15 What Do We Want to Accomplish?
“Why Give Anything at All?”
The justification for transferring resources from those who have more to those who have less in society is discussed in terms of fairness and morality. One key point is that if a hardworking individual loses their job due to circumstances beyond their control, it is reasonable to support them through unemployment benefits, as they have contributed to society and are now facing hardship.
On the other hand, there is concern about a healthy person who refuses to work when offered jobs. This raises the question of whether such a person deserves assistance, especially when resources are limited. It seems unfair to treat both individuals equally since the laid-off worker has earned respect through their contributions, while the other has not.
This situation underscores the challenge of creating a fair social policy that distinguishes between recipients based on their circumstances. Establishing an ethical framework for these decisions is complex, as it involves subjective judgments about deservingness and the legitimacy of the assistance provided.
Robbing Peter to Pay Paul: Transfers From Poor to Poor
Social policy often involves transferring benefits from one poor person to another rather than from the rich to the poor. An example is when one student in an inner-city high school studies hard while another behaves disruptively but faces harsher penalties because of their background. When the teacher expels the disruptive student, it harms their future, pushing them toward welfare. The distinction becomes clear when observing that middle-class students who misbehave do not face the same consequences.
To protect the disruptive student, changes can be made so that they remain in class, which leads to a worse learning environment for the hardworking student. While the disruptive student may graduate, their education hasn't improved much. In contrast, the good student’s education suffers significantly, reducing their ability to pursue higher education and job opportunities.
Such policies create unfair transfers from one poor student to another without addressing the benefits. It may seem that the hardworking student has enough educational opportunities to share, but their motivation and effort were earned, making the transfer unjust. Realistically, motivated students do not achieve their success by chance; they have the drive and support that should be recognized.
Overall, social policies from the mid-1960s onwards often required sacrifices from the most capable poor to support the least capable, creating moral issues. This transfer of resources and opportunities did not adequately support those who genuinely deserved help, instead enabling a cycle of dependency and diminished respect for work. The underlying justification for these policies is complex and troubling.
The Net Happiness Challenge
Transfers of tax money, like Food Stamps, differ from other government services because the benefits go directly to the recipients, making people question the fairness of such transfers. While the donor might feel good about helping those in need, they might also wonder if the government's decisions about who is "needy" and who is not are justified. The success of these transfers can be measured at two levels: whether they reach the intended recipients and whether they improve the recipients' situations, such as their nutrition. However, evaluating if these transfers actually increase overall happiness is much more difficult.
Although it's clear that better living conditions typically lead to less misery, measuring happiness or misery in a concrete way remains challenging. Important decisions surrounding social policy, like providing living allowances to single mothers, require careful consideration of both positive and negative outcomes. If a program brings health benefits to some children but also leads to increased neglect or abuse of others, weighing these factors becomes crucial.
Transfers can sometimes be necessary and justified, but they can also lead to moral dilemmas. Compulsory transfers from one poor individual to another may resemble theft, as they can inadvertently harm those most vulnerable. This highlights the serious need for thoughtful social policies that genuinely help those in need without causing further harm. These considerations are not just philosophical but have real impacts, implying that social policies should be continually reassessed to ensure they are truly beneficial.
“Why Give Anything at All?”
The justification for transferring resources from those who have more to those who have less in society is discussed in terms of fairness and morality. One key point is that if a hardworking individual loses their job due to circumstances beyond their control, it is reasonable to support them through unemployment benefits, as they have contributed to society and are now facing hardship.
On the other hand, there is concern about a healthy person who refuses to work when offered jobs. This raises the question of whether such a person deserves assistance, especially when resources are limited. It seems unfair to treat both individuals equally since the laid-off worker has earned respect through their contributions, while the other has not.
This situation underscores the challenge of creating a fair social policy that distinguishes between recipients based on their circumstances. Establishing an ethical framework for these decisions is complex, as it involves subjective judgments about deservingness and the legitimacy of the assistance provided.
Robbing Peter to Pay Paul: Transfers From Poor to Poor
Social policy often involves transferring benefits from one poor person to another rather than from the rich to the poor. An example is when one student in an inner-city high school studies hard while another behaves disruptively but faces harsher penalties because of their background. When the teacher expels the disruptive student, it harms their future, pushing them toward welfare. The distinction becomes clear when observing that middle-class students who misbehave do not face the same consequences.
To protect the disruptive student, changes can be made so that they remain in class, which leads to a worse learning environment for the hardworking student. While the disruptive student may graduate, their education hasn't improved much. In contrast, the good student’s education suffers significantly, reducing their ability to pursue higher education and job opportunities.
Such policies create unfair transfers from one poor student to another without addressing the benefits. It may seem that the hardworking student has enough educational opportunities to share, but their motivation and effort were earned, making the transfer unjust. Realistically, motivated students do not achieve their success by chance; they have the drive and support that should be recognized.
Overall, social policies from the mid-1960s onwards often required sacrifices from the most capable poor to support the least capable, creating moral issues. This transfer of resources and opportunities did not adequately support those who genuinely deserved help, instead enabling a cycle of dependency and diminished respect for work. The underlying justification for these policies is complex and troubling.
The Net Happiness Challenge
Transfers of tax money, like Food Stamps, differ from other government services because the benefits go directly to the recipients, making people question the fairness of such transfers. While the donor might feel good about helping those in need, they might also wonder if the government's decisions about who is "needy" and who is not are justified. The success of these transfers can be measured at two levels: whether they reach the intended recipients and whether they improve the recipients' situations, such as their nutrition. However, evaluating if these transfers actually increase overall happiness is much more difficult.
Although it's clear that better living conditions typically lead to less misery, measuring happiness or misery in a concrete way remains challenging. Important decisions surrounding social policy, like providing living allowances to single mothers, require careful consideration of both positive and negative outcomes. If a program brings health benefits to some children but also leads to increased neglect or abuse of others, weighing these factors becomes crucial.
Transfers can sometimes be necessary and justified, but they can also lead to moral dilemmas. Compulsory transfers from one poor individual to another may resemble theft, as they can inadvertently harm those most vulnerable. This highlights the serious need for thoughtful social policies that genuinely help those in need without causing further harm. These considerations are not just philosophical but have real impacts, implying that social policies should be continually reassessed to ensure they are truly beneficial.