This essay will elaborate on why our government should be a welfare state. A role of the government should include protecting those who have the least advantage in society. On the other hand, John Rawls’ criticizes the welfare state. The intuitive general conception of justice argument is proposed by Rawls which promotes equal division of social primary goods, such as power or wealth, among people unless the unequal portion is beneficial to the marginalized. Rawls’ discusses the concept of fair equality of opportunities and how an individual’s circumstances shouldn’t have an effect on the social positions available to him or her. Additionally, it is necessary to address other components such as an individual’s natural capacity because only
…show more content…
In essence, it should be endowment-insensitive, so the circumstances or background of people shouldn’t be regarded, and ambition-sensitive, where one’s choices are significant. Therefore, Rawls’ is against the welfare state because he believes that inequality is justified if it isn’t due to prejudice or discrimination and a person is in control of the decisions which affect the quality of their …show more content…
Dworkin states that “the average person would have purchased insurance at that level, and compensate those who do develop handicaps accordingly, out of some fund collected by taxation or other compulsory process but designed to match the fund that would have been provided through premiums if the odds had been equal,” (Dworkin 78). In essence, the money invested would then go to support those who end up having a mental or physical handicap. This model is ambition-sensitive so factors that are beyond an individual’s control don’t have much influence and aren’t limitations.
Dworkin’s scheme can be used as a counterargument to those who oppose the taxing that the modern welfare state requires. The main justifications to the wealthy, who disapprove of the taxes they pay that are used to promote the programs, would be that the auction represents how resources would be divided equally, the experiment demonstrates that the willingness to invest in case one may be handicapped is proof cares about having that disadvantage and because it aids those who actually need
In essence, it should be endowment-insensitive, so the circumstances or background of people shouldn’t be regarded, and ambition-sensitive, where one’s choices are significant. Therefore, Rawls’ is against the welfare state because he believes that inequality is justified if it isn’t due to prejudice or discrimination and a person is in control of the decisions which affect the quality of their …show more content…
Dworkin states that “the average person would have purchased insurance at that level, and compensate those who do develop handicaps accordingly, out of some fund collected by taxation or other compulsory process but designed to match the fund that would have been provided through premiums if the odds had been equal,” (Dworkin 78). In essence, the money invested would then go to support those who end up having a mental or physical handicap. This model is ambition-sensitive so factors that are beyond an individual’s control don’t have much influence and aren’t limitations.
Dworkin’s scheme can be used as a counterargument to those who oppose the taxing that the modern welfare state requires. The main justifications to the wealthy, who disapprove of the taxes they pay that are used to promote the programs, would be that the auction represents how resources would be divided equally, the experiment demonstrates that the willingness to invest in case one may be handicapped is proof cares about having that disadvantage and because it aids those who actually need