2 Posts by Zarat

Does the free market corrode moral character?

The answer to this is a difficult one. At one side, it seems to enhance the moral characters in men while on the other side, it is dehumanizing.

The free market is spurred on strictly by the “profit-motive”. Competition increases and just as many opportunities open up, the failure to perform up to the standard can mean the end. Indeed, it is only “survival of the fittest”. When the people are threatened with their survival, there can hardly be any room for decency or moral action. Do we not value our lives above all? In this fierce competition, where defeat can question our survival, acts of altruism are strictly prohibited. It introduces novelty and “stirs up individual desire”.

It is true that it makes some rich and powerful men who might be able to contribute to the poor but it is human nature to want more. The gluttony of the human cannot be quenched. They will keep wanting more and more. In the process they will forget to think about those who are barely surviving. A group of French thinkers from the 1930s, called the “non-conformists”, had this view. It was also the main theme of fascism which called for an end to materialistic times.

If we check out the other side of the coin, we may find a different picture. Increased globalization leads to better income and decreased poverty. This encourages more schooling for the children which can act to nourish moral characters within them. The free market economy has also significantly bridged the gap between male and female wages. More people from different culture, religion and class come in contact with each other. This leads to increased socialization. People become connected and more “feeling”.  This may actually enhance their moral characters.

In the end it comes down to this: how easily can a person be changed? Can a person’s moral character be diluted just for the sake of competition and better earning? Can the surroundings induce a change in people’s characteristics which they have developed since birth?

Why Philosophy needs history? (TLS essay)-Bernard Williams

‘Lack of a historical sense is the hereditary defect of philosophers . . . So what is needed from now on is historical philosophising, and with it the virtue of modesty.’ Nietzsche.

Williams claims that most philosophers have neglected the history—not the history of philosophy but the history of the concepts philosophy is trying to understand. We need to understand our ethics and political ideals throughout the ages. We need to understand who we are from the roots, and that root does not mean from infancy but from the beginning of mankind. Thorough knowledge of history helps a philosopher to perceive the human nature, the way a human holds the world in his view.