What do you think?
Rate this book
For and Against
Social Welfare and Individual Responsibility (For and Against)
The issue of social welfare and individual responsibility has become a topic of international public debate in recent years as politicians around the world now question the legitimacy of state-funded welfare programs. David Schmidtz and Robert Goodin debate the ethical merits of individual versus collective responsibility for welfare. David Schmidtz argues that social welfare policy should prepare people for responsible adulthood rather than try to make that unnecessary. Robert Goodin argues against the individualization of welfare policy and expounds the virtues of collective responsibility.
244 pages, Paperback
First published August 13, 1998
About the author
David Schmidtz
31 books14 followersDavid Schmidtz is a Canadian-American philosopher. He is Presidential Chair of Moral Science at West Virginia University's Chambers College of Business and Economics. He is also editor-in-chief of the journal Social Philosophy & Policy. Previously, he was Kendrick Professor of Philosophy and Eller Chair of Service-Dominant Logic at the University of Arizona. While at Arizona, he founded and served as inaugural head of the Department of Political Economy and Moral Science.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review
June 17, 2015
A standoff between two diametrically opposed philosophers. Left VS. right, anti-welfare VS. pro-welfare, voluntary VS. legally obligated, mutual aid VS government program.
Each side is given a mic and about a hundred pages to make their point. And both make their point in a dazzling way. Ultimately it boils down to two monologues that barely have anything to do with each other. They are separate monuments. But that's OK, since political chasms are abysses. The different monologues, intent on unveiling their own secrets rather than communicating, represent different worldviews and perspectives, separated by an unspeakable, and unbridgeable, void.
Both sides give their best, and both sides appeal to our moral intuitions in a powerful way. Power in words. And although we are talking dry analysis here, the personal passion, and occasional moral indignation, of either side, comes through powerfully in some of the darker/funnier moments.
The book, while entertaining, has two major failings:
1) The lack of real dialogue. I would have liked to see a more genuine conversation, with rebuttals and commentaries on each others' arguments. Instead, we are left to marvel at two standalone advertisements for powerful ideological positions. The reader feels helplessly caught in between their irreconcilable lure, without resolve.
2) The lack of real moderation. We are forced to choose between the "abolish all government social welfare"-approach of David Schmidtz and the "no government program can be big enough"-approach of Robert Goodin. How about some middle ground, here? That's where I would cast my die, in the "provide a universal guaranteed basic income but abolish wasteful government programs"-camp. But the reader is of course strongly urged to come up with their own conclusions.
In general, the juxtaposition of extremes can be used for sport, pleasure or aesthetic effect. Here it's done for edification, and for good effect; but imperfectly, since the true catharsis - only obtained after a meeting in the middle - is not obtained in the rigid double monologue form presented here.
But the imperfection of the conclusions is precisely the point: some disagreements are persistent.
Each side is given a mic and about a hundred pages to make their point. And both make their point in a dazzling way. Ultimately it boils down to two monologues that barely have anything to do with each other. They are separate monuments. But that's OK, since political chasms are abysses. The different monologues, intent on unveiling their own secrets rather than communicating, represent different worldviews and perspectives, separated by an unspeakable, and unbridgeable, void.
Both sides give their best, and both sides appeal to our moral intuitions in a powerful way. Power in words. And although we are talking dry analysis here, the personal passion, and occasional moral indignation, of either side, comes through powerfully in some of the darker/funnier moments.
The book, while entertaining, has two major failings:
1) The lack of real dialogue. I would have liked to see a more genuine conversation, with rebuttals and commentaries on each others' arguments. Instead, we are left to marvel at two standalone advertisements for powerful ideological positions. The reader feels helplessly caught in between their irreconcilable lure, without resolve.
2) The lack of real moderation. We are forced to choose between the "abolish all government social welfare"-approach of David Schmidtz and the "no government program can be big enough"-approach of Robert Goodin. How about some middle ground, here? That's where I would cast my die, in the "provide a universal guaranteed basic income but abolish wasteful government programs"-camp. But the reader is of course strongly urged to come up with their own conclusions.
In general, the juxtaposition of extremes can be used for sport, pleasure or aesthetic effect. Here it's done for edification, and for good effect; but imperfectly, since the true catharsis - only obtained after a meeting in the middle - is not obtained in the rigid double monologue form presented here.
But the imperfection of the conclusions is precisely the point: some disagreements are persistent.
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review