Food Stamp Cuts: Justified or Unjustified? Essay

619 Words 3 Pages
Recent cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Aid Program (S.N.A.P.), also known as the U.S. Food Stamp Program, have become extremely controversial. Whether Congress was wrong to reduce funding to the program remains a question. There are two principles that may be used to represent each side of this debate. The difference principle will be used to represent those who believe the program cuts were unjustified and the harm principle will be used to represent those who believe the program cuts were justified.
Those who are against the cuts to the Food Stamp Program can argue that under the difference principle, Congress was wrong to reduce funding. The difference principle, created by John Rawls, states that an inequality in a society, such as in power or wealth, is only justified if it benefits the worst off. It is important to note that this principle was created under what Rawls called a “veil of ignorance”; this is used to ensure that people will not be tempted to choose rules that will benefit themselves, even if worse for others. The “veil of ignorance” asks others to choose rules regardless of their race, gender, religion, political views, or social class so that the rules may be fair. S.N.A.P. is an inequality; it provides free access to food for certain individuals. Under the difference principle S.N.A.P. would be just only if it served the worst off in a society, and it does. It serves those who are food insecure, those who do not know where their next meal will come…