PROMPT ONE
It is apparent that in the work of Kendall (2015) that he values defining morality and virtue as different rather than as similar. In Morality and Capitalism: A Dialogue on Freedom, Kendall differentiates morality and virtue with various examples and stating that while something might be moral it might not be virtuous. For example, Kendall gives an example of someone being bullied and the witness not intervening. Kendall views this as moral but not vitreous.
Conversely, Sandel (1998) and Wright (2009) are less rigid in their definitions. Sandel, similar to Kendall, defends certain actions as being moral (even if not by the standards of the general population), however Sandel never mentions a difference between morality and virtue …show more content…
Rand feels that it is unnecessary to defend capitalism on the basis of social goods, and instead defends it as the only system, when not interfered with, that values and protects individualism.
Rand’s greatest display of this defense is in her book Atlas Shrugged. Rand separates her characters in groups of capitalists and socialists, and it is not difficult to determine from their characterizations which group she favors (capitalists). Throughout the book, Rand defends even the “immoral” sides of capitalism, that is the parts that might not be popular aspects, like money/greed, which is often attacked as a downside of capitalism (Atlas Shrugged, pg. …show more content…
president and Congress to build a roof over the United States in order to create an artificial market for the purpose of “…employment…and [stimulation of] the economy…”. When Gohmann states that “we can ignore the costs to taxpayers… [ignore] the fact that taxpayers are no longer spending their dollars since the government has taken this money from them… ignore the poor consumer who will end up paying higher prices… and ignore the unseen goods that would have been bought had prices not gone up” it is obvious that this is critique of economists who value the creation of artificial markets, even if those economists do not advocate for such extreme economic barriers like Gohmann sarcastically does. While in some ways it may seem beneficial to erect certain economic barriers, those who advocate for those barriers often ignore the costs that they may bring. This means that erecting barriers often hurts an economy in the long-run and directly inhibits the market from doing its job, which (depending on the economist) is to provide good and services for the collective good of the society and/or to promote individual freedom.
Finally, Frédéric Bastiat’s “A Negative Railroad,” unlike Gohmann’s Letter, blatantly and more openly criticizes the creation of artificial markets and the people of advocate for them.
Whatever the protectionists may say, it is no less certain that the basic principle of restriction is the same
It is apparent that in the work of Kendall (2015) that he values defining morality and virtue as different rather than as similar. In Morality and Capitalism: A Dialogue on Freedom, Kendall differentiates morality and virtue with various examples and stating that while something might be moral it might not be virtuous. For example, Kendall gives an example of someone being bullied and the witness not intervening. Kendall views this as moral but not vitreous.
Conversely, Sandel (1998) and Wright (2009) are less rigid in their definitions. Sandel, similar to Kendall, defends certain actions as being moral (even if not by the standards of the general population), however Sandel never mentions a difference between morality and virtue …show more content…
Rand feels that it is unnecessary to defend capitalism on the basis of social goods, and instead defends it as the only system, when not interfered with, that values and protects individualism.
Rand’s greatest display of this defense is in her book Atlas Shrugged. Rand separates her characters in groups of capitalists and socialists, and it is not difficult to determine from their characterizations which group she favors (capitalists). Throughout the book, Rand defends even the “immoral” sides of capitalism, that is the parts that might not be popular aspects, like money/greed, which is often attacked as a downside of capitalism (Atlas Shrugged, pg. …show more content…
president and Congress to build a roof over the United States in order to create an artificial market for the purpose of “…employment…and [stimulation of] the economy…”. When Gohmann states that “we can ignore the costs to taxpayers… [ignore] the fact that taxpayers are no longer spending their dollars since the government has taken this money from them… ignore the poor consumer who will end up paying higher prices… and ignore the unseen goods that would have been bought had prices not gone up” it is obvious that this is critique of economists who value the creation of artificial markets, even if those economists do not advocate for such extreme economic barriers like Gohmann sarcastically does. While in some ways it may seem beneficial to erect certain economic barriers, those who advocate for those barriers often ignore the costs that they may bring. This means that erecting barriers often hurts an economy in the long-run and directly inhibits the market from doing its job, which (depending on the economist) is to provide good and services for the collective good of the society and/or to promote individual freedom.
Finally, Frédéric Bastiat’s “A Negative Railroad,” unlike Gohmann’s Letter, blatantly and more openly criticizes the creation of artificial markets and the people of advocate for them.
Whatever the protectionists may say, it is no less certain that the basic principle of restriction is the same