Wall Street: A Philosophical Assessment - Coursework Example

Wall Street: A Philosophical Assessment In reviewing the turn of events in the world political, economic and social arena, one of the events that seem to be a hit that triggered intense debates on the academe, questioned the reputation of the global order and stirred popularity in different countries is the Occupy Wall Street Movement. The main reason for the occurrence of the said movement is deeply rooted on the social turmoil that happened years back and is constantly happening now. The social condition highlighted in this case affects not just the first world countries. This condition has a more derogatory impact on the developing and third world countries. Delving into a more specific detail, the Occupy Wall Street Movement points out the severe poverty being experienced in the world brought upon by the economic imbalance and instability propagated by globalization. The main issue showcased by the movement is poverty that has been a long-term problem that existed since man assumed control world. In assessing on a philosophical level, there is a need to identify the key players of the issue and the roles that they take. These are the: ruling global economic elite, the masses and the government. First to assess are the global economic elites. These are the ones who control the economy, dictate the order of things and have all the means to utilize the resources crucial for the survival of humankind. Singer, according to his text, numbers does not matter when it comes to dealing with the problem (233). Poverty, in this case, is not only a problem that is faced by the majority of the people or the masses because the global elites, in this case, are able to overcome poverty through their own efforts. Being individuals, they are after their own personal interest since the human condition has shown capacities of doing highly utilitarian act and they are after personal satisfaction (Singer 238). There is an implication that they do not want to be in poverty anymore because it only brings misery on them. This manner of thinking paves way to utilitarianism. Inherently, there is nothing wrong in maximizing things that will contribute happiness since almost all humans are after achieving happiness. However, what seem to be wrong with this condition is that the efforts of the global elites to achieve personal prestige exploits other people and puts them in a dire situation. When incorporating the global and economic aspect of the matter, there is already an implication that the ruling elite are after safeguarding their power and command the world in the way how they want it to be since they have all the means to gain control even if their rule already displaced people from their homes, triggered starvation and induced death. This phenomenon now questions the validity of utilitarianism as an excuse for the occurrence of such. The need to utilize is inherent in humans. However, utilitarianism in this case is abused which disvalued its significance to human condition. This shows as well that utilitarianism must be done in moderation yet the greed brought upon by extremely materialist nature of the ruling elite triggered disappointments on the part of the majority. In dealing with the masses, the other key player in the issue, it cannot be denied that there is a strong link between the wrong attitudes of the ruling elite with the rage of the masses. The question that must be answered is what triggered the desire to have movement or a protest? In this case, it is the individual who had experienced the harsh brought upon by the situation perpetrated by the ruling elite’s interest to maintain power. In contrast with the assertion of Singer that people are not doing a course of action to address the situation, people in the Occupy Wall Street Movement felt an urgency to make their lamentations heard (231). This can be consider a moral act since they have done something to show pressure toward the U.S. government and the Wall Street that controls almost the major economic activities to change their manners of handling the affairs crucial for the society. Their frustrations are clear and it strongly manifests their desire to achieve the personal needs that must be guaranteed. In assessing the rage of the people when it comes to legal basis, it is valid since they are after right to be safeguarded and protected by the government. However, even the government cannot really intervene since its powers have been limited by the establishment of globalization wherein it is one of the conditions that must be fulfilled to maximize the benefits derived from it. Also, it cannot be denied that the government lacks the political will to intervene and make incursion to guarantee the welfare of the people. This makes government hypocritical because it formulated law and moral standards that must be strictly followed yet as institution, they fail to do so (Singer 229). If the government considers the safeguarding of rights a moral act to do, then why the government does not do so? If this constantly occurs, then chaos is expected since it renders the law, customs and moral values absurd and dysfunctional even if the functionality of those guarantees conducive living conditions for everyone. However, a question will still remain unanswered. What will be the course of action the ruling elite will take to address the demands of the affected individuals to address their needs and how will the government as a crucial key player ensures the safety and adherence to the correct moral standards prescribed by the law it formulated? This will be tricky because moral standards play a very crucial role in determining the proper course of action that must be taken by all the parties concerned. At the same time, Singer’s assertion about moral standards being inconsistent applies (230). The ruling global economic elite inevitably must address its flaws and stop the exploitation of the people and depriving them of their basic needs and rights. There should be a fulfilment as well on their part to delineate the difference between charity and duty as the ones who have the means of supporting the population through their amassed wealth (Singer 235). The rechanneling of wealth to those who need it must be fulfilled to ensure equality on a global scale since their greedy acts brought upon by exploited utilitarian tendencies subjected the people of the world to harsh living condition (Singer 232).This can be considered a moral act basing upon the supererogation which justifies that their acts of rechanneling wealth is something that is not wrong to do (Singer 237). However, the question is will they really be able to fulfil it despite of call of the people or will they be blind and deaf to respond to the reasonable demands of the people? In this case, the people who have triggered the movement, no matter how moral and noble their motives are will still be in an awfully disadvantageous situation. There is nothing in what they do. What seems to be wrong is that if their act will be rendered as an act of public disturbance which can be penalized under the rule of law which occurs in most cases. The elite will definitely not be affected in most cases and they still have the prerogative of rechanneling their funds and they will not do it most probably. Even if it can be considered that they will comply with these needs, there is still no certainty about the whole nature of their act and the elites will still consider it an act of charity on their part (236). If this will still occur, then changes in moral standards must be implemented (Singer 230). Now the problem is will this be implemented or everything will rest on the part of the individual to live up the said moral ideals. Inherently, it will focus more on the latter. Unless the individual learns to adapt and appreciate the moral ideals, then that will be time that the efforts of the protesters will not be futile since there is a moral foundation on the part of the elites to do what they must do. In this case, what the government must do to ensure that the right moral standards are upheld? Their role will definitely be influenced by a political aspect yet its significance cannot be denied. As an agent that must guarantee the rights of the people, it must fully implement the safeguard prescribed by law since it has moral foundation that ensures equality and equity among people. This can be considered a politically moral thing to do. Also, if there is a need to change the moral standards, then it is the government who must implement it first-hand. If there is an strong assertion on the part to live up the ideal morale standards wherein no one is placed at a tremendously problematic situation, then there will be definitely be compliance on the part of the people only if the government is indeed committed in practicing what it preaches (Singer 240). Lastly, on the part of the protesters or the masses, there is nothing wrong with what they have done since it is an inherent right guaranteed by the law and they felt the need on their part to hold such kinds of action to send a wake-up to the government to fulfil its role and mandate from the people and the global economic elites who have amassed and kept their wealth at the cost of exploiting the public. At the same time, this form of resistance is morally right since injustice occurs in the world which believes that equality must exist and a good standard of living must be upheld. However, there is still a downside to their moral act. It can be considered futile if there is no positive response coming from the part of the elites who must fulfil their duty in rechanneling the world’s wealth that they have lavishly spent on their own interests due to greed. At the same time, it will be hypocritical on the part of the government to hunt and detain these people who are holding a peaceful protest that challenges the detrimental ruling of the elite. If this will occur, the government is sending a signal to protesters to ignite a bigger fight that can escalate to a bloody one which can be considered morale because of the principle yet immoral because of a tendency to ignite bloodshed conflict. In assessing the totality of the situation, there is nothing wrong with the occurrence of the said event. The people have an inherent right and capacity to voice out what they deem is wrong with the current situation of the society and demand for a just and reasonable resolution to the problem. However, people who participated and believed in the advocacy of the Occupy Wall Street Movement must take into consideration that as individuals, there should still be a constant effort to counter the effects of the problems present in the society while hoping for the occurrence of the desired and ideal solution to the problem. Another thing that must be taken into account is that the solutions to the problems that the Occupy Wall Street Movement pointed out cannot be achieved overnight. Inevitably, the individuals hold the key to achievement of the desired solution. Changes in values and moral standards must be implemented and living up the moral standards that are deemed to be better should be in constant practice. Inexplicably, the Occupy Wall Street Movement still shows that individuals are still aware of the problem and is in constant search of the right solution and methods to solve the problems that must have a resolution since people aspire in achieving a just and ideal society at the end of the day. WORKS CITED Singer, Peter. “Famine, Affluence and Morality.” Philosophy and Public Affairs. 1972. Blackwell Publishing House. Vol. 1 No. 3. pp. 229-243. PDF. Read More