The Ethics of Poverty in Ontario: A Moral Defense for a Universal Basic Income

Due to the current coronavirus pandemic, the rate of unemployment has drastically increased. The economic downfall attached to this pandemic has caused one of the worst economic disasters since the great depression in 2008. The news reported that the number of unemployed Canadians in April of this year was two million. On top of the one million that was written in March of 2020 (D'Amore). Fast-tracked to the introduction of Canadian Emergency Response Benefit, CERB, which was introduced to help those who fell victim to the pandemic; the author's concern that while this project ended in September to be transitioned to the unemployment benefits, only 1.4 million of the 4.2 million will be eligible under standard rules for the Employment Insurance Benefit (EI). The big question is, what happens to the rest of those who are not qualified? Before the pandemic, the number of food bank users had increased drastically (Brown). The concern is what happens to the number of individuals that the pandemic has affected? This means that, beyond curtailing the virus and regulating the poverty issue, there is a high demand from the government for the right policy that could safeguard this problem. While making use of this argument for the institution of the basic income for all citizens, David McDonald pointed out that "there is no doubt that many people will fall below the poverty line" (D'Amore). Additionally, according to the Feed Ontario report, 2019, more than 1.57 million people live in poverty in Ontario, Canada. Moreover, social welfare systems continue to put measures in place to combat the many challenges faced. With the rate at which extreme poverty and social exclusion continue to skyrocket, people are left stuck in a vicious cycle of poverty. Although Canada's government has created a poverty-free Canada plan by 2030, unknown such as the Covid-19 pandemic have crept in, leaving more individuals close to going below the poverty line or just psychologically depressed based on their bills and other necessities. The purpose of this paper is to propose a safety net such as a Universal Basic Income, an unconditional amount given by the government to meet its citizens’ basic or primary needs (Parijs). A primary income that could play an essential role in giving poor individuals their basic respect, dignity, and freedom to choose more deserving lives. It could also be a state of entitlement to citizens who cannot afford their basic needs. Not only could this idea alleviate poverty, but it could also improve psychological health for millions in honor of their fundamental human right. Individual right to choose lives they deserve is essential, and it is the duty of an adequate government to give its citizens that basic right without conditions. I argue that although the idea of a basic income may not completely eradicate poverty, it has the potential to give individuals the freedom to choose the lives they deserve, human dignity, and positive psychological health, and the motivation necessary to escape poverty in the long term. The body of this paper is divided into four sections. Section one summarizes data on the case of poverty in Ontario and how the vulnerable condition of these individuals can be degrading and humiliating. I then include the circumstances faced during the current covid-19 pandemic that have created an economic disaster and put individuals in worse states than they already were before the pandemic. Section two explores basic arguments for a universal basic income as an anti-poverty policy that could provide citizens the bare minimum that could enable them to live a more fulfilling life. These arguments include freedom of choice, respect of human dignity, and psychological well-being. Given that this idea has been part of political discussions for years, I draw on the concept of other advocates with different dimensions of the idea and further assess the pilot programs introduced in Ontario and other countries, which could help build a strong case. This section also draws on Kant’s deontology theory as the methodology to support my recommendation for a universal basic income. Section three explores counterarguments against the policy regarding the basic income. Arguments about an individual dropping out of the workforce, the program being expensive for the government to maintain each year, and other relevant factors that I think could be controversial. Section four concludes that implementing the universal basic income as a policy could give poor individuals a safety net to fall back on when things got rough. The pandemic is an actual situation that clearly defines the meaning of things falling apart unexpectedly. I then state a case that connects the government's moral obligations to an economic factor in helping unfortunate individuals live well-deserving lives. To clearly illustrate the use of terms, I adopt Jonathan Wolff's definition of 'economic poverty' as lacking the financial resources to meet a set of basic needs (Wolff 217). His description states my case of individuals who face human rights deficits due to the effects of poverty such as curtailing their choices, lacking basic respect and dignity, leaving them stressed while constantly juggling multiple unstable jobs. The kind of Poverty referred to in this paper is ‘Relative Poverty’ in a developed country. Also, I use the Cambridge dictionary definition of "unconditional" as "complete and not limited in any way" to distinguish between this program and other welfare programs related to poverty relief. The name of the proposed policy, Universal Basic Income, hereinafter is referred to as ‘UBI’.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.