Originally Posted by jessicaSAR
On one level, I agree. There are some pretty different core beliefs here. However, that does not discourage dialogue for me. Since I am really not satisfied with either position, I keep thinking that there might be a new sythesis possible here, a new way of thinking about these sorts of questions.
What it really boils down to for me is that fact that I am suspicious of any theory that claims to have solved the problem or answered the question definitively for all time. The older I get, and the more I learn, the more I realize what I don't know. Part of the criticism of my sort of contextual and complicated ethics is that it is so messy and indeterminate, and you always have to keep thinking. Well, that's just what I like best about it. I am much more comfortable with the grey area than I am with hard and fast principles. I think a little cognitive dissonance is enlightening and really the only way to see some sorts of oppression.
Now once again you've said it better than I could. I also enjoy the dialogue and I'm not particularly happy w/ any of the different sides. I punt into deontological ethics b/c I'm definitely unhappy w/ pronouncements of apriori and/or ontological "ethics."
Even those claiming to love capitalist-type ideologies are really talking about rule-bound "capitalism." Otherwise you'd think what Enron did is perfectly legitimate, that unfettered monopolies are acceptable and that junk bond trading is great. There are laws against corrupt levels of greed that pure capitalism would just have to put up with. But the concept of "corrupt" only comes up b/c the community agrees that unfettered capitalism goes awry much too easily.
Is that beyond the scope of a simple diapering discussion of re-selling things on ebay? Of course. But a number of the responses here are rather naive in their portrayals of capitalism-- as if its an ethical system of god-given, natural or human rights. Capitalism is NOT an ethical system, although its definitely got plenty of people who justify the economics w/ philosophical pronouncements. I don't happen to buy lots of them.
I believe in tax codes which help to redistribute money, for instance. I believe in community members helping each other. And I'm perfectly confident that many of the proponents of capitalism (here and elsewhere) are deeply involved in charitable good works and volunteerism. Thats great, and definitely softens the blow of the ugly side of capitalism.
Put another way, Rawls has an idea that if we were building a community and you didn't know which job you would have...the income disparity between the jobs would not be nearly as great as turns out in real life. The garbage collector would not be so disdained in economic terms b/c if you don't know if you'll be the garbage collector or the dentist, you're more likely to make their incomes more equal. I do think this plays into diapers as well, given that the sewing WAHMs don't really earn a proper working wage (most of them don't seem to anyway). This is true of most traditionally-female jobs. That smacks of a generic oppression against the roles of women in our society. Thats perfectly acceptable in the capitalist scheme. Its not acceptable in mine. How do I fight it? Well, I can buy "small"-- I can support WAHMs instead of Proctor and Gamble. I can be part of a small enclave of a special economy instead of the generic disposible economy.
Yes, our enclave has many elements of capitalism. It'd be silly to claim or hope otherwise. But its also a small sub-economy with its own communitarian ethics. And the growing pains of the community are fully evidenced in the above debate.
Anyway, I think I'm basically following Jessica's line of thinking and really appreciate the thoughts behind her posts. I appreciate Angelica's side too, I just don't lean that way so much.
Can I still join in the group hug?