The concept of sharing

 Sen in chapter 2 engages in a brief discussion on the impact of war on morality reduction (49). He states that “each war situation produced much greater sharing of means of survival, including sharing of healthcare and the limited food supply” (49). This is because a war causes expansion of what we mean by “sharing” and public policies, which the NHS is a prime example of. 


All of these actions do have an impact on the economic situation with cases of undernourishment  and mortality rates declining sharply. Furthermore, the most speedy expansion happened during “war decades” and therefore, there is a clear link between life expectancy and the social changes that happen in light of a war. 


This brings me to today and the war that is happening in Ukraine. Will the same thing happen or are we past expanding our life expectancy? Moreover, will our concept of sharing shift? 


At the beginning of the conflict, in particular in Poland, but I also feel that around the globe, everyone was sharing everything they could to help the situation and programs were put in place to help the people coming in from Ukraine. We again understood what it meant to be at war with Russia, especially people living in Eastern Europe. Thus, everyone went out of their way to share and help each other. But will this sentiment stay with us and what will it even mean for us when the situation ends. Will we still share or will we go back to each caring about our own business. 


I do not know but what does it tell us that we need an instance of war to start sharing again and follow the trend of the past, like in Britain, which Sen is referencing to.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Development as White Saviorism

Sen’s take on viewing development as freedom seems coherent when the developing body is a part of the community that is being developed. There are troublesome aspects (like the implicit acceptance of unequal distribution of freedoms), but those can be justified and or fixed with minor alterations. However, the account’s flaws become prominent when applied to situations where the developing body is external to the community that is being developed. Because Sen does not factor in the context of when the development occurs and does not outline who can even be a developer, his account would allow for white saviorism.  The issue is not with what Sen’s account includes, but what it does not. Sen’s account does not argue for an equal distribution of freedom. While he believes we should expand freedoms in the most effective way, if this does not expand freedoms equally, it is not clear that Sen would view that as a bad thing. This leaves room for marginalized people in society to be even mor
Read more

I used to be a libertarian and i think Nozick is full of shit

In Anarchy State and Utopia, Nozick argues that patterned principles of justice will require “continuous interference with people’s lives” to continually realize their pattern of distributive justice (162). As an alternative, he argues for an unpatterned principle of distributive justice (PDJ) based on the principle of entitlement. I want to examine some of the key assumptions and concepts he makes in his account in this blog post.  Nozick’s entitlement theory views just modes of interacting with one’s holdings as necessarily leading to a just pattern of distribution. Namely, once justice in acquisition and justice in transfer have been achieved, the resulting distribution is just. As Nozick puts is “whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just” (151). He also touches on “the rectification of injustice in holdings” but goes on to say that the exact nature of that principle is unclear and not discussed by him or others (152). This seems like a bit of a dodge to me.
Read more

The other face of the father of capitalism?

I found reading Smith's theory of Moral Sentiments interesting because a lot of it felt nothing like what he's purported to be according to all the "father of capitalism" stuff. I see how he developed something like the invisible hand because of how he develops his theory: based on observation. He makes empirical claims above human behavior in relation to which actions we approve and disapprove based on how much we can sympathize with the actor. Both this theory and the one about the invisible hand seems to be an explanation about an observed phenomena.  While I think that the method he uses to develop his theories are similar, the ideas present in this piece seems radically different than ideas on capitalism. The ideas that he present in Chapter two remind me a lot of Kantian ethics. The specific passage that reminded me of this was:  "When he views himself in the light in which he is conscious that others will view him, he sees that to them he is but one of the
Read more