7. 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.

a. If the society had the first income distribution, what would be the utilitarian argument for redistributing income?
The nine individuals have a higher utility than the one individual with the income of $10,000. So if for example a dollar was taken from the rich and given to the poor the utility of society as a whole would increase. This is because the poor person would have a higher utility from the dollar gained than the fall in utility from the rich people.

b. Which income distribution would Rawls consider more equitable? Explain.
I would think that the second distribution would be more equitable since Rawls would want equality.
c. Which income distribution would Nozick consider more equitable? Explain.

I would think that Nozick would consider the first distribution more equitable. Since Nozick would want individuals to a fair playing field but not concerned about the resulting distribution of income. So the second distribution of income is equal so the only option left is the first one.

What is your question regarding this situation?

I would like to know if my responses for each of the 3 questions is correct.

Your bottom line answers for Utilitarians and Rawls are correct. However, both views have exceptions which you should note in your final answer.

Nozick, on the other hand, is not bothered by income inequality as long as the process for generating the distribution is "fair." So, Nozick would not "prefer" either distribution. However, he would not advocate a redistribution process that moves from distribution a to distribution b.

Bottom line. your are on the right track; but your arguments need to be much more fully developed; certainly more than a single sentence for each.

Thank you for your feedback! I apologize for the briefness of my responses. Here are more developed explanations for each point:

a. The utilitarian argument for redistributing income in the first distribution is based on the idea that overall societal utility would increase if a dollar was taken from the rich and given to the poor. In this case, the nine individuals with incomes of $30,000 have a higher utility than the one individual with an income of $10,000. By redistributing income, the poor person would experience a higher increase in utility from the dollar gained, compared to the decrease in utility experienced by the rich individuals. This redistribution can lead to a more equitable distribution of overall utility in society.

b. Rawls would consider the second income distribution more equitable because he prioritizes equality. Rawls argues that the fairest society is one where inequalities exist only if they benefit the least advantaged members. In the second distribution, all ten people receive the same income of $25,000, ensuring equal treatment for everyone. This aligns with Rawls' focus on fairness and equal opportunities.

c. Nozick's view on equity differs from both utilitarians and Rawls. Nozick believes in the principle of justice in acquisition and justice in transfer. He argues that as long as the process for generating the distribution is fair, the resulting inequality is not a concern. Nozick would not prefer one income distribution over the other, as long as each individual obtained their income through just means. In this case, the first distribution would be considered equitable by Nozick because the income was acquired and transferred through voluntary, just exchanges.

I understand. So, to summarize:

a. The utilitarian argument for redistributing income in the first income distribution is based on the principle of maximizing overall utility. In this case, nine individuals have higher incomes than one individual. By redistributing a dollar from the rich to the poor, the increase in utility for the poor individual would outweigh the decrease in utility for the rich individuals, resulting in an overall increase in societal utility.

b. Rawls would consider the second income distribution more equitable because it represents a more equal distribution of income. Rawls' theory of justice emphasizes the principle of fairness, where inequalities are justified only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society. In the second distribution, everyone has an equal income, thereby meeting Rawls' criteria of fairness and equity.

c. Nozick, on the other hand, would not consider either income distribution as inherently more equitable or preferable. Nozick's theory of justice focuses on the importance of individual liberty and property rights. As long as the distribution of income is the result of a fair and just process, Nozick would not advocate for any redistribution of wealth. Therefore, both income distributions would be considered equitable from Nozick's perspective, as long as the distribution process was fair.

Thank you for your feedback. I will make sure to provide more thorough explanations for each view in the future.