Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
58 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
n: According to Nathanson, there are two arguments often given for denying that the wide economic disparaties he’s described are unjust. What are these two arguments? |
-everyone agrees poverty is bad for people that endure it, some people deny that it is an injustice -distinguish what are misfortunes from injustices -gov't use tax money to prevent poverty, some argue it is wrong to force people to assist those who are poor |
|
|
n: What are some different views about what constitutes a just wage? What are some complications that Nathanson mentions for these views? |
-some think people should be paid equally -others should get what they deserve -if someone works harder, more responsibility and contribute to society= make more than others complications: -how do we decide what occupation is more important? -how to tell who works harder; how can we tell if it benefits/
|
|
|
n: In what ways does the absence of economicjustice in a society jeopardize the legitimacy and stability of that society’sgovernment, according to Nathanson |
-programs unjusts to better off=gov't will lose legitimacy -taxing causes ensalvement -whether or not they benefit citizens is morally legit |
|
|
n: Is Nathanson going to be discussing ideal economic systems, or actually existing societies? Why? |
-discuss ideal econ systems -capitalism, socialism, and welfare state |
|
|
n: LC property |
individuals, private companies |
|
|
n: Socialism property |
society as a whole (public/ collective) |
|
|
n: WS property |
some private, some public ownership key resources |
|
|
n: LC production/ distribution |
private econ actors; free market |
|
|
n: Socialism production/ distribution |
-state decides gov't |
|
|
n: WS production/ distribution |
some market -some gov't involvement in distribution/ regulation |
|
|
n: LC allocation |
-market value of their goods and/ or labor -plus gifts -charity and inheritance |
|
|
n: Socialism allocation |
-what you need -public & social |
|
|
n: WS allocation |
-market value + gifts -guaranteed publicly funded access to some resources |
|
|
n: Explain both the “common-sense” reasons for thinking that capitalism best promotes human well-being, and the cautionary notes that Nathanson offers about this conclusion (pp. 19-20). |
-practical argument: cap does best what econ systems are supposed to do- goods and services -moral argument: capitalism produces the best results for all those who are affected berger-industrical cap generates greatest productive power; no other socioecon system has been able to generate comparable power;long-lasting production -nathanson: cap maximizes productivity but no one strives for that -every person has diff reason for participating in the market but all are self-seeking - |
|
|
What does it mean to say that capitalism is the best economic system from a utilitarian point of view? Supposing it is, does that necessarily mean that it is the morally best system? Why or why not? (Hint: see Nathanson’s “two concerns,” pp. 21-22.) |
-both practically and morally -overall level of well-being produced by actions or policies is the sole standard by which we determine right/wrongness -good overall effects on human well-being two concerns: -advocates of market cap should see that whatever support capitalism receives from the utilitarian standard is conditional -utilitarians aren't ideologically committed to cap -if other systems are beer at improving human well-being, utilitarinism will support 2: it is possible to imagine actions or policies that are immoral even though they maximize over all well-being ex: slavery -systems must clarify with justice |
|
|
In what ways does a market (i.e. capitalist)economy seem to do well at giving people what they deserve? |
-desert -reward vs punishment - people who benefit others-get big reward -commit crimes, harm others- severe punishments -morevaluable to someone, stronger desire for it -also on how hard someone works; work more=earn more |
|
|
What is economic justice, according to Nozick? What constitutes injustice, in his view? |
-achieved through a process of voluntary exchanges -injustice: exchanges are done improperly, fraud or coercive transfers -just: practice of people using their resources as they witsh to |
|
|
What does it mean to say that Nozick has a“historical” account of economic justice |
LC is a "historical" view that accepts whatever outcome arises from people's free choices -shouldn't conform to a particular pattern |
|
|
What is the point of Nozick’s “Wilt Chamberlain” example? |
-many people are willing to pay extra to watch hif each person is entitled to pay extra money to see chamberlain play and does do voluntarily, nothing unjust in Chamberlain possessing the money -**need to look at how people got earning and if it's legitimate |
|
|
What is wrong with government intervention in the free market, according to Nozick? |
-it's immoral -gov't role must be limited to protecting process of free exchanges -as long as exchanges are voluntary, gov't interference is wrong |
|
|
Socialists grant that capitalism is enormously productive, but deny that this means it best promotes human well-being. Why? . . . Explain the concept (and its relevance here) of “marginal utility.” |
-increase in total amount of goods does not increase level of human well-being -if goods are enjoyed by a small group, majority denied access - then growth of total productivity will not being about an increase in well being -LC does not succeed in producing goods that enhance overall well-being -the value depends on what the other person has -having more provides less value to you, have enough to satisfy needs already -ex: apple analogy - |
|
|
What are the two reasons why “severe inequalities are an inevitable result of capitalism”? |
1-gains and losses are cumulative; if someone negings with more resources than others=have an advantage -can continue for a long time ex: inheritance= competitive advantage over others 2- these growing disparities between rich and poor has to do with the labor market -how much paid depends on supply and demands for labor -large pool of people that need work= low wage -need unskilled workers to tend to machines (new)= lowers demand for workers and increase supply and making anyone qualified for work |
|
|
Nathanson observes that “hard work and the production of valuable things . . . are not major factors in determining the distribution of wealth” in capitalist societies. What reasons does he offer in support of this claim? |
-rich people already have money, some hardly work, still get money -inheritance -people with few skills, work a lot, multiple jobs=get paid low -greater contribution to theories doesn't ensure greater compensation; ex: basketball vs teacher |
|
|
Do all defenders of capitalism believe that it rewards the deserving? Why or why not? |
-accept logic and support while acknowledge this it doesn't reward desert -justice of entitlement system if most transfers are done for a reason, not all deserve what holding they receive -transfers must be VOLUNTARY (Novik) -inheritance is justified because donors are entitled to give their money to whoever they wish |
|
|
What two approaches to the question of desert are available to defenders of socialism, according to Nathanson? |
1: ideal of basing distribution on desert -emphasis on equality -level of resources where people don't differ 2: idea deserve =needs -don't differ in wide disparities -give people what they deserve by equal distribution |
|
|
According to socialists, “the libertarian [capitalist] conception of freedom is too narrow.” Why? . . . Clearly explain the distinction (and its relevance here) between negative freedom and positive freedom. |
-only see negative freedom -free to do whatever, no interference -doesn't use positive freedom=everyones use to resources -LC doesn't provide equal liberty for all |
|
|
Socialists deny that capitalism best promotes liberty, claiming that “liberty itself can undermine liberty.” Specifically, they point out that (in Nathanson’s words) “in a libertarian capitalist society, people with resources can engage in any transactions they want. As a result, people without resources must live with significant limitations on their liberty.” Make sure that you understand the examples of this phenomenon that Nathanson gives, and that you can supply one or more examples of your own. |
-ex: children born to poor am will not be free to obtain edu required for developing mental capacities or national health -results in lack of freedom for poor children -wealthy people leave inheritances for children limits freedom of poorer children -advantages in economy are cumulative, freedom to some will increase while others will decrease -socialists: system that guarantees people equal shares of social product would produce vast areas of freedom- must take away liberty to accumulate unlimited amounts of freedom |
|
|
Defenders of libertarian capitalism assert that, contra socialists, “the productivity of the capitalist system is closely linked to the unequal rewards that result from it.” (That is, in their view, distributing resources more equally will diminish the size of the economic “pie”—there will be less to go around.) Why? |
-high productivity is the direct result of incentive for individuals to be productive -if succeed, increased earnings -benefit= one to purchase goods and necessities -Lc believe socialismpeople can't earn more money than someone else -motivated by rewards; if don't have that, incentive to work would decline, economy wouldn't be productive enough to support |
|
|
Socialists claim in response that, under socialism, work itself will be different (so that people are more likely to want to do it) and people will be different (that is, motivated by things other than direct economic self-interest. How do they support these claims? In what ways would (or might) both people and work be different in an economy organized on socialist rather than capitalist principles? |
say caps make assumptions about human motivation and work -socialism: freed from competition and struggle to survive, tendencies will be highly developed and their need to act self-interestedly will diminish -work will become means for people to realzie themselves in a productive, satisfying activity according to marx: to succeed, people motivations must be different; production and incentives must be transformed; people must work in order to receive the goods needed for living and amounts of goods people receive is strictly proportional to the work the y do |
|
|
On p. 45, Nathanson mentions a “vicious circle” that threatens to undermine the socialists’ argument here. What is it? How did Marx try to solve this problem? |
for socialism to succeed, peoples motivations must be different, but for them to be idifferet, must inhabit a diff social system to move from cap to socialism -motivations must change for it to work |
|
|
How does Nathanson assess the relative strengths of the capitalist and socialist views about productivity and human motivation? (pp. 45-47) |
cap: money is the motive, self-seeking socialism: work to receive goods to survive... idk idc |
|
|
Welfare state advocates contend that “we can have the best of both worlds—high productivity and a somewhat more equal distribution.” How? |
-everyone has a good life -have high productivity and distribution -taxing people- won't affect people too much, people will still make money -assist people in need |
|
|
Nathanson points out that there are limits to the “utilitarian ideal”—that is, to the idea that we ought to do whatever produces the greatest amount of overall well-being, no matter what. What are the limits? (Hint: see his discussion of Situations A and B on p. 50.) |
-u: only leads to practical conclusions when it is linked to empirical beliefs about the most likely effects of doing one thing rather than the other -A is all the same but B goes up u theorists care about total well-being a pure u.theory does not even permit doubts about preferability only cares about total well-being and NOT how it is distributed |
|
|
Explain the distinction between institutional desert and moral desert. Which one is relevant when we ask questions about the overall justice of different economic systems? Why? |
i: people get what they deserve and it is obvious -presupposes a set of acceptable rules -helps make judgements but does NOT tell which rules are more morally acceptable m: values of their actions -effoet and contribution and abilities -just economic system: moral institutional can't help assess systems like socialism or cap |
|
|
Explain the distinction between personal desert and human desert. To what extent, and in what ways, does each play a role . . . · . . . in a libertarian capitalist system?· |
personal: varies from person to person human: we all share |
|
|
Explain the distinction between personal desert and human desert. To what extent, and in what ways, does each play a role . . . · . . . in capitalist vs in a socialist system? |
cap: personal: get awards to deserving people human: no socialism: personal: no; rejects awards human: yes, people get what they humanly deserve |
|
|
Nathanson contends (again) that a welfare state does better than either pure capitalism or pure socialism with respect to rewarding the deserving. Why? Specifically, how does a welfare state solution . . . . . . provide (to some degree) for both personal desert and human desert? . . . recognize and respond to the fact that “much of what people possess is undeserved”? |
believes in both -resources are distributed according to market value, supplemented by gifts and some level of guaranteed funding -taxing |
|
|
Nathanson thinks that “making [personal desert] the centerpiece of a system of distribution would be both difficult and dangerous.” Why? |
-1 some don't personally deserve rewards but can benefit economy= if there's a scarcity of a particular skill, it may be worth paying more for that -2 can judge that people earn more or less than they deserve, doesn't mean that the criterion of desert can provide us with a precise scale for determining income -3 construct or implement a diff scale, would grant gov't agencies dangerous power |
|
|
Study Nathanson’s review of libertarian vs. socialist conceptions of freedom. How does Nathanson argue that “socialists have the better case in this debate about how to define freedom”? (See p. 70.) |
lc: negative freedom -freedom from interference by other people s: positive freedom -the ability to do thing we want to do nathanson: lc is too narrow, -socialist should stress positive freedom- -we don't just care about the interference of others, also care about being prevented from doing what we want by situations |
|
|
Some people believe that freedom is inevitably threatened in socialist societies. Why? Does Nathanson agree? (What kinds of conclusions does he think we can, and cannot, draw from the historical record of actual socialist societies?) |
-it can be defended in theory and history history: stalin -gov't power control, colonialism, f*ing nuts, high authoritarian and centralized -theory: any gov't powerful enough to control production and distribution of good will also be powerful enough to by tyrannical -yes it can pose a threat to liberty, can't overlook it -capitalism has threats to freedom as well -if some groups have too much power/source can have power over others -having large amounts of money can lead to unequal amounts of political power |
|
|
Nathanson points out that, whatever the threats to liberty may be in socialist societies, “liberty can also be threatened in a capitalist state.” How? |
-capitalism has threats to freedom as well -if some groups have too much power/source can have power over others -having large amounts of money can lead to unequal amounts of political power |
|
|
According to Nathanson, in what ways does the welfare state do better than either capitalism or socialism, with respect to protecting and enhancing freedom? |
-by guaranteeing everyone a share of resources, goes beyond negative freedom toward positive freedom -leaving market intact and allowing econ institutions to be independent from gov't -recognizes the importance pos and neg -recognizes resources and the threat a large gov't has -with taxes, enahnces liberty of badly off citizens while minimal interference with better off people |
|
|
What are “patterned conceptions of justice,” and why does Nozick object to them? (Not Nathanson, but Nozick—our resident libertarian!) Hint: what does it mean to say that “liberty upsets patterns”? |
-gov't upsets liberty patterns -libretarian cap is the only system compatible with liberty and justice -resources ould be distributed= incompatible with liberty -let people act how they want, no pattern will be maintained |
|
|
Nathanson himself argues that not all patterns are upset (or at least equally upset) by liberty. As an example of one that isn’t, he mentions what he calls the “’guaranteed minimum’ conception of justice.” Briefly explain what this is, and why a society organized according to this “pattern” would still have a very high degree of liberty. |
-pattern, could tell whether a distribution conform to the pattern by seeing whether anyone falls below the minimum required for a decent life -be apart of market economy -also meet goals socialist want to achieve -gives basic need to citizens while leaving capitalism -gives liberty |
|
|
According to libertarians (like Nozick), taxation is an outrage against liberty; as Nozick says, it is “on a par with forced labor.” How does Nathanson argue that this view of taxation is “deeply flawed”? |
-novik: taxation is wrong, forced labor is wrong= not voluntary -like slavery -but accept some taxation= like for cops nathanson: taxation is necessary, w/o it gov't can't do tasks -if lc's agree with some sort of taxation=welfar state -it's a minimal state |
|
|
What is the “emergency relief state”? Explain why, according to Nathanson, the emergency relief state is better than pure capitalism with respect to the three values of well-being, desert, and freedom. |
-very minimal -provide goods to citizens only when their lack of resources are threatns them either with loss of life or sever injury nathanson: have a legal right to emergency relief, uses taxes -better at promoting: -well-being= prevent substantial forms of harm -desert=deserve some type of decent treatment and liberty =provides a little pos liberty |
|
|
What reasons does Nathanson give for thinking that the emergency relief state, though better than pure capitalism, is still woefully inadequate? |
-better at promoting: -well-being= prevent substantial forms of harm-desert=deserve some type of decent treatmentand liberty =provides a little pos liberty |
|
|
What is the comprehensive welfare state [CWS]? How is it different from socialism? |
-states distributes resources/goods for a decent well being -what people need depends on society -diff from socialism: has a floor but doesn't have a ceiling -no one will like die but there will be inequalities |
|
|
Why does Nathanson think that it’s neither possible nor desirable for him to specify exactly how much of which resources a “decent level of well-being” requires? |
-all societies need different thing -depends on location and time ex: phone analogy |
|
|
Nathanson argues that the CWS is better than “an emergency relief state or any state that provides less than what is needed for a decent level of well-being.” Explain how he supports this conclusion with respect to each of our main values: well-being, desert, and freedom. |
well being: level of resources we choose will be the one that provides the greatest balance of benefits over losses -gives decent level to all desert:all peoples deserving decent and humane treatment freedom:resources to live -don't have to be exploited for awful jobs -freer because of safety net |
|
|
Nathanson points out that public opinion about the welfare state is “mixed and ambivalent.” In what ways? |
-people who want to cut assistance to the poor often want assistance to continue so that children will not suffer -people who oppose taxes and big gov't still want medical expenses covered |
|
|
Responding to the libertarian John Hospers, Nathanson contends that “the same arguments he gives to justify the government’s role in providing all citizens with police protection are precisely the reasons why the government should provide all citizens with other resources that are necessary for a decent life.” Explain—what does Nathanson mean, and how does he argue for this? |
-we can't protect ourselves from illness and injury, natural disasters, econ and social changes -no reason why the gov't should be limited in helping us -need to provide resources |
|
|
Some people object to the CWS on the grounds that it encourages dependency, a negative character trait. How does Nathanson respond to this criticism? |
People who really want to promote self-reliance above all else ought to be anarchists. Only thing provided is police protection so we need to dependent on others for physical security. There are different understandings of dependency which comes from the eye of the beholder defining dependency. |
|
|
How does Nathanson respond to the objection that the CWS, by providing everyone with a guaranteed income, would undermine people’s motivation to work and thus decrease overall well-being? |
Some people work just to work. Not necessarily just for money.
|
|
|
How does he respond to the objection that the CWS rewards the undeserving, in that it provides guaranteed resources not only to those who can’t work, but to those who can work but don’t? |
whatever who cares philosophy sucks
|
|
|
How does Nathanson respond to the objection that the CWS goes too far, because the state should concern itself only with ensuring equal opportunity for everyone? [Hint: what does he mean by saying that “opportunities are inseparable from outcomes”?] |
By everyone having the same opportunities then no one can complain about being cheated out of something, even though it is unrealistic to have people have the same chances as others. |
|
|
In Chapter 11 (pp. 134-136), Nathanson poses the question of whether citizens of a CWS would have reasons for political allegiance to their government. How does he answer this question? |
-depends on whether the laws are just -1 everyone is a potential beneficiary of such as state -everyoe falls on bad time ex: ill health, nat disaster -2while well off citizens may resent paying taxes, all benefit, i guess -3doesn't stop well off from benefitting from their fortune |
|
|
How does he respond to the objection that his advocacy of a CWS is “utopian and unrealistic”? |
-our sense of realistic is dictated by what now exists -we can't anticipate future events -don't know what is possible, must strive to bring about what we believe is required by justice -as long as deprivation, exploitation, and domination exist, societies will be open to tinking this is unjust |
