Redistributive taxation can be used to reduce the economic inequality in society. To understand if this is a just policy, we need to consider why inequality exists in the first place. If those that are successful in society are successful due to their hard work and effort, then redistribution may be unjust. The well-off deserve what they have. If, on the other hand, they are rich because they were favoured by the natural lottery (perhaps being born talented or into a wealthy family), then perhaps redistribution is just - because fair equal opportunities do not exist. The status quo can be seen as arbitrary and therefore, can be legitimately altered.
On the other hand, there is a morality argument to be made against redistribution. According to Kant, individuals should not treat others as a means to their own end - but as an end in itself. Thus, redistribution at the expense of the well-off for others may not be morally sound.
However, perhaps this question - whether redistribution is just - can only be answered if we know inequality is just. Inequality may well be justified for several reasons. According to Rawls and his Difference Principle, inequality is justified if it maximises the position of the wost-off (principle of maximin). What matters is their absolute position - the size of the pie they have, not their relative shares. Furthermore, Nozick would claim that claiming justice is about the distribution of resources is nor here or there. What matters, according to Nozick, is whether people's property rights have been respected. If these two justifications for inequality hold, then it follows that redistribution is unjust.
On the other hand, there is a morality argument to be made against redistribution. According to Kant, individuals should not treat others as a means to their own end - but as an end in itself. Thus, redistribution at the expense of the well-off for others may not be morally sound.
However, perhaps this question - whether redistribution is just - can only be answered if we know inequality is just. Inequality may well be justified for several reasons. According to Rawls and his Difference Principle, inequality is justified if it maximises the position of the wost-off (principle of maximin). What matters is their absolute position - the size of the pie they have, not their relative shares. Furthermore, Nozick would claim that claiming justice is about the distribution of resources is nor here or there. What matters, according to Nozick, is whether people's property rights have been respected. If these two justifications for inequality hold, then it follows that redistribution is unjust.
No comments:
Post a Comment