Ваша оценкаЦитаты
- Zhorakovsky9 октября 2016 г.
The two traditions of thought examined here, post-Rawlsian liberalism and neoclassical economics, both forbid any public preference for this or that way of life. Neither has any objection to individuals deciding for themselves that a certain lifestyle is "good" and working no harder than they need to support it.
072 - Zhorakovsky9 октября 2016 г.Читать далее
The principle of state neutrality is now so well estalbished that we sometimes forget how revolutionary it is. Until 1960s, liberalism was primarily a doctrine of tolerance, not neutrality. The distinction is significant. Tolerance is not mere absence of bias but a positive ethical virtue; it implies forbearance, serenity, good humour anda respect of privacy. But tolerance does not rule out public preference for one moral or religious doctrine over the others; it insists only that the rivals be treated with consideration and respect. Finally, tolerance needs not extend to the intolerable, whereas neutrality must in all consistency be universal. The tolerant state does not face the dilemma of the neutral state when dealing with necrophiliacs, neo-Nazis and the like.
059 - Zhorakovsky9 октября 2016 г.
The economist Fred Hirsch relabelled Harrod's "oligarchic" goods "positional", because acces to them depends not on our absolute wealth but on our position to others. Like top prizes in a tournament, positional goods cannot be won by everyone. They will always be scooped by the richest of the society, whatever the overall level of affluence. Competition to acquire them will therefore never cease.
020 - Zhorakovsky9 октября 2016 г.
Needs – the objective requirements of good and comfortable life – are finite in quantity, but wants, being purely psychic, are infinitely expandable.
015 - Zhorakovsky9 октября 2016 г.
A great crisis is like an inspection: it exposes the faults of a social system, and prompts the search for alternatives.
012 - Zhorakovsky9 октября 2016 г.
In a previous book, Robert Skidelsky did venture to name a sum which the economist John Maynard Keynes would have considered "enough" to satisfy average needs: £40 000 a year (in 2013 money).
010 - Zhorakovsky9 октября 2016 г.
He gives up too soon. He moves swiftly from the observation that cultures and epochs differ in what they consider healthy or moral to the conclusion that it makes no sense to talk about what is healthy or moral as such. This is a non sequitur. It is rather like saying that because some people rate Tolstoy above Dostoyevsky, other Dostoyevsky above Tolstoy, neither Tolsoy nor Dostoyevsky are any better than Ayn Rand.
09 - Zhorakovsky9 октября 2016 г.
Insofar as people care more about relative, rather than absolute wealth, economic competition is already substantially a competition for honour.
07 - Zhorakovsky9 октября 2016 г.
Honour is strictly positional. The pursuit of honour, unlike the pursuit of wealth, is a zero-sum game. One competitor's gain is the other competitor's loss. (This is the reason why honour came under suspicion in 17-18 centuries: it was too costly)
07 - Zhorakovsky9 октября 2016 г.
If the money motive comes to play a decreasingly important role in human affairs, the motive of honour may revive to fill the gap. Perhaps we are seeing something like this already, in the proliferation of sporting and literary prizes.
06