Here is an excerpt from a letter in Saturday's New York Times (I have removed some extraneous, partisan jabs that do not contribute to the argument). I think there are several, nested arguments here very worth teasing out. Somebody want to try putting them in standard form?
"We can be either a generous society or a responsible society, but not both. If we are generous, we will undermine responsibility... A responsible society basically asks people to take care of themselves; it is not kind, but such a society can sustain itself and grow. A generous society cannot maintain itself and still be free. The generosity will increasingly be paid for by more and more intrusive government control of all social behavior. Therefore, I believe we must emphasize being a responsible society and build only that generous component -- welfare and charity -- that will not undermine responsibility." -- William N. Hoke, Manhattan Beach, CA
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Some excellent attempts to formalize these arguments -- check out the Logic blogs.
One consideration the author neglects is the fact that no one ever really "takes care of themselves," in the sense that a human can only come to be a (relatively) autonomous individual through the assistance and collaboration of many, many others. Thus the author seems to be presenting us with a persuasive definition of 'responsibility,' but not one that stands much scrutiny.
Marx on "Robinsonades":
Individuals ... in Society-hence socially determined individual
production, is, of course, the point of departure. The individual and isolated hunter and fisherman, with whom Smith and Ricardo begin, belongs among the unimaginative conceits of the eighteenth-century Robinsonades....
The human being is in the most literal sense a political animal, not merely a gregarious animal, but an animal which can individuate itself only in the midst of society. Production by an isolated individual outside
society-a rare exception which may well occur when a civilized person in whom the social forces are already dynamically present is cast by accident into the wilderness-is as much of an absurdity as is the development of
language without individuals living together and talking to each other. There is no point in dwelling on this any longer.
Post a Comment