Priority and Positional Goods - Case Study Example

Introduction There are so many theorists all over the world that deal with various issues in the society. There is psychology, philosophy and also science based theorists who have been there since long time ago. This paper is dealing with theorists choosing between sifficientarism and prioritism. Why or why they don’t need to choose between the two aspects. (Alston, 1999) Sen is one of the theorists that are renown in the economy field. He has actually made imperative contributions on distributive justice and philosophical thinking. All these have various contributions that take some form of criticism. There is also the aspect of taking positions that are quite inadequate. It is important that clear distinctions be carried out as these will greatly help to have an apparent view on the whole issue or topic. Sen is very firm about normative and substantive claims. There is however the avoiding of the entire commitment to the justice theory. Considering the theories, there is expression of scepticism on the issue of proritism. There needs to be a choice between prioritism and sufficientarism because this will greatly help erase ambiguities that exist among theorists. (Roemer, 1996) There are views that actually emerge as criticisms to other theorist. Looking at theorists work there needs to be a choice between sufficientarism and prioritism because there needs to be some measure of one’s condition which is relevant to the entire allocation of alterable aspects. This is in line with the theorist of justice. This is because an issue like justice requires equality. In this case when a choice is made then one can easily determine whether there are unequal or equal conditions in a circumstance. The reason as to why theorists need to choose between prioritism and sufficientarism is because these two aspects are always in conflict. Among theorists there is great formulation of sufficientarism as a claim of identity. On the other hand, this aspect is not seen as a claim virtue. Theorists also need to choose between sufficientarism and prioritism because research reveals that the theorists’ work of primitivisms or non reductive sifficientarism is quite incompatible with various aspects of prioritism. In case there are any aspects of sufficientarism in the theorists’ work, then the entire sensorial seems to be the exact opposite of prioritism. There has always been a wonder on the issue of prioritism differing with the sufficientarism concept. According to the sufficientarism view, there is the holding on various sets of physical facts that normally determine an individuals experimental properties which in most cases are very separate from other facts that are quite non experimental in nature. Looking at restricted prioritism there is a clear denial of these claims. (Roemer, 1996) When there is actually restricted prioritism amongst theorists there is a strong implication of desires, beliefs and other requirements that actually have the whole potential of having many of the properties that are quite experimental in nature. There is normally the argument with the entire compatibility of reductive sufficientarism and also the issues of prioitism. There is normally a wonder as to whether there are experiential properties that make theorists lie in between the two aspects of sufficientarism and prioritism. According to various scholars the form of sufficientarism in which one person desires and believes in is greatly characterized or rather determined by various relations that exist between internal states that are physical and also external states. When theorists fail to choose between the two aspects of prioritism and sufficientarism, then there automatically arise the issues of interpretation and constraints. One of the major constraints that arise when theorists fail to choose between one of the two aspects, that is prioritism and sufficientarism is that there is bound to be the constraint of interpretation in desires, beliefs and the rationalization concerning the various theories. This is in line with behavioural outputs and also other aspects of internal states. The whole issue emanates from having a specific desire of belief in relation to some aspects in the day to day life. (Armstrong, 1968) According to the doctrine of sufficientarism, distributive justice needs that each person should have enough. This can be interpreted as doctrine that is community or cosmopolitan cantered. Considering sufficientarism, when there is distributive justice then every community member has to have some liability of sort. Prioritism entails a claim of sufficiency as well as a claim of necessity. Generally it asserts that there is a necessity that if a system has intentional states at all, it automatically has potential or actual experiential properties. (Rasmussen, 1999) In this case, it has those intentional states by the simple virtue of its set of actual and potential experiential properties so that this set of actual and the overall potential experiential properties are sufficient for the intentional states. Generally the entire handling of non- occurrent and intentional states then there can be who can individuals have such states by the simple virtue of having dispositions so as to gain experiential properties. Looking at all these factors it is automatic that a choice has to be made between sifficientarism and prioritism so that there can be clear distinctions between these two aspects in the formation of various theories. Theorists need to choose between prioritism and sufficientarism. A look at psychology theories reveals various issues that show that choice has to be made to avoid confusion. According to the 3F model, there are traits like psychoticism, neuroticism and extraversion. Other scholars say that personality can be reduced to the following five traits, that is, neuroticism, agreeableness, extraversion, conscientiousness and openness. All these are based on factor analysis which is a statistical technique. In fact these traits are the highest level factors in the hierarchical taxonomy of this technique. This method is well known to produce bipolar and continuous factors. All these actually describe one’s individual differences. This is actually a psychodynamics correlation of transitory functions of the mind. They are simply drawn from the principles of thermodynamics and neurology practice. Research reveals that psychodynamics is the study of human behaviour in relation to drives and motivation. This also largely depends on emotion that is based on an individual’s personality. This theory concurs that a person’s reaction at a specific time are due to the existing interaction between his or her genetic constitution, unconscious or conscious mind and the environment that are around. Psychodynamics in medical practice is referred to as a study that is systematized and a theory that shows how psychological affect human behaviour. (Parfit, 1997) In this there is a great emphasis on the interaction of the conscious and the unconscious motivation and the emotions as a functional significance. This theory was actually developed by Sigmund Freud. He suggests that psychological flows are actually part of the complex brain. This are based on psychological energy that he terms as libido. Psychodynamics is also referred to as psychology that is dynamic. It is actually the study of the interrelationship of the diverse parts of personality, mind or the psyche and how they recount to the emotional, mental and motivational forces. In general terms psychodynamics deals with the exchanges and transformations of the psychic energy that exists in an individual’s personality. The main focus is the connection that exists between the emotional states and the energetic. The emotional states include the superego, ego and the id and their relation to the developments in a child during the early or the first days. Freud says that the ego fights with various forces. These include the outside world, super-ego and the id. Therefore the focus of the psychodynamic model is on the interactions that are quite dynamic consisting of the superego, ego and the id. In fact the theory of psychodynamics interprets an individual’s behaviour as that emanating from the emotional processes of forces. (Parfit, 1997) Unconscious- this is the id. This is the part of the brain that develops first in life. It is responsible for controlling parts of the brain throughout an individual’s lifetime. According to the trait theory, personality can be reduced to three forces or models. In the 3F model, there are traits like psychoticism, neuroticism and extraversion. Other scholars say that personality can be reduced to the following five traits, that is, neuroticism, agreeableness, extraversion, conscientiousness and openness. All these are based on factor analysis which is a statistical technique. The Trait theory says that individual traits are inherent and they automatically affect the skills that a person has. The Psychodynamic theory asserts that psychodynamics is the study of human behaviour in relation to drives and motivation. This also largely depends on emotion that is based on an individual’s personality. This theory concurs that a person’s reaction at a specific time are due to the existing interaction between his or her genetic constitution, unconscious or conscious mind and the environment that is around an individual. Among the theorists that need to choose between prioritism and sufficientarism as this will help exhaust all the issues related to the subject. This will also help deal with imperative. The trait theory is based on various assumptions. One of them is that people are normally born with traits that are inherited. The trait theory asserts that these traits are quite different fro one person to another though some people may have similar traits that they inherited from parents or even grandparents etc. Some of these traits that are inherited can be suited for carrying out leadership responsibilities. In this case a person finds that he or she can easily handle leadership tasks without having any prior knowledge in the field. According to the trait theory, people who naturally make good leaders just have sufficient or the right combination of these traits. Inherent traits can be diverse such that one person may have many different traits. There are people who may have minimal traits that are inherited while others may have so many. Conclusion There are various theories that have written articles in different fields like psychology, physics, and generally all spheres of life. Theorists need to choose between prioritism and sufficientarism because this will help them to avoid ambiguity and to deal with issues that are relevant in the society today. This will help theorists to sufficiently deal with an issue when carrying out their research. When this is done it becomes very easy for future theorists to use the previously done work as a point of reference. That is why it is important that theorists choose between sufficientarism and prioritism. Reference: Alston, W. (1999): Back to the Theory of Appearing; Philosophical Perspectives; 13, 181-204 Armstrong, D. 1968 A Materialist Theory of Mind; London; Routledge Arneson, R. (2002): Why Justice requires transfers to offset income and wealth inequalities; Social Philosophy and Policy; 172- 175 Brighthouse, H. (2006): Equality, Priority and positional goods; ethics; 471-491 Parfit, D. (1997): Equality and priority; London; Routledge; 202- 221 Rasmussen, K. (1999): Arneson on Equality of Opportunity for Welfare; Journal of Political Philosophy, 7, pp. 478-487 Roemer, J. (1996): Theories of Distributive Justice; Cambridge; Harvard University Press Read More