In 1500-2000 words, answer one of the following questions. Papers must use a recognized citation system (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? Suppose that the GAIN Act would be effective in raising the incomes of low-income Americans and would not substantially disincentivize high-income Americans from performing productive work, would the U.S. Congress act justly by passing it? Why or why not? It will useful to consider how libertarians such as Robert Nozick would object to Rawls’s position.
2. 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 are 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.
The purpose of this paper is for you to provide a reasoned defense of a position on the above question. Your paper will be evaluated in accordance with the following guidelines:
1. Thesis: Does the paper advance a clearly formulated thesis? Is the scope of the thesis appropriate? Or, does the paper set out to accomplish too much or too little?
2. Understanding and Reconstruction of Text/Positions/Arguments: Does the paper demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the text/arguments/positions under discussion? Does the paper support its interpretation of the text by appeal to textual evidence? Does the paper reconstruct the positions/arguments under discussion in a systematic way, making clear the way in which the different components of the argument/position fit together? Or, does the paper only present a superficial understanding of the text/arguments/position? Is the paper fair to the positions/arguments under discussion by reconstructing them charitably? Or, does the paper reconstruct the arguments in a way that fails to recognize their strength.
3. Strength of Argumentation: Does the paper present strong arguments to support its thesis? Does the paper consider possible objections to its position? Or, does the paper present arguments that invite immediate objections or that commit fallacies? Do the thesis and arguments of the paper consider the complexity of the issue under discussion? Or, does the paper advance claims that are overbroad or too general?
4. Organization: Is the paper well organized? Is its structure apparent to the reader? Does the paper proceed in a rational fashion? Does the paper contain a helpful introduction and conclusion?
5. Clarity of Expression: Is the paper clear? Does the paper use simple language and grammatical sentence structure? Does the paper define the concepts that it introduces?