Instructions: In 1800-2300 words, answer ONE of the following questions. Papers must use a recognized citation system – e.g. Chicago or MLA – and must be double-spaced throughout.
1. In 2017, Senator Sherrod Brown and Representative Ro Khanna introduced joint legislation in the Senate and House to address growing income inequality in the U.S. The Grow American Incomes Now (GAIN) Act substantially expands the Earned Income Tax Credit to raise the incomes of low- and middle-income Americans. The cost of the bill – $1.4 trillion over 10 years – would be funded by raising taxes on high-income earners. What is Rawls’s difference principle? What is Rawls’s argument for this principle? How might Rawls’s difference principle lend support/justify the GAIN Act? How would Robert Nozick object to Rawls’s difference principle and, by extension, the GAIN Act? Supposing that the GAIN Act would be effective in raising the incomes of low-income Americans and would not substantially disincentive high-income Americans from performing productive work, would the U.S. Congress act justly by passing it? Why or why not?
2. The Moving to Opportunity experiment demonstrated that young children (13 or younger) of households receiving Section 8 housing vouchers who move to low-poverty neighborhoods are likely to have significantly higher incomes and rates of college attendance than children who remain in high-poverty neighborhoods. Suppose that on the basis of this evidence, The U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Agency enacts a revision to Section 8 housing vouchers to mandate that they are only usable in low-poverty neighborhoods (recipients must use the vouchers to rent housing in a low-poverty neighborhood or forego access to the program). What does Elizabeth Anderson mean by “integration?” Why does she think that the U.S. government has a duty of justice to promote integration in the U.S.? Why might Anderson support the proposed Section 8 housing voucher policy? What does Tommie Shelby mean by “egalitarian pluralism?” Why might he criticize this proposed policy? Should HUD implement this policy? Why or why not? If not, what might be a more just policy for ensuring low-income Americans have access to safe and affordable housing?
3. Some cities in the U.S., including Philadelphia, Seattle, San Francisco, and Boulder, have passed soda taxes in order to reduce consumption of soda and decrease the prevalence of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease. Opponents of soda taxes argue that they are objectionably paternalistic and regressive. What is Mill’s harm principle? Do soda taxes violate it? Why or why not? Are soda taxes a just way to reduce soda consumption and improve public health? Why or why not? Are there other policy options that are ethically defensible? For example, would it be permissible to prohibit SNAP recipients from using their benefits to purchase soda? Why or why not? In answering this question, assume that soda taxes are effective at reducing consumption of soda and improving public health.
0 comments