We started off this course with authors such as Mills and Rawls, who debated the abstract theories of Justice. These philosophical debates of justice such as if the first world countries are obligated to aid third world countries are fascinating as well as important. Young, on the other hand, realizes the importance of looking beyond these abstract theories. If it is agreed that we should aid the third world countries, the equally important and complex debate stems of how we should help them. As a Business Management Economics major my mind often drifts towards imagining new strategies on what would be the most efficient way in which we could do this. As a business has many different departments, there are many different aspects of this goal that require innovative and thorough plans. For example, marketing – how can we get the people of the first world to want to help the people of the third world? Perhaps if we try to better relate the individual people and families in the first world to the individual people and families of the third world. Of course another main focus, which Young discusses, is distribution. I’m not sure if I completely agree with his idea that we should only seek to equally distribute material goods. As an economist, I think the distribution plans should focus on what is the most efficient way we can stimulate their economy so that they will be able to increase their own revenue and GDP. Self-respect, opportunity, power, and honor are issues Young argues distribution should not cover, but distribution of opportunity through distribution of resources such as education (which is not material) should, in my mind, be the key focus.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think The Philosopher vs. The Economist is a notion that has many implications with our topic, and Liberalism in general has mutated from a political theory to an economic distinction. Liberalism, in current US politics, is often used as a derogative, referring to the politics of high taxes and massive government spending for welfare and other social interventions. Being tagged a “liberal” can be the death knell for a politician. The word is even sometimes referred to as the “L” word. Today, even a liberal does not want the label “liberal” because it would hang them way out to the left of electability, to the political wasteland where the “C” word, Communist, now dwells. There is now an ambiguity in the definition of Liberalism, because the current, common usage of the term refers more to economics than political theory, and so Liberalism has different meanings to philosopher and an economist--or a Republican for that matter. The colloquial use of the term "liberal" refers to a left wing democrat, who favors government spending for social/welfare programs. Mill's original theory is pure philosophy, an eloquent proclamation for individual liberty in the context of a political system, yet today, liberalism is politicized and often derogatory. I am not sure where Mill's original concept of Liberalism would fit into our current political system. Any ideas?
Post a Comment