I don't have a coherent thesis yet, this is a first stab at one and it's still in three sentences, but I do think I know what I want to write about.
As humans we are born into very specific situations, which remain enormous influences on our developmental process into citizens of a socity. These situations include but are not limited to pre-formed societies, privilege or lack thereof. As we observe the society we are born into, we experience reactions, which then leads us to shape a sense of morality.
Simple example that will illustrate what I am trying to say:
Someone hits a baby- the baby thinks “ow, pain, pain is bad, therefore hitting is bad.” (Sort of following Rawls’s reasonable and rational)
Also--I have this, and I know they're connected I just haven't quite grasped the concrete link yet...
There is no ideal society, Capitalism is an unsustainable reiteration of a state of nature, and it’s opposite, communism, is unjust, (using Plato/1984/Mao China/USSR). I propose a Social Democracy as a happy medium. Although the capitalist mentality is understandable, that what you earn is yours and only yours, ideally all humans are “reasonable and rational” (Rawls) and ideally then the top one percent of the economic totem pole (ladder? I am blanking on a legitimate way to say this) will see that it is fair, as well as to the benefit of society, to contribute a just amount of their wealth back into society. This top one percent was able to attain their status as so because of the capitalist system in place, in which there will always be some citizens that benefit, but a large majority who do not. As the wealth gap increases, and once this one percent has been established, almost cemented, it becomes impossible for most citizens to be hugely economically successful, no matter what their education or intelligence level may be. Here I will draw slightly on Sartre’s theories of colonialism, namely that the top one percent should see that it is in their best interest to keep some money in the lower classes, because that sustains a market that will buy into whatever industry has made this citizen wealthy in the first place. But hopefully, colonialism aside, the top one percent see contributing back to society as a duty, for in order to ensure success for another generation, they must provide the same environment that they were granted, a society that provides economic opportunity.
What exactly is the connection between the original thesis and the argument you make below? Are they supposed to be connected?
ReplyDeleteIs justice rational and thus morally persuasive? What is the justice of capitalism? Is the sharing of wealth just paternalist? Can there be a real revolution?
why do the people on top feel like they have to contribute back into society why do they care about the next generation? what is that process? what is a just amount?
ReplyDeleteBecause we are born into society and not given a choice about which society that is, we become products of this society and cannot escape its influence. History documents changes in culture, religion and government; societies are determined by where they exist in history, and the individual exists within a society that is at a point on the historical trajectory. Therefore, it is the society that creates the identity of the individual. (Hegel) Then I am applying this thinking specifically to America, when I am talking about Capitalism and Democracy, and wanting the system to shift. I am supposing that all humans are rational and reasonable (Rawls), and outlining what my ideal society would be with citizens shaped by its values and laws. Part of these values, hopefully, would be followed by wealthy citizens who recognize that they have this duty to sustain the state of economic opportunity that they exploited to become one of this top one percent. So this would be my ideal state, where I retain values of personal liberties, especially free speech, but I am simultaneously recognizing that members of societies ruled by tyranny, communism or anything else, cannot be held accountable for their beliefs if all they have known is form of society. I am definitely not saying that ignorance is ethically laudable, but if citizens are given a right to education, they would ideally conclude that their social structure is unjust and must be shifted, which gives cause for rebellion/revolution. The process of conclusion would happen in the initial relationship of action + reaction = morality. This is reminiscent of Hegel’s thesis + antithesis = sythesis, but differs in that it is not a teleological process working towards G-d’s self-actualization.
ReplyDeleteThe justice of capitalism is limited. I see the appeal of “social Darwinism/survival of the fittest,” but at least in the U.S. the capitalist system has become so corrupted that the “fittest” has come to be defined as the citizens born in to privilege, as opposed to others in society.
Sharing of wealth can be considered paternalist, but that’s not all I am talking about. I define this act of the top one percent returning the economic field to a healthy state not as handouts, or Robin Hood-esque “steal from the rich and give to the poor,” but instead as only fair that this top one percent be taxed at at least an equal rate as the rest of the citizens.
Kyle: Thanks! They should ideally care about the next generation... just with the hope that the wealthy are not ALL egomaniacs... And I answered your other questions above- my suggestion would be an equal/ universal tax rate for all incomes.
How, then, do we evolve? If we are each formed by the previous government, how can they differ from one another? Is there a major difference between a proletariat who has risen through the ranks to become wealthy and a bourgeoisie (I'm sure that isn't a singular noun, but whatever) who was born rich (morality wise)? If an entire society is immoral (like nietzche's herd), does this new immorality become morality?
ReplyDeleteIs the goal for each individual to find morality? Or for the society as a whole? Why would the wealthy want to stay in this society if they are just going to have to give their money away? Won't this cause tension between the lower class and the upper class?
ReplyDelete