Combining Texts

All the ideas for '67: Platonic Questions', 'A Critique of Utilitarianism' and 'Capitalism and Community'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these texts


11 ideas

15. Nature of Minds / A. Nature of Mind / 2. Psuche
When the soul is intelligent and harmonious, it is part of god and derives from god [Plutarch]
     Full Idea: The soul, when it has partaken of intelligence and reason and concord, is not merely a work but also a part of god and has come to be not by his agency but both from him as source and out of his substance.
     From: Plutarch (67: Platonic Questions [c.85], II.1001)
     A reaction: A most intriguing shift of view from earlier concepts of the psuché. How did this come about? This man is a pagan. The history is in the evolution of Platonism. See 'The Middle Platonists' by John Dillon. Davidson is also very impressed by reason.
22. Metaethics / B. Value / 1. Nature of Value / f. Ultimate value
Maybe the unthinkable is a moral category, and considering some options is dishonourable or absurd [Williams,B]
     Full Idea: One might have the idea that the unthinkable was itself a moral category. ...Regarding certain things even as alternatives is itself something to be regarded as dishonourable or morally absurd.
     From: Bernard Williams (A Critique of Utilitarianism [1973], 2)
     A reaction: He's very tentative about this, but I think it is a powerful moral idea. See Kekes. He is particularly aiming at utilitarians, who happily assess vile possibilities.
22. Metaethics / C. The Good / 1. Goodness / g. Consequentialism
Consequentialism assumes that situations can be compared [Williams,B]
     Full Idea: The emphasis on the necessary comparability of situations is a peculiar feature of consequentialism in general.
     From: Bernard Williams (A Critique of Utilitarianism [1973], 2)
     A reaction: A nice point. Utilitarians might achieve comparison by totting up the happiness in each situation, but once you include the consequences of the consequences the problems are obvious. Was 1789 a good thing? Too early to say.
For a consequentialist massacring 7 million must be better than massacring 7 million and one [Williams,B]
     Full Idea: Making the best of a bad job is a consequentialist maxim, and it will have something to say even pn the difference between massacring seven million and massacring seven million and one.
     From: Bernard Williams (A Critique of Utilitarianism [1973], 2)
     A reaction: If every life counts, the consequentialists have got something right here. Not caring exactly how many were massacred is a sort of callousness (even when the number can't be established).
23. Ethics / D. Deontological Ethics / 3. Universalisability
We don't have a duty to ensure that others do their duty [Williams,B]
     Full Idea: If the goodness of the world were to consist in people's fulfilling their obligations, it would by no means follow that one of my obligations was to bring it about that other people kept their obligations
     From: Bernard Williams (A Critique of Utilitarianism [1973], 2)
     A reaction: If the maxim of my action is 'ensure that everyone does their duty', presumably that can be universalised. Nelson thought so. It just sounds like a hideous world of self-righteous interference.
23. Ethics / E. Utilitarianism / 1. Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism cannot make any serious sense of integrity [Williams,B]
     Full Idea: Utilitarianism cannot hope to make sense, at any serious level, of integrity.
     From: Bernard Williams (A Critique of Utilitarianism [1973], 1)
     A reaction: There will be obvious problems with this. 'My whole platoon got killed, but looking on the bright side, I preserved my integrity'. Once a theory commits entirely to one value, it then has no way to make sense of rival values.
24. Political Theory / D. Ideologies / 11. Capitalism
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.