Quote:
|
a utilitarian calculation--which is what the free-marketeers routinely indulge to render "ethical" the consequences of the class system--simply repeats the problem that this report--and thread---are about. by arguing that markets "do good for the greatest number" you are also arguing, like it or not, that those who are excluded from the game of markets are purely and simply fucked--and worse still that you see no problem with that. a second order of problem with utilitarian arguments in the hands of free marketeers is that they tend to neutralize the effects of social context/order up front. this is not ok. this is the kind of thinking that leads to the problems outlined in the who report AND to their avoidance---it enables folk to think "i am individually ok" in the context of a system that is fundamentally not ok--so utilitarian thinking is in this sense a coping mechanism, not an effective politics.
|
I think this is an interesting observation as a whole, but fails to realize the understanding that perks or faults of a system live or die by the actions of individuals.
Our society is fundamentally flawed in dealing with class issues - I agree with you saying this. That same society also behaves based on the actions of people who hold its reins (this too you said). Yet to admit these two statements and then to state that people using their own assets to compensate for a broken society is both flawed and irresponsible seems counterintuitive. If people are trying to change the flaws of the system, they have to start with whatever resources are available to them.
I believe this is the basis of the utilitarian argument. The form of the argument you put forth is "I'm doing my part, that's all that matters", where I think the more correct form is "I'm doing what I can until I am able to do more". The fundamental difference between the two is the amount of self-absorption of the indivridual. Utilitarian arguments make a lot more sense when considered from the perspective of true altruism rather than consciousness-easing behavior.
I argue that it is basic self-indulgence that is the linchpin of class disparity, being both the cause of its existence and the reason for its sustenance. Perhaps greater social awareness needs to be brought to the problem so that individual (and thus social) consciousness could change faster.