Should Charities Replace the Welfare State?

by David Rovick

The Russian philopsopher, Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand was a Russian Philosopher born in 1905. She is probably most famous for writing the novel ‘When Atlas Shrugged’ and developing a philosophy called Objectivism, a philosophy supposedly based on reason, self-esteem or selfishness, and fundamental human rights among other things. I am a huge fan of Ayn Rand and her ideas, but enough about her for now at least.

I will first attempt to answer the question: should charities replace the welfare state, using objectivist reasoning. First of all I will derive the answer to why welfare states are morally wrong almost all of the time.

To do this I will derive a philosophy using nothing but reason and logic, starting with a ‘clean slate’ of thought, and first ask what the purpose of philosophy, or moral code, or morality (I will use the terms interchangeably) should fulfil. I think we can all agree that the purpose of a human being should be to further and maintain human life, and therefore human life is the highest moral standard. Animals do it in nature, acting consistently in a way that will sustain and further life, indeed it is necessary for their survival, for their life. In the same way, a human’s morality must be what allows him to further and sustain his own life, so that he can live as joyful and fulfilling a life as possible and this is to be the purpose of our morality. What’s more, man’s morality must fulfil its purpose when applied consistently, for what good is a morality if it can only achieve its purpose when inconsistently applied, or even worse (and more commonly unfortunately when not applied at all?

Next I will make the observation that we are each observable individuals; that is we own our bodies, our minds and ourselves insofar as we are the ultimate deciders of our own thoughts and actions. This is evident in the fact that humans have free will, which is the ability to act and think independently, thusly the ability to use reason if we choose too in acting and thinking independently. And because we have given ourselves the purpose of using reason in order to further and sustain human life, it is morally right to use it, and morally wrong to not.

Death and Capitalism at Oxford Think Week

by Viva Avasthi

On Monday I attended a Think Week event entitled 'Death and Capitalism' which has been given the following description by its organisers:

Here I am with Mr Hutton

Death is a given. We will all die at some point. When you strip away all the emotion, all the psychology, all the cultural impacts, is there something about death, something very practical, that we are missing out on? Death, it turns out, is also an opportunity. It is inextricably linked to wealth and property. So, as we strive to build a stronger, more equitable and more prosperous society, what opportunities does death afford us?

I went primarily to see the main speaker, Mr Will Hutton, who is currently Principal of Hertford College, Oxford and is a prominent Keynesian economist. During a discussion with my economics teacher where I was wondering whether there are any modern equivalents to Keynes (that is, whether there are any prominent economists today who would adapt their ideas and thoughts to suit the economic problems facing them, rather than holding on desperately to fixed ideologies), she mentioned Will Hutton and Amartya Sen. Although I had heard of Amartya Sen and knew that he specialises in development economics, I had not heard of Will Hutton. For this reason, when I found that Mr Hutton would be speaking at an event at Oxford, I was immensely excited and made sure to attend so that I could find out about his ideas and meet him in person.

In his speech, Mr Hutton argued the case for increasing rates of inheritance tax as well as ensuring that the loopholes currently used by the wealthy are closed. In starting his speech by mentioning that the 5-7% levee the Romans used to place on young men from wealthy families was just one of many examples of inheritance tax throughout history, he argued that humans have always been determined to create equality by rewarding people according to the amount of effort they put into their work. He pointed out that in observing this idea, the young Marx was, in fact, wiser than the old Marx to some extent, because the young Marx understood that everybody being paid equally no matter how hard they work is fundamentally against human nature. This aspect was particularly interesting for me as I have just finished reading a book on Marx's ideas, and will be publishing a relevant article very soon.

Communism vs. Capitalism

by Charlotte Wright

Communism and capitalism provide two very different ways of life. Is one better than the other?

An interesting opinion!