Quote:
Originally posted by kerry edwards
Lacking a moral philosophy does not = psychopath.
In this instance, near as I can tell, lacking a moral philosophy means that the hierarchical relationships of business in which power to determine economic reward is distributed unevenly amongst social classes is acceptable because it is 'natural' Applying any principles of justice and equality in these circumstances is just the assertion of arbitrary whim.
I don't see why this kind of attitude towards business relationships is not equally applicable to politics. It is 'natural' for there to be weak and powerful. Politics is the expression of this natural difference. Democracy as the application of the principles of justice and equality in these circumstances is just the assertion of arbitrary whim.
I may be a closet religionist, but if so, I'm not a transcendent universalist. That argument seems to me to a version of the view that if god is dead, everything is permitted. I don't believe that. There is a middle ground. God and universal transcendent morality may be dead, but we still have the ability to think about issues of justice and equality. I think it is good to apply these concepts to our political lives. I also think it is good to apply these concepts in our work and business life. In fact, it seems far more important to apply them to our business lives than to our political lives.
I think inheritance rights cause a huge problem in the Randian hard work, individualist mythology of capitalism. Hard working parents have justified wealth. Lazy children of hard working capitalists often inherit the wealth. MP is arguing that the hard working capitalist has the right to give these advantages to the child, but what right does the child have to get them? If capitalism is good because it allows for hard work which results in creativity and more efficient production, making life better for all, wouldn't it be better to have inheritance laws that only permitted a child to receive an inheritance if the child had proven they were hard working efficient and effective capitalists. Otherwise, the hard work of past generations is being wasted by the system.
|
When we use the words "moral philosophy" we apparently mean two different things.
If everybody in business and life in general were moral then there would be no need of politics or law or military. But since that world doesn't exist on Earth, we find the path of least resistence upon wich to compromise. This is politics.
In my world, competition is usually moral and hierarchies may be moral. But it is never moral, though often safe and/or expedient to force people to behave as we think they should. Morals come from within, not through imposition from outside. It is even immoral to force an immoral person to behave morally--two wrongs don't make a right, in other words.
But in the real world there are buckets of people who think that behaving morally is weak or foolish. These people can never be forced to be moral but they can be forced not to be dangerous.
I completely agree with concern over inheritences and trusts. I do not have a solution that isn't more immoral than the problem.
B