Question

Suppose there are two possible income distributions in a society of ten people. In the first distribution, nine people have incomes of $30,000 and one person has an income of $10,000. In the second distribution, all ten people have incomes of $25,000.

If the society had the first income distribution, the utilitarian would argue that the marginal utility of income for the person with an income of $10,000 is [lower/higher] than the marginal utility of income for someone with an income of $30,000, so income [should/should not] be redistributed.

Rawls considers [the first/neither/the second] distribution to be more equitable.

True or False: Nozick considers neither distribution to be more equitable.

Answer 1

If the society had the first income distribution, the utilitarian would argue that the marginal utility of income for the person with an income of $10,000 is [higher] than the marginal utility of income for someone with an income of $30,000, so income [should] be redistributed so that the a dollar from 9 people should go to the person with an income of $10000 as his gain is more than the loss of those 9 people.

Rawls considers [the second] distribution to be more equitable. as the person who is worst off is better off than in the first distribution

True - Nozick considers neither distribution to be more equitable.

As he would think that in the most equitable distribution every person gets what they deserve if the rules of the game are fair.