The movement (OWS) begun in Zuccotti Park, situated in New York City’s Wall Street financial district on the seventeenth of September, 2011. The movement in the last few months has garnered extensive popularity following media coverage by major magazines and news agencies. It is therefore considered to be an iconic illustration of the unrest that is slowly accumulating and reaching the bursting point in masses. The theme of the movement is to oppose several existing economic and social problems such as unfair financial order, the wealth gap, corruption, greed and the undue influence of corporations on government as written by the New York Times (Writers for the 99%, 2011). These issues raised by the movement according to the ideas of Richard Shweder, an anthropologist, outline six clusters of moral concerns which include liberty, fairness, authority, care, loyalty and sanctity. There have been countless debates in the United States on whether the movement is justified or an exploitation of the right to protest and freedom of speech. This paper will give insight into the economic and moral implications of the movement while analyzing each of the implications against the Kantian, virtue and utilitarian ethics to determine which theory best applies to the movement. Furthermore, the discussion will explore who is responsible for wealth distribution and income inequality in the United States followed by a suggestion of an impartial ending from the movement that would be suitable for our contemporary capitalistic society and finally conclude by predicting whether the movement will continue, disappear or transform into something else.
Occupy Wall Street movement begun as a result of social unrest and probably the same reason why it was frequently supported with slogans such as “what is our one demand?” that highlighted the fact that mass were behind the movement. The economic and moral implications of the movement are diverse. Occupy Wall Street main moral issues included liberty, fairness and care. On the aspect of fairness, the protesters believed that the rich, who make up about one percent of the total United States population (as the protesters constituted 99%), got rich by taking without giving. The protesters viewed the rich as cheaters who exploited their way to the top. For this reason, it implied that the taxpayers were the ones to bail out the rich after they had crashed the economy (Stiglitz, 2012). The other moral implications are apparent in the fact that protestors have been seen to engage in unethical protests followed by the move to radically transform the aspect of wealth and income inequality at a very fast rate. Demonstrators complained of theft in items such as laptops and cell phones. Several weeks after the movement begun protesters had made enough allegations of sexual assault. This can be attributed to the fact that they complained that the government did not provide adequate care for its citizens (the poor who were the majority). Secondly, as masses gathered in public protests they wanted to make known their intention to be liberated from the social and economic inequalities it meant they could have a disruptive effect on transportation, government and commercial services especially protests that are stages in major metropolitan areas. These disruptions imply closure of business and inaccessibility of other areas hence decline of economic growth.
Utilitarian ethics was proposed by James Mill and Jeremy Bentham suggesting that all human action should be directed towards achieving the greatest happiness for the majority of the population. This suggestion implies that utilitarianism looks at the outcome for the good of the greatest number. The ideology followers believe that we are all individuals and the society is only a net result of our individual choices. This suggestion was however, criticized by Emile Durkheim, a sociologist, who termed utilitarianism as a convenient fiction because we cannot be reduced to individuals who make rational decisions, because our own understanding of reality is socially constructed (Rawls, 1971). The Occupy Wall Street movement therefore is a collective representation of invisible movements of billions of dollars; the financial crisis and the bailout are all agreed upon realities and its social and economic implications discussed mean that the utilitarian theory is not best suited for the movement. It is evident that rather than the protestor getting the government’s and non government organization’s attention to ensure improvement of their well being, research indicates further economic and social degradation among the poor who are the majority. My position is supported by the continued fact that utilitarian ethics would justify crime hence the need to increase police services and other questionable solutions that before they come to pass the majority will have experienced some negative aspects for a given period.
Virtue ethics refer to an ideology whereby morality stems from the identity of a person rather than being a reflection of the society. The ethics attempts to discover and classify what may be believed to be a moral character and apply the moral character as the building block of one’s choices and actions. The main value of the ethic is to sway the individual’s attention from following popular opinion but rather placing his or her attention on him/herself. This implies that any movement following the virtue ethics ideology would transform to be an excellent source of teaching and knowledge following the exchange of diverse ideas and opinions. Since there is no clear definition of virtue ethics, the ideology is denied the opportunity to be fully effective or rather the theory has just become a custom for learners to follow and is therefore not suited for the Occupy Wall Street movement (Rawls, 1971). This follows the huge amount of support that the movement is getting from the masses without really identifying and understanding the reasons behind it origin. The followers believe the movement’s proposals to be true making them follow that external rule which a contradiction of what they were following as social custom. This means that the negative social and economic implication of the movement will have to be accepted despite what an individual believes to be true.
Kantian ethics was proposed by Immanuel Kant and was developed as a result of clarification in rationalism. The ideology states that the only fundamentally good thing is a good will implying that the actions of Occupy Wall Street movement can only be good if the majority of the population benefit from it (maxim) and it becomes the duty of moral law. The guiding principle of Kantian ethics is universalisability which requires that for any action to be accepted, it must be possible to apply it to everyone without any contradictions occurring. The Occupy Wall Street movement operates on Kantian ethics as the protestors fight for the well being of the majority (Rawls, 1971). The social implications of crime will be solved by the whole society getting all round security while the economic implications will transform by the rich getting to pay taxes that will be used to improve social amenities.
The aspect of inequality of income and wealth can be measured from the perspective of inequality between the rich and the poor and the developing inequality between wages and profit. The view points reveal the worsening condition of the distribution of wealth and income in the United States. According to US Census Bureau report, 16 percent of the total population in the United States is presently living in poverty, the main poverty indicators being considered being tax credits, food stamps as well as medical bills. It was also noted in the report that the age group of 65 made the highest group hit by poverty. This age group has been attributed to have high poverty rate as a result of the health system introduced during Obama’s regime which leaves most Americans without insurance coverage. Moreover food insecurity is viewed to be another factor contributing to the high poverty rate as concluded by a recent study conducted by the United States department of agriculture where 50.2 million Americans including 17.2 million children being food insecure in 2009 (Stiglitz, 2012). According to the late American political sociologist Lipset, America has weak labor unions and lacks a strong working class movement, socialist/social Democratic Party or even a least effective green movement or party, even if it is the world’s biggest polluter and emitter of Carbon dioxide. Moreover America has higher levels of productivity, income, and wealth as compared to the levels of taxation and social spending that are exceptionally low. This clearly shows that the political system of America contributes to the poor income distribution in the population as a result of the questionable democratic rights of the citizens. The quality of the democratic system in a country determines the extent to which the less disadvantaged population is able to challenge the government to the extent that their rights are belittled. Success stories of such governance include states such as Costa Rica, Chile and Mauritius. Nevertheless there is always an exception; India, that still maintains a poor record of reducing poverty and inequality even though it is the world’s largest democracy. This rationale reveals that the determination of income inequality and wealth distribution by the political system built up over time following the different government regimes that have been in power and the decisions made that clearly have led to detrimental consequences.
In order to change the culture of violence as experienced by victims of the movement, it is important to create alternatives so as to develop a society whereby survivors are respected and supported. This implies there is need for more efforts to create awareness about sexual violence. To limit the amount of information provided by the media to the public that may lead to further protests implying further destruction of property and disruption of services, a file is kept and should be maintained so as to record the movement and monitor social media for information (Writers for the 99%, 2011).The Occupy Wall Street movement should also consider being less radical and more democratic by tabling their grievances in a manner that does not cause harm to its followers.
The Occupy Wall Street movement will sure continue to fight for the well being of the majority poor population following intense support from president Obama who quotes that the movement expresses the American people’s frustrations since the great depression. Great leaders sympathize with the movement quoting that they understand how the population feels. Several labor unions including the National Nurses United pledged their support for the movement demonstrators. Media personalities have challenged the minimal coverage of the initial Wall Street demonstrations and protests. Survey indicates that about 33% of voters supported the movement and saw it as a valid protest representing the people.
References
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality: [how today's divided society endangers our future]. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Writers for the 99%. (2011). Occupying Wall Street: The inside story of an action that changed America. New York, NY: OR Books.
