Critical response 6
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Brock University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
1F90
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by trentoncampbell0724
Briefly, what is the difference between capitalism and communism? In your opinion, do you think communism is a viable economic system (i.e. does it work in
practice
?), especially given its checkered past (e.g., the Soviet Union and the Chinese Communist Party)?
Capitalism is an economic system in which goods and services trade is controlled by private owners for profit. Production is determined by free market forces such as supply and demand. Whereas communism refers to a social system in which a country exhibits an equitable distribution of wealth among a nation's citizens and common ownership of all property. In perspective to production, the government determines which goods and services get produced and how much is available at any given time.
In my opinion communism is viable to a degree but only when certain conditions are met, there
are no stellar examples of communist regimes that outcompete capitalism in every regard but there are those that have exceeded capitalist societies in specific metrics. The first example being Cuba (although classed as socialist an argument can be made for communism) where they have a 100% literacy rate, free healthcare and lower homeless rates than that of North America. If we compare this to the average Latin American country, we can see that Cuba effectively exceeds the benchmark in most categories on behalf of their communist policies. Additional examples include Yugoslavia and Albania who both were subjected to rampant poverty and ethnic violence prior to conforming to communist regimes, during the communist parties reign, there was peace brought upon the countries and then finally when the parties fell
wars and genocide once again returned. We must be mindful however that this application of communism would not work in every place and time. If we were to conform North America, a traditionally capitalist society, to a communist one, it would be expected that the nations would be worse off and in fact more than likely experience setbacks in areas of innovation and development. This is because with a communist government, tools such as free trade, entrepreneurship and innovation, all of which
make North America the success story it is, would be lost. If there is no reward incentive to start your own business or take risk then what is the motivator to work anything more than an easy, fun job. Although communism, as seen in the examples above, can sometimes be utilized as a tool to rebalance the scales of equality or even bring peace to countries of conflict, I personally don’t believe it to be the long-term solution, but, may be a step to bring countries such as these out of their situations and set them on the track to future prosperity.
If we are to expect communism to be a viable option, we must note that communism must be accompanied by a non corrupt political power in order to effectively put people’s welfare as a priority. Too often communist parties pad their own pockets and widen the wealth disparity which is why we see so little change in their respective HDI. Soviet Russia for instance has long been condemned for systems implemented such as the Gulag, The Great Famine, The Great Purge, and events such as Order No. 227 where atrocities such as suppressing and killing political rivals were common occurrence. In another example the Communist Party of China had initiated egregious acts such as The Great Leap Forward, one of the biggest mass murders in history as well as go on to religiously persecute, ethnically cleanse and implement the use of forced labor in concentration camps. These examples have forever stained the reputation when
you hear the word communism and is yet another reason why suggesting such economic systems may sometimes reward you with doubt from others.
The Coronavirus Pandemic has brought to the fore many important and controversial ethical questions. For example, should individuals be obligated to wear masks for the “greater good”, even though it appears to violate their individual rights? Should governments initiate forced lock-downs for the “greater good”, even when such lock-downs appear to be economically (and perhaps even psychologically) harmful to many individuals, families, and businesses? Should COVID-19 vaccines be made mandatory even if such a mandate appears to violate an individual's right to their own healthcare decisions, and, ultimately, to decide what to do with their own body?
Choose
ONE
ethical issue (e.g., mask-wearing) related to the current pandemic and tell us what your policy recommendation would be based on what you’ve learned about in the course so far. You can use any of the ethical theories/principles we've covered in the course in order to justify your position.
Beneficence: “Above all, do no harm
The past 2 years have been something out of a movie, never before have we witnessed such divide, intervention and uncertainty. I am of the opinion the entirety of the Covid-19 pandemic of 2020-
2022 was handled poorly and inadequately, but in hindsight, could anyone really have been prepared to govern and deduce the best course of action if handed the reigns with no preparation? One specific topic of great debate was the imposed masking restrictions. The big question was if the government was
within their rights to enforce this policy and if so what dictated it this power. The policy to enforce the masking requirements was of the philosophy of non-maleficence, the concept that the governments primary responsibility is to do no harm, whereas the right to not wear a mask aligns with that of an individual’s rights of autonomy, the belief that individuals have the right to choose what is right for them. I believe where the government fell short in this regard was in their responsibility
to display the effectiveness of masking through proven unbiased studies, the rationality of some claims of the policy and lastly their ability to empathize with the society that disagreed with them. If I could go
back in time and at the very beginning of the pandemic be the policy maker, some criteria and decisions I may consider to counter these shortcomings would be I believe transparency with the public is a must and the scarcity of trust in government today is because they lack open honesty with the public. If the government doesn’t know the answer, then it should be perfectly reasonable to admit that this is something new to them, but they are working their hardest and have professionals working with them every step of the way. I understand the rationale to not have the public spiral and panic, however, pre-emptively coming to decisions only to have to take it all back or contradict yourself later can sometimes be more detrimental.
With these conditions in mind, I would come to the decision to always strongly recommend masks and provide studies and support to those who wish to use them; however, I would prefer not to mandate them. This is because of people’s nature of psychological reactance. Psychological reactance is when your brain’s reaction to when you feel a threat to your freedoms or think your choices are being limited. can make you feel annoyed, panicked, or angry when rules or guidelines are put in place. It is in my opinion that by mandating masking you have more people who refuse to wear them out of spite rather than those that do it because they simply dislike them. If you were to provide people the available information and make your suggestions from a place where people did not feel any pressures, perhaps even through the use of incentives it would be that much more successful later on when a vaccine becomes available. There would be a smaller divide and people would not feel the need to take sides on whether or not to have the vaccine it would become more a matter of personal choice, and you could mandate the vaccine under the same clause as other vaccines.
One main factor to utilize in support of my decision is the disposable resources of health professionals and researchers to commit to as many studies of the transmission and resilience of the virus as possible. These researchers would be taken from a variety of backgrounds and political affiliations to provide a solid foundation of trusted research. With this data I would not simply cherry pick the studies I would like to reference but issue all of it and have mass coverage of the results through multiple news sources. It is important in times such as this to not isolate one group of the public who may hold differing views, especially when they already dislike the policy maker for previous decisions and or political affiliations.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help