The basic form of my question is: What is the best balance between redistributive taxation and allowing people to keep the results of mixing their labour?
I think that a steep slope of taxation, which eventually flatlines at a very high rate, would probably be the best system. This way, even the rich have some financial motivation to continue working, albeit far less than they do in the current American economy. Furthermore, this high rate of taxation for the rich, medium rate for the middle class, low rate for the lower class, and nonexistent rate for the very poor would allow the government to apportion a relatively large amount of money to welfare (or a similar system designed to provide all citizens with at least a decent standard of living). Such a society could also gradually improve the standards of living for those using the welfare-or-something-similar system, as with the advance of technology and society, more resources would become freely available.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Q&A 9, First Answer
The basic form of my question is: Should nations refrain from contributing to climate change, or work to reverse it at the cost of contributing to it temporarily?
I think that they should attempt to strike a balance. Some ways of contributing to climate change, like lack of recycling, littering, or use of unnecessary products (makeup, etc.) which are bad for the environment have nothing to do with researching environmentally friendly alternatives to environmentally negative practices. As such, a nation could enact laws to discourage this type of behaviour, like fines for littering or cash incentives for recycling. However, they should not focus on preventing climate change at the expense of stopping technological progress in areas which can potentially help the environment. At this point, climate change has gone too far to simply stop. Unless humanity takes an active role in actually reversing the effects of climate change, global warming will continue regardless of humanity's contribution to it. Furthermore, most people will likely object far less to developing environmentally friendly technologies than to ceasing their use of technology. Therefore, I do think that nations should focus their resources on developing ways to help the environment, but also implement measures to help prevent further contribution to climate change as long as doing so does not set back this research.
I think that they should attempt to strike a balance. Some ways of contributing to climate change, like lack of recycling, littering, or use of unnecessary products (makeup, etc.) which are bad for the environment have nothing to do with researching environmentally friendly alternatives to environmentally negative practices. As such, a nation could enact laws to discourage this type of behaviour, like fines for littering or cash incentives for recycling. However, they should not focus on preventing climate change at the expense of stopping technological progress in areas which can potentially help the environment. At this point, climate change has gone too far to simply stop. Unless humanity takes an active role in actually reversing the effects of climate change, global warming will continue regardless of humanity's contribution to it. Furthermore, most people will likely object far less to developing environmentally friendly technologies than to ceasing their use of technology. Therefore, I do think that nations should focus their resources on developing ways to help the environment, but also implement measures to help prevent further contribution to climate change as long as doing so does not set back this research.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Means and Ends
The dispute over whether the ends justify the means is both well-known and contentious. However, a less-known issue is the flip-side of this - whether the means justify the ends. An example of this concept would be a person deciding to live an unhealthy life, consuming non-nutritious foods and taking many risks, and then dying early as a consequence. While most people seem to accept that this particular scenario relies simply on personal choice, the issue can also apply to much bigger questions. One of these which has particular relevance today is whether humans should expend their energy and resources trying to develop means of transportation which cause less pollution than most current cars, or whether they should simply continue to utilise cars which run on fossil fuels, as in the short run this is easier. I think that, like that of the better-known 'ends-justifying-means' dispute, the answer to this issue is not clear-cut. In some cases, the means do justify even bad ends. In others, the resultant ends are far too terrible to justify even the most pleasant of means.
Q&A 8, Second Answer
My question is: Does Barnett accurately characterise the point of a rehabilitative justice system?
I do not think so. The system Barnett describes as rehabilitative is, ultimately, a failed system; furthermore, the methods of rehabilitation he describes are not by any means ideal or effective. He suggests that a rehabilitative system works on the concept that punishing criminals will cause them to recognise the immoral nature of their crimes, thus preventing them from engaging in criminal behaviour in the future. However, an ideal and effective rehabilitative justice system would not punish criminals, but would instead provide them with therapy and other non-hostile ways to recuperate from whatever harm prompted them to act criminally in the first place. In the end, such a system would reintegrate former criminals into society in circumstances substantially better than those in which they lived prior to committing their crimes, and hopefully dissuade them from acting criminally in the future.
I do not think so. The system Barnett describes as rehabilitative is, ultimately, a failed system; furthermore, the methods of rehabilitation he describes are not by any means ideal or effective. He suggests that a rehabilitative system works on the concept that punishing criminals will cause them to recognise the immoral nature of their crimes, thus preventing them from engaging in criminal behaviour in the future. However, an ideal and effective rehabilitative justice system would not punish criminals, but would instead provide them with therapy and other non-hostile ways to recuperate from whatever harm prompted them to act criminally in the first place. In the end, such a system would reintegrate former criminals into society in circumstances substantially better than those in which they lived prior to committing their crimes, and hopefully dissuade them from acting criminally in the future.
Q&A 8, First Answer
The basic form of my question is: Apart from the ticking-bomb scenario, are there any cases in which torture is even close to morally justifiable?
I do not think so, provided that the definition of the ticking-bomb scenario is sufficiently broad. By such a definition, not every ticking-bomb scenario necessarily includes a literal bomb. The term simply refers to any situation in which 1. An event will, without intervention, inevitably occur. 2. The event, if it occurs, will cause serious injury or death to a very large number of people. 3. We can stop this event from occurring if we obtain the necessary information. Apart from such a situation, I cannot think of any time when torture would be remotely morally justifiable.
I do not think so, provided that the definition of the ticking-bomb scenario is sufficiently broad. By such a definition, not every ticking-bomb scenario necessarily includes a literal bomb. The term simply refers to any situation in which 1. An event will, without intervention, inevitably occur. 2. The event, if it occurs, will cause serious injury or death to a very large number of people. 3. We can stop this event from occurring if we obtain the necessary information. Apart from such a situation, I cannot think of any time when torture would be remotely morally justifiable.
Response: Appeal of Revenge
In response to Brian's post "Rehabilitation as a Radical Solution" (April 29, 2012):
I think that the appeal of a retributive justice system is its fulfilment of people's wishes for revenge. Regardless of its irrationality, the desire for revenge is a very deeply felt emotion in many, perhaps most, people. A retributive justice system provides people with a way to satisfy this wish without transgressing the bounds of the law, and therefore without risking either personal harm or a guilty conscience. Many people instinctively feel as though those who commit a crime or other harm against someone without justification deserve to have the same thing happen to them. Of course, this leads to an endless cycle of revenge, which in medieval times often went on for generations in the form of blood feuds. A retributive justice system regulates this somewhat, but still satisfies enough of people's wish for retribution that they do not feel wronged as much as they might in a society with a rehabilitative justice system.
I think that the appeal of a retributive justice system is its fulfilment of people's wishes for revenge. Regardless of its irrationality, the desire for revenge is a very deeply felt emotion in many, perhaps most, people. A retributive justice system provides people with a way to satisfy this wish without transgressing the bounds of the law, and therefore without risking either personal harm or a guilty conscience. Many people instinctively feel as though those who commit a crime or other harm against someone without justification deserve to have the same thing happen to them. Of course, this leads to an endless cycle of revenge, which in medieval times often went on for generations in the form of blood feuds. A retributive justice system regulates this somewhat, but still satisfies enough of people's wish for retribution that they do not feel wronged as much as they might in a society with a rehabilitative justice system.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)