What Is a Rich Egalitarian according to Cohen - Coursework Example

WHAT IS A RICH EGALITARIAN ACCORDING TO COHEN? Introduction In the contemporary society, people often have different lifestyles depending on their social, economic and political status in the community. It is important to note that while some people have a lot of money and resources, some are born to struggle and make a living, even dying before they become rich. Most often this is the way of life. Some will always have and others will not. Some rich people are always very philanthropic, sharing what they have with the poor in every capacity. On the other hand, some people prefer to keep to themselves what they have, always preferring to make efforts that can enable them consolidate their riches in all kinds of manner. It is not indicated anywhere that the rich should always contribute towards the welfare of the poor; instead all people have the ability to work hand and improve on their social and economic welfare. Cohen, a renowned philosopher, examined the actions that some rich people do towards helping improve the conditions of the poor people in the country. Most of his views have been instrumental towards understanding some of the motives behind some of these actions in various countries. This paper examines the behaviors of the rich people in their attempts to help the rich, something that is often regarded as egalitarianism; it focuses on the views given by Cohen, a philosopher whose views have continued to influence various philosophical dimensions of life. Egalitarianism After making a careful examination of the behaviors and actions of people in the social environment, Cohen realized that some people that were rich had the habit of contributing immensely towards the welfare of the poor1. However, most of them did not always do so in their private capacity, they often preferred to contribute much money in most of the charities that were developed to help these poor people. According to Cohen, an egalitarian person can be described as that whom for certain unknown reasons, often thinks that the rich people in the society have the responsibility of contributing money and other resources to help the poor people that what they currently do. to them, the rich people have a society duty to share their material with the poor instead of letting them suffer in their bid to make riches. From his comprehensive research, Cohen realized that most of his fellow colleagues that they worked together in the academic sector were egalitarians, although, in his analysis, these people did not often contribute much to help these people. He realized that the amount of money that his colleagues would often give in the egalitarian world was very much in comparison to that which they gave in their particular private lives. This realization made him wonder if these people were actual hypocrites or mere philanthropists. In essence, the egalitarian people would often vote in the egalitarian policies in times of elections in the voting booths. In this case, he realized that the behavior of the egalitarian people was always aligned with their respective egalitarian beliefs and their voting behavior. However, the main issue that arose was that the voting behavior of these egalitarians was not actually aligned to their particular voting behavior especially in their private lives. Can egalitarians produce any plausible excuse or a justification for their lifestyle? Cohen realized that big discrepancy was evident between the egalitarians’ voting behavior and their respective private behavior. During the time he was making this examination, Cohen considered himself as part of the egalitarian people. noting the difference in the way the egalitarian people offered their wealth to the charities in the public and how they seemed mean in the own private lives, Cohen raised the question, “if you are an egalitarian, how come you are so rich.”2 In asking this question, Cohen was keen on understanding is such people could manage to provide any plausible excuse or justify the kind of lifestyle they lived. In a general case, no conflict is supposed to exist between the kind of private behavior and voting behaviors on the ethical matters for the egalitarian and other people. if a person can be said to a vegetarian, he is not expected to wait for the typical roll-out of the vegetarianism policies or regulations before he can implement the aspect of vegetarianism in his own life. Additionally, if someone can be said to hold a belief in the concept of gender equality, then it becomes a general expectation that he has to treat all people equally irrespective of their particular gender. This has to happen whether in the private or public life. The person does not have to wait for the nation to announce for the adoption of policies in support of this course for him or her to show his support for gender equality. If this is the actual case, why should it be different when it comes to egalitarians? Why were the egalitarians showing support for the rolling-out of these policies in the entire nation before they actually adopted them? This was seen in the way they behaved in public, which was very different to how they did the same in their private, something that indicated total hypocrisy in the beliefs they seemed to hold with high esteem. In this case, it is evident that egalitarians cannot provide any justification for the kind of lifestyle that they seem to lead. This is because, they understand effectively the kind of systems that pertains egalitarianism, yet they show double standards in its practice. What they do in the public is not what they do in their private capacities. If it was proven that they did this unknowingly, then it would be possible for them to justify their lifestyles and the kind of actions they did towards helping the poor people. For a long time, many reasons have been given to try and explain some of the reason that makes the egalitarians behave in the manner they do, something that does not justify their lifestyles and their seemingly charitable actions towards the poor and underprivileged people in the community. The hypothesis of “no confidence” In this case, the egalitarians often seem to support the egalitarian policies fully in the public domain. This is shown in the way they advocate and vote for the egalitarian policies. However, on the contrary, they often do not have confidence in these policies, especially when it comes to applying them in their private lives. This explains the reason why they would rather be seen in the eyes of the public as being active supporters of these policies, giving out much of their material wealth in support for the charities but when it comes to doing the same in their private capacities, they often give little or none at all3. Most of these people will often make their contributions in the name of the companies they work for or their own establishments and not in their own names. Something that poses the question of why they would not prefer their names appearing in the contributions they make. In most cases, they often wait to see people’s reactions on the actions that they do publicly. The thoughts that people often have either validate their actions or make a disconfirmation of their egalitarianism. This is the reason why they often do not prefer making such actions in the private lives since they are aware they do not believe in the policies of egalitarianism. Egalitarians are always happy when people seem to validate and praise the actions they do in the public. They are often interested in the crowds wisdom, something that gives them confidence to carry own with the egalitarian policies public and not in the private capacities. This often poses the big question of why they cannot apply the wisdom in such aspects as gender equality or vegetarianism. One of the reasons that they can give is that the costs incurred in implementing gender equality or vegetarianism seems low compared to egalitarianism itself. In this case, they may say that they want an assurance that by implementing the egalitarian policies, they stand to get the same utility as that which is gotten in the implementation of such policies as gender equality or vegetarianism. The argument of a drop in the ocean One of the views that egalitarians often have, which seems to explain their actions is the concept of a drop in the ocean. On one hand, they often argue that the extra money they give away for the charities is simply so small to make any difference in their individual income4. In this case, they argue that what they give has the ability to make a difference in the people that it aims to assist. Another argument given in the same concept arises from the story someone talked about Albert Einstein, the famous scientist. It is said that in his life, Einstein showed loved to all people in the world as a whole; however, he did not have any concern about the plight of individual people. Therefore, it is possible that like Einstein, egalitarians often love the concept of equality, when viewed as an important asset to the entire humanity5. The only difference is that these people are always least moved by the plight of particular people. In this regard, when the egalitarians are giving their money to help the poor and underprivileged people in the community, their focus is often on quality and not how the money will be helpful to one child suffering from various challenges of life. In this case, the discount effect from these actions is often seen as being negligible. Conclusion In conclusion, the egalitarians are important people in the society because of their charitable actions they do to help the poor people. This is the thing that people always want in order to improve their lives. the only argument that is often raised is the fact that egalitarians always seem to support the policies that they cannot impalement in the private lives, something that may seen an irony or hypocrisy of themselves. From the foregone discussion, it is evident that the egalitarians cannot effectively justify the actions they in their particular lifestyles. In his analysis Cohen is disappointed by these behaviors, thus asking the question why these people remain to be rich yet they claim to fit in the higher class of the society. In general sense, they have to implement policies that they thing are right both in their private and public lives. References Cohen G. If you are an Egalitarian, how comes you are so rich? The journal of Ethics. Vol 4. No. 1. 2000. Pp. 126.   Kekes, J. The illusions of egalitarianism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 2003. Knight, C. Luck egalitarianism equality, responsibility and justice. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 2009. Macleod C. Review of if you’re an Egalitarian. Economics and philosophy. Vol 18. No. 2. 2002. Pp. 18-24. Stein, M. Distributive justice & disability utilitarianism against egalitarianism. New Haven: Yale University Press. 2006. Read More