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.