If any of you are deeply interested in political sciences and philosophy, it is a good experience to expose yourself to the questions induced by the professor (Sandel, that is).
I have finally found out, last year, that philosophy is not a field too hard for us to delve into. Rather, you could qualify as a philosopher if you have a vigorous rush of curiosity. Trying to think every aspect of life out, and always question the 'authority's answer'.
We were not born to accept everything thrown at us, and if you truly want to become a person with wisdom, the only path is to think. And do it a lot.
Philosophy is the closest to common people, out of all fields...
For Stiglitz, the renowned Nobel Economics Prize Laureate, he might be a good economist, but frankly I encounter problems while reading his book. I know the whole concept is about American Inequality, as written largely on the cover (= =") but seriously, I couldn't grasp the minor concepts and conclusions... I am drowned by an overflow of statistics and information...
Well, if gathering the massive statistics representing Americans is a difficult job, then this will be the value of the book.
For when do we have the chance to catch a glimpse of the complicated system and get a wide cover of national statistics...
So I appreciate his team's effort. And after browsing through more contents ( but I am already near page 100! sigh), I could try to make some notes on my blog.
I prefer "What Money Can't Buy" over "Justice", because the latter is for university students studying through grueling ethics textbooks. I'm not good at arguing whether the young cabin boy should be(is it fair enough to kill one life and save three?)devoured by the other three shipwrecked sailors(an example from the Harvard "Justice" lecture), as human instinct would determine his fate. In this case most people would surely kill the weak cabin boy to fill their stomachs, unless you are a devoted vegetarian or you simply couldn't bring yourself to eat raw HUMAN meat and prefer to puke to death. Or wait for scurvy to attack.
So, at times of difficulty, it is vegetarian/no-rawmeat idea VS I-want-to-live League, instead of libertarianism VS utilitarianism.
Chewing the rotten wood of the ship and eventually drowning all four people is another option.
Erm, uh, in the money-can't-buy book (LOL!), the battle is between libertarian economists and utilitarian civilians. Of course we should stand by utilitarianism, coz we are the group that's being exploited, man! But once people got the power at the top and become so goddamn rich they might switch to become a libertarian. All because of greed.
Well, for people too confused to get the meaning of the whatsoeverian, LIBERTARIANISM= I strongly believe in individual rights, therefore everyone should mind their own business instead of judging others by social norms and so-called moral values. UTILITARIANISM= key word is utilitize. Maximize overall benefit. Sacrifice some trivial things to ensure best society outcome. Kill few to save thousands. Slogan : " I'm sorry, but you have to understand it's for the greater good."
A vivid example here, is people hiring others to queue up for them. Libertarian: I have the $$$, so I can do pretty much whatever I like with it. As long as I don't break the law. FYI there is no regulations against hiring people to queue up for you. #whisper: and I create job opportunities for the homeless!
Utilitarians, on the other hand, weep and moan and point accusing fingers at the mean libertarians: You evil creature! Queueing up is supposed to be *sob* a civil responsibility. You are promoting inequality %$#@!^%$&*... It is FAIR FOR EVERYONE REGARDLESS OF POSITION AND FINANCIAL MEANS to waste some of their PRECIOUS time in waiting for turns! BTW isn't that what 'turn' mean?
Uh-oh.
You may feel like voting for utilitarianism because it sounds so loving, caring and understanding. Equal, fair, sweet. In this case the libertarians are putting a price tag on the value of time, and you loath them for striding around with greenbacks. But looking back at the previous shipwreck example, you see that a libertarian supports the individual rights to survive, and utilitarian seems ruthless in killing one to save three. Libertarian in the second case of lining-up argues that this is a land with EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES -- they get money for working hard and contributing, so they have the right to use their financial advantage because the basic of their income and properties is built on fair competition in an era of free markets.
Woosh. A lengthy debate.
*Stiglitz laughed at the idea of "a land with equal opportunities".
This theory is applicable to the taxing problem too. Should we tax the rich more to distribute the wealth to the needy? Or should rich people keep their money because they earn it with their brains, effort, relations,
In case two actually, libertarians argued that they maximize social welfare for they made good bargains. To the seller of service and the buyer, both are actually getting benefits. So they fired back at the utilitarians: "Why do you say we are not 'maximizing social welfare? The deal makes two sides happy!"
But we now see that the value of the object is corroded, or corrupted, whatever. We are degrading free services if scalpers exist to sell the prized tickets/chances to people that could afford it.
Cut it short, this whole long,nasty paragraph means that: when goods are tagged with a price, mostly the value of it would be corrupted.
It depends on the situation, because in some cases people say that tagging objects/services with price makes the flow and distribution of goods more effective (blink?). You yearn for it more, then pay more for it. Utilitarians shouted that the ability to afford something does not equal to more prizing and appreciation of the goods obtained.
You choose your own side, in this choosing-side matter I am libertarian as everyone has their right to support their cause. At the end of the day, I am a utilitarian. I firmly believe that, in a chaotic world where you will surely get offended by different opinions, we need some unwritten agreement and restrictions to control the society.
In #example one, the winner of fairness is LIBERTARIAN= every individual has the right to survive
In #example two, the winner of fairness is UTILITARIAN= every individual must learn to wait for their turn instead of putting in money because this is not a game but a social responsibility
Socialism? Maybe.
没有评论:
发表评论