Browse our Free Essay examples and check out our Writing tools to get your assignments done.
In this case analysis you have five tasks:
1. Give a clear and concise explanation of the case at
hand.
2. Give a thorough, philosophical exegesis of the
relevant aspects of Walzer's and Murray’s arguments.
3. Present an argument applying the relevant philosophers
to the case at hand. This should include an argument justifying who each
philosopher would give the welfare to and why.
4. Present an argument explaining why one of the
philosophers can be viewed as offering a more successful solution to the case
at hand.
5. In no more than one paragraph, explain what solution
you would propose for Rebecca and Jimmy.
Case
Consider Rebecca, a single mother of 4 who has been a
long-term welfare recipient. Rebecca is a weekend meth user who often spends
her money on meth. However, without her welfare money, her children would
not have any food or medical treatment and would most likely be placed in
foster homes where their lives could go worse than they currently are.
Rebecca's yearly welfare application is due.
Now consider Jimmy, a veteran of both Desert Storm and
Operation Iraqi Freedom. During the battle, Jimmy was wounded and now
suffers from some moderate physical disability and post-traumatic stress.
Sadly, although Jimmy tried to find a job, there weren't many systems in place
to help him re-integrate or work through his issues. Each day Jimmy begs
for money at his local off-ramp. Through no fault of his own, Jimmy has
fallen through the proverbial cracks. Jimmy applies for welfare.
Options
You are the welfare overseer. At most one person
can get welfare. You can make ONE of the following three decisions
1. Give the welfare only to Rebecca
2. Give the welfare only Jimmy
3. Don't give any welfare
Welfare
Case Analysis
The
case study is an evaluation of the qualification of individuals to the welfare
program. The general requirement for qualification to fit in the criteria for
selection of beneficiaries. According to the eligibility program, the
applicants have to be residents of the state from which they are applying. The
applicants are also required to be legal aliens and united states citizens.
Also, the beneficiary has to be unemployed or underemployed with very low to
low income. One must also have children aged 18 years and below who are
dependent on them. Rebecca case presents
a situation in which he dearly needs and fits in the scope of beneficiaries.
Rebecca has kids below the age of 18-year-old dependent on the welfare program.
Rebecca is also unemployed and has no income only relying on welfare. The case
of jimmy is justifiable for having sustained injuries in the line duty, but his
income is not presented and has no dependent children. Murray has a good
approach to welfare and believes that it is good for society but is a threat to
the growth and development of an economy.
Among
the political and leadership scholars were Michael Walzer and Murray. On social
and state welfare Walzer hold to the idea that welfare state “involves a
surrender of everyone's say . . . a surrender of any popular role in
determining the shape and substance, the day-to-day quality of our common
life.” Walzer is bothered by social welfare in that it is not the provision of
benefits, but an avenue to the growth of the power of a bureaucratic state and
is consequently a concurrent loss of popular democracy. Murray held the belief
that state welfare provision should be abolished as it is the immediate cause
of less self-provision, decreased individual responsibility, and inhibiting
voluntary association. He has an overgrown dislike of welfare. He argues that
there is a need to abolish all the welfare payments because is a disincentive
to productivity.
Murray would not advocate for the continuation of the welfare payment of both jimmy and Rebecca. Murray has a strong belief that without the welfare program, the economy can be productive and the issues would reduce individual provision and responsibility and in the long run lead to an economic underperformance. Likewise, the case of jimmy would receive the same reception from Murray on the grounds of economically unproductive injection of funds. As long as money is received without an...
