For instance, Burke denotes that taxes should be essentially proportional, while benefits should not be distributed equally, but rather should favor those who pay more: "He that has but five shillings in the partnership, has as good a right to it, as he that has five hundred pounds has to his larger proportion. But he has not a right to an equal dividend in the product of the joint stock. "(46) Moreover, Burke believes that politics cannot change anything about human nature because nothing would reasonably go against the “natural state or things”. Burke quite skeptical of grand schemes because politics themselves are just a reflection of our human nature. Human beings are not equal, so hierarchy is natural and essentially to burke a positive consequence from inequality.
That being said, someone can have selfish moments while still being a good person and caring for others. There doesn't have to be polar opposites when it comes to selfishness versus selflessness. There's so much emphasis on putting others before oneself that people often forget to look out for their own needs, as shown in this book. Ayn Rand successfully captures the negatives of an overrated ideology and presents an unorthodox perspective on the matter. In conclusion, Equality's true motives behind his work are much more selfish than they first appear to be.
Polemarchus responds by saying, “that the men one believe to be good, one loves, while those he considers bad one hates.” This is the problem with Polemarchus’ view of justice. He could easily be wrong about who is “good” and who is “bad” and you will end up treating someone who has done nothing wrong unjustly. Dividing a country into classes where each person must be loyal to ones own class would never lead to true justice because the different classes would only be loyal to their particular class. The ruling class would benefit more from this because they are in fact the higher
Economic writer Stephen Moore claimed that the original and traditional American concept of equality as "equality under the law” means that the same rules apply to all, not the same results (29). He states that it isn’t possible to have a classless society because it hinders the economic prosperity of the nation. “Equality of rules ensures that all enjoy the same freedom of contract, which empowers them to maximize value and production, and plan investment knowing they can rely on their agreed contractual rights.” (Moore 29). He basically states that competition encourages the advancement of a nation and the equality under law allows for all to have the opportunity to contribute. He clearly understood Vonnegut’s work to be an attack against communism as he uses it in his argument against equalizing legislature
Print. In Mary Arguelles “Money for Morality,” a column written in 1991 Arguelles examines humans and their needs for possessions over the felling of personal accomplishments. Arguelles believes that we should not give each other rewards for doing what should be considered morally correct. We should not be teaching young children that they get a treat every time they do something as simple as getting good grades, that the accomplishment of having your hard work pay off should be enough to satisfy the said child. The writer fears that we as a society have made it to where us humans only do the good deeds because of what we get in reward and not because were doing what any good hearted human should be doing.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that said that the state should interfere as little as possible with people. Utilitarians, differ from Libertarianism, because are primarily concerned with the advocating for human provision of a minimal level of well being and social support for legal resident and citizens. They maintained that society ought to be systematically arranged in whatever way that would best reached this end potentially defend the vase and achieve greater social equality for the needy. Utilitarians think that the right thing to do is whatever produces the greatest amount of happiness. Libertarians disagree.
Addams directly argues with Carnegie when she states, “theory that wealth brings responsibility… in these cases fails utterly” (Addams, 3). She notes that wealth cannot will not interrupt the vicious cycle where immigrant children are no better than their parents, since they are only offered inadequate education, living conditions, and basic services (Addams, 4). The Hull House aimed to counteract these poor conditions, but it is not a philanthropy. According to Addamis, it is a movement of equality, where everyone has something to contribute to the
Social justice generally even more likely to confuse opinion with truth. This category of justice is similarly does not hold objectivity as its central tenant, as modern judicial justice does, but equality. It has a moral foundation that it is both morally right and just for all people to be treated equally. This is a fine point but there is usually no distinction made between what is morally right and what is just. Both terms begin to become interchangeable and slip into the “Half-Truths” that Plato claims are the root of opinion.
For example, a utilitarian would believe that although slavery causes suffering of certain human beings, since slaves are there for the greater good of people, it is justifiable to have slavery. Rawls argues this, as even I would. He says that every individual has a natural right, which even the welfare of everyone else cannot override.
According to Bowles and Gintis (1976) the main factor in determining someone’s success and income is not to their ability but a result of their background and class. The myth of meritocracy does nothing to help the working class, while justifying the privileges of the higher classes, giving the perception that these classes excel through fairness and open methods. The myth of meritocracy is a way of making the working class accepts their role in society. (Kennedy and Power, 2010) The idea of that meritocracy exists is given to students through the hidden curriculum. This results in the working class accepting inequality, thus making it less likely to try to overthrow capitalism.