WHY PHILOSOPHERS SHOULD BE FED: THE QUESTION OF A UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME
PublisherThe University of Arizona.
AbstractThe aim of this thesis is to give a critical examination to a philosophical argument in favor of a Universal Basic Income. I will argue that (i) the current state of resource distribution is unjust, according to principles espoused by Robert Nozick, and (ii) that Karl Widerquist’s conception of ECSO Freedom is a cogent conception of freedom that gives moral grounding to a Universal Basic Income. Then I analyze arguments against a Universal Basic Income by considering if different systems of resource distribution would more effectively adhere to ECSO Freedom. In the end, I conclude that (iii) transfers should be paid unconditionally and (iv) that transfers should be “basic”.