The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The economics of equity and justice > Comments

The economics of equity and justice : Comments

By Kasy Chambers, published 30/6/2009

The traditional distance between ethics and economics - or between the community sector and business - is artificial.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. All
“What counts as an offence against the person?”
The initiation of aggression: assault, battery, murder, wounding, slavery, false imprisonment, threats of same.

“And why do I assume that such offences are wrong when I write to you?”

Because they must logically be the basis of ethics and human society?

“When they [rights to person and property] conflict, which must give way?”

What would be an example of them conflicting?

“Why is causing pain to someone (when the body will recover) morally worse than destroying the vegetables in his garden?”

Perhaps because not violating the person is the primary right from which property rights derive?

“Why should we require a older person in a lifeboat to give up their place to a child?”

I don’t know. Should we? Why? We might prefer the child as of sentiment, but not as of right.

“How are we to distinguish the cases where preventing suicide is justified from those where it is not?”

I don’t think we can.

Q.E.D.
Posted by Wing Ah Ling, Tuesday, 7 July 2009 3:00:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Poverty is the original and universal condition of mankind.”
This is not only unsubstantiated, it is demonstrably untrue. Anthropologists have noted that that -at least in the basics- aboriginals around the Sydney area had a higher standard of living than the European colonials in the early 1800's.
In hunter gatherer societies, there could only be 3 factors which could cause poverty;
Resource -environmental degradation – drought, flood.
Resource (Environmental) denial – slavery, or domination by a stronger tribe.
Resource (Environmental) insufficiency – overpopulation leading to a Malthusian event.
The tragic irony is, we have imposed or are imposing, all 3 of these scenario's on ourselves.
There are only 2 ways to look at wealth. Either it is purely a product of human invention and ingenuity -in which case it is limited only by imagination, or;
It is inextricably tied to resources.
If the former is true, then it doesn't matter how much money we give the poor; we have an infinite supply. To condemn the poor to death by denying a share of an infinite resource is clearly immoral.
If the latter is true, then obviously, the larger the share one person takes, the less there is left for anyone else.

“A classic example is Burma: traditionally poor, then the wealthiest country in south-east Asia under the British...”
The wealthiest country FOR THE BRITISH. The vast bulk of the Burmese people lived in poverty, which is why they wanted to kick the Brits out. Same in Rhodesia; even working class Rhodesians had a great SOL.
The white ones, at least. Sadly, in both cases the new ruling parties learnt too well, from their former masters.
Posted by Grim, Tuesday, 7 July 2009 5:24:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“The process by which the Gates and Buffets become wealthy – profit - *is the same process by which the masses have sovereignty in directing the allocation of capital to satisfy their most urgent needs.*” -In a misregulated market environment.
It's interesting that the anti redistributionists hate regulation, but don't complain about patent and copyright laws.
They complain about paying taxes, but don't complain about having a police force, to protect their wealth. Since the wealthy obviously have more to protect, why shouldn't they pay more?

“It’s the other way around. It is the accumulation of capital under modern capitalism that causes the general rise in the standard of living.”

Capitalists have never shown any interest in raising the standard of living in the workforce; in fact just the opposite. It has been unionism which has improved the average SOL, in spite of the Capitalists. We are seeing the truth of this today, since Hawke's Accord effectively strangled the union movement the gap between rich and poor (between the 'median' and 'average' wage) has grown egregiously. The working classes in this country had the best SOL back in the sixties and seventies, when the union movement was relatively strong.
Today, school teachers have just about managed to elevate themselves out of the working class, simply because they have managed to maintain their union.
And lastly, the unkindest cut of all:
“Yes, there will always need to be some provision for the poor; and the wealthier we are, the more we can and will provide.”
Another statistic from Poverty facts and stats:
“The poorest 40 percent of the world’s population accounts for 5 percent of global income. The richest 20 percent accounts for three-quarters of world income.”
How rich do you have to be, before you can and will provide?
The truth is: For every $1 in aid a developing country receives, over $25 is spent on debt repayment.
This is how the rich look after the poor.
For the vast majority of the Human race, your system just doesn't work, Jardine.
Posted by Grim, Tuesday, 7 July 2009 5:27:19 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And some more. Why, using ownership as the basis of argument, is it wrong to cheat in a sport? To sledge in cricket or shout while serving in tennis? How do you drive the ordinary obligation to save someone's life, if you can do so at minimal cost to yourself? How do you demonstrate the ordinary virtues of thoughtfulness, kindness, politeness, generosity? What is the basis of special obligations, ie those that you owe to some individuals and not to others, like those of parents to their children?

Wing Ah Ling, you continue to confuse embodiment with ownership. The reason I keep drawing Jardine's attention to the point is that he, like you, supposed that a person must assume the value of property, of ownership, when engaging in a discussion with others. That derivation is doubly fallacious. To be blunter, it is incompetent rubbish.

In none of that do I assume that it is morally acceptable for the state or anyone else to own you. Indeed, I do not think that it is.

I'll ignore your prejudices, but instead point out that I was not appealing to authority at all.
I was illustrating the way that moral theorising works, so that is not the case, as both you and Jardine supposed, that views about the foundation of arguments are arbitrary absent your particular argument. (I'd like to call it 'your transcendental argument' if I may--that's a technical term.)

I'd like to see how you derive the rights you want to from the value of embodiment. I suspect that what you really need is autonomy. That would solve a lot of your problems--possibly even the ones that relate to justice, if you are prepared to accept an obligation to promote autonomy.
Posted by ozbib, Tuesday, 7 July 2009 5:29:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The preference for saving children ahead of adults has been argued on the grounds that the adults have had a life, while the children have not. It is not a matter of sentiment (so the argument goes) but of duty. The principle that property is the ultimate value would imply that I would be entitled to keep my place in the boat. I can't at present see how a principle of that the person is not to be violated, or even a principle of the value of autonomy, would do the trick, without a second, independent principle of justice. Something about maximising the outcome for the worst off person, perhaps. There are arguments about how gross inequalities infringe autonomy; but I don't think they deal with the boat.

Ah-Ling, I note that near the end of your last post, you propose a new position, that the principle of not violating the person is the primary right, and that property rights are derived.
My apologies for not crediting this willingness to consider alternative positions. If you go further down this track, I think the next step is to ask what it is about persons which makes it wrong to violate them. The answer is likely to provide reason to believe that the principle of property entitlement has exceptions. But by way of compensation, you may fair better then with a new transcendental argument.
Posted by ozbib, Tuesday, 7 July 2009 5:50:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy