The Value of Welfare to a Society Is Often Seen in Terms of Either (1) Taking (Taxes) From

The value of welfare to a society is often seen in terms of either (1) taking (taxes) from those who have and giving to those who have not (as many say the “lazy”) or (2) that of making the poor better off for the sake or justice or morality. Nozick and Rawls differ on whether welfare and similar distribution/taxation programs are good or not. Nozick bases his views of what is just on the basis of three principles: the transfer principle; the acquisition principle; and the rectification principle. The first says that all voluntary, and only all voluntary transfers are just. The second says that all are entitled to own what they justly own and the third says that any violations of the first two must be corrected. Because taxes for welfare are not freely given by all, they are not voluntary and are not just. They violate taxpayers’ rights. Rawls says that everyone is to have free rights, but that those rights can be limited when rights interfere or prevent people from having rights to equal opportunity or basic needs (the liberty and difference principles). He views welfare, therefore, as necessary transfer of money to help keep some in society from lacking enough basic needs.

The two may differ but both see welfare as nothing more than either (1) taking-to give to others or (2) making the poor better off. Their views, therefore, fail to consider the greater good all gain when society ensures that there is not a permanent, underfed, unsheltered, and uncared for population. These are the kinds of populations that breed revolutions, anger, theft, and overall destruction of society. This is also the populations that become terribly sick and then spread disease throughout a society. Therefore, to maintain the rights of all to live, societies must ensure that their weakest members also survive. This is more similar to Rawls’ vision, but it works to determine the benefit to all to make the transfer not so involuntary, as Nozick would want.

Promoting formula to mothers in third world countries is a way to expand the market for a product, but not a manner of doing business that seeks to help a consumer or provide something a consumer needs. It is, in fact, a way of doing business that cares only about business needs and does not care at all about consumer needs. The formula is blamed for an epidemic that has killed newborns. The company did not care about that possibility when it promoted the formula to new mothers. The conditions in third world countries made formula a bad product. The population is mainly uneducated, so they do not understand proper instructions for use. The population is very poor, and making them want this product will only worsen their financial condition. The population also lives with poor water resources and water that is not clean. This means that infants are fed this water with diseases, through the formula, that their bodies have not yet learned how to fight off. All of these factors indicate this action was unethical and profit driven for the company’s best interests. The company failed to consider the impact on the consumers and their families.

Green’s factors also make this unethical. The failure to engage in this practice would not have caused serious harm to the company or its shareholders. The behavior did cause more harm than good to others. This action could easily lead others to do worse things or the same thing and lead to more harm. Stopping this behavior would lead other not to do this and it will not cause others to make the same promotions.

To do or not do something that can be seen as inappropriate or that one has been told one “should not do,” such as learn early, before a school tells one that one has been accepted, is wrong morally and unethical. When one obtains information, or anything, in a way that one would be too ashamed to reveal, that too is an indication that one is doing the wrong thing. There is no doubt that seeking to learn information early is unethical and immoral. There is also no doubt that one can rationalize this to make it seem right or not unethical. Many may argue that they need to know the information as quickly as possible so they can prepare to apply elsewhere or make plans to attend the school. Ultimately, however, these things fail. To do something that is wrong, and that one knows to be wrong, is simply unethical. My own values would have prevented me from doing it.

Act utilitarianism says that the ethical choice is that which creates the greatest good for the greatest many. The school, as a whole, created its systems to benefit itself and its students. To violate that for personal need or gain, therefore, would be unethical if viewed through act utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism says that actions are good when they follow rules that lead to the greatest good. In this case the rule that leads to the greatest good is follow the rules and wait to hear as it affects everyone equally. Rule utilitarianism also says it is wrong to find out early. Kantianism, and its universal rules of right and wrong also indicate that finding out early is wrong because it means a violation of systems that should be a universal maxim for all to follow.

A capitalist economic system is based on a free market setting the supply to meet a given demand for goods or services the population freely has. The Buddhist perspective, if it was held by the consumers in a society and the suppliers in a society could work within a capitalistic system. In fact, it may work very well because it allows people to make the choice to do the work that makes them the most happy. Work must (1) give man a chance to utilize and develop his faculties; (2) enable man to overcome his focus on himself by joining with others to complete a common task; and (3) create goods and services needed in society. Because the population has the same beliefs, it will also demand these goods and services as well as the values made possible by this production and work. This is work people want to do and it is work that celebrates the value of people’s ability to work.

A capitalist market normally works to achieve the greatest profit, but that is only because it values goods more than people. That is why international trade is part of capitalism. However, capitalism with a Buddhist perspective would not engage in international trade and seek to live only with what suppliers can produce from their own resources, in consideration of what is used. This would value people above things yet still be perfectly capitalist driven because the work people do must be work that society wants and needs.

All actions do have a cost and a benefit and those costs and benefits can differ between private persons and society. Businesses may be free riders, they may internalize their environmental externalities, or they may enter into a social contract. These three methods require companies to act in very different ways. This produces both advantages and disadvantages.

The advantage of being a free rider is that companies do not pay for the harm they do. This means they can sell their products at lower costs to all in society. The disadvantage is that because companies do not consider what they do as a cost, they do whatever they want and it is society that must pay the price. When businesses internalize their environmental externalities they consider what results their actions may have and make decisions that try to not harm as much. This is a benefit to society. However, internalization can also mean that companies increase costs to consumers, so society may pay more for things. The last option, the social contract, means that companies take it as part of their responsibility that they have to protect the resources they use and the environment they are in just as people do. The advantage is that both businesses and society take this on as their duty. The disadvantage is that this may limit the actions of both and can lead both to live less comfortably than they may have previously.