Final answer:
Utilitarianism supports actions that increase overall utility, which in this case means the government's transfer of money from Manuel to Poornima is justified if it leads to greater societal happiness. Libertarianism opposes this, valuing individual rights over the collective increase in utility.
Step-by-step explanation:
According to utilitarian political philosophy, the transfer of $22,500 from Manuel to Poornima would be justified if it increases overall utility. This assumes that Poornima's gain in happiness from receiving the money is greater than Manuel's loss of happiness from giving it, leading to a net increase in societal happiness. Utilitarianism, founded by Jeremy Bentham and further developed by John Stuart Mill, posits that the moral worth of an action is determined by its contribution to net happiness, also known as utility. In this context, if the government's action of redistributing wealth leads to greater overall utility, it should be adopted.
However, libertarianism, which emphasizes individual rights and freedoms, would argue against such redistribution. Libertarians hold that the government should not violate individual rights, including property rights, for the sake of increasing net social utility. They argue that social justice is achieved when individual liberties are protected rather than when utility is maximized. Therefore, while utilitarianism might support the plan due to its potential to increase overall utility, libertarianism would oppose it on the grounds of individual rights.