PubMed · 11645261
A reply to Spicker.
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
Keep this discovery
Explore connections, maps & timelines
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.