Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Social inequality in the us
Inequality and social injustice
Inequality and social injustice
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Social inequality in the us
Economic disparity has been a long problem due to the major structural changes in the global economic system. The incomes between the poor and the rich continues to have a great gap and this has been a long fact of the American life. Because of the demand of new technologies and growing populations, there is an increasing level of competition among investors and firms. This trend of economic inequality will not end if nothing will be done to stop it; the disparity will likely rise in the future. The moral value of justice needs a strong emphasis in this crippling problem in our world nowadays. Justice means giving what is due to the other person; it means being fair to other individuals. According to Michael Novak,
Social Justice is originally
…show more content…
John Stuart Mill views justice as not only what the right person should do, but also something a person can claim from us as a moral right. Hence, utilitarianism on economic justice is the maximization of good over bad consequences for the majority number of people in the society. It is more in favored with increased worker participation in industrial life and more equal distribution of income. On the other hand, Libertarian approach is the total opposite of utilitarianism as it is concerned about economic justice with the idea od freedom or liberty. A person’s liberty is the basis for determining what is moral. Poverty and inequality are not just an economic issue, but also an ethical dilemma that call us to evaluate our moral judgment. In my own opinion, in order to solve social and economic injustice we need to strengthen our education system, so more people could benefit and adapt from the advancing economy. Moreover, the government should fix any tax loopholes that only benefit the rich people, and improve job qualities by raising the minimum wage across the nation. Social and economic injustice are threats to our democracy. Inequality is a legitimate economic and ethical matter; where economic inequality continues to grow by leaps and bounds, we need smarter policies that can narrow the gap between the rich and the
Both Sklar and the Economist offer suggestions to improve the inequality in America, but unfortunately the inequality continues to grow. Sklar’s use of detailed facts about the richest Americans, the poorest Americans and her discussion of the impact on society add clarity to the Economist’s argument that the American dream is broken due to the inequality in America. Until the American government starts to make changes, the problem of inequality will continue to grow.
Have you ever considered cheating on your partner? Studies show that there is a 76% chance of either partner in a marriage committing infidelity (Ferrer 55). In light of the common occurrence of infidelity within monogamous relationships in our society, would it not be logical to consider the possibility that non-monogamous relationship dynamics might be appropriate for some individuals? The idea seems to be on people’s minds, since it has also been coming up in popular culture lately, in shows like “Big Love” and “Sister-Wives”, both of which focus on polygamy, the practice of being married to more than one person at a time. Additionally, there have been many articles written about polyamory, the practice of having more than one intimate relationship at one time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved, and non-monogamy recently. One such article is “Beyond Monogamy and Polyamory,” written by Jorge Ferrer, Ph.D., who is the Chair of the Dept. of East-West Psychology at the California Institute of Integral Studies, and was published in ReVision Journal. Ferrer’s goal in writing this article is to expose readers, mainly other scholars, to the possibility of non-monogamous relationships, and the concept of sympathetic joy. While I agree with much of what Ferrer is saying in his article, particularly his points about sympathetic joy, jealousy, genetics, and his responses to the arguments against polyamory, the fact that he overlooks the religions that do not support his theory, while using others to support his theory, weakens his argument.
In Utilitarianism, J.S. Mill gives an account for the reasons one must abide by the principles of Utilitarianism. Also referred to as the Greatest-happiness Principle, this doctrine promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. More specifically, Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, holding that the right act is that which yields the greatest net utility, or "the total amount of pleasure minus the total amount of pain", for all individuals affected by said act (Joyce, lecture notes from 03/30).
America in today's society is burdened with many economic and political problems that have begun to plague the nation. Controversial topics are constantly being debated from sunrise to sunset across the country with supporters and those who oppose each bearing various levels of financial and political misfortune. With the numerous economic and political problems that affect the nation, the argument over the issue of income inequality is one of the most notable. Creating a political civil war, proponents from both sides have brought the issue into national view and debate has grown substantially within recent years.
Income inequality not only harms us fiscally, but also affects our mental and physical wellbeing; therefore, it is important to identify the right ways to control wealth distribution among people.
The United States has a pervasive issue of income inequality (Volscho & Kelly, 2012). While the wealthy few live in absurd abundance, poor hardworking individuals often cannot afford basic necessities. Such a dynamic is not only an affront to the ideals of equality of opportunity, but also may increase crime as a result of relative deprivation and lack of legitimate opportunities to achieve (Thio, 2010). This essay describes the magnitude of income inequality in the United States, reveals barriers that obscures its magnitude, and suggests a starting point from which corrective measures might develop.
Income inequality has affected American citizens ever since the American Dream came to existence. The American Dream is centered around the concept of working hard and earning enough money to support a family, own a home, send children to college, and invest for retirement. Economic gains in income are one of the only possible ways to achieve enough wealth to fulfill the dream. Unfortunately, many people cannot achieve this dream due to low income. Income inequality refers to the uneven distribution of income and wealth between the social classes of American citizens. The United States has often experienced a rise in inequality as the rich become richer and the poor become poorer, increasing the unstable gap between the two classes. The income gap in America has been increasing steadily since the late 1970’s, and has now reached historic highs not seen since the 1920’s (Desilver). UC Berkeley economics professor, Emmanuel Saez conducted extensive research on past and present income inequality statistics and published them in his report “Striking it Richer.” Saez claims that changes in technology, tax policies, labor unions, corporate benefits, and social norms have caused income inequality. He stands to advocate a change in American economic policies that will help close this inequality gap and considers institutional and tax reforms that should be developed to counter it. Although Saez’s provides legitimate causes of income inequality, I highly disagree with the thought of making changes to end income inequality. In any diverse economic environment, income inequality will exist due to the rise of some economically successful people and the further development of factors that push people into poverty. I believe income inequality e...
Krugman challenges us to think about one question, “Why should we care about high and rising inequality?” (Krugman, 586) Some of the reasons inequality is a problem is the standards of living and the lack of progress in the economy for the middle and lower class families (Krugman, 586). These show that the distribution of wealth in the United States is not equal at all. There is also the damage that the inequality does to the society and the government. Thomas Jefferson once said, “The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.” Today that would mean that the middle class is the most important part of our society, however, the farther we move into the future the weaker the middle class becomes (Krugman, 587). The America that we live in is both unequal in income and social aspects. The rich do not live the same lives as those that are less fortunate and the less fortunate do not get to enjoy the perks that come with lives of the rich people. The inequality does not mean that it is unfair that the majority of the population
There are many essays, papers and books written on the concept of right and wrong. Philosophers have theorized about moral actions for eons, one such philosopher is John Stuart Mill. In his book Utilitarianism he tries to improve on the theories of utilitarianism from previous philosophers, as he is a strong believer himself in the theory. In Mill's book he presents the ideology that there is another branch on the utilitarian tree. This branch being called rule-utilitarianism. Mill makes a distinction between two different types of utilitarianism; act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. Rule-utilitarianism seems like a major advance over the simple theory of act-utilitarianism. But for all its added complexity, it may not actually be a significant improvement. This is proven when looking at the flaws in act-utilitarianism and relating them to the ways in which rule-utilitarianism tries to overcome them. As well one must look at the obstacles that rule-utilitarianism has on it's own as a theory. The problems of both act and rule utilitarianism consist of being too permissive and being able to justify any crime, not being able to predict the outcomes of one's actions, non-universality and the lose of freewill.
The most important question of all is what should one do since the ultimate purpose of answering questions is either to satisfy curiosity or to decide which action to take. Complicated analysis is often required to answer that question. Beyond ordinary analysis, one must also have a system of values, and the correct system of values is utilitarianism.
Income inequality continues to increase in today’s world, especially in the United States. Income inequality means the unequal distribution between individuals’ assets, wealth, or income. In the Twilight of the Elites, Christopher Hayes, a liberal journalist, states the inequality gap between the rich and the poor are increasing widening, and there need to have things done - tax the rich, provide better education - in order to shortening the inequality gap. America is a meritocratic country, which means that everybody has equal opportunity to be successful regardless of their class privileges or wealth. However, equality of opportunity does not equal equality of outcomes. People are having more opportunities to find a better job, but their incomes are a lot less compared to the top ten percent rich people. In this way, the poor people will never climb up the ladder to high status and become millionaires. Therefore, the government needs to increase all the tax rates on rich people in order to reduce income inequality.
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and defended by James Mill. The theory says, that all the activities should be directed towards the accomplishment of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism is impractical and very unrealistic because, it refuses to focus on the individuals values, morals, and happiness. Utilitarianism endorse risking ones life for the sake of other is not and in fact it rewards such behavior. Utilitarianism mentions that if the outcome of the one persons death saves many lives then therefore it is obligated to do so.
I see utilitarianism as a powerful and persuasive approach to ethics in philosophy. There are varieties of views discussed but utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally correct action is the action that produces the most good. In its simplest form it is maximizing pleasure while minimizing pain. There are a few ways to think about this claim. One good way to think about is that this theory is a form of consequentialism. The right action is understood basically in terms of consequences produced. The utilitarian view is one thought to maximize the overall good; that good being the good of others as well as the good of ones self. Utilitarianism is also not partial. Everybody 's happiness counts the same. This version of the good is one that must maximize the good for everyone. My good counts just the same as anyone else 's good.
Social Justice to me means that everyone has the same opportunity to experience life in such a way that they can have all their needs met and feel fulfilled as people. This may sound really simple, but it is actually a very complex idea that I am going to try to break apart and try to explain here. The first part is everynone. When I say everyone, I mean every person in existence. Whether they are a citizen of the United States, a refugee from Syria, or an astronaut, no longer in the atmosphere. In essence, everyone counts. Second is opportunity. Opportunity is the set of circumstances that make an outcome available and the ability to capitalize on those circumstances. Third is experiencing life. This refers to the ability to move through their life from beginning to end with the freedom and agency to make educated choices about things that affect them. The final part is having needs met and feeling fulfilled. This is probably the most difficult one to explain effectively. To illustrate this idea I look to Abraham Maslow and his hierarchy of needs. I assert that in a socially just society everyone should have their needs met starting with the most basic (the ones on the bottom) to the most
One of the leading political philosophers, John Rawls` foundational idea was that justice is a demand of fairness. Fairness is a demand for impartiality (Sen, 2010). His work, Theory of Justice (1970) is based on the idea of justice and fairness, and he argues that it is the basic structure of society (Hoffman & Graham, 2015). Rawls presents justice as fairness as a `political conception of justice` (Farrelly, 2004). In his Theory of Justice there are two main principles of justice. The first is equal liberty, means that each individual has the right to free speech, to vote or fair trial. The second ones are equal opportunity, and difference principle (Hoffman & Graham, 2015). It is also known as distributive economic justice. Rawls argued that however every human beings are born equal, sometimes they end up being unequal because of the social circumstances they grow up in, and the different opportunities they get (Boucher & Kelly, 2009). These different circumstances can result in unequal earnings and wealth distribution. Income inequality undermining the aim of equal opportunity. Child poverty is a global issue, according to the National Equality Panel report (Child Poverty Action Group,