Use The Two Ethical Theories: Rawls' Theory Of Justice And U

Use The Two Ethical Theories Rawls Theory Of Justice And Utilitarianis

Use the two ethical theories Rawls Theory of Justice and Utilitarianism to explain why so much of humanity still lives in poverty and discuss how the existence/persistence of global poverty is endorsed by each theory's central tenets. Summarize each theory (Rawls Theory of Justice and Utilitarianism) and explain the connections (or disconnections?) between the theory and the existence/persistence of global poverty. Considering these three reasons: minimum wage, investing in affordable, high-quality childcare and early education. To enhance the argument. Do you consider poverty to be a valid global ethical concern? Is it an issue that "we are all concerned about" as Widdows posits in her introduction (Widdows, 1)? Or do you think poverty is a local issue or an issue to be addressed by people who are poor? What ethical frameworks support your answer? Highlight elements of ethical theories that support your position on whether or not poverty is a valid global ethical concern. Describe any personal, core beliefs that affect your own views on global poverty. Where did these beliefs come from? Connect your beliefs to the ethical framework(s) that most resonate for you. Highlight elements of theories that best support your personal beliefs.

Paper For Above instruction

Global poverty remains one of the most pressing issues confronting humanity today. Despite unprecedented economic growth and technological advancements, a significant portion of the world's population continues to live in conditions defined by deprivation, limited access to healthcare, education, and basic necessities. To understand why poverty persists and how ethical theories such as John Rawls’ Theory of Justice and Utilitarianism interpret and possibly endorse the existence of such disparity, it is crucial to analyze their foundational principles and their implications for social justice and collective responsibility.

Summary of Rawls’ Theory of Justice

John Rawls’ Theory of Justice, articulated in his seminal work "A Theory of Justice," emphasizes fairness, equality, and the moral rights of individuals within a just society. Rawls proposes two core principles: the first ensures equal basic liberties for all, such as freedom of speech and assembly; the second addresses social and economic inequalities, permitting them only if they benefit the least advantaged (Rawls, 1971). This second principle, known as the difference principle, implies that disparities in wealth and resources are acceptable only if they improve the position of those worst-off, thus promoting a form of social cooperation rooted in fairness and justice.

Summary of Utilitarianism

In contrast, Utilitarianism, most notably associated with Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, evaluates actions based on their outcomes, specifically aiming to maximize overall happiness or utility. It posits that the morally right action is the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number (Mill, 1863). Utilitarianism often justifies economic inequalities if they result in an overall increase in societal happiness, even if such disparities harm specific groups or individuals, including those living in poverty. The focus on aggregate welfare can, under certain circumstances, endorse the persistence of poverty if alleviating poverty does not significantly increase societal utility.

Connections and Disconnections between Theories and Global Poverty

Rawls’ Theory of Justice suggests that societal arrangements should be structured to benefit the least advantaged, implying moral responsibility to address poverty. However, criticisms of Rawls’ approach argue that it might tolerate existing inequalities if they are deemed to benefit the worst-off in the long run. The theory disavows outright acceptance of poverty as inevitable, advocating for systemic reforms such as fair minimum wages and accessible education and childcare to improve conditions for the marginalized (Rawls, 1971). Conversely, Utilitarianism’s emphasis on overall happiness can justify neglecting the needs of the impoverished if redistribution does not significantly increase aggregate utility, potentially endorsing ongoing poverty as a necessary trade-off for greater societal benefits.

Addressing Poverty through Ethical Frameworks and Policy Interventions

Addressing poverty involves pragmatic policy interventions like increasing the minimum wage, investing in affordable, high-quality childcare, and early education programs. These initiatives align with Rawls’ emphasis on fairness and equity, serving to improve the position of society’s least advantaged. Under Utilitarianism, such investments can be justified if they lead to an increase in overall happiness via healthier, better-educated populations contributing more effectively to economic productivity.

Is Poverty a Valid Global Ethical Concern?

From an ethical standpoint, poverty is undeniably a global moral concern. Widdows (2018) emphasizes that societal problems such as poverty are issues “we are all concerned about,” reflecting the interconnectedness of modern global challenges (Widdows, 1). The interconnected nature of global economies, environmental sustainability, and social justice underscores that ignoring poverty undermines collective well-being and violates principles of justice and fairness. Ethical frameworks such as Rawls’ Theory of Justice strongly argue that societies have a moral obligation to reduce inequality and provide equitable opportunities for all. Likewise, Utilitarianism supports philanthropic efforts aimed at increasing societal happiness and reducing suffering.

Local Versus Global Perspectives on Poverty

While some might argue that poverty is a local issue or that solutions should be driven by those affected most directly, global interconnectedness, economic interdependence, and ethical considerations present a compelling case for viewing poverty as a universal concern. Ethical frameworks like cosmopolitanism emphasize that justice should transcend borders, advocating for global efforts to eradicate extreme poverty (Caney, 2014). These perspectives highlight that moral responsibilities are shared beyond national boundaries, supporting the view that poverty must be addressed as a matter of global ethical importance.

Personal Beliefs and Ethical Resonance

My personal beliefs about global poverty are rooted in the conviction that justice and compassion should guide human conduct. I believe that equitable access to resources and opportunities reflects moral decency. These beliefs are influenced by my upbringing in a society committed to social justice and my education in ethical philosophies emphasizing fairness and utility. The elements of Rawls’ Theory of Justice—particularly its focus on fairness and protecting the least advantaged—resonate with my core values, motivating me to advocate for policies that prioritize the well-being of marginalized populations. Furthermore, utilitarian principles motivate me to support initiatives that maximize societal happiness, such as investments in early childhood education and fair wages. These ethical elements affirm my conviction that addressing global poverty is both an ethical obligation and a moral imperative.

Conclusion

In sum, the persistence of global poverty can be critically examined through the lenses of Rawls’ Theory of Justice and Utilitarianism. While Rawls advocates for systemic reform to ensure fairness and improve the conditions of the least advantaged, Utilitarianism’s focus on aggregate happiness presents a nuanced endorsement that can both support and undermine efforts to eradicate poverty. Recognizing that poverty is a fundamental ethical concern aligns with contemporary moral philosophy, calling for collective responsibility informed by principles of fairness, utility, and global justice. Personal beliefs grounded in these ethical frameworks further reinforce the importance of addressing poverty as a shared moral duty, transcending individual and national confines to secure a more just and compassionate world.

References

• Caney, S. (2014). Global justice and the distribution of responsibility. In J. White (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Global Justice (pp. 211-227). Routledge.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Widdows, H. (2018). The ethics of social justice. In Philosophy and Society, 42(1), 1-15.