Wealth distribution a social injustice

Is Wealth Distribution Today Just? In current times we often observe that many members of our society receive less than other members regardless of whether they are no less deserving. In contrast, there are some who have ownership over assets and earn income that they may not be deserving of. The distributive balance is upset and wealth distribution today can thus be seen as a social injustice.This injustice that is becoming more noticeable as people start to become aware of the facts, as we can see through the start of the occupy wall street movements that, first started on wall street in America, have pread to other countries (one of which being Australia). As a consequence of how wealth is habitually distributed and the way in which governments are run, the wealthy continue to become wealthier while the poor in fact experience a reduction in their wealth, or at best maintain their low status.A number of different governmental and social structures exist in different countries resp ectively to ensure a Just community, and people have many different views on what the best approach to distributing wealth is; however it seems that in all forms of idealisms that ountries are run on a fair wealth distribution model is still yet to be truly attained. A social democratic view enacted by the Australian government strives, like other forms of idealism, to promote equality.The Australian government, advocating social Justice in light of human, civil and social rights, attempts to reduce economic disparity between what is known as the ruling class (the bourgeoisie) and the working class (the proletariat) first and foremost through a high tax rate. This allows the government to create and provide a welfare state, where the state plays a key role in he protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens.In this way the government can give welfare checks to the unemployed and poverty stricken individuals and pay for vital social services such as h ealth care. Additionally under the heading of human rights, social rights, civil rights, and ultimately the advocacy of social Justice, there are in place government bodies to ensure labor rights and encourage a mixed economy, along with an extensive system of social security to ensure citizens against loss of income following illness, unemployment, or retirement.However, despite the multitude of measures taken to ensure the equitable distribution of wealth and opportunity, wealth distribution in Australia today is still seen as unjust as a large proportion of the countrys wealth is still tied up in a small percentage of people at the top end of the social spectrum. The general dissatisfaction arising from this situation is palpable in the occupy Wall Street movements, that are concerned with the injustice currently taking place with respect to wealth distribution.These occupy movements that began in America but have since hit other capitalist societies, are directed at economic and social nequity. More specifically, however, the people are indignant that the top 1% of the social spectrum continues to grow richer while everybody else becomes poorer, and for this reason the movement commonly chants the slogan â€Å"we are the 99%. † In America the movement has drawn attention to the fact that the richest 1% of Americans now own more wealt n than the poorest ot Americans combined, and the richest 400 Americans now have more wealth than the bottom 155 million Americans combined.It is therefore not hard to see reason for their protest. A similar situation currently exists in Australia, with large discrepancies in numbers in 2009-10 etween the wealthiest 20% of households and the poorest 20% of households. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the wealthiest 20% account for 62% of total household net worth, with an average net worth of $2. 2 million per household while the poorest 20% of households account for only 1% of total household net worth , with an average net worth of $31,829 per household.This can be at least partly attributed to a decrease in tax rate increments. The statistics draw on the selected income distribution indicators, which specify disposable household income (money that can be kept and spent for recreational purposes), show that those ndividuals in the high income bracket receive 40% of their total income while those in the low income bracket only receive 10%. Consequently, the net worth across households becomes even less matched as the rich not only have a considerably higher income, but are also able to save up much more.The discrepancies between the net worth in households are therefore exponentially larger than the discrepancies that exist in income, which reflects the previously mentioned pattern of people accumulating wealth through their working lives. The indignant attitudes posited by the movement can therefore be seen as Justified. However, thought it may be Justified, the movement seems to lack a focused goal -they demand that some change is needed so that the situation regarding inequality can be rectified, but their demands fail to offer articulated strategy as to how this can be done.Although economic and social distributions are still lopsided in Australia, exemplified by the movements that have recently hit, certain institutions are in place that attempt to minimize this inequality and give hope that equality may be some day attainable. In the spirit of much desired social Justice, our government advocates the rinciples of both equality of opportunity and equitable distribution of wealth, as well as public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves if the minimal provisions for a good life.As a result, welfare is available to whoever needs it, every citizen automatically benefits from health cover for serious illnesses, student loans from the government are not subject to interest and can be paid off in manageable amounts, our government is not in reces sion, and, ultimately we are for the most part well looked after. Such institutions and benefits that represent a positive step in the irection of equality are not always found in other countries.Statistics on wealth distribution in the United States of America for example, in theory a neo-liberalist country, portray an even more radical divergence between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Furthermore, the minimum wage in Australia is the equivalent of $14 USD, which far exceeds America's $7. 25. The Australian unemployment rate of 5. 2%, too, is more favorable to the rate of 8. 6% here. So, while the Australian wealth scheme is far from perfect, it is favorable to the current American model.Of interest is North Korea's, communist approach to wealth distribution. Their government restricts personal freedom, advocating that everybody must be of comparable status in all aspects in order to achieve social Justice. The system's scheme for economic equality is therefore simple; howeve r it too inevitably fails as it works against human nature . The result ot such idealism is that a tew end up taking power and all the wealth, as we can see when we consider Kim Jong IL's position.So, irrespective of the way in which governments try to disperse wealth, a large proportion of the countrys wealth will be held by a small percentage at the top. Some might argue that the current distribution of wealth is, on the contrary, a reflection of Justice because those that are rich are in fact rich because they work harder and are more deserving. This, while occasionally being accurate, is not always the case. Frequently those individuals in the top 1% are overpaid while people in the ‘low-income' bracket who are working harder for many more hours are fghting to support themselves.Here, we can appreciate a frustration that can arise, which supports one of Freud's suggestions as to how discontent with civilization can develop. The constraining effects of living in a civilized community, here manifested in an inability to achieve due to order and status, can fuel disgruntlement which can naturally lead to pandemonium, which is mildly observed in the occupy movements. Whether the existing economic inequality can be seen as a social injustice can be considered in light of Socrates assertions.Socrates believes in distributive Justice where things such as wealth are properly allocated; that is, wealth would be disseminated equally to all deserving, contributing members of a society. Indeed this seems to be a sound philosophy when we consider the consequences of the mproper allocation of wealth in our society today, being ubiquitous turmoil and the indignant protests of occupy movements to which inequality gave rise. This prompts a consideration of an egalitarian attitude; perhaps Justice can only exist within the coordinates of equality.Moreover, Socrates believed that the best way for people to live was to focus on self-development rather than on the pursui t of material wealth, which seems to be precisely where the wealthy have focused their efforts. It can be safely concluded that at present wealth distribution does not reflect social Justice. However, with incremental progressions like those that have been recently made in Australia, along with contemplation of such philosophical principles, we will come ever closer to reaching equity.

Analysis and Historical Context from Second Treatise of Civil Government by John Locke Essay

The previous fragment we’ve read belongs to the work of John Locke, ‘Second Treatise of Civil Government’, who published it anonymously in 1689. It is a work of political philosophy, in which Locke talks about civil society, natural rights and separation of powers. Locke was one of the first empirical philosophers and he believed that the human being was born with no knowledge, and that experience and observation were the base of all human wisdom. In the text, Locke talks about how powers should be separated and not concentrated in the same person (the King) because he would be tempted, and in fact it was happening, to use them just to satisfy his desires. Locke also says that individuals are under no obligation to obey one another, and that we are all born free. He continues talking about how a man has the power to do whatever it takes to preserve himself and others, but always obeying the law of nature. People have the power to overthrow the king if he is not being just with his subjects; people have absolute right to choose a governor, and it should not be all about the ‘great chain of being’, a term Locke finds ridiculous because the governor should be elected by people and not by blood. An absolute monarch is illegitimate because we are all born equals. Locke says that there are three fundamental rights for a human being: life, liberty and property. These ideas were extremely dangerous because they despised the royal way of governing, and that’s the reason why Locke had to publish his work anonymously. They meant a revolution in the mentalities of his time. Locke’s work had a tremendous influence upon the Founding Fathers. Locke’s idea of men being endowed with natural rights had an enormous influence upon the American Declaration of Independence; the rights there enumerated, â€Å"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness†, were for Locke â€Å"Life, Liberty and Property†. For Locke, the Founding Fathers and for us, property is synonymous with the pursuit of happiness and liberty, and they wouldn’t be possible without property. This means that natural rights are intertwined and mutually dependent. The loss of any one means the effective loss of the other two. A government that seeks to extort money from its citizens by overtaxing them is imposing upon the liberty of the people. This was the primary reason the Founding Fathers of this nation embarked upon the Revolutionary War. They understood that taxes imposed without the consent of the governed were indeed a grave imposition upon their liberty. Before Locke wrote his work, there had been many absolute monarchs in the throne of England like John in 1199 or James I in 1603, and later James II in 1685. Then, a civil war came during Charles I’s reign from 1642 till 1651. The Civil War led to the trial and execution of Charles I in 1649, the exile of his son, Charles II, and replacement of English monarchy with a Republic ruled by Oliver Cromwell. The period called ‘the Protectorate’ may be said when Cromwell was installed as Lord Protector in 1653. From then until his death in 1658, he ruled in a state of conflict with parliaments. On May 1660, the parliament resolved that the government of England ‘ought to be by King, Lords and Commons’. A week later, Charles II was proclaimed king and before the month was out entered London in triumph. Although Charles II’s reign produced the two rival factions, Whig and Tory, from which political parties were later to develop, they were almost identical twins. Each believed as firmly as the other in the maintenance of monarchy; each at different times adopted policies previously pursued by the other. The Restoration of 1660, by restoring crown, church and lords, put Englishmen back once more under a system of government proven unworkable. With a king on the throne who still wanted to govern, and a group of dissatisfied men in parliament who wanted his government to be controlled by them, conflict was hard to avoid. But the civilian revolution did not happen until after Charles II’s death in 1685. King Charles was succeeded by his brother James, who became James II of England and VII of Scotland. James is best known for his belief in absolute monarchy and his attempts to create religious liberty for his subjects against the wishes of the English Parliament. Increasingly members of Britain’s political and religious elite opposed him as too pro-French, too pro-Catholic, and too much of an absolute monarch. When he produced a Catholic heir, the tension exploded and leading nobles called on William III of Orange (his son-in-law and nephew) to land an invasion army from the Netherlands. James fled England (and thus abdicated) in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. He was replaced by William of Orange who became king as William III, ruling jointly with his wife (James’s daughter) Mary II. Thus William and Mary, both Protestants, became joint rulers in 1689. Parliament issued the Bill of Rights, which stipulated the rights and obligations of the monarch. William and Mary reigned jointly till 1694 when Mary died. Then, William continued to reign alone. He died in 1702 and Queen Anne, the daughter of James II and the last Stuart monarch, succeeded William III. She, like Mary, was a Protestant. On May 1707, under the Acts of Union, England and Scotland were united as a single sovereign state, the Kingdom of Great Britain, though Scotland kept its legal system and also the Presbyterian Church. Anne became Great Britain’s first sovereign. All Anne’s children died so that her cousin, Sophia of Hanover was declared her heir. However, Sophia died the same year as Queen Anne and so her son George of Hanover was the one in succeeding Queen Anne becoming George I of England. Basically, this text is a more specific critique of government, stressing the rule of the majority as the most practical choice for government. He identifies three elements necessary for a civil society: a common established law, a known and impartial body to give judgment, and the power to support such judgments. He calls for a government with different branches, including a strong legislature, and an active executive who does not outstrip the lawmakers in power. Toward the end of the Treatise, Locke finally arrives at the question of forming a new government. When the state ceases to function for the people, it dissolve or is overthrown and may be replaced. When the government is dissolved, the people are free to reform the legislative to create a new civil state that works in their best interest. Locke insists that this system protects against random unrest and rebellion because it allows the people to change their legislative and laws without resorting to force.

Descartes’ Philosophy Essay

Rene Descartes is one of the most distinct rationalists of the modern period who boldly claim that knowledge can be achieved through reason. He suggested that in the pursuit of knowledge one should be able to distinguish that which is true and that which is not true. This opens the idea towards his criticisms against experience as a source of knowledge. Experience, as Descartes puts it, cannot be trusted to produce genuine knowledge because experience can deceive a person (Heyward & Jones). It is a fact that experience comes from the external environment derived by the sensory organs (e.g. eyes, ears, nose, skin, and tongue). These sensory organs are deceptive in such a way that it can generate ideas that are not really existing or happening. Because of this fallibility of experience, Descartes argues that it cannot arrive at true knowledge. In effect, Descartes suggests that in order to obtain genuine knowledge, one should suspend his judgment on things that he or she perceives unless those things are proven to be certain and indubitable. With this method he called his pursuit of knowledge as the Methodic Doubt (Heyward & Jones). Discourse on Method In his Discourse on Method, he gives four laws which guide the person from pursuing the genuine knowledge (Heyward & Jones). The first law states that one should not admit anything as true that is not clearly and lucidly comprehended by reason. As he claims, truthfulness of an idea is based on it’s the clarity which is examined by reason. Reason tells which ideas are clear and generated by distinct intuitions. Having this law, he proceeds to the second and third laws. The second law suggests that because the mind can absorb complex ideas, these complex ideas should be able to transform to simple ideas that can be intuitively analyzed by reason. This emphasizes that simple ideas are the only ideas that reason can recognize such that complex ideas should be breakdown to simpler ideas in order for the reason to understand it clearly and distinctly. While the second law appears to be the analysis of the ideas, the third law is the synthesis of the ideas which attempts to figure out the connection and relationship among different ideas that are presented in the mind. This synthesis enables the mind to sort out ideas, and abstract them to arrive at conclusions, generalizations and judgments. The fourth and the final law suggests that the use of induction and deduction assures the achievement of knowledge since the ideas derived through induction and deduction are clearly and distinctly recognized by reason (being represented in simple ideas). Method of Doubt The discussion on the laws given above is essential in discussing Descartes’ Method of Doubt. As emphasized by the laws, ideas in order to serve as knowledge should be strongly recognized by reason in a sense that the reason cannot deny them at all. Hence, his Method of Doubt functions so as to arrive at certainty – that which cannot be doubted or denied by reason (Heyward & Jones). His method is different from the method used by the skeptics in such a way that the latter suspends their judgments only for the sake of doubt while the former suspends judgment for the achievement of certitude. As mentioned earlier, one should come up with a starting point which can be clearly recognized by reason and that which cannot be doubted. Descartes arrives at a conclusion that the thing that cannot be doubted by reason is the fact that one cannot doubt his existence. This is for the reason that if one is on the stage of doubting, it is certainly that he is thinking, and that thinking implies that there is something or someone who or which does the act of thinking. Hence, the thinking-thing exists. And that thinking-thing is, as Descartes put sit, â€Å"I.† Therefore, that which cannot be doubted is the fact that a thinking-thing exists (I think therefore I am [existing]) (Heyward & Jones). On God’s Existence As Descartes recognizes that one can be deceived by experience, such implies that there is true and false belief. This false beliefs which come into the mind as ideas are not caused by God for Descartes. For him, God is the most perfect entity that which cannot be doubted and that which cannot cause doubt. Hence, God is that which is certain and that which causes certainty that is why he cannot inflict deception (Still). The existence of simple, clear, and distinct ideas is the manifestation of the existence of the most perfect being that which is absolute and certain that is God. Therefore, God exists (He causes the most clear and distinct simple ideas which make up the certainty of things and ideas). Furthermore, Descartes advocates the idea that there are innate ideas. These innate ideas are not cause by the thinking-thing which is first established by him as that which cannot be doubted anymore. And those ideas have objective reality which is not influenced and caused by the thinking-thing; it appears then that there is actually another thing that certainly exists which caused the ideas absorbed by the thinking thing. And this thing that which exists prior to my existence is something which is absolute and the most certain of all certain things and ideas. As Descartes puts it, it is God. Another way of proving God’s existence is the idea of perfect and less perfect. As the thinking-thing is obligated to doubt so as to arrive at genuine knowledge, it implies that he is exposed to deception caused by the fallibility of the experience. And since the thinking-thing cannot discern all things with certainty it follows then that his power is limited. But the concept of perfection implies certain and absolute attributes (Still). As the thinking-thing recognizes the concept of perfection and his being an inferior and thus imperfect being, he concludes that there is something which is superior and that which is perfect, certain and absolute – that is God. Evaluation of Descartes Arguments on Knowledge Descartes is correct in saying that the mind can only and intuitively recognize simple ideas that are represented in the mind with perfect clarity and distinctiveness. He is also correct in saying that our sense perception can be deceived (e.g. optic illusions, the bending of the pen when submerged in water, etc.). And finally, he has a good point in saying that the foundation or the most fundamental thing or idea that is indubitable or cannot be doubted is the fact that the thinking-thing exists which does the doubting. However, his account on the existence of God and the innate ideas that he advocates are questionable in a way that they leave controversy and uncertainty. He equated the thing that causes the simple, clear and distinct ideas to God as well as the bearer of the attribute of being perfect. Being perfect, God is not caused by anything other than himself. But the mind is in fact the creator of such entity. If God is perfect how can be that he is not visible or perceptible to us? It is not enough to say that we are imperfect that is why we cannot perceive him. How can it happen that something which is perfect does not have a corporeal body, which the imperfect entities have? As a perfect being he should possess all the qualities that even the mere imperfect entities have. Works Cited Heyward, Jeremy and Jones, Gerald. Meditations: Rene Descartes. Hodder Murray, 2005. Still, James. â€Å"Descartes’ Meditations Ontological Argument.† 30 November 2005. Internet Infidels. 08 November 2007

Week 8 History 2303 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Week 8 History 2303 - Essay Example The rules that were formulated this time allowed husbands to claim their wives wherever they found them and they could always snatch the women of their wages. There were instances where a widow could be snatched all the husbands’ belongings; fathers could distribute their wealth to all their children disregarding their daughters, women had no property rights. (Stearns and Walkowitz. 57) Also in some cases they had their rights upheld and they could be paid their wages whenever they worked for overtime and also they were not overworked if payments were not necessary. Women in some instances were guaranteed better life in the factories and there were no unjust laws. The mill girls who had their own homes were allowed moderate time to work and also the opportunity to teach in some schools during summer months. Some widows got the opportunity to be housed in corporation houses where the girls were also kept. More so, these girls were given the opportunity to read the novels and the bibles and some other good books that could appeal to them. They participated in critical writings and this was the only avenue they could voice their grievances. Many girls were put in a situation that only enabled them to extend their help to their drunken fathers and widowed mothers. Many girls were forced to work and their wages used to pay school fees for their male counterparts, althou gh the influence of industrialization made them uniformly good in terms of character, religion as well as their health. When wages were significantly reduced, girls challenged it by engaging in industrial strike. (Stearns and Walkowitz.

Why Euthanasia Should be Permitted Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Why Euthanasia Should be Permitted - Essay Example The language used by the writer is simple and is easily understood. The position that she wants to convey is clearly articulated. The direct mode of persuasion is used by the writer. The claim of the essay is that if a doctor is not allowed to practice euthanasia at the request of his patient, it is tantamount to violating a person’s right to die. According to the writer it is also an â€Å"economic burden and it interferes with a doctor’s job†. Furthermore, it â€Å"increases the patient’s sufferings†. The writer is trying to persuade his readers to fight for the legalization of euthanasia.The writer uses the appeal to the emotions as shown in this sentence, â€Å"If the person wishes to die, we should please him with their last wish†. This is obviously an appeal to the emotions because who in his right mind would not like to grant a dying person’s wish. Another example of an appeal to the emotions is the question raised by the writer in the concluding paragraph, â€Å"Would you like to be helped by doctors and your friends to die the way you want it or be kept in a room where you can hardly move with machines keeping you alive?†. The writer wants the readers to imagine themselves being in a situation where euthanasia is an option. On the other hand, the writer made use of logic in stating that, â€Å"The kind of quality of life is defined by the patient, not the doctor or government†. Aside from this statement, the writer hardly made use of logos because there were no facts, figures or expert testimonies.

Leadership and Change Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Leadership and Change - Essay Example This study outlines that Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard developed a model known as the Situational Leadership theory. This theory states that there is not only one best way to perform leadership. Leadership style depends upon the situation which arises in the company. A particular leadership style is not applicable in all organizational situations, as different situation demand different leadership style. Effective leadership depends upon the task given, and the most appropriate leaders are the ones who react to the leadership style in accordance with the maturity of the group. Yes, the video was impressive as it acknowledged me with the situational leadership concept. It helped me to understand the reason behind Hersey-Blanchard success. They focused on four leadership behaviors, they are telling, selling, participating and delegating. They even focused on four maturity behaviors. They are competence, willingness, motivation and group competence.

Southeast Asian in the US Ques 2 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Southeast Asian in the US Ques 2 - Essay Example Louis says that his father had access to the port and the fishermen there because his job took him there often. The first part of the plan to emigrate from Vietnam included lots of secrecy. Louis says his father made it a point to be very friendly with all of the fishermen for a long time. He made friends with one of these men and they became close. Because of this close friendship, Louis says his father knew that the fisherman was someone that could be trusted. He started to ask him to take him on a trip that would enable him to escape from Vietnam. It took a long time to convince the fisherman to agree to do this. Louis’ father had to pay the man money little by little over the course of an entire year to convince him. It was difficult to convince him because he knew that there was lots of danger involved for him as well. After a year, the fisherman agreed to take on the job. He actually worked to organize a group of people that all wanted to go. This helped to defray the co st of the fuel and the risk for the fisherman. Once the group was ready and had paid, the fisherman took them on a two-week boat journey from Vietnam to Malaysia. The trip was very difficult but it was worth it. Once the Vietnamese immigrants were in Malaysia, things got much easier. The Malaysian government worked quickly to issue visas to the Vietnamese. This allowed movement within the country and the ability to work. Louis said that his father had no desire to stay in Malaysia because opportunities were limited, so he almost immediately caught a boat headed for the Philippines. Upon arrival in the Philippines, he was placed in a refugee camp. It sounds worse than it was. He was given enough food and a clean place to sleep. Moat importantly, he was taught English for six months, so he could get along once he arrived in America. After the six months was up, he moved to California and then on to Boston, which is were he still resides today. My classmate Louis’ father had a v ery different experience immigrating to America than a member of my neighborhood did. Mr. Milanovic emigrated from Bosnia with his wife and two daughters. His decision to immigrate was caused by more urgent circumstances that Louis’ father. The war in Bosnia and Mr. Milanovic’s ethnicity were factors in his immigration. He did not immigrate to America just for a better life. He came to America because his life was not safe in his homeland anymore. Mr. Milanovic saw his nieces, nephews and two of his brothers killed in a raid by Serbs. He says that it is a miracle that his entire family was able to escape intact and alive. Mr. Milanovic knew a friend with a truck that routinely traveled past safe areas where the UN was gathering Bosnian refugees. After the visit to his Brother’s home and the raid by the Serbs, he decided that he needed to get his family out of Bosnia. They packed almost nothing and went to the UN refugee camp to wait. They waited a very long time . He recalls boredom being the real enemy. People would grow tense because there was nothing to do except worry about missing family members. After nearly a full year in the refugee camp, the Milanovic family arrived in the United States. They arrived in Lincoln, Nebraska because that is where the organization that had arranged for sponsors was located. All the Milanovic family knew is that they were going to be taken care of for the first few months in America by