I think you're taking some shaky steps and big jumps here, Craig. Firstly, I would understand the basis of ethics to be the education of all the individuals in a society to the level where they would act according to an internalised, conscious morality (I know, very Kantian that) and that in such a society secondary or tertiary external moral derivatives like, "all should be provided for" would be more or less self-evident statements. (Personally, even at this level, I would prefer working on the basis of the implications flowing from such statements as, "The dignity of the human being is sacrosanct" - Article 2 of the German Federal Constitution.)
Secondly, the statement, "A socialist may say that it is immoral if someone isn't provided for, so we should just give it to them," is a parody of any socialist thinking worth mentioning. Personally, I would argue that the phrase from the old curmudgeon of the British Museum expresses it much better, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Thirdly, I would argue that if in the USA, as a primary example of capitalism in the world today, millions suffer from abject poverty, then the capitalist system obviously has problems fulfilling the "goal that all should be provided for." Francis On 29 Jan., 16:54, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > Orn, > In fact I don't think this is about ethics. I think it is more > accidental. That was my initial point. I think that our concerns > overlap, we just so happen to disagree over the better way for our > moral decisions to be played out. For example, maybe our goal is that > all are provided for. A socialist may say that it is immoral if > someone isn't provided for, so we should just give it to them. A > capitalist may say, I agree, it is immoral if someone isn't provided > for. However if we just give it to them, that will destroy the > incentive that moves our society, if that incentive is destroyed then > no one will be provided for, and that would be immoral. In other > words, both sides want all provided for, they just disagree over the > best approach at getting the job done. > > On Jan 29, 8:48 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Fran, I find that you have pointed to the heart of the matter…ethics. > > As far as I see it, if different people have different ethics, it is > > probable they will espouse differing economic and/or social systems > > based upon their personal point of view. This seems so obvious. > > > Many here have studied the subject, formally and informally. And, of > > course, each person has an opinion. For me, some sort of empathetical > > or at least sympathetic analysis of how differing ethoses function > > would be appreciated. And, yes, even in this simple request, my > > personal ethos/morality shines through. > > > I have a few ideas on how to progress, however I’ll wait and see if > > those better versed in the topic can guide us towards a more fruitful > > discussion. > > > On Jan 29, 12:40 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Craig, I don't know if I could summarise any discussion here on the > > > "Eye", where the number of posts has topped 100 - as usual, the > > > discussion meanders, goes off the point, comes back to it, spawns side > > > discussions (eg. Belgium), etc. > > > > Still, having followed and contributed, a couple of things have become > > > clearer for me. Firstly, we should be clear about what we are talking, > > > and refrain from attacking demonised misrepresented parodies of > > > positions with which we tend not to agree, at least if our goal is to > > > achieve a little more wisdom rather than simply win arguments. > > > > Secondly, I personally would give myself the warning to be wary of > > > solutions which make exaggerated statements about the benefits of the > > > systems they propose, whether expressed in the benign regulation of an > > > Invisible Hand, or in the end of alienation and the withering away of > > > the state. > > > > Most importantly, for me at least, many contributions (including your > > > own appeal to charity) seem to point to some kind of primacy of the > > > "ethical" in the organisation of human societies, be it within a > > > "capitalist" or a "socialist" framework. This point came home to me > > > after reading the thought-provoking article by Howard A. Doughty (and > > > doesn't he live up to his name! :-)) in the link provided by Don. Of > > > course, this insight raises many more questions: how do we achieve > > > more consciousness of the primacy of moral values in society/markets/ > > > public life, how do we educate for real morality in society, and, most > > > fundamtentally, what do we really mean by morality and what systems of > > > morality can we propose for our complex, splintered, internetworked, > > > interdependent, open/closed contemporary societies? > > > > What a wriggling can of worms! Back to Plato, Aristotle and all the > > > others ... ;-) > > > Francis > > > > On 29 Jan., 03:59, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Found this little Gem on the net. Not done reading it yet but thought > > > > I would share it. Very interesting. > > > > >http://www.innovation.cc/book-reviews/demonizing.htm > > > > > dj > > > > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > I haven't been able to catch up with this thread, but I don't want to > > > > > abandon it either because when I left it appeared that I was the sole > > > > > defender of capitalism. So in order to get back on track, can someone > > > > > summarize what the issues are that are being covered in this thread. > > > > > I know the general topic is capitalism vs. socialism, with some > > > > > arguing for a hybrid of the two. What's really the fundamental > > > > > argument though? Using the principle of charity with both theories, > > > > > how would we characterize the desired goals of capitalism and > > > > > socialism. Lets begin by ignoring the rhetoric associated with each > > > > > side, and begin by placing them each in their own light as charitably > > > > > as possible. What is it that capitalism claims is its goal? What is > > > > > it that socialism claims is its goal? What is it that a hybrid system > > > > > claims is its goal? I have a hunch that they will all cover some > > > > > common ground as to what they hope to obtain. The argument will > > > > > probably be whether that system can really obtain the goals it claims > > > > > to espouse. Any takers?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
