2007-01-29 07:13:59 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Economics
Like most things, this depends on your perspective.
How do we define self worth?
Is it our intrinsic value as a human being? Or is it our productive capacity for the economy?
Some thinkers have questioned capitalism's habit of turning everything into a commodity, or something that can be bought and sold. Should everything have a dollar value and be judged by this value? Is one human life worth more than another because of their productive capacity?
If you look at insurance policies these are exactly the kind of decisions they make. After 911, there was a fund created to give a one-time gift of money to the victims families. This sounds great, but soon a scramble for benefits began. It seems that the government valued the people differently based on their income level. Families of rich people got more money. Should they have?
Some say that defining everyone and everything by a monetary value is dehumanizing. But the question becomes, once it is done, what can we do about it?
2007-01-29 07:26:59 · answer #1 · answered by Yo, Teach! 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Capitalism is better. the reason being that all and sundry is rewarded (or no longer) for his or her personal artwork. Capitalism rewards the finest individuals of society. It also motivates people to artwork more desirable sturdy. In a socialist society there's a lot less artwork ethic... I take position, i receives a fee, i am going to't replace my income, i am going to't be fired, ect... there is not any motivation for individuals to suceed. the concept that in capitalism the operating type are someway suppressed through the better and top-center instructions is a delusion. ninety% of millionaires in u.s. are first era millionaires. the concept-about all and sundry being equivalent is tremendous in philosophy, although, it is no longer useful genuinely. authorities can't make all and sundry equivalent... no count number number how complicated they war there'll be participants and abusors... In a capitalist the latter many times comes out in the back of.
2016-10-16 06:34:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
When a person works for and earns what he has, the act of working for his reward brings about a feeling of self-worth. This self-worth feeling is evidenced by the way the working person cares for what he has worked for.
When a person is given everything that he has, he has not earned it. As stated before, the act of working for reward brings about a feeling of self-worth. By and large, the recipient of give-aways, such as gov't housing, food stamps, etc., does not have this feeling of self-worth, as evidenced by the care which is given to the gov't housing, surrounding properties, streets, etc.
No, capitalism does not destroy people's self-worth, socialism does that.
2007-01-29 07:23:39 · answer #3 · answered by credo quia est absurdum 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Theoretically Capitalism rewards people based on their ability.
So, I guess people who lack ability could theoretically get a deflated sense of self-worth since they aren't rewarded as much.
If anything, it's pride and over inflated sense of self-worth despite the lack of ability that is much more common here in America.
Just look at American Idol.
2007-01-29 07:20:28 · answer #4 · answered by no mas 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Only the people who aren't worth that much by capitalism's standards. Like me, for instance...
2007-01-29 07:17:18 · answer #5 · answered by answerator 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, socialism does.
2007-01-29 07:17:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋