cuboidz
23 januari 2004, 18:33
THE NEED FOR MORAL EDUCATION IN SOCIETY
BY BEN @ ILP (http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=139160)
Imagine a world where murder was legal but nobody did it. A world where there was no minimum wage but everyone was paid it. This may sound like an unreachable utopia but perhaps it is not as absurd as it first seems. The libertarian socialist argues the supremacy of the individual and therefore the need for the state to support each individual equally. The libertarian capitalist also argues the supremacy of the individual but comes to a different conclusion, that of individual freedom from governmental control and therefore a free trade market. Each of these systems has its merits but I want to argue that both of them are not the optimum because they each neglect a key issue.
The socialist model in theory is one of social justice and compassion. It acknowledges that not everyone in society is equal and believes that those in need should be helped by those who can; the slogan being "each according to his needs; each according to his means". These are all noble ideals, however they compromise the fundamental issue of individual freedom. Those who do not agree with this system are compelled to provide for it, regardless of their beliefs. In effect the system controls the 'morality' of society rather than educating them about it. This is the neglected issue, education. The government doesn't need to educate society about social justice because it already imposes it. This neglect of education results in contempt for a seemingly just system which sacrifices individual freedom.
The same problem arises in the capitalist paradigm but in a different way. The capitalist says that the freedom of the individual is paramount and should not be controlled by government. Economically this results in a free-market economy which more often than not, benefits those at the top of the economic food-chain and disadvantages those at the bottom. The slogan this time is "freedom and liberty" but once again there is no acknowledgement of a societal moral obligation. This allows for employee exploitation, environmental ignorance etc. the hallmarks of a free-market society. The society is so blinded by the wonder of individual freedom that it neglects any need for moral education.
I realise my explanations of these two "polars" is very limited but it is meant to illustrate a point rather than act as a concise explanation of the theories. To refer back to my first statement; "Imagine a world where murder was legal but nobody did it." This is a society which affords us the individual freedom of a capitalist paradigm but also has the social justice and compassion of a socialist one. A person is free to act in any way they wish, but they won't commit any 'crime' or perform any injustice because they have been educated not to. I don't mean brainwashed, I mean educated. This is the Utopia. In practise it would seem that even with a comprehensive moral education, any society would still contain deviants. For this reason there would need to be some governmental crime and justice control. But in essence, if we lived in a society where "fair trade"was taught as an expression of justice and equality then there would be no need for economic control, and individual freedom would remain intact. If the concept of charity was taught as a social justice rather than a pity case (like Islam and Judaism already do) then there would be no need for taxes. Not only that, wouldn't it be much nicer to live in a world where people deliberately wanted to help those in trouble rather than having to compell them to do so with laws and taxes.
I'm sure i'm not the first to come up with this idea. In fact, I'd be interested to know of any author who has discussed this idea. However, I think in contemporary debates about the role of government in society we are often forgetting the value of moral education and how it can be used to find a synthesis between two economic systems which would not only improve the economy and social structure of society but also its morality and integrity.
Ik vind dat de man een goed punt heeft. Wat vinden jullie ?
BY BEN @ ILP (http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=139160)
Imagine a world where murder was legal but nobody did it. A world where there was no minimum wage but everyone was paid it. This may sound like an unreachable utopia but perhaps it is not as absurd as it first seems. The libertarian socialist argues the supremacy of the individual and therefore the need for the state to support each individual equally. The libertarian capitalist also argues the supremacy of the individual but comes to a different conclusion, that of individual freedom from governmental control and therefore a free trade market. Each of these systems has its merits but I want to argue that both of them are not the optimum because they each neglect a key issue.
The socialist model in theory is one of social justice and compassion. It acknowledges that not everyone in society is equal and believes that those in need should be helped by those who can; the slogan being "each according to his needs; each according to his means". These are all noble ideals, however they compromise the fundamental issue of individual freedom. Those who do not agree with this system are compelled to provide for it, regardless of their beliefs. In effect the system controls the 'morality' of society rather than educating them about it. This is the neglected issue, education. The government doesn't need to educate society about social justice because it already imposes it. This neglect of education results in contempt for a seemingly just system which sacrifices individual freedom.
The same problem arises in the capitalist paradigm but in a different way. The capitalist says that the freedom of the individual is paramount and should not be controlled by government. Economically this results in a free-market economy which more often than not, benefits those at the top of the economic food-chain and disadvantages those at the bottom. The slogan this time is "freedom and liberty" but once again there is no acknowledgement of a societal moral obligation. This allows for employee exploitation, environmental ignorance etc. the hallmarks of a free-market society. The society is so blinded by the wonder of individual freedom that it neglects any need for moral education.
I realise my explanations of these two "polars" is very limited but it is meant to illustrate a point rather than act as a concise explanation of the theories. To refer back to my first statement; "Imagine a world where murder was legal but nobody did it." This is a society which affords us the individual freedom of a capitalist paradigm but also has the social justice and compassion of a socialist one. A person is free to act in any way they wish, but they won't commit any 'crime' or perform any injustice because they have been educated not to. I don't mean brainwashed, I mean educated. This is the Utopia. In practise it would seem that even with a comprehensive moral education, any society would still contain deviants. For this reason there would need to be some governmental crime and justice control. But in essence, if we lived in a society where "fair trade"was taught as an expression of justice and equality then there would be no need for economic control, and individual freedom would remain intact. If the concept of charity was taught as a social justice rather than a pity case (like Islam and Judaism already do) then there would be no need for taxes. Not only that, wouldn't it be much nicer to live in a world where people deliberately wanted to help those in trouble rather than having to compell them to do so with laws and taxes.
I'm sure i'm not the first to come up with this idea. In fact, I'd be interested to know of any author who has discussed this idea. However, I think in contemporary debates about the role of government in society we are often forgetting the value of moral education and how it can be used to find a synthesis between two economic systems which would not only improve the economy and social structure of society but also its morality and integrity.
Ik vind dat de man een goed punt heeft. Wat vinden jullie ?