Philosopher views
UNIVERSAL CLAIMS TO MORALS AND ETHICS ARE INVALID
Download 5.81 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- REGULATIONS DECREASE INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY
- PETER SINGER
UNIVERSAL CLAIMS TO MORALS AND ETHICS ARE INVALID1. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS UNIVERSAL THEORY Robert Nozick, Philosopher, ANARCHY, STATE, AND UTOPIA, 1977, p 77. Perhaps it is best to view some patterned principles of distributive justice as rough rules of thumb meant to approximate the general results of applying the principle of rectification of injustice. For example, lacking much historical information, and assuming (i) that victims of injustice generally do worse than they otherwise would and (2) that those from the least well-off group in the society have the highest probabilities of being the (descendants of) victims of the most serious injustice who are owed compensation by those who benefited from the injustices (assumed to be those better off, though sometimes the perpetrators will be others in the worst-off group), then a rough rule of thumb for rectifying injustices might seem to be the following: organize society so as to maximize the position of whatever group ends up least well-off in the society. This particular example may well be implausible, but an important question for each society will be the following: given its particular history, what operable rule of thumb best approximates the results of a detailed application in that society of the principle of rectification? These issues are very complex and are best left to a full treatment of the principle of rectification. In the absence of such a treatment applied to a particular society, one cannot use the analysis and theory presented here to condemn any particular scheme of transfer payments, unless it is clear that no considerations of rectification of injustice could apply to justify it. Although to introduce socialism as the punishment for our sins would be to go too far, past injustices might be so great as to make necessary in the short run a more extensive state in order to rectify them. 2. MUST FOCUS ON THE REAL WORLD AND IGNORE RIGHTS Robert Nozick, Philosopher, ANARCHY, STATE, AND UTOPIA, 1977, p 77. In the next stage of his argument, Sidgwick goes beyond even the margin of individualism. ``There is no reason to suppose that a purely individualistic organization of industry would be the most effective and economical'' (Politics, Ch. 10 § 3;). Socialism, he holds, meaning in its most intrusive instances, not just regulation, but production carried on by the government, is in order for education, managing forests, building bridges and streets in towns, providing roads, parks, and waterways elsewhere, making banking and insurance available to the poor. He thinks that there are drawbacks to government production, in particular in respect to motivation. It is not easy to make up for the acute interest that individual entrepreneurs, proprietors of their own businesses, bring to production. However, Sidgwick does not regard this as an insuperable disadvantage. In time, motivations may change, for example, toward public spiritedness, in ways favorable to extending socialism, even to the extent of having government production become predominant. He contemplates with equanimity the eventuality of having land come under national ownership (though this would be brought in with due compensation). In every one of these connections, it is a practical comparison between individualistic methods and socialist ones that will decide whether to go forward to more socialism. It is not the restrictions of an abstract doctrine of rights that govern the comparison, furthermore, but a comparison of benefits, in the simplest cases a comparison of the quantities produced with given amounts of resources
1. REGULATIONS HURT THE POWERLESS THE MOST Robert Nozick, Philosopher, ANARCHY, STATE, AND UTOPIA, 1977, p 77. Sidgwick mentions monopoly, but does not give it special prominence or recognize the ubiquity that according to the 20th Century theory of monopolistic competition must be ascribed to it, though it is radically questionable how much of the ideal either on the production side or the distribution side will be left standing when the ubiquity is appreciated. More striking and more important is Sidgwick's omission to say how business cycles affect production and distribution. If full production under the laissez-faire ideal is realized only intermittently, and the economy is periodically depressed, with effects on income and happiness falling with much greater impact on workers---who lose their jobs and livelihoods, and may fall into destitution---than on capitalists, must not these effects be taken into account? 2. REGULATIONS DESTROY INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY Robert Nozick, Philosopher, ANARCHY, STATE, AND UTOPIA, 1977, p 77. On other points, the amendments will have to correct some shortcomings. Sidgwick did not appreciate how weak the bargaining position of a worker is vis-a-vis an employer, even when the employer is a small manufacturer. Hence he objected to establishing minimum hours for work as an infringement of personal liberty. Nor did he appreciate the scope for petty oppression on the employer's part that is opened up by the worker's immobility, given among other things family attachments and the fixed location of some of his few assets (like a house partly paid for). These differences between workers and employers have not gone away as huge bureaucratic organizations have supplanted small employers in the economy private and public.
Peter Singer was born in Melbourne, Australia on July 6, 1946. At age 30, he began his teaching career and has been teaching and writing since. In 1998, he was given a professorship at Princeton University amid much controversy. His writings include discussion of issues like animal rights, what makes an individual or creature a “person,” and democracy. Peter Singer’s educational experiences include a BA with honors from the University of Melbourne in 1967, an MA from the University of Melbourne in 1969, and a BA in philosophy from the University of Oxford in 1971. He has lectured at Radcliff, New York University, La Trobe University, Monash University, and Princeton University (where he currently is a professor). While at Monash University, Singer was a professor at the Center for Human Bioethics, the Director of the Center for Human Bioethics, and co-director of the Institute for Ethics and Public Policy. He was awarded a fellowship by the Academy of Humanities and the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia. He was a senior scholar in the Fullbright Program, and was awarded the National Book Council of Australia Banjo Award for non-fiction in 1995. His works include Democracy and Disobedience in 1973, Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for our Treatment of Animals in 1975, Animal Rights and Human Obligations: An Anthology in 1976, Practical Ethics in 1979, Marx in 1980, Animal Factories (co-author with James Mason) in 1980, Hegel in 1982, Test-Tube Babies: a guide to moral questions, present techniques, and future possibilities in 1982, The Reproduction Revolution: New Ways of Making Babies (co-author with Deane Wells) in 1984, Should the Baby Live? The Problem of Handicapped Infants (co-author with Helga Kuhse) in 1985, In Defence of Animals in 1985, Ethical and Legal Issues in Guardianship Options for Intellectually Disadvantaged People (co-author with Terry Carney) in 1986, Embryo Experimentation in 1990, A Companion to Ethics in 1991, How Are We to Live? Ethics in an age of self-interest in 1995, Individuals, Humans and Persons: Questions of Life and Death (Co-author with Helga Kuhse) in 1994, Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics in 1994, and Ethics into Action: Henry Spira and the Animal Rights Movement in 1998. His works have appeared in nineteen languages. He is the author of the major article on ethics in the current edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. 1 When he was hired at Princeton University, the decision was met with much enthusiasm and controversy. As the President of the University noted, “But some of the controversy arises from the fact that he works on difficult and provocative topics and in many cases challenges long-established ways of thinking -- or ways of avoiding thinking -- about them. Even careful readers of his works will disagree, sometimes quite vehemently, with what he has to say or will reject some of the premises upon which he bases his arguments.” 2 Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 5.81 Mb. Share with your friends:
|