Nicklas, Timothy J

Email Address
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Research Interests

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Publication
    How Personally Relevant Cases of COVID-19 Influence Individuals’ Level of Concern towards the Virus
    (2021-04-05) Nicklas, Timothy J
    This paper presents the findings of a statistical analysis exploring the ways in which personally relevant cases of COVID-19 influence an individual's level of concern towards the virus. The analysis makes use of public opinion data collected throughout the pandemic by a market research company called Ipsos. This study conducts an OLS regression analysis using three different samples of data from three distinct periods of time during the pandemic. The paper addresses each component of the study's deductive approach, outlining everything from the initial hypothesis to the conclusions and broader implications. Ultimately, this study does show evidence that an individual's personal experience with COVID-19 influences their attitudes towards the virus. This is consistent with the findings of previous psychological research that has explored how personally salient information affects humans' attitudes and beliefs.
  • Publication
    Rejecting Ingrid Robeyns’ Defense of Limitarianism
    (2021-04-05) Nicklas, Timothy J
    This paper critically evaluates the argument put forth by the philosopher Ingrid Robeyns in her work entitled What, if Anything, is Wrong with Extreme Wealth. Robeyns holds the Chair Ethics of Institutions at Utrecht University, and her academic research focuses on issues pertaining to contemporary political philosophy and applied ethics. In her aforementioned publication, Robeyns defends the political theory called limitarianism, which holds that there should be an upper limit to the amount of income that an individual can hold. Limitarianism, like many other political philosophies, presents a view of how resources ought to be distributed in society based, in part, on certain ethical principles. Robeyns explicitly outlines two arguments in support of limitarianism as a political philosophy: (1) by eliminating excess wealth, limitarianism prevents the super-rich from undermining political equality and (2) by redistributing this excess wealth, there will be more resources available to address any urgent unmet needs or collective action problems in society. This paper carefully reviews and ultimately rejects Robeyns’ defense of limitarianism as a theory of political philosophy. This paper sets out to highlight both the flaws in the basic premises of limitarianism as a theory as well as the shortcomings of the specific arguments that Robeyns’ constructs in support of the theory itself.