WHY PHILOSOPHERS SHOULD BE FED: THE QUESTION OF A UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME
PublisherThe University of Arizona.
RightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
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”.
Degree ProgramHonors College
Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and Law