Introduction Perhaps, the American society is the most divergent, the most accommodating and the most culturally diverse among all societies across the globe. Interestingly, most Americans reflect similar elements of behavior in many respects which are distinct to our American society. There are a number conscious and unconscious core values which are expected to guide every American character. Most of the American culture has to some extent embedded western civilization: A civilization that accommodates different cultures, merges multiple ideas, and values the freedom of choice. Still, a number of challenges in the direction of promoting our general wellbeing have been arising; thus, leading to questions on the direction that our society should direct for our common wellbeing. Here, I will be discussing approaches that can be designed in addressing the issues of wealth distribution, and the relationship between politics and community beliefs so as to have an even happier society. Inequality, Cohesiveness and Civic Virtue One among the challenges that face our society today is the widening rift between the rich and the poor. Although our politics has evaded the reality of a widening society, several philosophers have given their opinions on the challenge of wealth distribution. Our politics has become so distant from the challenge of widening social gaps that president Obama’s proposal to review tax laws in the direction of burdening the wealthy with more taxes has received heavy criticism from the republican political quarter. Apart from philosophical ideologies on the topic of wealth distribution, there is a more important challenge which requires the attention of our political leaders: Civic Virtue. Getting a picture of ... ... middle of paper ... ...place in our schools and other institutions. Instead of focusing on the teaching of various religious and moral beliefs, students should be allowed to openly present their opinions on various religious matters. Such a direction must be done under an environment that respects the right of people to choose various religious and moral beliefs which are available in our society. Conclusion As I have discussed, I agree with Sandel’s opinions on the two issues (the distribution of wealth, and an open engagement between religion and politics) that I have discussed above. Wealth distribution is especially useful in guarding our democracy, promoting, cohesiveness, and improving the welfare of the poor. On the other hand, an engagement between politics and religion will be useful in promoting unity, tolerance and knowledge within our society.
According to Gregory Mantsios many American people believed that the classes in the United States were irrelevant, that we equally reside(ed) in a middle class nation, that we were all getting richer, and that everyone has an opportunity to succeed in life. But what many believed, was far from the truth. In reality the middle class of the United States receives a very small amount of the nation's wealth, and sixty percent of America's population receives less than 6 percent of the nation's wealth, while the top 1 percent of the American population receives 34 percent of the total national wealth. In the article Class in America ( 2009), written by Gregory Mantsios informs us that there are some huge differences that exist between the classes of America, especially the wealthy and the poor. After
In the United States, there are political debates about the government’s role in aiding the poor and whether it is appropriate for the health of the poor to be their responsibility. This is also a relevant topic in the state of Texas alone because the distribution of wealth between the upper and lower classes in Texas can be described as unequal and unfair. However, people can also argue that those in the upper classes worked for their wealth and those considered poor in the lower classes should do the same. Therefore, in order to decide what the government’s role should be one must consider redistributing the wealth from upper income to the lower income households. It also must be determined if the current system
When describing social stratification in America, the essential variables are economic. This rule is valid for a high percentage of Americans; but looking only at economic stratification especially misses the point when it comes to the gap between the Old Money social elite and the New Money elite. As Francine Ostrower puts it, "the social elite is an elite of status. It is characterized by solidarity within the group, social exclusivity and a distinctive cultural identity…[they are] a core within the larger elite" (1995:12). I will examine one way that this status distinction is preserved: through the upper-class system of philanthropy, the giving of money to causes both charitable and non-charitable. I will argue that philanthropy’s role is in part to distinguish the social elite from other elites, and that this system is maintained through a particular social mechanism that can be modeled using game theory.
The American Dream led millions of individuals to travel to America in hopes of achieving this enticing ideology. People across the world sought freedom, education, and wealth. Recent statistics show that a majority of people do not think the American Dream still holds truth, and an even larger majority believe one the most harmful issues is “not everyone is given an equal chance to succeed in life” (Jones, Cox, Navarro-Riverra, 2014). The attainability of the American Dream decreases as inequality, more specifically income inequality, increases. Democracy is arguably the best and worst form of government. The idea of having, freedom, human rights, a say in political decisions, and control of personal decisions creates a place where people
While American soldiers were busy fighting on the front lines against the Axis Powers, Americans at home demonstrated Civic Responsibility and did their part during World War II by using their production or work system to produce useful things for the army. Civic responsibility is your duty as a citizen to try to help your country. According to Document C, citizens promised, “I shall be regular in my attendance because every unnecessary day I take off is a red letter day for the enemy. I shall be thrifty with my time giving every working hour 60 minutes. I shall be careful of my work so that neither waste nor delay shall endanger the life of a Navy man. I shall be loyal to my job and my country, remembering that tomorrow’s frontline
...ment and the people, more Americans can see the equality promised them: equality of opportunity. Only through community, meaning effort from both citizens and government, can inequality be resolved. No one-sided approach can rectify a situation that envelops all of society. Government must set aside partisanship in order to produce targeted legislation that addresses the declining transportation, education, and economic infrastructure. Meanwhile, the community must realign their ideals and realize that together these problems can be solved. However, as long as materialism and overt individualism dominate the community and dysfunction and gridlock have a foothold in government, the schism between rich and poor will continue to grow. The two sides will “live increasingly separate lives” (Sandel), and the goal of economic equality slips father and farther from repair.
In his article, Now That’s Rich, Paul Krugman discusses the state of the wealthy in America. He provides a critical account of the work ethic of the 1 percent, asserting that many of the country’s wealthy do not work in proportion to the money they have. He states, “The goal of [promoting the rise in college graduates] is to soften the picture, to make it seem as if we’re talking about ordinary white-collar professionals who get ahead through education and hard work. But many Americans are well-educated and work hard…Yet they don’t get the big bucks.” This claim illustrates a disparity in the economic system: hard work does not equate financial success. Krugman expands on this by explaining that wealth acquired by this group of people was only achieved because money they inherited. “These days a lot of top money managers’ income comes not from investing other people’s money but from returns on their own accumulated wealth—that is, the reason they make so much is the fact that they’re already very rich.” Krugman demonstrates a cyclical pattern of accumulated wealth, leaving no room for individuals of lower means to reach this status. Moreover, the advantage of the rich leads to a society that is “dominated by wealth,” and increases the gap between the rich and every one else. Krugman ultimately points out the hypocrisy of the rich’s resistance to increased taxes and asks his readers to think critically about how the rich arrived where they are.
Staver, Mathew D. "Allowing Religious Expression in School Protects Students' Rights." Students' Rights. Ed. Jamuna Carroll. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "New Federal Guidelines a Real Blessing for Public Schools." Liberator Mar. 2003: 1-4. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
While the constitutional issue is a powerful motivator, there are other reasons that educators must inform themselves about religious practice and belief. One of these...
Liberty and equality belong to the same category as moral conceptions. Despite both aiming at improving lives of the people, their relationship is in conflict so that we have to choose between them. Liberty and equality have been discussed over and over and those discussions have been generally inconclusive. Philosophers and scholars who embarked on this discussion have ended up with different notions. From egalitarian point of view, liberty and equality cannot coexist peacefully and they clash in the area of property rights. Property is infringed by government to compensate those who naturally do not own much property. On the contention of the two concepts, Ronald Dworkin argues that if there really were a conflict between equality and liberty, equality would have to win (Dworkin, 2000). This sentiment implies that the two terms are rivals. Let us take equality of wealth as a goal; achieving and maintaining equal wealth amongst citizens would require violation of liberty. Maintaining equality of wealth would require a redistribution of resources over a time such as taking wealth from other people and give it to others infringing upon the right to private property. Dworkin stresses that egalitarians are mainly concerned with socio-economic equality imposed by the state through progressive taxes and welfare provision (Dworkin, 2000). Basing on the original position that all men have equal access to goods, it will be justifiable for the state to introduce redistributive taxes on the rich who do not have any justified claim to their property. This paper will further examine the conflict between liberty and equality by looking at their definitions from the perspective of different philosophers and scholars.
Activities and philosophies that advocate for the connecting of communities with socially sentient beliefs and actions is what have come to be referred to as civic engagement. They are thus individual or collective actions aimed at addressing issues that are deemed to be of public concern. They can be manifested in many ways including; public service, civil activity, service-learning, crusading and advocacy to mention but a few as the list is endless.
"In the Middle Ages men were united by custom and prescription into associations, ranks, guilds, and communities of various kinds. These ties endured as long as life lasted. Consequently, society was dependant, throughout all its details, on status, and the tie, or bond, was sentimental. In out modern state, and in the United States more than anywhere else, the social structure is based on contract, and status is of the least importance." This quote by William Graham Sumner in his 1883 speech "What Social Classes Owe to Each Other" illustrates my main focus of this week's proposed question, "Does American Government have an obligation to provide for the poor?" Sumner supports that the American Government does not have an obligation to provide for the poor because in America, all people have the opportunity to work hard and bring themselves out of poverty, where in Europe and their other native lands, people were trapped in a caste system in which they could not escape. In America, there was is a defined class system in which those living in the society were confined and hard work, followed by success, is a luxury offered in America. By living in a free state like America, Sumner says, its citizens live equally among one another in a society based on a contract, which allows the most leeway for individual developments and successes. Every man must fend for himself in this society that allows for personal establishment. Sumner also says, "It follows, however, that one man, in a free state, cannot claim help from, and cannot be charged to give help to, another." He directly says that it cannot be imposed upon the American Government that hard-working tax-paying citizens should have to financially assist the plight of the poor. The Populist Party Platform of 1892 says in its second declaration that "Wealth belongs to him that creates it...If any will not work, neither shall he eat." The Populist Party realized that men were fully entitled to their earned keep and should they not work, they should not be provided for by the government, especially not by collected tax money.
There are many rich and poor people in the world today, in our own country and in others. We have classified by how much they can afford and they are put into a class system. It’s hard for everyone in a country to be equal in the sense of how much money they make. Adriana Delgado says, “The vast differences between the rich and the poor, the powerful and the powerless, will be the catalyst for the best intentions to be rewarded with ungratefulness and contempt, creating resentment and mistrust between the classes.” there is always going to be problems between the rich and poor, because one sometimes is held higher than the
Morality, Virtue and the Public Figure Introduction According to the dictionary Grand Robert, the term “public” means “what concerns people as a whole and what belongs to the social or political community and is done in its name”; a public figure is defined as “a person who is invested with an official function or plays an important role in the social or political life of his or her country”. In relation to these definitions, it is possible to identify different categories of public figures with more or less important roles : a political figure such as a government Minister who creates laws and take important decisions for his country; an intellectual and a "star" who is defined as "an artistic performer or athlete whose leading role or superior performance is acknowledged" (www.dictionary.com). This essay will firstly attempt to explain what is the meaning of morality, its importance and the relation with virtues, with some examples and then it will identify the rights and wrongs of expecting a public figure to have a higher standard of morality than someone with little or no public role, in relation to the different moral principles and virtues explained before.
Income inequality continues to increase in today’s world, especially in the United States. Income inequality means the unequal distribution between individuals’ assets, wealth, or income. In the Twilight of the Elites, Christopher Hayes, a liberal journalist, states the inequality gap between the rich and the poor are increasing widening, and there need to have things done - tax the rich, provide better education - in order to shortening the inequality gap. America is a meritocratic country, which means that everybody has equal opportunity to be successful regardless of their class privileges or wealth. However, equality of opportunity does not equal equality of outcomes. People are having more opportunities to find a better job, but their incomes are a lot less compared to the top ten percent rich people. In this way, the poor people will never climb up the ladder to high status and become millionaires. Therefore, the government needs to increase all the tax rates on rich people in order to reduce income inequality.