8 ideas
21097 | Modern monarchies are (like republics) rule by law, rather than by men [Hume] |
Full Idea: In modern times monarchical government seems to have made the greatest advances towards perfection. It may now be affirmed of civilized monarchies, what was formerly said in praise of republics alone, that they are a government of laws, not of men. | |
From: David Hume (Of Civil Liberty [1750], p.54) | |
A reaction: Dreams of simple 'government by law' disappeared with the rise of modern media, which can be controlled by wealth. |
22252 | Capitalism may actually be the best way to foster community [Conway,D] |
Full Idea: Not only is there no good reason for supposing capitalism inimical to community, but there is reason to think it more conducive to community than the feasible alternatives to it. | |
From: David Conway (Capitalism and Community [1996], I) | |
A reaction: Conway is defending an obviously unorthodox view, while attacking the hopes of communitarians. |
22253 | Capitalism is just the market, with optional limited government, and perhaps democracy [Conway,D] |
Full Idea: There are three types of capitalism: 1) the market - private ownership, labor contracts and profit, 2) limited government - the state provides goods the market cannot do, 3) limited government with democracy - with political freedom and elections. | |
From: David Conway (Capitalism and Community [1996], II) | |
A reaction: [compressed] I would have thought that capitalism is compatible with a fair degree of workplace democracy, which would make a fourth type. |
22256 | Capitalism prefers representative democracy, which avoids community decision-making [Conway,D] |
Full Idea: By opting for representative rather than direct democracy, capitalism is said to preclude political community, for which the citizens of a state must possess a common will, which needs their direct participation in decisions. | |
From: David Conway (Capitalism and Community [1996], V) | |
A reaction: Conway does not accept this claim. I'm beginning to wonder whether the famous British electoral system is actually a capitalist conspiracy against the people. |
22255 | Capitalism breaks up extended families, and must then provide welfare for the lonely people [Conway,D] |
Full Idea: It is said that capitalism encourages the breakup of extended families, which creates the need for extensive state welfare for those indigent members of society who can no longer rely on their own family to take care of them. | |
From: David Conway (Capitalism and Community [1996], V) | |
A reaction: Conway does not accept this claim. It seems to simplistic to say that capitalism is the sole culprit. Any rise of mechanisation in agriculture would break up rural extended families. |
22257 | Capitalism is anti-community, by only valuing individuals, and breaking up families [Conway,D] |
Full Idea: Communitarns say capitalism is inimical to family community, because it encourages an individualistic mentality which only values self-fulfilment, and because it demands labour mobility which is disruptive of families. | |
From: David Conway (Capitalism and Community [1996], VI) | |
A reaction: Chicken-and-egg with the first one. Small entrepreneurs are individualists who seek their own gain. It is big capitalism that sucks in the others. Traditional community is based on labour-intensive agriculture. |
4053 | If it is desirable that a given patient die, then moral objections to killing them do not apply [Rachels] |
Full Idea: The cause of death (injection or disease) is important from the legal point of view, but not morally. If euthanasia is desirable in a given case then the patient's death is not an evil, so the usual objections to killing do not apply. | |
From: James Rachels (No Moral Difference [1975], p.102) | |
A reaction: Seems reasonable, but a very consequentialist view. Is it good that small children should clean public toilets? |
4052 | It has become normal to consider passive euthanasia while condemning active euthanasia [Rachels] |
Full Idea: It seems to have become accepted that passive euthanasia (by withholding treatment and allowing a patient to die) may be acceptable, whereas active euthanasia (direct action to kill the patient) is never acceptable. | |
From: James Rachels (No Moral Difference [1975], p.97) | |
A reaction: He goes on to attack the distinction. It is hard to distinguish the two cases, as well as being hard to judge them. |