What answer would each theory of Justice give to the following questions (we have studied three):
- Is it right for the government give a huge bail out to banks to keep them in business?
- Can it ever be unjust to accumulate wealth?
First off, I would like to give a brief breakdown of each theory of justice. Utilitarianism is based on the simple notion that producing the greatest amount of happiness for the largest number of people would be most beneficial for everyone. Libertarianism is ran on a different principle of minimal government intervention in all aspects and no regulations. The last theory is Rawls’s Theory of Justice. This theory is based on two principles of liberty.
Under Utilitarianism, a bailout would be considered beneficial to everyone since it keeps the bank open and available for the public. The accumulation of wealth would be deemed unjust because it ties up money from circulating through the market and it promotes income inequality. A Libertarianism view would be quite the opposite. No regulation on wealth accrual and no bailouts to banks. Rawls’s theory is not as easy to pinpoint. Under the first principle of justice, accumulation of wealth would be acceptable as it is that person’s freedom to do so. By the second principle of justice, a bailout may be allowed since it could be beneficial to the least-advantaged.
This is a well put together video by PragerU on a quick history of bailouts and if governments should do them.
<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/GT1WqIkg9es” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>
PragerU also does another great video on income inequality by showing some of the benefits the rich give to society in a free market.
<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/1e35Vf-9n8E” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>