Whether or not unrestricted trade is worth going to war over cannot be said. It can be said and seen, however, how important free trade is. Only by providing information of the market to the public and by allowing trade to happen naturally, can an economy truly flourish. Through the use of “laissez-faire”, as popularised by economists such as Adam Smith, often considered the founding father of free trade and capitalism in the modern world. It is on this basis that the foundations of economic theory are based
The questions of the whether social inequality is justified and the extent of government to address said inequality are some of the foundations upon which societies and economies are built. Two key philosophers on this issue – John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau – differ on this subject. In Two Treatises on Government, Locke holds that individuals have a right to property derived from their labor, citizens consent to the existence of inequality in society, and governments are instituted among men to protect said property. In contrast, Rousseau writes in Discourse on the Origin of Inequality and The Social Contract that inequality should be strictly limited and that governments have a duty to act in the best interest of its citizens by maintaining
In his famous work “The Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals” Kant tries to develop a moral philosophy which depends on fundamental concepts of reason and tries to show that while making moral choices we should use reason. Kant, as an Enlightenment philosopher, places all his confidence in reason. In the first chapter, we generally recognized that an action is moral if and only if it is performed for the sake of duty. Duty commands itself as imperative. There are two types of imperatives as hypothetical and categorical.
Distributive justice by definition deals with the distribution of benefits and burdens across members of a society. Over time, philosophers have argued how these benefits and burdens should be distributed as what results from them fundamentally affects people’s lives. John Rawls, an American moral and political philosopher argued as a liberal “Justice as Equality” by means of his three principles of justice: the principle of equal liberty, equal opportunity and difference. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from harm by others, but also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty (Minogue, Girvetz, Dagger & Ball, 2018). Rawls believed that everyone in society should have had equal political rights, although social and economic inequalities existed, but only under the condition that they were to the maximum advantage of the least advantaged people in society.
Existentialism finds the answer to the absurdities present in the world including issues about human freedom. Dudley (ND) averred that Kant’s idea of freedom is inclusive than the libertarian thought. Further, Kant illuminated that choices are determined by autonomous will and are not subject to restrictions. Likewise, there is freedom of the will and that will is subject to the condition of genuine freedom of choice. Kant wrote the Metaphysics of Ethics (1797) where he described his ethical system that is based on a belief that the reason is the final authority for morality.
Exercising methodological individualism as opposed to methodological holism, Adam Smith employs his fundamental premise: every individual's choice is founded on their natural rational self-interest, to prove that the laws and functions of society are methodical, foreseeable, and governed by nature. Resting on this premise of natural rational self-interest, he foresees what actions individuals will take in a certain context to benefit themselves and employs this predictability as a method in determining how human nature creates the social laws that impact the functioning of society. In illustrating Smith's inductive method, I will first explain his essential premise of self-interest as it exists as an inherent nature. Secondly, I will demonstrate
The major difference between the Utilitarianism and Kantianism theories depends on the idea of what is considered morally right and morally wrong. The Utilitarianism theory focusses on the consequences that are determined by morally actions made by individuals. The utilitarian theory believes that business ethics is based on the well-being of many humans, in an effort to bring forth wealth and eliminate potential harm. Meanwhile the Kantian theory believes that moral respect for human beings is more important. The Kantian theory expects for individuals to make the right decisions for the right reasons, not because it will provoke wealth.
In simple terms, classical liberalism is a theory of liberty. Philosophers who supported this theory included Adam Smith, John Locke and Thomas Malthus among others. Smith insisted on a free economy that is controlled by forces of nature. He argued that, the natural forces of demand and supply can yield maximum economic benefits. While Smith’s argument was based on economic terms, Locke argued in the line of individual rights.
Notably, Boethius does acknowledge that the quest for happiness is a natural habit for human beings, but people are simply trumped by false expectations of what happiness truly is . In Book 3 of his book “The Consolation of Philosophy,” he states that money and riches are poisonous and explicitly declares attributes that come along with them, such as honor and wealth, as harmful and inadequate to true happiness. To him, a person that does not have, is better off than a person that does. His logic follows the concept of attachment. Those who do not have money, are not attached to it, and those who have money will be overwhelmed with
They may give into their harmful desires and choose to do actions that cause them harm. The virtuous person, on the contrary, is of one mind. Base people may experience distresses and pleasures, yet they cannot distinguish between self-destructive actions and good actions. On the other hand, the virtuous person understands the deeper reasons why something is pleasurable or distressful. Hence, it can be said that only the virtuous person truly “shares distresses and pleasures” with themselves.