Ripstein, channeling Kant, writes that poverty in society in unacceptable because it creates dependence of some on others, which is inconsistent with the right to be able to use one's body as one desires. Poverty, he writes, in symbolically akin to a form of slavery, for being poor and being reliant on others for survival (through private determinations) strips one of the freedom to live life by their own terms and instead makes them beholden to others. Ripstein/Kant are attempting to provide a justification for the necessity of government (public) intervention for the sake of the poor, and some semblance of fairness or justice in a society that is bound to encounter inequality.
Amartya Sen, however, points out the dangers associated with government intervention for the sake of the poor, from an empirical perspective. He writes about the comparison between Western Europe and the United States, the former providing welfare to near 10% of their society (the unemployed), the latter closer to 5% of society. He makes a compelling case for why neither society should pat themselves on the back, in Western Europe everyone is able to live a "comfortable" life, yet those on welfare are distinctly harmed by the meaninglessness of their lives, while in the United States more individuals lead purposeful lives, but some suffer more at the hands of a less forgiving state and society. I think the latter case somewhat challenges the proposal put forth by Ripstein/Kant. If one were to characterize a reliance on private charity as a form of slavery, where one was unable to live out one's life according to their own volition, wouldn't a society predicated on a certain percentage of individuals being reliant upon government for their sustenance be yet another---albeit more comfortable---form of slavery. Distinct harm is being caused to them as well, they are simply victims of another structural form of inequality.
No comments:
Post a Comment