| Course | MSW 547 Equity, Justice, and Global Perspectives |
|---|---|
| Week | 7 |
| Paper type | Justice argument paper |
| Length | About 600 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Master of Social Work (MSW) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MSW 547 Week 7
Justice Argument Paper on a County Guaranteed Income Pilot: Rawls's Difference Principle Rather Than Nozick's Entitlement Theory, Both in Their Own Terms, One Case Run Twice, Nozick's Objection in His Words and the Agency Pay Scale the Principle Should Not Reach
Student Name
Chamberlain University
MSW 547: Equity, Justice, and Global Perspectives
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Justice Argument Paper on a County Guaranteed Income Pilot: Rawls's Difference Principle Rather Than Nozick's Entitlement Theory, Both in Their Own Terms, One Case Run Twice, Nozick's Objection in His Words and the Agency Pay Scale the Principle Should Not Reach
The Thesis
On whether our county may fund a two-year guaranteed income pilot, $500 a month for 200 low-income parents, from a local sales tax increase, Rawls's difference principle gives a better answer than Nozick's entitlement theory.
Rawls, in His Terms
Rawls (1971) argues that people choosing principles of justice without knowing their own place in society would accept that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, with offices and jobs open to everyone on genuinely fair terms. The principles govern the basic structure of society: its main institutions, including taxation and transfers.
Nozick, in His Terms
Nozick (1974) argues that holdings are just if they were acquired justly or transferred justly from someone entitled to them. A distribution's justice depends on its history, not on its pattern. Redistribution aimed at a pattern, such as raising the position of the worst off, violates people's entitlements to what they justly hold.
One Case, Run Twice
The pilot. Under Rawls: the sales tax takes a small amount from everyone; the transfer raises the income of the least advantaged parents in the county; if the arrangement improves their position compared with the alternatives, it is required, not merely allowed. Under Nozick: the tax takes from people who earned their money justly and gives to others who have no entitlement to it. Unless the transfer rectifies a specific past injustice, it is not permitted.
An Objection With an Author
Nozick's objection is direct: "Taxation of earnings from labor is on a par with forced labor" (Nozick, 1974, p. 169). On his account, taking a share of a worker's earnings is taking a share of their working hours.
The Reply
The objection depends on treating pre-tax earnings as fully the worker's before any institutions exist. But wages are earned inside institutions, including property law, contracts and markets, that the basic structure creates. Rawls's point is that those institutions themselves must be justified, and the tax that funds the pilot is part of designing them. A sales tax is also not a claim on any particular person's labor hours. The reply does not show that Nozick is wrong about everything; it shows his objection assumes entitlements that are partly products of the arrangement under dispute.
The Case the Principle Should Not Reach
Does the difference principle apply to our agency's own pay scale, where the director earns three times a case worker? If it did, the gap would be justified only if it improved the position of the least advantaged, and I could not show that it does. Rawls limits the principle to the basic structure, not to every organization's internal choices. I accept that limit, but I note that I was glad of it here, which is a reason to test it again later.
Conclusion
For a public tax-and-transfer decision, the difference principle provides a reason to fund the pilot, and Nozick's strongest objection does not defeat it.
References
Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. Basic Books.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
MSW 547 Week 7 instructions, in plain terms
The justice argument paper compares two accounts on one practice question. Write a thesis that names both and the question. Present each account in its own terms, with its own vocabulary, at comparable length. Run one case through both and report what each concludes. Then present the strongest objection from the rival's published work, quoted and attributed, and answer it without renaming its terms. Finally, apply your own principle to a case you would rather it did not reach, and report what happens. Cite the original works. Keep conclusions within what the paper argued; a careful, limited conclusion is stronger than a sweeping one. Give the rival's account the same care as your own.
Inside the MSW 547 Week 7 example
The thesis names Rawls and Nozick and the county pilot of $500 a month for 200 parents. The Rawls section, citing Rawls (1971), states the difference principle and its scope over the basic structure. The Nozick section, citing Nozick (1974), states the entitlement theory and its historical view of justice. The case section runs the pilot under each. The objection section quotes the forced labor sentence with its page. The reply argues that earnings arise inside institutions the basic structure creates and that a sales tax claims no particular hours. The last section applies the principle to a director paid three times a case worker and notes Rawls's limit.
MSW 547 Week 7 rubric: what full points look like
Faculty grade the paper on whether the rival's objection is met as its author made it. A paper that invents an objection for the opponent, or softens it by renaming its terms, loses the most. Credit goes to a comparative thesis, both accounts in their own terms at similar depth, one case run twice, a quoted objection with an author and page, a reply in the rival's vocabulary and a consistency test on an uncomfortable case. Primary sources should be cited in APA. A case on which both accounts agree settles nothing and loses marks. The conclusion should claim only what the argument earned.
Common MSW 547 Week 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Papers most often slip by presenting the preferred account over pages and the rival in a paragraph. Another frequent gap is an objection paraphrased into the writer's language, so the reply answers something the author never said. Some papers choose a case where both accounts agree. Others skip the consistency test. If you cannot find a quotable objection in the rival's own work, choose a different rival whose criticism you can quote. A paper that reports honestly what its principle says about an uncomfortable case close to home shows the principle was tested rather than only used where it was convenient. Quote the objection with its page number, then reread your reply to make sure it uses the author's own terms throughout.
Get a MSW-547 Week 7 example written to your instructions
Send the assignment, the page count, the citation style, and the accounts your section has been working from. A custom Week 7 paper is written to those and comes back inside 24 to 48 hours, the first one free. If you already know which critic you want answered, name them and the objection section will be built around what that person actually wrote.
More MSW 547 papers and MSW samples
- MSW 547 Week 1: Who Owed the Interpreter Post
- MSW 547 Week 2: Obligation Analysis of Client Primacy
- MSW 547 Week 3: Right to Housing Framework Paper
- MSW 547 Week 4: Duty Conflict Write-Up on W.
- MSW 547 Week 5: Code Application to a Closure Order
- MSW 547 Week 6: Rapid Rehousing Allocation Write-Up
- MSW 547 Week 8: Applied Ethics Synthesis
- MSW 548 Week 7: Policy Transfer Memo
- MSW 546 Week 7: Termination Summary for V.
- MSW 549 Week 7: School Funding Analysis
- MSW 545 Week 7: Service Linkage Plan for V.
MSW 547 Week 7 questions, answered
Where do I find an objection somebody actually published?
Start with the critical reading your list already carries, since accounts of justice arrive in textbooks with their standard criticisms attached. A review article, an introduction to the account, or a chapter setting two theories against each other will name the objection and the person who made it. Quote from the critic directly where you can rather than from a summary of them.
Does the case have to be a real one?
A described case is fine and often cleaner, since a real situation arrives with facts that pull the argument sideways. What the case has to do is separate the accounts: if both reach the same verdict on it, the comparison has nothing to work with. Build or choose one where the two disagree, then keep it short enough that the reasoning stays the subject.
My section wants a practice implication. Where does it go?
In a short closing passage, after the argument has finished, and stated as a consequence rather than as a plan. The paper's job is the justification; what follows for a caseload is a sentence or two drawing out what the preferred account would commit an agency to. Anything longer turns a justice argument into a proposal and loses the part it was being marked for.
Where can I find a free MSW 547 Week 7 sample paper?
You will find the whole MSW 547 Week 7 argument comparing Rawls and Nozick on a county guaranteed income pilot further down this page.
What objection is answered in the MSW 547 Week 7 sample?
Nozick's claim that taxation of earnings from labor is on a par with forced labor, answered by arguing that earnings arise inside institutions the basic structure creates.