2. 职称英语
  3. One of the principal of Walzer’s critique of liberal capitalism is that it i

One of the principal of Walzer’s critique of liberal capitalism is that it i

游客2024-11-25  53
问题     One of the principal of Walzer’s critique of liberal capitalism is that it is insufficiently egalitarian. Walzer’s case against the economic inequality generated by capitalism and in favor of "a radical redistribution of wealth" is presented in a widely cited essay entitled In Defense of Equality.
    The most striking feature of Walzer’s critique is that, far from rejecting the principle of reward according to merit, Walzer insists on its validity. People who excel should receive the superior benefits appropriate to their excellence. But people exhibit a great variety of qualities— "intelligence, physical strength, agility and grace, artistic creativity, mechanical skill, leadership, endurance, memory, psychological insight, the capacity for hard work—even moral strength, sensitivity, the ability to express compassion. "Each deserves its proper recompense and hence a proper distribution of material goods should reflect human differences as measured on all these different scales. Yet, under capitalism, the ability to make money("the green thumb of bourgeois society")enables its possessor to acquire almost "every other sort of social goods" such as the respect and esteem of others.
    The centerpiece of Walzer’s argument is the invocation of a quotation from Pascal’s Pensees, which concludes;"Tyranny is the wish to obtain by one means what can only be had by another. " Pascal believes that we owe different duties to different qualities. So we might say that infatuation is the proper response to charm, and awe the proper response to strength. In this light, Walzer characterizes capitalism as the tyranny of money(or of the ability to make it)and Walzer advocates as the means of eliminating this tyranny and of restoring genuine equality"the abolition of the power of money outside its sphere". What Walzer envisions is a society in which wealth is no longer convertible into social goods with which it has no intrinsic connection.
    Walzer’s argument is a puzzling one. After all, why should those qualities unrelated to the production of material goods be rewarded with material goods? Is it not tyrannical, in Pascal’s sense, to insist that those who excel in "sensitivity" or "the ability to express compassion" merit equal wealth with those who excel in qualities(such as "the capacity for hard work")essential in producing wealth? Yes. Walzer’s argument, however deficient, does point to one of the most serious weaknesses of capitalism—namely, that it brings to predominant positions in a society people who, no matter how legitimately they have earned their material rewards, often lack those other qualities that evoke affection or admiration. Some even argue plausibly that this weakness may be irremediable: in any society that, like a capitalist society, seeks to become ever wealthier in material terms disproportionate rewards are bound to flow to the people who are instrumental in producing the increase in its wealth. [br] The author implies that sensitivity is a quality that______.
选项 A、is not essential in producing wealth
B、can be sensibly measured on a scale
C、characterizes tyrannical people
D、deserves much more wealth
答案 A
解析 推断题一末段第三句和第四句指出，如果按帕斯卡尔的意思坚持认为那些擅长于“敏感”和“善于表达怜悯之心”的人应获取与那些更具有在物质财富创造过程中所不可或缺的品质(诸如“勤奋工作的能力”)的人同等的物质财富，同样是专制暴政。可见，作者认为敏感不是创造物质财富不可或缺的品质．故[A]为答案。帕斯卡尔认为敏感的人应该获取同样的财富，这与作者的观点不符，故排除[D]；文章没有提到或暗示敏感度是可以衡量的，或是残暴者的特征，故排除[B]和[C]。
转载请注明原文地址:http://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3859945.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)