WHY PHILOSOPHERS SHOULD BE FED: THE QUESTION OF A UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME

Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/612464
Title:
WHY PHILOSOPHERS SHOULD BE FED: THE QUESTION OF A UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME
Author:
ACOSTA, GABRIEL GIBSON
Issue Date:
2016
Publisher:
The University of Arizona.
Rights:
Copyright © 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.
Abstract:
The 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”.
Type:
text; Electronic Thesis
Degree Name:
B.A.
Degree Level:
Bachelors
Degree Program:
Honors College; Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and Law
Degree Grantor:
University of Arizona
Advisor:
Rosati, Connie

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.language.isoen_USen
dc.titleWHY PHILOSOPHERS SHOULD BE FED: THE QUESTION OF A UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOMEen_US
dc.creatorACOSTA, GABRIEL GIBSONen
dc.contributor.authorACOSTA, GABRIEL GIBSONen
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en
dc.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.en
dc.description.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”.en
dc.typetexten
dc.typeElectronic Thesisen
thesis.degree.nameB.A.en
thesis.degree.levelBachelorsen
thesis.degree.disciplineHonors Collegeen
thesis.degree.disciplinePhilosophy, Politics, Economics, and Lawen
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Arizonaen
dc.contributor.advisorRosati, Connieen
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.