Cohen Fallacy

1. The (first) Cohen Fallacy is a term used to describe the erroneous method by which Cohen argues that socialism is superior to capitalism. In this method, one compares an ideal form of an economic governing system to a realistic form of an economic system and claims that the former is better. The issue here is that one makes a comparison between vastly different systems operating under differing assumptions, and therefore fails to compare them properly. Hence, the claim that one could be better than the other is unfounded.
2. Brennan claims that “capitalism is not analytically tied to greed and fear” because, he argues, those traits are no more related to capitalism than they are to socialism. He claims, much like Sharon Krause claims, that socialism relates most closely ownership principals, rather than the moral dispositions which Cohen stresses including generosity and equality. Brennan goes on to discuss how capitalism is based on having property
According to the text, having resources that are privately owned helps ensure that they are well preserved. As in Garret Hardin’s “The Tragedy of the Commons”, one might expect that without private ownership, no responsibility is taken to ensure the prolonged use of the ‘commons’ (common goods), and then they are depleted and destroyed. In the case of private ownership, individuals work to preserve their own resources, and their resources are in turn protected to a certain extent from harm by others. With such ownership also comes a sense of personal investment. Individuals may develop emotional attachments to things that are ‘theirs’. Individuals become more invested in the maintenance of these objects too (as previously discussed). Additionally, ownership is heavily beneficial for satisfying needs efficiently. For example, in trying to use a laptop, if it was owned by the whole community it would be more difficult to gain access to and use. However, if it’s privately owned, one can use it when one