Moral desert and Merit: the American Welfare System

The American welfare system is built on the principle of moral desert rather than human need, meaning that access to aid depends on whether individuals are perceived as “deserving” according to moral standards established by the government. 

Laws such as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 and court decisions such as Dandridge v. Williams emphasize how welfare eligibility reflects moral judgment by rewarding behaviors such as marriage and employment. 

Moral desert

The concept of moral desert, heavily debated by many influential philosophers, refers to the belief that people deserve certain outcomes based on their desert basis, determined by their actions, attitude, and character. It creates an idea of justice in which the world would be better if everyone only received what they deserve, rather than what they need or what would create the best outcomes overall. 

Moral desert in the American welfare system

In political and social systems, moral desert influences how society distributes benefits and burdens, particularly through the welfare state. Social welfare is designed to be a safety net for citizens who are struggling to provide for themselves by guaranteeing access to life's necessities. 

The aid comes in a variety of different forms, from food stamps to tax credits to Social Security. However, moral desert is ingrained in the system because welfare aid requires recipients to fulfill certain provisions before they can be eligible. 

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996, signed by President Bill Clinton, reformed the United States welfare system, and its influence has remained relevant since. The act replaced the long-standing Aid to Families with Dependent Children program with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), shifting welfare from an open-ended entitlement program to one based on work requirements and time limits. 

TANF divides a $16.5 billion block grant between states annually, allowing state-controlled allocation as long as it continues to serve the TANF purposes. Each state receives a fixed annual amount, ranging from $18 million in Wyoming to $2.4 billion in New York. These purposes included: adequate aid for children to be provided for by their families, promote employment opportunities, pregnancy only in marriage, and sustenance of stable 2-parent households. It emphasized personal responsibility, mandating recipients to find employment within 2 years and capping assistance to only 5 years. Supporters of the bill argued that it would increase self-sufficiency, while critics claimed that it punished vulnerable families, particularly single mothers. By imposing strict work requirements and time limits, the bill failed to account for barriers like childcare, low wages, or limited job opportunities.

PRWORA marked a major ideological shift toward viewing welfare through the lens of moral desert–the idea that only those who earn aid deserve government support. However, this also meant that the law clearly distinguished who is “deserving” and who is not, raising a fundamental question about whether the government should get to decide where the line lies. 

Dandridge v. Williams (1970)

Landmark Supreme Court case, Dandridge v. Williams, further solidified the integration of moral desert in American welfare policy by establishing that welfare aid did not have to account for need, only eligibility. The case arose when Maryland established a cap on the amount of welfare a family could receive of $250 monthly, regardless of how many children the family had. Maryland argued that the $250 monthly cap helped distribute limited welfare funds more evenly among families receiving aid. The state also sought to discourage dependency and promote work, reflecting the idea that welfare should provide basic support but not fully meet all needs for larger families.

Families who were benefitting from Maryland’s Aid to Families with Dependent Children statute argued that this provision violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because it punished larger families by providing less money per child than a small family would receive. The Supreme Court upheld Maryland’s regulations on the basis that aid was determined by state-determined eligibility requirements, not individual family needs. To qualify for aid, families had to include a dependent child deprived of parental support, meet Maryland’s residency and income requirements, and comply with state welfare reporting and cooperation rules.

The Court further reasoned that the state had broad discretion over the allocation of the funds and that the state had a rational intention for limiting payments to encourage employment and balance limited public funds. This decision demonstrates a broader moral judgment embedded in welfare policy: assistance should be earned through compliance and perceived effort, rather than guaranteed by genuine need. By prioritizing eligibility and state discretion over equitable distribution, the Court reinforced the notion that poverty is a reflection of personal responsibility.

Why should you care?

Examining policies such as PRWORA and Dandridge v. Williams can reveal how society views poverty and merit. Policy is never neutral, but in particular, welfare policy strongly reflects moral biases. Welfare eligibility requirements force Americans to fit the standards (employment, traditional family structure, personal responsibility) that the government deems acceptable to be worthy of aid, not accounting for the true needs of American citizens. Reflection upon this invites the question of whether current welfare systems promote equity or simply reinforce existing hierarchies of worth. Even further, how can policy be shifted from enforcing moral standards to genuinely addressing structural inequality?

Image Source: Rogers & Company