rather than corporate gain alone.

Therefore, under utilitarianism, the moral evaluation of the company hinges on the net effect of its profits on societal happiness, promoting a balanced approach that considers both corporate success and its social consequences.

Libertarian Perspective

Libertarianism, rooted in the ideas of John Locke and Robert Nozick, emphasizes individual rights, property, and free markets. From this perspective, the company's ability to earn profits during the pandemic is justified as a result of voluntary transactions and private ownership without interference. Libertarians argue that concerning justice in economic distribution, individuals are entitled to the fruits of their labor and voluntarily exchanged wealth.

In applying libertarian theory to the scenario, the company’s profits are viewed as legitimate if they were obtained through fair competition and voluntary contracts. There is little concern about income disparities or societal inequalities unless they involve coercion or theft. Thus, if the company maximized profits within the legal and ethical framework, libertarians would see its success as justifiable regardless of broad societal impacts or income distribution issues.

However, libertarians might oppose redistributive policies to address inequality gaps, asserting that such interventions violate individual rights. Consequently, under libertarian principles, the company's profitability is morally justified, but this perspective may overlook broader social considerations during crises like the pandemic.

Rawlsian (Egalitarian) Perspective

John Rawls’s theory of justice emphasizes fairness, equality, and the "veil of ignorance" concept. According to Rawls, social and economic inequalities are only justified if they benefit the least advantaged members of society. Under this framework, a company earning substantial profits during the pandemic could be seen as unjust if those profits are primarily accrued at the expense of vulnerable populations or through unfair practices.

From a Rawlsian viewpoint, justice would demand that societal resources be distributed in a manner that improves conditions for the worst-off. This might include fair wages, equitable access to healthcare, and corporate responsibility initiatives aimed at reducing inequalities exacerbated during the crisis. If the company's profits are gained through exploiting labor or avoiding social responsibilities, Rawls would critique this as unjust.

Conversely, if the company’s profits enable it to support community programs, employee health initiatives, and fair wages, then such practices align with Rawlsian principles, as they help uplift the least advantaged and promote social justice.

Conclusion

In conclusion, applying these three theories to a profitable company during the COVID-19 pandemic reveals differing ethical evaluations. Utilitarianism advocates for actions that maximize overall societal happiness, possibly justifying profits if beneficial outcomes ensue. Libertarianism emphasizes the legitimacy of profits obtained through free market exchanges and property rights, regardless of societal impacts. Rawlsian theory prioritizes fairness and support for the most vulnerable, critiquing profits that worsen inequalities or neglect social responsibilities.

Understanding these perspectives highlights the importance of aligning corporate practices with broader social justice principles, especially amid crises that exacerbate disparities and test ethical commitments.

References

• Clarke, R. (2009). The moral standing of corporations: A utilitarian perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(3), 423-434.
• Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books.
• Rawls, J. (2005). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press.
• Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.
• Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. The New York Times Magazine.
• Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books.
• Pogge, T. (2008). World Poverty and Human Rights. Polity Press.
• Rawls, J. (1999). Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Harvard University Press.
• Williams, B. (1973). Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge University Press.