Team #4 – George Carter Brianna Tinnel, Nina Kroeselberg, Hannah Hileman, Lok Ku With the upcoming elections in the city, the raise in taxes to build a homeless shelter is one of the most pressing issues. The candidate George Carter wants to prevent those raises, since everyone should be responsible for their own life choices and we shouldn’t punish those who have worked hard to earn their money by taking it away from them. He wants to support the people by letting them keep their property and making sure that the taxing system stays just and fair to everyone. There are a number of ethical theories that support George
Carters view on taxes for the homeless shelter. First of all, we can look at the consequences that would occur if the taxes would be raised. Utilitarianism is one ethical theory that focuses on that. As we know, utilitarians care about the amount of happiness that is produced by an action. In this case, more pain than pleasure would possibly be produced, because although we help the homeless people, it is a burden for everyone else. We can assume that most people would be dissatisfied with higher taxes, which means the pleasure that one homeless shelter made wouldn’t be enough to account for that.
So from a utilitarian point of view you could say that the homeless shelter would be morally wrong if enforced by the government. The situation is different if it the project is sponsored by voluntary donations. Only people who support the case will give their money, which will make them happy and of course the homeless people, plus you don’t have the pain of everyone who is not in favor. This goes hand in hand with the term ‘supererogatory’. It means that charity is morally good, but it shouldn’t be required by law.
The money for the homeless shelter should come from people who want to give it, not from omeone who has to give it. It would maybe also make the homeless feel better if they know they are not a burden for anyone, since the help they get is by free choice. Another advantage would be that you don’t have the issue of people getting mad at the homeless. It is imaginable that if you force people to give money, they let their anger out on the only people they know to put it on – the homeless, which would create tension in the community.
Another theory we can look at is Social Darwinism. Darwinism in general is about the survival of the fittest. That view can be projected on societies, meaning the fit should endure in human society and the weaker ought to perish’ (‘Ethics. Theory and Contemporary Issues. Concise, Eighth Edition’ by Barbara MacKinnon and Andrew Fiala, 2015, p. 85). It just makes sense in our individualist society that everyone has to take of their own business, and even if helping each other out is a good thing, it’s nothing that is required to do in any way.
It would simply be unjust to take money from the ones who earned it fair, just because other people don’t have as much. Everyone deserves to keep the money they work for. Speaking of earning the money in a fair way, if that is the case, which we an assume, then there’s nothing wrong with some people having more than others. This goes hand in hand with the view of Procedural Justice. The idea behind it is, that it is important if the process to obtain the wealth was fair, not necessarily if the outcome is equal for everyone.
Furthermore, we have the natural rights to protect our life, liberty, property, religion, and marriage. So for example, money is our property and we should consequently have the right to decide how to use it. The government should not have the power to force us to donate money by raising the taxes. A political theory supporting that view of George Carter is Libertarianism. We should be free in what to do with our money and not be forced to give some of it away. It is the government’s job to provide a fair process, but not to change the end-state distributions. That would interfere with the free market.
We assume that everyone has about equal opportunities and we have to then live the risk that for some individuals that means they can lose everything. It does not mean that it is the duty of the wealthy to fix that problem. Focusing on the specific numbers for this city (http:// n. wikipedia. rg/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States), we can see that the biggest percentage of homeless people have less than a high school diploma. They are less educated, and although there could be a medical or other reason for that, it can also be because they put less effort into their education.
It would be unjust to simply provide them with what they need if they didn’t work as hard for it. Moreover, the primary causes listed include alcohol and substance abuse. 38% of homeless people have an alcohol abuse problem and 26% have other substance abuse issues. In many cases, substance and alcohol buse is a choice for people, one that they make themselves. The wealthy should not provide for those who choose to spend their lives in the abuse of alcohol and drugs when they choose that for themselves. On the contrary to George Carter’s view, Joan Merritt is in favor of raising taxes to fund homeless shelters.
Those that support this view may argue that there are basic human rights that are self-evident (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). However, these rights are quite vague. There could be various meanings of what exactly a human right should be. Some may argue that ousing is a right, however, you can make the same argument that choosing what to do with your own money is also a right. Besides human rights, there is a hint of egoism within Merritt’s argument. Merritt states that we should ‘work together to make our town known for the justice and respect we give to all of our citizens’.
Within this statement, it is clear that she is only seeking to help the homeless in order to make the town known as a caring place. Her statement implies that her main reasoning is not to help those that are in need, but rather a publicity stunt. Another argument that those in favor of Joan Merritt make can e that members of the community owe something to the rest of the members, and the community owes something to each of its members in return. This idea comes from the ethical theory Communitarianism. This theory believes that people naturally belong to societies.
Aristotle and Aquinas are known as sources, who believed that ‘human beings are naturally social beings’ (Mackinnon & Fiala, p. 209). The idea that everyone owes something to each other is easier said than done. People work hard for their money, and often times the community was not in any way helpful along their path to success and hard work. When people finally earn what they have worked so hard for, they should not be obligated to owe the rest of the members something when they did nothing to contribute to their success.
In conclusion, we have a right to do as we please with our money and are not obligated to pay for others. We live in a individualist society in which everyone must work hard to achieve what they want, and they should be able to do what they please with all of their earnings. It is our natural right in which we are entitled to the money that we earn through our right to life and property. Theories such as Social Darwinism has emonstrated the idea of “survival of the fittest”.
In this case, those that work hard will earn what they deserve, while those that do not will fail in society. Although donations are encouraged and accepted, those with money should not be forced by the government to share their money with those who have not earned it. Those who do not work hard in society often times have chosen a life of alcohol and drug abuse or have not completed their high school education. This is no fault of the people who have worked for their money and success, therefore they do not owe anything to anyone else.