Is this OK
Is this OK? No
I think that we should individually strive to eliminate the problem of poverty. Now this is not a question of saving the lives of people, as the last assignment suggested, this is a case of attempting to eliminate the weighting effects of poverty & attempt to improve the standard of living for the 4 billion people who live in poverty
Common intuition: Deserving
It seems at some correct level to argue that with important qualifiers some inequalities are to be tolerated because they were chosen, and hence are fair. That is, if you are better off than other people because you worked hard to cultivate fruits and sell them at market while we sleep all day every day such, then it seems fair that you end up with more resources/money than the rest of us as I believe that hard work always pays off at the end of the day. We might or not want to say that they deserve more than the others however they also sacrifices a lot to get where they are.
Permissible inequality
There are two very different ways of thinking about inequality. The first is all about the rich and the second is all about the poor. There seems to be a sort of global substitute, with a few enormously rich individuals weighing down one end and the rest of poor clinging for dear life to the other. The rich have been getting richer much faster than the rest of us. Even our governments tend to look after their own, namely the groups close to the top of the wealth distribution and it is common to find that disadvantaged groups are actively excluded from power, in the name of prejudice, political expediency or some long-held grievance – the reasons vary.
Veil of Ignorance
As John Rawls put it, “no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; or does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like. The only thing that a given member knows about themselves is that they are in possession of the basic capacities necessary to fully and willfully participate in an enduring system of mutual cooperation; each knows they can be a member of the society. Rawls, believe that the “veil of ignorance” principle naturally leads us to broadly social-democratic, egalitarian, progressive policies, because once you’re behind the veil of ignorance, you will want strong redistribution and generous social welfare policies just in case you end up as one of the poor people in our society. Based on Rawls line of reasoning one can easily get the impression that once the veil is lifted the person who were selected and who had a say in how their unfolding society should work invariably maintain the same thought pattern. People don’t live like that. They would find a way to cheat and get the most for themselves at the expense of others. Basically, greed is a human challenge; there’s no getting away from that. It’s a good line of reasoning but difficult to manage and maintain.
