Specialization blinds everybody. Do we have enough transparency to identify capability? I am say there are people who want to do their best by hidding their short falls and let everybody else taking risks with them. What kind of ethic in specialization we are talking about?
Thank you. May I please have your full name and the institution you currently work for, if possible... I'm trying to reference you, hope it works for my professor, but I'm doing what I can.
The book to which I occasionally refer in the video is Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases, by Manuel Velasquez, Prentice Hall, 2006. I find Velasquez to be one of the most straightforward and comprehensible writers in the field of business ethics.
Using the terms "formal equality" of opportunity and "substantive equality" of opportunity is another way of addressing the issues to which I refer in the video with regard to capitalism. When capitalism works, it provides a great incentive for people to work hard and to do well, because the benefits are proportional to one's efforts or contribution. However, although capitalism is in theory a merit-based system, there are many impediments to its realization in a truly equitable manner.
The primary tenet of libertarianism is that you are free to enter into contracts or not. Once you enter into a contract you are obliged to fulfill whatever it is you are committed to doing, but no one can force you to enter the contract. I will not disagree that people in power can skew the system to their benefit. However, socialism is far worse, because then the government decides for you what you are to do and what you are to receive, and you have no choice and no incentive to do well.
Furthermore, there are always indiscretions amongst the power holders that are involved in the making of the contract. This is an effect of the system, in order to maximize your own output; you will manipulate the system, in order to achieve the best material gain. Thus creating the same problems of Marxism, except socialism allows the burden to be shared amongst the collective, rather than the placing the burden entirely on the individual limiting the desire for a power struggle.
5:58-no one should have anything taken from them against their free-will? Libertarianism entirely abolishes free-will from people since they have no control over the contract made between the two parties.
Good job, the best explanation I could find of distributive justice on the web. I need to apply distributive justice to my visits to the family with a baby I visit for medical ethics. Can't figure out how I do that.
Specialization blinds everybody. Do we have enough transparency to identify capability? I am say there are people who want to do their best by hidding their short falls and let everybody else taking risks with them. What kind of ethic in specialization we are talking about?
beancube2008 2 years ago
Thank you. May I please have your full name and the institution you currently work for, if possible... I'm trying to reference you, hope it works for my professor, but I'm doing what I can.
chopaface 2 years ago
What book are you referring to? What's the name?
chopaface 2 years ago
The book to which I occasionally refer in the video is Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases, by Manuel Velasquez, Prentice Hall, 2006. I find Velasquez to be one of the most straightforward and comprehensible writers in the field of business ethics.
wmiller24 2 years ago
Thank you a lot.
It's helping me on how I think about capitalism and socialism.
chopaface 2 years ago
doesn't this theory somewhat cross lines with substantive equality?
chopaface 2 years ago
Using the terms "formal equality" of opportunity and "substantive equality" of opportunity is another way of addressing the issues to which I refer in the video with regard to capitalism. When capitalism works, it provides a great incentive for people to work hard and to do well, because the benefits are proportional to one's efforts or contribution. However, although capitalism is in theory a merit-based system, there are many impediments to its realization in a truly equitable manner.
wmiller24 2 years ago
The primary tenet of libertarianism is that you are free to enter into contracts or not. Once you enter into a contract you are obliged to fulfill whatever it is you are committed to doing, but no one can force you to enter the contract. I will not disagree that people in power can skew the system to their benefit. However, socialism is far worse, because then the government decides for you what you are to do and what you are to receive, and you have no choice and no incentive to do well.
wmiller24 2 years ago
@wmiller24 Worse why? Autonomy? Free will? A lacune of legitimacy?
TESOblivion4 1 year ago
Furthermore, there are always indiscretions amongst the power holders that are involved in the making of the contract. This is an effect of the system, in order to maximize your own output; you will manipulate the system, in order to achieve the best material gain. Thus creating the same problems of Marxism, except socialism allows the burden to be shared amongst the collective, rather than the placing the burden entirely on the individual limiting the desire for a power struggle.
kikases 2 years ago
5:58-no one should have anything taken from them against their free-will? Libertarianism entirely abolishes free-will from people since they have no control over the contract made between the two parties.
kikases 2 years ago
Good job, the best explanation I could find of distributive justice on the web. I need to apply distributive justice to my visits to the family with a baby I visit for medical ethics. Can't figure out how I do that.
myemaildw 2 years ago
God bless you sir. Your work has helped me and opened my mind.
naturalsceptic2009 3 years ago