Economic Justice

1122 Words3 Pages

Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to address the social justice issue in society known as economic justice. This will be examined by deconstructing Mill’s utilitarian/consequentialist theory as well as debunking Immanuel Kant’s non-consequentialist theory. These two theorists opinions of the rightness or wrongness of an act will help understand the two extremities of how people in a society view acts. Furthermore, the paper will discuss economic justice through consequentialist and non-consequentialists arguments arguing the for and against sides. Lastly, the paper will express its opinions on economic justice. It will prove that economic justice is important to obtain in a society by following certain rules.

The Ethical Issue …show more content…

Its primary focus is to provide equal opportunities in wealth to everyone in a society regardless of their social status. This means that everyone gets an opportunity at wealth (MacKinnon 368-369). According to John Rawls, he states that “justice is fairness” (372). Therefore, the redistribution of wealth among the people in society should be conducted fairly. This would entail that everyone from poor to rich backgrounds would get an even redistribution of the wealth. In other words, the rich would distribute some of their wealth the to poorer people in society (368-369). This relates to the commerce program as it demonstrates economic activity. By providing wealth to everyone, it not only shows that there is activity taking place in the economy, but it is also regulating and improving poverty while potentially increasing unemployment rates. The issues of unemployment and poverty are all discussed in the commerce …show more content…

There are other things such as knowledge, aesthetics, experiences, etc. How are other’s supposed to know what makes everyone happy? There are things that makes a few people happy, but the rest unhappy. There is no way in knowing what everyone wants (Class Notes). Mill would respond to this by stating that “all value has a utilitarian basis. We would not want justice if it did not produce more good than bad” (Class notes). Additionally, utilitarianism demonstrates the appeal to consequences is wrong. Rules remind us of the consequences for the long-term. This way of thinking was theorized by Immanuel Kant addressing the moral theory of non-consequentialism (Class Notes).
Immanuel Kant defines non-consequentialism through goodwill and his categorical imperatives. Kant was a non-consequentialist who believed that morality was a constant in which the reasoning for performing an action decides whether someone is obliged to act. He theorizes that every human has the capability of having good will. This means that humans are self-legislating (rational) and self-determined (free) to make the decisions of the rightness or wrongness of an act. Kant uses what he called categorical imperatives to justify his moral theories of goodwill (Class

Open Document