Justice sometimes requires the redistribution of resources

bsh1

Thank you for accepting this debate. I want to see how debates will run on the site before I decide how much I want to use it, and I feel like this topic will be a great and invigorating way to do that. In this round I will make some observations about the framework and then I shall present my arguments.

FRAMEWORK + DEFINITIONS

Justice - Aristotle defined justice as giving each their due. Furthermore, a due is a desert commensurate with ones actions and choices. So, for example, if a child spent the whole afternoon weeding a garden, it would be overgenerous to give the child a month off from chores as a reward for his work. At the same time, it would be miserly and unfair to give the child only one minute of play for hours of toil. Therefore, it is unjust to give too much or too little--one should receive only one's due, i.e. a desert in proportionate to what one does.

Sometimes - this implies that it is my burden to show that on occasion justice requires resource redistribution, whereas Con must show that justice NEVER requires resource distribution. This creates a strong presumption in favor of Pro, because it is hard to prove a moral absolute--there are typically (of course not always) exceptions to the rule.

Require - to be "necessary or essential" [1] for something

Redistribution - "to alter the distribution of;" [1] this oftentimes implies taking from one group to give to another.

Resource - "a source of supply or support: an available means." [1] In this sense, money is a resource, as are food, shelter, medical equipment, etc. because all of these thing are means of support. Food sustains us in a famine, and thus supports us, just as money does in financially hard times or medicine does when we are ill.

One final point of observation: As specified in the rules of this debate, this resolution is asking a moral and philosophical question. I concede that redistribution may not always be pragmatic; yet, at the same time I must insist that, on an ethical level, it is still required by Justice on many occasions. Now that the framework has been clarified, I shall move into the arguments.

PRO's CASE

My Core Assertion: “The claim to equality does not depend on intelligence, moral capacity, physical strength, or similar matters of fact. Equality is a moral ideal, not a simple assertion of fact. There is no logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability between two people justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we give to satisfying their needs and interests. The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans: it is a prescription of how we should treat humans." [2]

Contention One: Theoretical Arguments

Sub-point A: Inequalities are undeserved, arbitrary, and demand redress. "We may observe that the difference principle gives some weight to the considerations singled out by the principle of redress. This is the principle that undeserved inequalities call for redress; and since inequalities of birth and natural endowment are undeserved, these inequalities are to be somehow compensated for. Thus the principle holds that in order to treat all persons equally, to provide genuine equality of opportunity, society must give more attention to those with fewer native assets and to those born into the less favorable social positions. The idea is to redress the bias of contingencies in the direction of equality...the absence of individual dessert creates a presumption in favor of regarding the distribution of talents as a common asset. The lack of desert or a pre-institutional concept of virtue means that institutions are unconstrained by antecedent moral claims in their pursuit of the primary virtue of social justice. In this sense, the analogy of manna from even is apt. The array of assets dealt by fortune is neither just nor unjust. ‘These are simply natural facts. What is just and unjust is the way that institutions deal with these facts.’ There is no reason to let assets and the benefits that flow from them lie where they fall. This would be simply to incorporate and affirm the arbitrariness of nature." [3]

Sub-point B: Rewarding desert according to effort is difficult and morally unfair. "The distributive shares that result do not correlate with moral worth, since the initial endowment of natural assets and the contingencies of their growth and nurture in early life are arbitrary from a moral point of view. The precept which seems intuitively to come closest to rewarding moral dessert is that of distribution according to effort. Once again, however, it seems clear that the effort a person is willing to make is influenced by his natural abilities and skills and the alternatives open to him. The better endowed are more likely, other things equal, to" achieve more greatly. They have resources and natural talents that others lack, and can use them to garner an unfair advantage over others. People are, in fact, not born equally talented, and so it is wrong to exclude those who are less skilled simply because of the happenstance of birth. "The idea of rewarding dessert is impracticable. And certainly to the extent that the precept of need is emphasized, moral worth is ignored. Nor does the basic structure tend to balance the precepts of justice so as to achieve the requisite correspondence behind the scenes. It is regulated by the two principles of justice which
define other aims entirely." [3]

Contention Two: Placing the theoretical examples into a hypothetical context

Example 1: Two children are born: one is a fabulous singer, the other has no special talents. The first flunks out of high school, becomes a druggie, and has a personality that can rival the Grinch (before his heart grew 10 sizes.) The second passes high school via diligence, receives a degree in library sciences, and is a soft-spoken sweetheart. The first then goes on to American Idol, wins the show, becomes a millionaire, has men dying to be with her, and is a public icon, while still retaining all of the odious elements of her personality that she had before. The second stays a librarian, is always struggling to make rent, and dies indebted and alone in a dusty archive somewhere in Nome, Alaska. Sheer dumb luck made one girl rich and the other poor--one was just born with good vocal chords. She didn't earn them, they just existed. and because she didn't earn them, they weren't her due, nor were the profits of her luckiness her due. The second girl worked hard to earn her way through life, and so it seems unfair that she should not succeed, while the first girl did.

Example 2: Taxes are also an example of redistribution; yet few would contest their moral permissibility. They are vital in helping the disadvantaged simply survive.

Example 3: Two children are born: one in Juba, South Sudan, the other in the Hamptons, USA. Juba is a hard worker--persevering through famine and civil war to provide meager sustenance for his impoverished family. Hamptons is an entitled jerk who enjoys fast cars, sleazy women, and all the luxuries money can buy without putting in a single ounce of effort to earn that money. By virtue of where he was born, and who he was born to, Hamptons is far better off than Juba. That is unfair; that simply because Juba is born to a poorer family in a still poorer country that he is relegated to such a life, despite the fact that he worked much harder than Hamptons. You cannot help where you are born or who you parents are--it is unfair that such random luck should become a determining factor in how successful you are in life. Hamptons' money is not his due because he did not earn his money, in other words his deserts are not commensurate with his actions. Juba's deserts are also not commensurate with his actions. Just as with the child weeding the garden, we have one option that gives someone too much and we have another option that gives someone too little. A balancing act is required via redistribution.

Contention Three: Real-World Needs

Just look at Typhoon Hiayan, which killed thousands of people and left thousands more homeless. It was unfair to those villagers to be displaced like that. How can some people bask in luxury yet not be compelled by some moral force to give to those who are suffering so terribly? Look at poverty too: "The fact that poor people around the world have shorter and harder lives is the result of human design. This phenomenon is called structural violence.'" [4] "The 14 to 18 million deaths a year caused by structural violence compare with about 100,000 deaths per year from armed conflict. Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural violence to the frequency of those caused by major military and political violence, such as World War II (an estimated 49 million military and civilian deaths, including those caused by genocide--or about eight million per year, 1935-1945...it was clear that even war cannot begin to compare with structural violence, which continues year after year. In other words...every single year, two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six year period." [5] The extent of this atrocity creates an instance of moral wrong so huge that we cannot stand idly by--the sheer magnitude of it compels us to divest ourselves of some money, and redistribute it in the form of aid to those in need. It is simply the just thing to do.

SOURCES - Okay, so the website keeps erasing my urls every time I go to "Submit Your Argument;" so I have to post them in comments. I'm sorry, but it's just not working.

Thanks! VOTE PRO!

bsh1

Con does not address any of my arguments or any of my framework-level analysis. Please extend these un-rebutted points. I will impact these extensions at the end of this rebuttal. Con offer a case of his own either, and so I will attempt to rebut what points he has made. Con's remarks will be in quotes and italicized, my responses will be beneath them. Thank you.

REBUTTING CON

"What is justice, if it is not just for all to whom it effects? Justice is only just if all parties involved have an equal standing"

I defined justice as "giving each their due." Let's refer to my Example 3, where I explain how someone is rich simply due to the happenstance of birth, whereas someone else is born poor in that same arbitrary way. It is not fair to make people poor or rich based on where they are born--that is not a morally relevant criteria for a such a thing. If the poor person works harder, then he or she is due more than the rich person, and so money should be shifted to reflect that. This is just for all whom it effects--the rich person who does not work hard is not due his wealth, whereas the poor person who works hard is due a living income, and so it is just for both that the money be transferred.

"if justice did require this redistribution, then it would not be considered justice at all"

Then how would you define justice. By not rebutting my definition, you've basically concede my Aristotelian definition. So, under that understanding of justice, how would you make your argument?

SUMMARY OF CON
Con is just throwing out one-liners with no logical warrants behind them. He is making claims without any real justifications or explanations, and without understanding my arguments. Therefore, you should look to my case as it is the most supported one presented here. Thank you.

PRO IMPACT ANALYSIS

With Con essentially dropping my case, I can make the following extrapolation: theoretically, natural inequalities are arbitrary. Dues cannot be based on arbitrary factors, therefore, we must redistribute resources to combat "the arbitrariness of nature" and to properly ascribe dues.

I can also make a second extrapolation that is an independent reason to vote Pro: due to the magnitude of the problem of poverty, this massive moral dilemma outweighs other concerns, compelling us to give aid, which is a form of resource distribution. At this point, Pro is the only viable option in this debate.

Thanks! Please VOTE PRO!

bsh1

Rebuttal:

Point 1: Con unfortunately misunderstands my assertions. If I am born as a better singer than you, that is an accident of birth. I have not earned my talent, but yet with this skill I have an unfair (unearned) advantage with which to surpass you. That requires some redistribution. Moreover, as noted in the examples I present in my case, inheritance is not something we "earn;" therefore it is not due to us. Extend my examples and cross-apply them here.

Point 2: As a debate of morals, it does not matter who would redistribute the resource or whether redistribution is viable. "Should" it happen is different from "can" it happen or even "how can" it happen.

Point 3: Cross-apply my remarks against point 2 here--they address this assertion as well. In the very rules of this debate, I noted that this was a philosophical, theoretical discussion. To dismiss the theoretical is to misunderstand the premise of this debate.

Con also brings up the benefits of working, and how the rich person is the truly unfortunate one. Cross-apply my C3 here. POVERTY KILLS MILLIONS. This out-impacts Con's nebulous and undefined points. It is immoral not to save those lives.

Remember, Con dropped my cases. I have the full weight of that offense. Vote Pro! Thanks!