Economic Competition: Should we Care about the Losers?
Economic Competition: Should We Care about the losers? Only if you’re doing it wrong
Jonathan Wolff is the head of philosophy at the University College of London. In one of his pieces titled, Economic Competition: Should We Care About The Losers, he particularly focuses on the economic wellbeing on individuals whom interests may be in danger within economic competition. After discussing several subcategories within economic play, Wolff believes that we have a moral obligation to help those that may be taken advantage of in the commercial world. These potential “losers”, he states, fluctuates between producers and consumers. Within his description, Wolff clarifies that exploitation is a direct consequence of economic competition. “ A competition has been set up for the general good, but without sufficient regard to how this affects the people who are enticed into the competition by the promise of victory” (606). He therefore concludes that several methods of protection are needed for these individuals. Although he gives a relatively plausible argument over the potential mishaps within economic competition, Wolff fails to not only identify the greater successes in economic competition, but does not establish that the ability for exploitation to manifest lies within the government and can be minimalized by advocating citizens’ rights.
To begin with, Wolff’s argument must be broken down and analyzed. Within his piece, he identifies several types of competition but only the most relevant shall be mentioned: 1) Pure Lottery, 2) Weighted Lottery, 3) Pure Competition, and 4) Side-effect of activity. The first three forms hold the similar concept of pulling through with an action in order to receive a tangible reward. For example, two kids compete for a prize for who has the cleanest closet. Unlike these forms, the side effect of an activity consists of the individual “benefiting from people behaving competitively, rather than the effect of the awarding the
Jonathan Wolff is the head of philosophy at the University College of London. In one of his pieces titled, Economic Competition: Should We Care About The Losers, he particularly focuses on the economic wellbeing on individuals whom interests may be in danger within economic competition. After discussing several subcategories within economic play, Wolff believes that we have a moral obligation to help those that may be taken advantage of in the commercial world. These potential “losers”, he states, fluctuates between producers and consumers. Within his description, Wolff clarifies that exploitation is a direct consequence of economic competition. “ A competition has been set up for the general good, but without sufficient regard to how this affects the people who are enticed into the competition by the promise of victory” (606). He therefore concludes that several methods of protection are needed for these individuals. Although he gives a relatively plausible argument over the potential mishaps within economic competition, Wolff fails to not only identify the greater successes in economic competition, but does not establish that the ability for exploitation to manifest lies within the government and can be minimalized by advocating citizens’ rights.
To begin with, Wolff’s argument must be broken down and analyzed. Within his piece, he identifies several types of competition but only the most relevant shall be mentioned: 1) Pure Lottery, 2) Weighted Lottery, 3) Pure Competition, and 4) Side-effect of activity. The first three forms hold the similar concept of pulling through with an action in order to receive a tangible reward. For example, two kids compete for a prize for who has the cleanest closet. Unlike these forms, the side effect of an activity consists of the individual “benefiting from people behaving competitively, rather than the effect of the awarding the