Generally in class I can see where most philosophies could have their ups and downs, and this is not to say that I don't like Walzer's theory. I just don't see how someone would be able to use money not to their advantage. Walzer says any social good is " just or unjust relative to the social meaning of the goods at stake." I can agree with this because every situation is different and when trading goods it can get very complex and deals a lot with the traders of the goods. However, it is hard to believe that if people worked hard for a social good or leg up on others, that they should not be allowed to keep that advantage over someone who has not worked for evening the playing field. I can think of several people who grew up in the same environment and some are more successful then others. This is not because of some injustice in my opinion, but because one person merely worked harder and was smarter then the other. I dont think this justifies giving the lazier person more of the goods merely because it is "just" is a good idea. Some people can't be trusted to do well when handling the same amount of goods as others. Most of the people that would use this money in a corrupt way are the people who need help with getting more social goods. I know that this can seem stereotypical but what is your opinion?
I do agree with Walzer that realms should not overlap each other, but I just don't see how we could make that possible with all of the corrupt people already in the world. Lets take this down to a less broad example. How do you think it would be possible like we discussed in class to not let spheres overlap when going threw the college application process? I know that this has become more and more corrupt considering less deserving kids have been able to go to nicer schools simply because of what their parents did. Furthermore, some of those same kids may have more advantages then the smarter kids, such as going to nicer high schools, and still not do as well as the underprivileged. How do we as America's youth change the way that these spheres overlap in accepting students to college? Also what are some of your personal doubts in Walzer's theory?
I think it's really difficult for us to imagine a world in which Walzer's spheres are separated, not because it isn't possible, but because we live in a world where all of our thinking is influenced by the market. We can't easily imagine a place in which money had very little influence.
ReplyDeleteI may be wrong, but you seem to believe that those who work hard for their wealth deserve to use it to get a leg up in other spheres. I think that's completely fair, but Walzer would disagree. I don't think we can honestly say we have a democracy if money dictates the education, health care, and political power one can achieve.
It's reasonable to argue that this idea of Walzer's could never happen, but I really like it as a thought experiment to help one realize just how much money decides how far one can go in our society. It's troubling, and it should be.
I think Walzer would whole-heartedly agree that people deserve the money they earn and the advantages that come from having wealth. He doesn't disagree with that system. What he takes issue with is what the advantages of having wealth are. He believes that if a society defines a social good as something that every citizen should have equal access to, money should not buy additional or elevated access to those goods.
ReplyDeleteHe would also say that a society defines their own social goods. If we look at the overlaps between wealth and other spheres with a defeatist attitude, it's as if we're actively advocating a society in which wealth SHOULD interact with those spheres, simply because that's what we expect from the society.