PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11645261

A reply to Spicker.

Michael Loughlin
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Professor Spicker's two-pronged attack on welfare seems to presuppose the Kantian distinction between morality and prudence. His prudential critique rests on a massively oversimplified and somewhat offensive view of the causes of poverty. His moral premise is unsupported, and inconsistent with his demand for a state-funded investment in education. His article provides an excellent illustration of the anti-realist and Utopian nature of the ideology of the new right.

Explore related subjects

CapitalismDelivery of Health CareEconomicsEducationEthicsFederal GovernmentFinancial SupportFinancing, GovernmentFreedomGovernmentHuman RightsHumansPolicy MakingPolitical SystemsPovertyPublic PolicySocial ChangeSocial JusticeSocial ProblemsSocial ResponsibilityStereotypingTaxesUnited StatesAnalytical ApproachHealth Care and Public HealthJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Michael Loughlin. 1993. A reply to Spicker.. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02196968

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2004

Social influences on corporate political donations in Britain.

It is argued that institutional features of the British state create collective action problems for the mobilization of corporations as donors to the Conservative Party. Social factors are necessary for overcoming these problems. Using social network analyses, the effect that interlocking directorates have on 250 large British corporations' decisions to donate are analysed. Instead of the central mobilizing factor being diffuse inner circle mechanisms positively influencing the decision to make a donation, the results show that more particularistic mechanisms such as information bias and control are equally important.

Capitalism↗