' Egalitarianism promotes self-respect and overall autonomy of the

Transcription

1 camination, Social and Political 2a. Kai Nielsen's first principle states that Radical ' Egalitarianism promotes self-respect and overall autonomy of the citizens. Furthermore, in order for there to truly be a worthwhile system of social equality all citizens must have available to them the same level of meaningful work, ample opportunity for self-determination, equal chances at political participation, and full access to material goods and services. These freedoms, Nielsen believes, will give rise to equal moral autonomy and equal self-respect. Awareness of the inequalities should organically raise the consciousness of the people and bring out a natural "Gemeinschaft," as he puts it. This is the idea that a society or community performs as one familial unit. There is an underlying assumption here. One that demands a society where there are enough natural resources. If there were a requisite amount of abundance, people would be willing to share. In scarcity, we will be more likely to fend for ourselves and defend our interests. Nielsen states that people are generally morally equal, they want to do the right thing, and given that, their T~oquisito basic needs, such as, shelter and sustenance, are met; they will do the right thing. Moreover, it would be necessary to be concerned with an elite few attemptinq to form an oligarchical system of control. Nielsen says it would be unlikely to form in the first place because of the nature of cooperation 1

2 a+ that this society would have ebtained. Additionally there would be a "democratic institution" in place that would "bring about the demise" of this group should it form. Principle two spells out the requirements for equality, or actions and distributions necessary to follow once the prerequisites from the first principle have been met. He uses this second principle to rebut the capitalist assumptions of a free-market laissez-faire style of economy and government, namely, it questions Nozick's assumptions that people are selfish and rational. Nielsen argues, this not how people are necessarily. Maybe people are more caring and communal; even if they really are self-interested, it is because they have been conditioned to be that way. In stark contrast to Nozick's idea that people are hard-wired to be selfinterested, simply put, Nielsen asserts that humans are plastic and that our character could go either way, depending on how we are raised. Income and wealth must be divided so that everyone gets an equal share and it must be sufficient to provide an environment in which the first prerequisite, moral autonomy and self-respect, is able to continue unimpeded. For example, unless everyone has equal basic needs met they will revert to doing whatever is necessary to meet them. This includes, but is not limited to, immoral acts such as stealing to provide for unmet basic needs. Differing abilities among the people require accommodation to disabilities and alteration to the plans needed 2

3 to compensate for the burdens of society. Everyone must take part in the "dirty jobs" or otherwise undesirable tasks that serve to sustain logistics, infrastructure, and general lower level functions (i.e. jury duty, waste management, construction and road repair, etc.). 2b. Nielsen acknowledges that the intervention from government that would be necessary to prevent interruptions to societal patterns would be a gross infringement on ivil liberty and contrary to the ideology of liberty. The dictatorial elite pulling the strings would be too great a cost and the democracy would be impossible. However, he believes that if the given population were slowly converted (one at a time, perhaps) that there would not be a huge shock to the system and a tyrannical government would not be necessary. The elite few would initially be strongly opposed to the notion and process but through an ideological war of attrition, they would slowly be eliminated and the suppressed underlying good morals would rise to the surface. 2c. Nielsen means that capitalists make presumptions that their system or "entitlement theory" is correct, in that, there are no "weighty moral reasons to relinquish" their property or holdings. Because things have always been this way, they should always remain this way, or that it is morally justified. He believes this view is rebuttable because the ownership in question goes beyond simply what is needed to sustain an 3

4 individual or his family (fishing boat, small farm, etc.). The big capitalist industrial complex causes poverty and suffering for its workers. This control of the elite few to make and maintain policy infringes upon the workers' moral autonomy and diminishes their self-respect. This flies in the face of the ideas discussed in the first section (a) of his ideology. A system like this, like ours, holds those at the bottom down because although they may have a legal right to strike out on their own and rise in the ranks, they would never have the means to do so; thus negating their autonomy. In light of the aforementioned reasoning, the corporate holdings are i~moral and one sided. Redistribution of the goods, power, autonomy, and JiscUS5 -ttte morali ty is necessary to create a new system of equality. ~~:tvre o.f a. p re.sv_r-h Of'\ i"""p "'es 2d. He states that inevitability inf~s that people are not capable of change, certainly not on a grand scale; that people are not willingly going to do what ls necessary, such as delaying gratification and attending school for several years, in order to provide necessary services to the people that, for instance, a doctor or lawyer. Nielsen opposes status, hierarchy, and class; more importantly, he believes people are certainly capable of change. This, he says, "does not add up to inevitability." In an egalitarian society, Nielsen believes that the people would have all their needs met and would not be at a loss by taking on the endeavor of higher education. He believes the statement of 4

5 inevitability is one made from the position of an unexamined range of possibilities. People would be compelled through moral reasoning and elimination of the perceived losses or short-term disadvantages. As a result, they would be free to work hard for the satisfaction of doing the right thing and providing a muchneeded service to their community. e)<.eel tertt I 5