babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » Can Socialism be Justified through Utilitarian Ethics?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Can Socialism be Justified through Utilitarian Ethics?
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 09 May 2008 03:04 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is a serious question.

I wonder how beneficial or detrimental things would be if society were to embrace a fully socialist philosophy in the organizing of the means of production for an extended period of time (at least a few generations). From my anecdotal observations of diet socialism tested in the real world, certain things would improve. There would be less economic inequality, and production might focus more on a good product rather than how to scam the consumer and the shareholder. There would also be more respect for environmental sustainability. These are some positives among many.

Among the negatives, I wonder if science, technology and innovation would proceed as quickly, as these things matter as well. Would technology develop as well in such a world? There were some people in a recent thread who said the world would be better if physics had not progressed beyond 1930 levels, because weapon capabilities expanded after that point. I don't rally have a socialist mentality, so often I try to estimate what socialism would lead to by asking people who are very progressive what they think of things. In a recent discussion with someone, she said she doesn't support increasing funding for the space program, something alone the lines of because a lot of children are going hungry . I suppose we could have a world where people went into poetry and the fine arts, had 1 or 2 kids, there was peace everywhere... and then history stops. It doesn't sound appealing to me. For all the inequality of this world, it is nice that we have long lifespans, and that our body of knowledge is so rich and expanding so fast.

Would the good outweigh the bad?


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 09 May 2008 05:00 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Would the good outweigh the bad?


Regardless of the advantages and disadvantages presented by a socialistic system, we are going to have to collectivize at some point. We won't have the time to engage in a cost-benefit analysis.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 09 May 2008 07:47 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
This is a serious question.

For all the inequality of this world, it is nice that we have long lifespans, and that our body of knowledge is so rich and expanding so fast.

Would the good outweigh the bad?


So it's ok if most of the world has short lifespans, dies of starvation and disease, lives in miserable conditions, spend their short lives desperately trying to stay alive, as long as that portion of the world to which you belong has long lifespans and the body of knowledge to which you have access increases?


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 09 May 2008 08:04 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I wonder if science, technology and innovation would proceed as quickly,

Quick is not necessarily good. When we jump the gun, which we do rather too often, we destroy faster than we create; take on problems we're not prepared to solve. There is no virtue in speed. Slow and careful might be better.
Science and technology are wonderful, but they benefit from a little bit more time to reflect, look at the big picture: environmental and cultural risk; social and economic change; long-term effects; culture-shock...

Socialism would ask: What happens to the people?
Capitalism would ask; What is the money doing?

[ 09 May 2008: Message edited by: nonsuch ]


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca