Hunger in America: A Problem of Justice? - Graham Vice

Vice 1

Graham Vice Hunger in America: A Problem of Justice?

The problem of hunger is more widespread in the United States than many would think.

According to the USDA, nearly 1 in 6 Americans do not have access to enough food. In addition, nearly 16 million children live in food- insecure households. Statistics like these raise questions about the issues of justice and hunger in America. Is the issue of hunger an issue of justice? Is hunger the result of a lack of just laws here in the United States? These questions are questions concerning our distributive justice system. For an unjust distribution of food to occur, there must be unjust laws that lead to this poor distribution. Therefore, in determining whether the problem of hunger in the United States is a problem of justice, there must be an analysis of whether our laws (or lack thereof) are the cause of this problem. Robert Nozick provided the best model of a just distribution system in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia. His minimalist state model allows for the greatest freedom of citizens while protecting their rights. The U.S. largely follows the minimalist state model, and the issue of hunger is not a result of unjust laws. Any governmental solutions to the hunger problem result in the violation of the rights of citizens and should not be implemented.

So what exactly is Nozick’s minimalist state, and why is it a good model for a just distributive system? In chapter 7 of Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Nozick explains the method through which people may attain resources and how they may become entitled to them. Nozick offers three rules for determining whether a person’s acquiring of a resource is just and entitles them to that resource. The first rule is that a person who attains a resource in a fair and just way is entitled to that resource (Nozick 5). The second rule states that a person who receives a resource from a person who has attained that resource in a fair and just way is entitled to that

Vice 2

resource (Nozick 5). The third rule says that any person who attains a resource through any means consistent with rules 1 and 2 is entitled to that resource (Nozick 5). So, in essence, anyone who acquires something through a just means or through transaction with someone who has acquired this thing by a just means can call this his property. Nozick’s minimalist state is thus concerned with the historical aspects of attaining resources. Redistributive measures, according to Nozick, fail to provide a just distribution because they focus solely on the needs of the recipient and not on the property rights of the person who has obtained these resources in a fair way (Nozick 12). Such taxes treat the citizens as means and not ends, taking away their fundamental human quality of autonomy. These taxes are also a form of forced labor, since these taxes on a worker’s income takes away money that they earned for hours of work (Nozick 12).

The acquisition of resources in Nozick’s minimalist society is not completely unrestricted as it does not allow for the obtaining of resources through unjust means such as theft, fraud, and slavery. Nozick’s minimal state thus allows for a maximal amount of free trade. Nozick’s minimalist has the most just distributive system because it protects the individual rights and liberties of the citizens.

The United States is much like the minimalist state, and our laws are not the cause of hunger within our nation. Our economy is capitalistic, with participants in the market free to do as they please with only a few minor restrictions. Individuals may obtain resources as long as they do so in a fair way. We have laws that prevent people from obtaining resources in unfair ways, such as our laws against theft and fraud. The U.S. does have taxes that redistribute income through programs such as our food stamp program, but these taxes do not cause hunger (they actually can subtract from it), and they are not a source of injustice against the poor but rather against the citizens upon whom they are imposed.

Vice 3

If the laws in America are not the cause of hunger, what is? One way that a person might go hungry is through their lack of motivation and work ethic. As mentioned before, the U.S. is a capitalist country. There are no legal restrictions upon what a person can become. Sometimes there are social barriers that one must overcome, such as the wealth of the family that one is born into, but they are not undefeatable. There are countless stories of Americans who, despite the wealth of the families they were born into, made something of themselves through hard work and determination and went from rags to riches.

Another way in which a person might become poor in America is by going through unfortunate circumstances such as job lay-offs and economic recessions. Circumstances such as these are well- documented in Loretta Schwartz-Nobel’s Growing up Empty: The Hunger Epidemic in America. Chapter 1 of Growing up Empty tells the story of a woman named Ruth who is left in poverty by her husband who leaves her for another woman. Another way that a person might slip into poverty is having a job that does not pay enough to live on. Such is the case for Amy in chapter 4 of Growing up Empty.

People who believe that America’s lack of effort in its legislation leads to injustice may cite examples such as the ones found in Growing up Empty as cases for their arguments. They argue that these people have plenty of work ethic and still remain poor, and therefore there is injustice. They claim that higher taxes are needed so that more money can be redistributed to these people.

America faces a decision when contemplating on how to handle the problem of hunger for these kinds of people. On one hand, it can choose to pass more legislation that forces its citizens to contribute money to the poor through taxation. This choice, however violates the rights of the American citizens who have obtained there property through fair and just means. It

Vice 4

is, as Nozick pointed out, a form of forced labor. This taxation is also unjust in that it places an extra burden on lower-middle class people who have to pay the extra tax. On the other hand, America can choose to allow charity to be done privately. This method preserves the rights of the citizens. Private charity can also, as pointed out in chapter 6 of Janet Poppendieck’s Sweet Charity, provide a variety of benefits to the charitable givers, including a heightened sense of happiness, physical exercise, and valuable social interactions. Private charity even allows people of the lower- middle class to give their time when they cannot give their money. When choosing between the two methods of fixing the hunger problem, America should choose the method that does not violate the property rights of its citizens. So, even when considering cases in which the people are placed in poverty because of unlucky circumstances or because they work in jobs that do not pay enough to live, the just path would be to not introduce additional legislation that would reallocate resources to the needy. Such legislation only introduces more injustice- to the taxpaying citizens.

There is some injustice concerning the problem of hunger in America. This injustice is that we are not privately choosing to give enough to those in need. Those that believe that our government should do more to support the hungry will argue that our lack of private giving is why we need more government redistributive taxes. This problem could be solved, however, if we would take it upon ourselves to instill within our culture the idea that it is our duty to give to those who are in need. Peter Singer made an excellent argument for this idea in his essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.� In this essay, Singer makes the point that it is our moral duty to help someone in distress when in doing so we will not sacrifice something of equal moral worth (Singer 5). If this ethical standard were to be taught to the American public, people might see that their present level of giving to the needy is extremely lacking and unjust.

Vice 5

The problem of hunger in America is not a result of unjust laws. Robert Nozick’s minimalist state is the only state that generates a just distribution. Any state larger than the minimalist state violates the property rights of its citizens. The injustice associated with the problem of hunger, then, is the result of a lack of a sense of duty to help those in need by the public at large. This lack of private giving is unjust. Although it should not be our legal obligation to help the poor, it should be our moral obligation.