Frameworks and principles behind our moral disposition

Frameworks and Principles
Behind our Moral Disposition

Objectives
• To be able to know the works of different philosophers;
• To be able to understand and apply the works and frameworks
of the philosophers in daily lives.
• To be able to know the difference between Capitalism,
Socialism, Communism and Fascism
• To be able to understand the advantages and disadvantages of
the beliefs of the philosophers.

ARISTOTLE
Aristotle
Born : 384 BC
Stagira, Chalcidian League
Died : 322 BC (aged approx. 62)
Euboea, Macedonian Empire
Spouse(s): Pythias
Era Ancient Greek philosophy
Region : Western philosophy
School : Peripatetic schoolAristotelianism
Notable students: Alexander the Great,
Theophrastus
Main interests
BiologyZoologyPsychology[1][2]PhysicsMetaphysic
sLogicEthicsRhetoricMusicPoetryEconomicsPolitics
Government
Notable ideas
Aristotelian philosophySyllogismTheory of the
soulVirtue ethics

Telos
“Pleasure and pain moreover supply the motives of desire and of
avoidance, and the springs of conduct generally. This being so, it
clearly follows that actions are right and praiseworthy only as being a
means to the attainment of a life of pleasure. But that which is not
itself a means to anything else, but to which all else is a means, is
what the Greeks term the telos, the highest, ultimate or final Good.”
― Epicurus

Telos
A telos (from the Greek τέλος for "end", "purpose", or "goal") is an
end or purpose, in a fairly constrained sense used by philosophers
such as Aristotle. It is the root of the term "teleology", roughly the
study of purposiveness, or the study of objects with a view to their
aims, purposes, or intentions. Teleology figures centrally in
Aristotle's biology and in his theory of causes. The notion that
everything has a telos also gave rise to epistemology.[1] It is also
central to some philosophical theories of history, such as those
of Hegel and Marx.

What is the human Telos?
Telos is the ancient Greek term for an end, fulfilment,
completion, goal or aim; it is the source of the modern word
'teleology'. ... In ethical theory, each human action is taken
to be directed towards some telos (i.e. end), and practical
deliberation involves specifying the concrete steps needed
to attain that telos.

Why is Telos important?
Telos - This important term can be translated variously as
“end,” “goal,” or “purpose.” According to Aristotle, we have
a telos as humans, which it is our goal to fulfill.
This telos is based on our uniquely human capacity for
rational thought.

Is Telos real?
Telos is an ancient Lemurian City of Light that is real and
exists to this day in the physical realm, underneath Mt.
Shasta. Meet Adama, the High Priest of Telos, as he
describes the kind of earthly paradise they have forged for
themselves as they raised their consciousness to let go of
all violence and negativity.

Virtue as a Habit
Aristotle believed that virtue as a habit requires an intentional
choice when you begin. The habit of virtue is not yet developed, but
over time one becomes used to behaving virtuously and after a while
one acts virtuously without needing to use volition. You have
become virtuous—it's now part of you and how you act.

What does Aristotle say about virtue?
Aristotle defines moral virtue as a disposition to behave in the right
manner and as a mean between extremes of deficiency and excess,
which are vices. We learn moral virtue primarily through habit and
practice rather than through reasoning and instruction.

What is habit according to Aristotle?
A 'habit' or hexis for Aristotle is a kind of 'second nature,' an
acquired power: like human 'nature' itself, a habit is a determinate
power to act in a specific way" (Randall 254). Habits can foster the
good life by cultivating virtue and by molding the passions to feel
pleasure and pain in the right ways.

What are the 4 moral virtues?
Because of this reference, a group of seven attributes is sometimes
listed by adding the four cardinal virtues (prudence, temperance,
fortitude, justice) and three theological virtues (faith, hope, charity).

Virtue
Virtue is moral excellence. A virtue is a trait or quality that is deemed
to be morally good and thus is valued as a foundation of principle and
good moral being. Personal virtues are characteristics valued as
promoting collective and individual greatness.

Happiness
The term happiness is used in the context of mental or emotional
states, including positive or pleasant emotions ranging from
contentment to intense joy. It is also used in the context of life
satisfaction, subjective well-being, eudaimonia, flourishing and well-
being.

What is happiness, according to Aristotle? How is it related to
virtue? How is it related to pleasure?
According to Aristotle, the definition of happiness is an activity of the
soul in line with virtue. In simpler terms, happiness is a virtuous soul
activity. Pleasure, honor, or wealth, according to him is not happiness.
This is one of the things that many of us today have a misconception
with. We constantly seek for happiness and almost every time, in the
most physical state, like money, power and pleasure.

What is happiness, according to Aristotle? How is it related to
virtue? How is it related to pleasure?
In Aristotle's words, it is not in these things that we see happiness. It
is in the most plain act of a good deed where we have accomplished
something better that we find happiness. This is the reason why he
explained the relation of happiness with the virtuous soul activities. If
we do something indeed good enough to pass off as virtuous, then
we will be content and find our happy zone. Pleasure, on the other
hand, is another thing that always mislead to finding our true
happiness.

Happiness is a virtue
Happiness is not pleasure, nor is it virtue. It is the exercise of virtue.
... Happiness depends on acquiring a moral character, where one
displays the virtues of courage, generosity, justice, friendship, and
citizenship in one's life. These virtues involve striking a balance or
"mean" between an excess and a deficiency.

Does virtue lead to happiness?
But does virtue lead to happiness? Yes, in some ways it does.
The virtuous person, is the compassionate person, for compassion
is what brings happiness to the world. Happiness comes when your
thoughts, work, and speech are harmonized and filtered through a
spectrum of virtuous behaviors.

What is the relationship between happiness and virtue
according to Aristotle?
For Aristotle, happiness is not pleasure, honor, or wealth, but an
activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. Happiness is related
to virtue by means that virtue is something that he/she likes to do
like vices; it makes him/her happy.

Is it possible for everyone in our society to be happy, as Aristotle
explains it? If not, who cannot be happy?
It is possible for everyone in our society to be happy. According to
Aristotle, the life of a man who is active in accordance with virtue will
be truly happy. Now there is a point where man makes his own
decisions and in whatever track he chooses, it is his own
consequence. Now Aristotle says that anyone can be truly happy.
Happiness only exists as far as contemplation does, therefore it is
some form of contemplation. The gods are blessed for they can
achieve this but the animals who are deprived of this activity will not
achieve happiness.

ST. THOMAS
AQUINAS
Born : 1225
Roccasecca, Kingdom of Sicily
(now Lazio, Italy)
Died : 7 March 1274 (aged 48–49)
Fossanova, Papal States (now
Lazio, Italy)
Venerated in : Catholic Church
Anglican Communion[1]
Lutheranism[2]
Canonized : 18 July 1323, Avignon, Papal States
by Pope John XXII
Major shrine : Church of the Jacobins, Toulouse,
France
Feast : 28 January (ordinary form), 7 March
(extraordinary form)
Attributes The Summa theologiae, a model church, the sun on the
chest of a Dominican friar
Patronage Academics; against storms; against lightning; apologists;
Aquino, Italy; Belcastro, Italy; book sellers; Catholic academies, schools,
and universities; chastity; Falena, Italy; learning; pencil makers;
philosophers; publishers; scholars; students; University of Santo Tomas;
Sto. Tomas, Batangas; Mangaldan, Pangasinan; theologians[3]
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

Natural Law
Natural law (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is law as seen as being
independent of, and pre-existent to, the positive law of any given
political order, society or nation-state. Such genesis is seen as
determined by nature (whether that reflects creation, evolution, or
random chance), and a notional law of nature treated as objective
fact that is universally applicable;[1] That is, it exists and is
recognizable, without any dependence on human understanding, or
on the positive law of any given state, political order, or legislature —
and even of society at large.

Natural Rights vs. Human Rights
• It may be simple semantics, but the adjective before the word
“rights,” whether that adjective is “human” or “natural,” can make a
difference in how the term is defined. When asking the question of
natural rights vs. human rights, consider that natural rights are
those endowed by birth and are to be protected by the
government. These rights include life, liberty, and property, among
others.
• Human rights, on the other hand, are rights deemed so by society.
These include such things as the right to live in a safe, suitable
dwelling, the right to healthy food, and the right to receive
healthcare. In many modern societies, citizens feel that the
government should provide these things to people who have
difficulty obtaining them on their own.

Natural Law Examples in Religious Beliefs
An example of natural law being tested in the courts can be found in
the case of Gilardi v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. Here,
two brothers – Francis and Philip Gilardi – own Freshway Foods and
Freshway Logistics, both of which are fresh-food processing
companies located in Sidney, Ohio. The brothers are Roman
Catholic, and found that the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that
companies provide employee health insurance that covers birth
control options conflicted with their religious beliefs. The men stood
their ground to operate their companies in accordance with their
religious beliefs – refusing to compensate employees for birth control
options in their health insurance plans.

When the Gilardis were issued $14 million in penalties for not
complying with the law, they sued the government on behalf of their
companies, saying that the current mandate is trying to force them to
choose between their faith and their livelihood. The Gilardi case
claimed that the Affordable Care Act violated their constitutional
rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution, as well as
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative
Procedure Act.

The Affordable Care Act, colloquially referred to as “Obamacare,”
derives its authority to mandate options for contraception and
sterilization through natural law, seeking to provide healthcare options
that are for the good of the people in general. No individuals covered
by these insurance plans are required to utilize any of the services.
When the case was heard by the appellate court, Judge Janice
Rogers Brown ruled that the Freshway companies are not “people” as
defined by the Constitution and the federal Religious Freedom
Restoration Act (i.e. individual human beings), so they are not able to
exercise a religious belief and cannot claim that the mandate offends
“them.”

IMMANUEL KANT
IMMANUEL KANT
Born : 22 April 1724
Königsberg, Kingdom of Prussia
(present-day Kaliningrad, Russia)
Died : 12 February 1804 (aged 79)
Königsberg, East Prussia, Kingdom of
Prussia
Nationality : Prussian
Education : Collegium Fridericianum
University of Königsberg
(B.A.; M.A., April 1755; PhD, September 1755; PhD,[1] August
1770)
Era : Age of Enlightenment
Region : Western philosophy
School :
Kantianism; Enlightenment philosophy; German idealism[2]
Foundationalism[3]; Metaphysical conceptualism[4]
Perceptual non-conceptualism[5][6]; Transcendental idealism
Empirical realism; Indirect realism[7]; Correspondence theory of
truth[8]; Liberal naturalism[9]; Kantian ethics; Classical liberalism

Goodwill
A good will is one that acts from duty in accordance with the universal
moral law that the autonomous human being freely gives itself. This
law obliges one to treat humanity – understood as rational agency,
and represented through oneself as well as others – as an end in
itself rather than (merely) as means to other ends the individual might
hold. This necessitates practical self-reflection in which we
universalize our reasons.

Goodwill
To act out of a "good will" for Kant means to act out of a sense of
moral obligation or "duty". ... Kant answers that we do our moral duty
when our motive is determined by a principle recognized by reason
rather than the desire for any expected consequence or emotional
feeling which may cause us to act the way we do.

Good Will, Moral Worth and Duty
Kant’s analysis of commonsense ideas begins with the thought that
the only thing good without qualification is a “good will”. While the
phrases “he’s good hearted”, “she’s good natured” and “she means
well” are common, “the good will” as Kant thinks of it is not the same
as any of these ordinary notions. The idea of a good will is closer to
the idea of a “good person”, or, more archaically, a “person of good
will”. This use of the term “will” early on in analyzing ordinary moral
thought prefigures later and more technical discussions concerning
the nature of rational agency. Nevertheless, this idea of a good will is
an important commonsense touchstone to which Kant returns
throughout his works.

The basic idea, as Kant describes it in the Groundwork, is that what
makes a good person good is his possession of a will that is in a
certain way “determined” by, or makes its decisions on the basis of,
the moral law. The idea of a good will is supposed to be the idea of
one who is committed only to make decisions that she holds to be
morally worthy and who takes moral considerations in themselves to
be conclusive reasons for guiding her behavior. This sort of
disposition or character is something we all highly value, Kant
thought. He believes we value it without limitation or qualification. By
this, we believe, he means primarily two things.

In Kant’s terms, a good will is a will whose decisions are wholly
determined by moral demands or, as he often refers to this, by the
Moral Law. Human beings inevitably feel this Law as a constraint on
their natural desires, which is why such Laws, as applied to human
beings, are imperatives and duties. A human will in which the Moral
Law is decisive is motivated by the thought of duty.
A holy or divine will, if it exists, though good, would not be good
because it is motivated by thoughts of duty because such a will does
not have natural inclinations and so necessarily fulfills moral
requirements without feeling constrained to do so.

Duty and Respect for Moral Law
According to Kant, what is singular about motivation by duty is that it
consists of bare respect for the moral law. What naturally comes to
mind is this: Duties are rules or laws of some sort combined with
some sort of felt constraint or incentive on our choices, whether from
external coercion by others or from our own powers of reason. For
instance, the bylaws of a club lay down duties for its officers and
enforce them with sanctions. City and state laws establish the duties
of citizens and enforce them with coercive legal power. Thus, if we do
something because it is our “civic” duty, or our duty “as a boy scout”
or “a good American,” our motivation is respect for the code that
makes it our duty. Thinking we are duty bound is simply respecting,
as such, certain laws pertaining to us.

Categorical and Hypothetical Imperatives
Kant holds that the fundamental principle of our moral duties is
a categorical imperative. It is an imperative because it is a command
addressed to agents who could follow it but might not (e.g. , “Leave
the gun. Take the cannoli.”). It is categorical in virtue of applying to us
unconditionally, or simply because we possesses rational wills,
without reference to any ends that we might or might not have. It
does not, in other words, apply to us on the condition that we have
antecedently adopted some goal for ourselves.

The Formula of the Universal Law of Nature
Kant held that ordinary moral thought recognized moral duties toward
ourselves as well as toward others. Hence, together with the
distinction between perfect and imperfect duties, Kant recognized
four categories of duties: perfect duties toward ourselves, perfect
duties toward others, imperfect duties toward ourselves and imperfect
duties toward others. Kant uses four examples in the Groundwork,
one of each kind of duty, to demonstrate that every kind of duty can
be derived from the CI, and hence to bolster his case that the CI is
indeed the fundamental principle of morality.

The Formula of the Universal Law of Nature
To refrain from suicide is a perfect duty toward oneself; to refrain from
making promises you have no intention of keeping is a perfect duty
toward others; to develop one’s talents is an imperfect duty toward
oneself; and to contribute to the happiness of others is an imperfect
duty toward others. Again, Kant’s interpreters differ over exactly how
to reconstruct the derivation of these duties. We will briefly sketch one
way of doing so for the perfect duty to others to refrain from lying
promises and the imperfect duty to ourselves to develop talents.

Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a family of consequentialist ethical theories that
promotes actions that maximize happiness and well-being for the
affected individuals.[1] Although different varieties of utilitarianism
admit different characterizations, the basic idea behind all of them is
to in some sense maximize utility, which is often defined in terms of
well-being or related concepts. For instance, Jeremy Bentham, the
founder of utilitarianism, described utility as "that property in any
object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure,
good, or happiness...[or] to prevent the happening of mischief, pain,
evil, or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered."

Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a version of consequentialism, which states that the
consequences of any action are the only standard of right and wrong.
Unlike other forms of consequentialism, such as egoism and altruism,
utilitarianism considers the interests of all humans equally.

Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive
approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy.
Though not fully articulated until the 19th century, proto-utilitarian
positions can be discerned throughout the history of ethical theory.
• Though there are many varieties of the view discussed,
utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right
action is the action that produces the most good. There are many
ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that the
theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood
entirely in terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes
utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant
consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the
overall good — that is, consider the good of others as well as one's
own good.

Distributive Justice
Distributive justice concerns the socially just allocation of
resources. Often contrasted with just process, which is concerned
with the administration of law, distributive justice concentrates on
outcomes. This subject has been given considerable attention in
philosophy and the social sciences.

Distributive Justice
In social psychology, distributive justice is defined as perceived
fairness of how rewards and costs are shared by (distributed across)
group members.[1] For example, when some workers work more
hours but receive the same pay, group members may feel that
distributive justice has not occurred. To determine whether distributive
justice has taken place, individuals often turn to the behavioral
expectations of their group.[1] If rewards and costs are allocated
according to the designated distributive norms of the group,
distributive justice has occurred.[2]

Types of distributive norms
Five types of distributive norm are defined by Donelson R. Forsyth:[1]
• Equality: Regardless of their inputs, all group members should be
given an equal share of the rewards/costs. Equality supports that
someone who contributes 20% of the group's resources should
receive as much as someone who contributes 60%. .[citation needed]
• Equity: Members' outcomes should be based upon their inputs.
Therefore, an individual who has invested a large amount of input
(e.g. time, money, energy) should receive more from the group
than someone who has contributed very little. Members of large
groups prefer to base allocations of rewards and costs on equity.

Types of distributive norms
Five types of distributive norm are defined by Donelson R. Forsyth:[1]
• Power: Those with more authority, status, or control over the group
should receive less than those in lower level positions.
• Need: Those in greatest needs should be provided with resources
needed to meet those needs. These individuals should be given
more resources than those who already possess them, regardless
of their input.
• Responsibility: Group members who have the most should share
their resources with those who have less.

Egalitarianism
Egalitarianism (from French égal, meaning 'equal'),
or equalitarianism,[1][2] is a school of thought within political
philosophy that prioritizes equality for all people.[3] Egalitarian
doctrines are generally characterized by the idea that all humans are
equal in fundamental worth or moral status.[4] Egalitarianism is the
doctrine that all citizens of a state should be accorded exactly equal
rights.[5]

Egalitarianism
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the term has two
distinct definitions in modern English,[6] namely either as a
political doctrine that all people should be treated as equals and have
the same political, economic, social and civil rights,[7] or as a social
philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among
people, economic egalitarianism, or the decentralization of power.
Some sources define egalitarianism as the point of view that equality
reflects the natural state of humanity.[8][9][10]

Legal egalitarianism
One argument is that liberalism provides democratic societies with
the means to carry out civic reform by providing a framework for
developing public policy and providing the correct conditions for
individuals to achieve civil rights.[11]

Social egalitarianism
At a cultural level, egalitarian theories have developed in
sophistication and acceptance during the past two hundred years.
Among the notable broadly egalitarian philosophies
are socialism, communism, social anarchism, libertarian
socialism, left-libertarianism and progressivism, some of which
propound economic egalitarianism. However, whether any of these
ideas have been significantly implemented in practice remains a
controversial question. Anti-egalitarianism[12] or elitism[13] is opposition
to egalitarianism.

Economic
• A very early example of equality of what might be described as
outcome economic egalitarianism is the Chinese philosophy
of agriculturalism which held that the economic policies of a
country need to be based upon an egalitarian self sufficiency.[14]

Economic
In socialism, social ownership of means of production is sometimes
considered to be a form of economic egalitarianism because in an
economy characterized by social ownership the surplus
product generated by industry would accrue to the population as a
whole as opposed to a class of private owners, thereby granting each
individual increased autonomy and greater equality in their
relationships with one another. Although the economist Karl Marx is
sometimes mistaken to be an egalitarian, Marx eschewed normative
theorizing on moral principles altogether. However, Marx did have a
theory of the evolution of moral principles in relation to
specific economic systems.[15]

Gender equality
Gender equality, also known as sexual equality or equality of the
sexes, is the state of equal ease of access to resources and
opportunities regardless of gender, including economic participation
and decision-making; and the state of valuing different behaviors,
aspirations and needs equally, regardless of gender.

Gender equality
Gender equality is the goal, while gender neutrality and gender equity
are practices and ways of thinking that help in achieving the goal.
Gender parity, which is used to measure gender balance in a given
situation, can aid in achieving gender equality but is not the goal in
and of itself. Gender equality is more than equal representation, it is
strongly tied to women's rights, and often requires policy changes. As
of 2017, the global movement for gender equality has not
incorporated the proposition of genders besides women and men,
or gender identities outside of the gender binary.

Capitalism
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of
the means of production and their operation
for profit.[1][2][3][4] Characteristics central to capitalism include private
property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange,
a price system and competitive markets.[5][6] In a capitalist market
economy, decision-making and investments are determined by every
owner of wealth, property or production ability in financial and capital
markets, whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services
are mainly determined by competition in goods and services
markets.[7][8]

Advantages of Capitalism
• Capitalism results in the best products for the best prices. That's
because consumers will pay more for what they want the most.
Businesses provide what customers want at the highest prices
they’ll pay. Prices are kept low by competition among businesses.
They make their products as efficient as possible to maximize
profit.
• Most important for economic growth is capitalism's intrinsic reward
for innovation. This includes innovation in more efficient production
methods. It also means the innovation of new products. As Steve
Jobs, co-founder of Apple Computer Inc., said in an interview
with Inc. magazine, "You can't just ask customers what they want
and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll
want something new."

Disadvantages of Capitalism
• Capitalism doesn't provide for those who lack competitive skills.
This includes the elderly, children, the developmentally disabled,
and caretakers. To keep society functioning, capitalism requires
government policies that value the family unit.
• Despite the idea of a “level playing field,” capitalism does not
promote equality of opportunity. Those without good nutrition,
support, and education may never make it to the playing field.
Society will never benefit from their valuable skills.

• In the short term, inequality may seem to be in the best interest of
capitalism's winners. They have fewer competitive threats. They
may also use their power to "rig the system" by creating barriers to
entry. For example, they will donate to elected officials who
sponsor laws that benefit their industry. They could send their
children to private schools while supporting lower taxes for public
schools.
• In the long term, inequality limits diversity and the innovation it
creates. For example, a diverse business team is more able to
identify market niches. It can understand the needs of society's
minorities, and target products to meet those needs.

• Capitalism ignores external costs, such as pollution and climate
change. This makes goods cheaper and more accessible in the
short run. But over time, it depletes natural resources,
lowers the quality of life in the affected areas, and increases costs
for everyone.13 The government should impose Pigouvian
taxes to monetize these external costs and improve the general
welfare.
• Some critics say these problems are signs of late-stage capitalism.
They argue that capitalism's flaws mean it has evolved past its
usefulness to society. They don't realize that capitalism's flaws are
endemic to the system, regardless of the phase it is in.

Difference Between Capitalism, Socialism, Communism and Fascism
Attribute Capitalism Socialism Communism Fascism
Factors of
production are
owned by:
Individuals Everyone Everyone Everyone
Factors of
production
provide:
Profit Usefulness to
people
Usefulness to
people
Nation-building
Allocation
decided by:
Supply and
demand
Central plan Central plan Central plan
Each gives
according to:
Market Ability Ability Value to the
nation
Each receives
according to:
Wealth Contribution Need Value to the
nation

Capitalism and Private Property
Private property rights are fundamental to capitalism. Most modern
concepts of private property stem from John Locke's theory of
homesteading, in which human beings claim ownership through
mixing their labor with unclaimed resources. Once owned, the only
legitimate means of transferring property are through voluntary
exchange, gifts, inheritance, or re-homesteading of abandoned
property.

Private property promotes efficiency by giving the owner of resources
an incentive to maximize the value of their property. So, the more
valuable the resource is, the more trading power it provides the
owner. In a capitalist system, the person who owns the property is
entitled to any value associated with that property.

For individuals or businesses to deploy their capital goods
confidently, a system must exist that protects their legal right to own
or transfer private property. A capitalist society will rely on the use of
contracts, fair dealing, and tort law to facilitate and enforce these
private property rights.

When a property is not privately owned but shared by the public, a
problem known as the tragedy of the commons can emerge. With a
common pool resource, which all people can use, and none can limit
access to, all individuals have an incentive to extract as much use
value as they can and no incentive to conserve or reinvest in the
resource. Privatizing the resource is one possible solution to this
problem, along with various voluntary or involuntary collective action
approaches.

Socialism
Socialism is a political, social and economic
philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social
systems characterised by social ownership[1][2][3] of the means of
production[4][5][6][7] and workers' self-management of enterprises.[8][9] It
includes the political theories and movements associated with such
systems.[10] Social ownership can be public, collective, cooperative or
of equity.[11] While no single definition encapsulates many types of
socialism,[12] social ownership is the one common element.[1][13][14] It
aims to circumvent the inefficiencies and crises traditionally
associated with capital accumulation and the profit system
in capitalism.[15][16][17][18]

Advantages of Socialism
• Under socialism, workers are no longer exploited because they
own the means of production. Profits are spread equitably among
all workers according to their individual contributions. But the
cooperative system also provides for those who can't work. It
meets their basic needs for the good of the whole society.
• The system eliminates poverty. It provides equal access to health
care and education. No one is discriminated against.
• Everyone works at what one is best at and what one enjoys. If
society needs jobs to be done that no one wants, it offers higher
compensation to make it worthwhile for people to take them.
• Natural resources are preserved for the good of the whole.

Disadvantages of Socialism
• The biggest disadvantage of socialism is that it relies on the
cooperative nature of humans to work. It ignores those within
society who are competitive and focus on personal gain. Those
people tend to seek ways to overthrow and disrupt society for their
own benefit. Capitalism harnesses this "Greed is good" drive.
Socialism pretends it doesn't exist.
• As a result, socialism doesn't reward people for being
entrepreneurial. It struggles to be as innovative as a capitalistic
society.
• A third disadvantage is that the government has a lot of power.
This works as long as it represents the wishes of the people. But
government leaders can abuse this position and claim power for
themselves.

Eight Types of Socialism
There are eight types of socialism. They differ on how capitalism can
best be turned into socialism and emphasize different aspects of
socialism.
• Democratic Socialism: The means of production are managed by
the working people, and there is a democratically elected
government. Democratic planning is used for common goods, such
as mass transit, housing, and energy, while the free market is
allowed to produce and distribute consumer goods.
• Revolutionary Socialism: Socialism will emerge only after
capitalism has been overthrown, although the revolution is not
necessarily a violent one. The factors of production are owned by
the workers and managed by them through central planning.

• Libertarian Socialism: Libertarianism assumes that the basic
nature of people is rational, autonomous, and self-determining.
Once the strictures of capitalism have been removed, people will
naturally seek a socialist society that takes care of all, free of
economic, political, or social hierarchies. They will see it is the best
for their own self-interest.
• Market Socialism: Production is owned by the workers. They
decide how to distribute among themselves. They could sell
excess production on the free market. Alternatively, it could be
turned over to society, which might distribute it according to the
free market.

• Green Socialism: This type of socialistic economy highly values
the maintenance of natural resources. Public ownership of large
corporations achieves this. It also emphasizes public transit and
locally sourced food. Production focuses on making sure everyone
has enough of the basics instead of consumer products one
doesn't really need. This kind of economy guarantees a livable
wage for everyone.
• Christian Socialism: Christian teachings of brotherhood are the
same values expressed by socialism.
• Utopian Socialism: This was more a vision of equality than a
concrete plan. The idea arose before massive industrialization and
would have been achieved peacefully through a series of
experimental societies.

• Fabian Socialism: This type of socialism was extolled by a British
organization called the Fabian Society in the late 1900s. It
advocated a gradual change to socialism through laws, elections,
and other peaceful means.

Frameworks and principles behind our moral disposition

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Frameworks and principles behind our moral disposition

Recently uploaded

Frameworks and principles behind our moral disposition