Throughout the course, the topic
of the distribution and redistribution of goods has frequently been
referenced. Adam Smith believed in three
types of justice which included distributive justice, whereby “goods are
distributed to people in proportion to their merit” (Backhouse 20). Marshall supported a progressive tax system
in which the rich paid more in taxes than the poor (270). In the 1790s, the “‘Speenhamland System’” was
introduced in Europe that used taxation to fund payments to low-wage workers
who worked but had trouble supporting themselves (132-133). Henry Sidgwick developed the idea of a system
where the wealth of society, measured by utility, could be increased by redistributing
goods in a way that items were taken from those who received less utility and
given to those who received more utility from those goods (271). The example of a loaf of bread is given where
“the value of an additional loaf of bread to a poor person may be higher than
its value to a rich person; it may therefore be possible to increase welfare by
taking a loaf from the rich person and giving it to the poor person”
(271). Backhouse goes on to further say
that this system was proposing the idea that “a community’s welfare depends on
how goods are distributed, not simply on the value of goods being consumed”
(271).
Is taking or giving to someone
because they are in a certain position just?
Similarly, is it ethical to take from people who are in a better
economic position to support those who are less fortunate? Or would it be unethical to allow some to
live in great economic health while so many suffer and live in poverty? Do we have an ethical duty to one
another? Does the government have the
right/obligation to help those in need at the expense of the more
fortunate? When the government does get
involved, are they doing so because they truly want to help those in need or
are they doing so because they are seeking their own self-interests and
attempting to gain votes, as described by Buchanan (on page 284 of Backhouse)?
Well, in response to the first question, I think that we need to make the distinction between justice and ethics. It could be justice to allow companies or individuals to keep the entirety of their profits, but that allowance for a particular justice does not necessarily determine whether or not the situation would be ethical. If prescribing to the ethical theory of utilitarianism, then you could say that it is unethical to allow for someone to live in great economic health, while others are destitute. However, from this point we then would need to determine how far for the greater good of humanity we would then proceed. Would this extend to overpopulation and resource allocations for use? I think on a certain level, we all should consider an ethical duty to one another. If an ethical duty to one another is not present, then there is no basis of trust on which to conduct business allowing the economy to function. No one would run the risk of trade or economic transactions, if there was no ethical duty between men. As to the government, it depends entirely on the system of law that you are under. If socialist, then the government has the right to become involved, and if democratic, then I would argue that the government has the duty to become involved. And finally, to the allegations of self-interest seeking in the actions of government involvement, on a certain level, most causes are brought to the fore by members of society who truly care for the topic. However, these causes are championed in the government and major medias by those persons, who would wish to gain votes or more self-serving bonuses for themselves.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Sarah's point on ethical duty being present for economic transactions between men, I find one thing that may present a variance in this. The rise in prominence and power of big businesses, corporations, and internet commerce may have disrupted this notion. Sure we can recognize the duty that lies between men and makes the foundation for economic transactions. But I would think that with big corporations and businesses operating on such a massive scale it has become hard for them to keep up with the individual transactions and the human being related to them. Likewise, internet commerce has taken the personal touch out of commerce, instead dealing with someone that you do not see that is on the other end of a computer. With this lack of personal touch, have businesses lost sight of the human beings on the other end of these transactions, and the ethical duty that is attached to them? Has the idea of individuals and the subsequent ethical duties been replaced by the numbers and efficiency of big business and internet commerce?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Lauren, I think that taking from the rich to give to the poor is completely wrong. This would be like taking away skill from an athlete who has worked his whole life to perfect and giving it to a lesser athlete who hasn't worked anywhere near as hard in order to make them equal. Taking away from the rich and giving to the poor is a great way to make nobody want to work towards anything if they know that they can do significantly less work and still benefit from the people who are working ten times harder than they are.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Trent, I think that the lack of personal, face-to-face interactions had decreased the lack of ethical duty attached. There are so many scams and frauds that occur online and I think that a part of that has to do with the fact that the people committing these kinds of acts will never have to see or face the person they are harming. It's much more difficult to do something unethical to someone's face than it is to do it over a virtual world. You are more likely to act in a different way virtually than you are in a face-to-face situation.