Introduction The Occupy Wall Street movement started September 17, 2011. The first protest took place in New York City’s Zuccotti Park. OWS was formed based on some of the following issues: “the concentration of wealth; in the top 1%; unemployment and economic stress in the “Great Recession;” the deeds of Wall St. in the financial crisis; the influence of the big money in politics; the foreclosure crisis and predatory lending; inequalities linked to race, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, class origin, disability, or immigration status; global poverty and differences in wealth between nations; inequalities in access to education and health care; attempts to remedy inequality via affirmative action, taxing the rich, the minimum wage, or the various welfare and social programs known as the “social safety net. (Sterling, 2012).” This is a very incomplete list but , it gives us an idea of what they stand for and what issues they are trying to change (Sterling, 2012). The term 99% will be referred through-out and is simply those that have benefited from economic growth, control the wealth, and own the politicians. The term 1% will be referring to everyone else these terms were given by former Yale professor David Graeber Easton, 2012).
Moral and Economic Implication Is it right that the Federal Reserve creates money out of nothing to give to the banks as they did in 2008 in excess of $8 trillion allowing them to profit on this money well over $13 billion (Kucinich, D; October 4, 2011)? Is it right for Government to subsidize educational loans for Universities and Colleges making it more and more difficult for the middle-class and lower income families to have the opportunity to get a higher education? This type of Government assistance is giving them, the Universities and Colleges, the power to increase tuition costs at a rate that is becoming unaffordable for the average America student. Is it right that the typical American worker is working longer hours and putting in more effort to create an income when they are not being compensated with pay increases at the same rate that inflation is increasing on a yearly basis? More and more families are dual income where both parents are working, again making it harder to raise a family that teaches our kids (the future leaders of our country) ethical and moral principles. On the other hand is it right that the 1% does not invest their money back into the economy which would greatly help those that are honestly struggling just to survive? Is it right for the 99% to expect that the 1% should be subjected to higher taxes just because they have been able to create wealth and become successful? Is it also right for the 99% to expect the 1% to create jobs in our country and not look to other countries for cheaper labor and production costs which would help tremendously the unemployment rate in the U.S? Economically our country is certainly struggling and it seems that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The average American today in some respects does not have the opportunities to create wealth that were abundantly available in earlier years. They are struggling just to make ends meet and more and more families are certainly living paycheck to paycheck. However, there are different types of opportunities today to create wealth with the technological advances allowing more success in a global market. Again in some ways you need money to be able to take advantage of these opportunities. Our country is headed for disaster for the middle-class if something is not done and soon. Congressman Dennis Kucinich strongly advises the implementation of the Need Act. This act would authorize government to fix our issue by putting debt free money into our economy that is not inflationary (Kucinich, D; October 5, 2011). These are just a few of the moral and economic implications facing our nation today to list them all would be far too numerous.
Moral Theory “Utilitarianism is the moral doctrine that we should always act to produce the greatest possible balance of good over bad for everyone affected by our actions. By “good” utilitarian’s understand happiness or pleasure” (Shaw, 2011, pg 53). Looking over the implications that have been previously mentioned we can say that the Occupy Wall Street Movement is definitely one that favors this theory. The members of this movement are looking to create a greater good versus bad outcome favoring the 99% as opposed to the 1%. The reference to the 99% by the Occupy Wall Street Movement is not simply the poor or unemployed. The 99% includes numerous middle class of blue collar and white collar and pink collar- even including a select few of the upper middle class (Easton, 2012 pg. 2). OWS is protesting for greater equality of income among the wealthy and everyone else. They believe that those in the 1% should feel some obligation to help others less fortunate, by paying higher taxes or utilizing their resources as business owners to create more jobs in the U.S. Therefore, complying with the framework of Utilitarianism which would be to benefit the 99% helping them get back on their feet. “The Kantian theory states that an act (or set of actions) is morally right if it is done for the sake of duty because it is the right thing to do (not based on consequences; which makes this kind of ethics deontological)”. “It implies the maxim rule which states it can be willed as a universal law. It is a categorical imperative which uses the rational that anyone in my situation should do the same thing and follow the same rules”. It also states that we treat people with respect as ends in themselves; not as a means to an end (Sterling, 2012). To apply this theory to the Occupy Wall Street Movement the protesters would need to ask themselves, if they were the 1% would they willing be subjected to the stipulations that they are demanding? Would they feel that they being the 1% should pay higher taxes or be more socially responsible for the economy by contributing to the 99%? I am not really sure that they are honestly asking that question to themselves. I believe that if you ask them they would of course say yes but realistically I do not think that they would know how they would be able to say with 100% certainty that they would act differently. The 1% of our country has gained their wealth through their own efforts rather than inheritance. This group is made up largely of doctors, lawyers, engineers, and small-time entrepreneurs, many of whom are working hard to create jobs (Easton, 2012). It truly is a shame that people feel jealous of another person’s success and wants to make them feel like they owe back to society. Why should the producers of our country, those who went out and did something, with their lives be penalized for their success in paying higher taxes. I think that taxes should be paid by all and at a certain percentage of your income however, taxing more to the higher income earners just because the can “afford it” is not fair to them either. The justice theory states that as an act government should distribute benefits such as (money, jobs, health care education, honors and social rewards), as well as burdens (economic hardships, taxes, punishments) in a morally defensible manner. This is different from the utilitarianism and Kantian theories because it does not look at the morally right actions it looks at the whole makeup of society to decide if it is morally defensible (Easton, 2012). So we ask ourselves is it justifiable that our government provides corporate welfare to the “Big” American business as they fly in on their private jets asking for government bailouts?. Is it justifiable for CEO’s of corporations to have a pay increase of 571% since 1990 when the average worker’s pay increase is only 37%, which is just a little above the inflation rate of 32%? Is it justifiable for the average America family to struggle to pay for health care or decide to go without because only one in five jobs are paying only a poverty-level wage? How can we justify that three-quarters of the students attending the nation’s top 146 universities come from a fourth of the nations’ richest? Studies are showing that most high school graduates from low-income families are only one-third likely to complete a bachelor’s degree (Shaw, 2011). I think that we need our government to start rethinking its’ position and start giving back to the average hard working American families otherwise we are not enabling our youth to have any chance of success in their future if things keep going at the rate and direction they are today. Inequality I do not think that any one person can be blamed for the income inequality or the distribution of wealth facing our nation today. In part I see that government has a lot to do with it. Providing a higher minimum wage law would allow fairer and more appropriate wages given the current economic state we are in, they should also provide more affordable health care costs so that families do not have to make the decision to have coverage or not have coverage. The government could step in and make getting a higher education more affordable to all families so that we give our youth the resources to be able to contribute positively to society. Studies show that the “U.S. ranks near the bottom in high school graduation rates and in the middle on college graduation rates” (Easton, 2012). Government should create stricter laws to safeguard against unethical financial attacks on our stock market and banks such as the case with Bernard Madoff. Holding financial institutions liable for contributing negatively to the foreclosure situation we find ourselves in today. In many ways government should be held accountable for the fiasco we experienced with the foreclosure crisis and the invalid lending to unqualified applicants from the mortgage institutions.
Suggested Outcome The Occupy Wall Street Movement is making has some valid points in that we have to concentrate on how to make it better for the 99% of our society more importantly to the future generations. I think that they are focusing on some very valid points but I disagree with taking money from someone that has worked very hard to create wealth for themselves simply because they were able to become successful does not make them liable for the rest of us. Each person needs to be held accountable for their own circumstances and choices that they make however, there are many middle class who are working hard and just barely getting by. To them it seems that it is a never ending cycle and there is no hope of ever getting ahead or even the opportunity to create some kind of respectable retirement. Many will not have the opportunity to retire God willing they are healthy enough to continue working. In researching the Need Act that was discussed by Congressman Dennis Kucinich this may be just the answer that America needs. If the government could circulate money that is free from inflation into the economy this may help us get back on our feet (Kucinich, D; October 5, 2011). The middle-class could start creating just a little something to fall back on and not live paycheck to paycheck while helping our economy.
Predictions for the Future The Occupy Wall Street Movement will continue if there is not some kind of action taken to alleviate the pressure that the middle class is facing today. They are understandably frustrated with the possibility that there is no hope in sight. They continue to work hard and try to make a lifestyle worth being proud of and to them it seems that they are always the ones that are the innocent victims of society constantly paying for the negative actions of those more fortunate. On the other hand if there is some kind of action taken that the 99% can feel a little less pressure and stress to become somewhat more financially stable then the movement may diminish. However, you are always going to have those in any society that feel they are victims and will not take responsibility for their choices or actions, those that will always want the handouts. Handouts are not the answer they just allow people to become lazy and not be positive members of society.
Conclusion
I previously did not have a true understanding what the Occupy Wall Street movement was about. After educating myself (a little) I can understand that they are fighting for the majority of Americans to be given a fair chance at survival and some sort of financial dignity. They are not just unemployed lazy people they are really trying bring to light that we have issues with our economy and that we need for the government to take a closer look at the “little” guy. We have a responsibility to yourselves and our youth to try and make things better. If something does not change there will no longer be a middle-class American because we are paying more taxes and inflation continues to rise but the corporations are not giving yearly raises to workers. So if the 99%are not getting raises and more is being taken from what they earn they are going to continue to get further and further behind. Hence no more middle-class they will now become the lower-class. References
Beyer, G. J. (2012, February). Solidarity and Occupy Wall Street: A Tale of Two
Movements. Political Theology. pp. 5-13. doi:10.1558/poth.v13i1.5.
Easton, N. (2012). Stop beating up the rich. Fortune, 166(5), 114-119.
Kucinich, D. (2011, October 4). I Support the #OccupyWallStreet. In YouTube.com.
Retrieved February 2, 2013, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IdPyYRnOY0
Kucinich, D. (2011, October 5). Keep Occupying Wall Street. In YouTube.com. Retrieved
Shaw, W. H. (2011). Business ethics: 2010 custom edition (7th ed.). Mason, OH: Cengage.
Sterling, A. (2012). Occupy wall st. and the ethics of inequality. Manuscript submitted for publication, Philosopy, Los Medanos College, Retrieved from http://shrei.stanford.edu/sites/shrei.stanford.edu/files/sterling_handout_1.pdf