6

It's not a fallacy, it's a paradox that must be addressed by pro-Christians, anti-Socialists/anti-Communists, etc that goes by the common name, "The Problem of Evil". Have the theists adequately addressed "The Problem of Evil"? That's for you to decide. But it's not a fallacy.


6

(This is a short unsourced answer for the time being, when I have the time later, I will update it with sources and details) From a Marxist point of view, UBI doesn't solve the problem of exploitation. Nor does free housing, universal health care, or food stamps for all, etc....all of these are corrections to capitalism, which aim at keeping capitalism in ...


5

Very roughly, a Marxist viewpoint would hold that inequality is intrinsic to capitalism since capitalism is a system in which the means of production are privately owned and are used to make profits for their owners. Profits derive from selling the products of labour, employed to operate the means of production, at a higher price than is paid to that labour :...


4

Capitalism for Marx I go along with David Miller's working definition of what capitalism meant for Marx : Capitalism - This is understood in Marx's nineteenth- century sense, as an economic system based on the free market in which a minority of individuals own the means of production and hire wage- laborers, the state being confined to the ...


3

Ethics of pricing Interesting question : the practice is as old as selling, but you object to it ethically or at least raise the question of its morality. I have not considered the practice from this angle before, so appreciate your presenting it from a (to me) new perspective. Of course the question stands, and retains its ethical relevance, if just one ...


3

If you don't want to read my long-winded response, here's a summary: Instead of searching for a problem that's intrinsic in capitalism, look for something that is NOT intrinsic in capitalism, namely 1) a moral foundation, and 2) a system of checks and balances. The key word here is power. The acquisition and use of power is what politics is all about, and ...


2

I am not an expert on Baudrillards views, so my response will relate only to what Deleuze & Guattari wrote on this theme, often labled "accelerationism". However what I understand of Baudrillard's view leads me to believe he takes a vastly different approach and holds a vastly different understanding of what's at stake in this question, so I would always ...


2

Providing resources for rebuilding private infrastructure would not be considered a role of government under the Objectivist conception of capitalism. People do not have a “right” to be free from the effects of natural disasters, and property that is damaged or destroyed by a natural disaster would not fall in the scope of protection of rights. This role ...


2

Sometimes a disaster takes place that will make human life impossible in some particular limited context - Ayn Rand calls this an emergency: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/emergencies.html In such circumstances it may be a good idea to help people caught up in that disaster. There is no particular reason to think that government must provide such help. ...


2

I think the answer to this question depends a lot on your definition of what constitutes something 'unethical'. Obviously, I can't tell you what to believe, because I do not know your ethics. However, I hope I can still shed some light on the topic. Ultimately, in the example you provided, there is no point at which the seller actually outright says ...


2

The first response is that, as a matter of law, the corporation is an individual, like a natural person. It is a legitimate participant in the market, just as human beings are. It follows that, if the corporation and its agents are held responsible for violations of market standards, the market's principles are being honoured. But this is a bootstrap ...


1

I've been familiar with the term for a while, think I saw it in an encyclopedia a decade or so ago. Pretty sure it's an argument that, when we accept the premises, our conclusion supports them, and in this sense the conclusion contains the assumptions. So that the likelihood of the argument's soundness is larger than the assumptions without the conclusion. ...


1

The Market as God (2016) by Harvey Cox who is a theologian.


1

The simplest definition of a commodity consistent with Marx is that it is anything produced for market exchange. Internet access is clearly a commodity in that sense. You pay for it. Even when you get free WiFi, the provider is paying someone else for it. Access to the Internet is produced through the installation, configuration and maintenance of ...


1

One way that Peter L. Berger and Ivan Illich might have disagreed about capitalism is to consider their different approaches to the changes that capitalism brings. Peter L. Berger's remarks: It follows that to opt for capitalism is not to opt for inequality at the price of growth; rather, it is to opt for an accelerating transformation of society. This ...


1

The question you are asking about "goodness" of the Creator versus the existence of evil has traditionally been put in perspective with a key feature of the Creation: that it contains living beings endowed with freedom. To reduce that argumentation to its essence, freedom of choice, which allows an individual to select any behavior, is taking precedence over ...


1

Your question is fallacious. It is a straw-man question, in which you focus on one version of the way the Problem of Evil is posed. This particular phrasing, in which Good and Evil are treated as real Platonic Forms, assumes an ontology that many people do not agree with. While the majority accept objective morality, and objective morality is most ...


1

The argument is called the 'Epicurian' argument and goes like this : If god is all powerful then he can prevent child Leukemia and ebola. If he doesn't then he is not kind, and is undeserving of our worship. Take your pick. Is god not god (not all powerful) or is he an asshat sadist? It's not a test.. its not a fallacy.. it's a logical argument. Hand ...


1

The subject of how capitalism 'decays' or becomes 'decadent' is the subject of extensive work by Marx and countless others. In theory the only check needed to prevent free market economics from decay is 'competition'. Marx says that capitalism always ends in monopoly, which is your view of capitalism decaying to corporatism. But monopolies bloat, become ...


1

How would road building corporations between each other decide who where builds roads? The place where the road is to be built is a piece of property. In laissez-faire capitalism the issue of who has the right to use such property should be decided according to who first uses it - the homesteading principle. But then suppose roads became bad after some ...


1

It's a vast topic as you realise. It might be useful to point you initially in the direction of Noelle Bisseret. Her main views are indicated in the following review by David Hogan : Language and ideology For Bisseret, the language practices of bourgeois societies are systems of social discourses - social practices - that are ideologically structured ...


1

You make a perfectly valid point captured by Juvenal's question from long ago : Sed Quis Custodet Custodies? [But who is to guard the guards themselves] (Juvenal, c. AD 60-130) Any familiarity with state-based politics should realise the sharpness of this question. Once you have a political group or person (president, monarch, parliament, Congress) ...


1

This argument is a real mess. For one thing there's a type/ token fallacy : it does not follow, because Communism (type) produced (arguably) bad results in Russia (token), that as a type of system Communism invariably or even probably produces bad results (bad tokens). (I'm not saying whether it does or doesn't - I am exposing only the illogic of the ...


1

The argument used here is an argument from analogy. It is not an instance of tu quoque as not being ad hominem. Expanding reasoning, it means: And the slave trade was run by capitalists. Don't be a capitalist, you saw what happened in capitalist countries (1). Is the following tu quo que a reasonable argument? Whether an analogy is a reasonable ...


1

Simple: freedom. It is the same as asking why the best soccer players in the world are so few and there is a huge difference between them and the rest of the soccer players? Well, because in a system that has freedom the best players emerge.


1

The purpose of Capitalism is to create wealth for the ones in power to do so. Everything else from an objective p.o.v is secondary towards irrelevant compared to that purpose, human life included. Everything else from a general p.o.v. is propaganda (**1 will detail below*). The tendency of such a system can be interpreted mathematically and it manifested ...


1

The answer to the main question is no, a UBI would only "raise the standard of living" of the population, it would not eliminate the "exploitation" in capitalism. The reason for this, is that as long as a person wants something additional, or even to maintain what he/she already has, some sort of "resource" has to be spent. Having to spend some resource (...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible