Author Archives: aynrand

by | December 12, 2017 · 5:25 am

In Response to Mill’s “Avoid Millionaire Tax or End Homelessness”

Mill here puts forth the irrational argument that society should be collectively held responsible for supporting the homeless.  Specifically, he advocates for Proposition 63, which proposes placing a 1% tax increase on income over a million dollars, and using the revenue for affordable housing to help accommodate the homeless population.  This proposal is both illogical and unethical.  In considering the issue of homelessness, there is no reason to believe that the burden of supporting the homeless should fall upon the millionaire class.  From the perspective of objective ethics, the highest achievement of man is to his own happiness – not the happiness of others.  Each man is held only to pursue that which serves to his own values through virtues of rationality, productiveness, and pride.  Forcing the wealthy to give up their money in support of the homeless denies both parties from practicing rational virtue.

Let’s first consider the great and obvious disservice that this absurd proposal places upon the millionaire class.  To have accrued such wealth is reflective of a life based on ethical pursuit of value in the interest of the self.  Such people have developed virtue and its subsequent moral and fiscal reward.  Those who have ethically dedicated their life to self-improvement, should not be called upon to give up their wealth to those who have chosen a less virtuous lifestyle.  The highest moral goal for man is pursue value through his own virtue and for himself only.  Even through personal choice it would be foolish for millionaires to donate or otherwise give away their money.  One should entirely reject the notion of sacrifice, as it both presents a harm to society, and denies man the opportunity to seek happiness that can be found solely through his own achievements.

Though to the less rationally minded it may seem odd, this proposal would also ultimately provide a disservice to those among the homeless population as well.  Home and shelter are among the basic necessities of human survival, and thus are obviously values worth pursuing.  However, they must be pursued through virtue as well.  In the case of the homeless there are two options: that they be given handouts, or the opportunity to virtuous pursuit of value.  A homeless man practicing virtues of productivity and pride through hard work may not only be able to overcome his situation, but also to achieve the happiness that may only be earned through rational pursuit of self-interest.  Conversely, giving handouts to such a man would enable his status as a parasite upon society, while also barring him from the highest moral purpose of man to achieve for himself his own wealth, virtue, and happiness.

Ultimately, the idea of the wealthy being made to give up their own earnings for the benefit of the poor presents a disservice to both classes.  Such a proposal detracts from the value of the virtuous to unethically give handouts to the un-virtuous.  The only group of people who can correct the homelessness problem is the homeless themselves.  Such people can work themselves up to a higher situation through practicing the virtues of rationality, productiveness, and pride.  They must rationally asses that shelter is a value necessary to human survival, concluding that they must pursue such means to survival rather than expecting handouts.  Productiveness through means of a job will earn them an income and eventual home, and they will then be able to take pride in what they have earned for themselves.  For each individual man the problem of homelessness will then be solved, without placing an unnecessary and unethical burden upon other members of society.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Rand

by | · 4:52 am

The Province of Whims Cannot Be An Emergency, Mr. Dewey!

If only people like Mr. Dewey would refrain from advocating for the province of whims through publications like his piece on the Opioid Crisis, perhaps the world would not be “collapsing to a lower and ever lower rung of hell.” In this piece, Dewey makes two futile and inherently irrational attempts. Firstly, he tries to define the opioid crisis as an emergency in need of government intervention. Secondly, he promotes a specific proposal as rational and reasonable.

In attempting to define the opioid epidemic as an emergency, Dewey praises President Trump for allegedly taking “a step in the right direction” by declaring the opioid epidemic a “90-day public health emergency.” There are three main qualifiers for emergencies, and this particular case does not satisfy any of them. Essentially, “an emergency is an unchosen, unexpected event, limited in time, that creates conditions under which human survival is impossible.” Drug use is a choice, at least at some point in time. Particularly, it is a choice that is categorized as being a whim, since it is irrational and pursues short-lived pleasure in exchange for a threat on one’s health and life. Additionally, it is not necessarily an unexpected event. As Dewey even says in the final paragraph of his article, this type of behavior and abuse can be foreseen in individuals. Prescription drugs tend to lead patients down this path, meaning that it is not an entirely unexpected outcome for many of its victims. Finally, although it is life-threatening, the opioid epidemic is not necessarily short-lived, as Dewey again acknowledges when he asserts that a more “permanent” solution is necessary.

Since the opioid epidemic cannot be considered an emergency, then it also cannot be considered moral for individuals to sacrifice their hard-earned money or any other effort to help a stranger. Emergencies are the only situations in which it is ethically acceptable to sacrifice or risk sacrifice, and it is also required that the individual be readily willing and able to make the sacrifice with minimal damage to themselves. Unfortunately, the interventions and programs that Charlie Baker has proposed simply violate these fundamental, rational principles. These programs would not simply be free; in fact, they would cost the employees and taxpayers a great sum of money compared to how much it might be able to add. While it would be nice in some ways, it almost certainly isn’t the case that all taxpayers would agree with their money going to fund this cause, which would mean that taxpayers are being forced to sacrifice, which is inherently immoral.

Additionally, Dewey makes it appear as if there are a variety of other drugs on the market that can help manage the pain caused by illnesses and other health issues. While this may be true, it is apparent that these drugs are the best that we have, for now, since these are the ones being used by doctors and their patients. If we assume that they are rational human beings, then it is implied that both doctor and patient have agreed upon the drug’s usage, due to it being some combination of less expensive and more effective than the other drugs on the market. Thus, if restrictions were to be placed on this drug, then people that find more value in it than other drugs would not be able to get it. Once again, the wellness of the collective is prioritized above the wellness of the individuals.

So, even though it may cause harm to more than just an involved individual to some degree, the opioid crisis is not technically an emergency. Since it is not a situation in which strangers can help strangers and still maintain their ethical integrity, the opioid crisis should not be considered a public issue. It is certainly concerning that individuals in our society would choose to follow their whims rather than rationality, even when it becomes a threat to their own life; however, we must handle this concern by modeling good morals ourselves, not by stooping to their level of whims and altruism.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Dewey, Rand

Tagged as , , , ,

by | · 3:57 am

Response to “Student Debt and Tax Reform Does Not Bring the Greatest Happiness”

The biggest mistake we can make in our lives is to be complicit in the state’s seizure of what is rightfully ours. The argument put forth by this medical student exemplifies just that. This student is proud of the tax deduction made to his future income yet does not seem to see the bigger picture. Any taxation by the state is a form of theft. The lowered tax rate through this bill is an insult and should not be accepted as anything but.

Yes, for the creation of roads and social services there must be an influx of money but it should be given voluntarily. Any educated and free thinking person would realize the merits of voluntarily giving a portion of their earnings to the construction of our society. But in no way is the taxation of our property a representation of freedom. It is not the fault of the medical student that this is seen as a personal victory. We are taught to believe that taxation, in any form, will benefit the many.  No one told him that the real victory is the security he will feel once his debts are paid and his earnings are accounted for regularly. Only then will he feel the invitation of giving voluntarily so that he may be a part in the betterment of society.

This young man needs to understand that the only reason government should exist is to protect our rights and our property. That includes the salary that he is so willing to part with once the percentage was in a reasonable range for him. Whether is be 4% or 90%, the taxation of our money is a crime that should not be overlooked. The government has overstepped their place in society and we have allowed them to do so by calling tax cuts “wins”. This is not a win. This is a representation of how the smallest change in our favor leaves us fat and satisfied.  

Why has this student not questioned where his money is going? If anything other than 100% of his money goes to services that are dedicated to protecting his rights, why is he not enraged? Why is this young man satisfied with the tax cut when anyone not willing to do what it takes to survive is being handed his property? How many schools or parks does his money fund that he will never see the benefits of? The type of theft that is happening right before his eyes is astonishing.

Another mistake this young man makes is that he believes he has earned a tax cut based on the youthful opportunities he has “missed out on”. I do not feel any pity for him or his missed opportunities. These are decisions he has made to strengthen his utility and he will have to live with that. The “earned” tax break, whether the taxes were unjust in the first place or not, is a weak way of looking at the situation. No matter what you sacrifice, no matter how hard you work, no one owes anyone anything. We must not let our citizens be weakened by thoughts of what is owed to them. Other than the salary for which the young man will soon be hired for, no breaks in life are owed to him.

The recognition of the amount of taxation this student had to go through was the first step. Now, he needs to question why he is being taxed at all. He needs to know where it is going and why he may never see the benefits of that and how he is complicit in the theft of his own earnings. Because he believes he earned the right to have lower taxes; he will forever live in the state of mind that things in life are owed to him just like the people who believe the money of the rich are owed to them.

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

by | · 3:46 am

Rand on Education Reform

In John Dewey’s article, Education Reform = Compulsory Community Service, the blatant disregard for capitalism and individual freedom is abhorrent. He claims that he “will not accept anything less than a complete reform of the way we educate our youth today and every day until our education system reflects our democratic values.” Those are the very values we should reject! This “democratic system” is just a disguised communism designed to brainwash citizens into believing everything should be handed to them, instead of working for it in a capitalist fashion.

The whole second paragraph of his article is completely flawed. To begin, he believes “in mandatory community work for every citizen,” which is as unjust as taxation. He goes on how each person, especially seeking an education, should be enriched in their community. The most outraging part of this argument is that he blames the education system in place for the acts of criminals! “Incarcerated youth who grow to unfortunately become incarcerated adults cannot succeed in a democratic society that does not incorporate the value of community service and social support into an already compulsory education,” he claims, as if the perpetrators do not have any idea about right from wrong. Nobody is to blame for a crime but the criminal himself. He continues by saying that working hard for your own selfishness is bad for the community.

Dewey further argues that instead of valuing the “capitalist gain of self-service,” a value that has single handedly built this country into the economic powerhouse that it is, we need to teach children and citizens to value the “harmony of service,” whatever that means. The free market capitalizes on the more dominant force winning the economic battle of business, so Dewey is wanting citizens to fail in the free market. He moans on about how teaching “our sons and daughters a trade that will only benefit a capitalist machine in place of an emotional and empathetic education” is letting them down, which seems like a Stalin-esque quote in effort to convince citizens that total government control is even the least bit acceptable. Only letting them down to be successful in their future endeavors as productive and competitive citizens. He says “compassion and service are more likely benefit the society as a whole as well.” The only thing that betters society is the competition based capitalist system that has been built here in the United States, and proves the idea that hard work, determination, and talent all mix together to produce success.

Finally, it is well known that a smart dictator sees it as necessary to focus time, energy, and money on feeding propaganda to the helpless citizens to have no power to deny or defend themselves against the propaganda. The simplest person in the community, if he were to somehow realize it, would rebel with everything he had. Asking the government to use more of our taxes to pay for education instituted on a federal level would be like giving a bear his 15 inch paws to destroy us with.

This is the main ingredient to an irrational society. One that is full of cowardly men who cannot even take responsibility for their own actions. If people really believe that the education system is to blame for criminals, especially repeat offenders, we are truly one step closer to communism. The heart of a thriving capitalist system is responsibility, and we move away from that if we are not even responsible for simple reasoning thoughts, like inherently knowing wrong from right. If our citizens are not capable of taking responsibility for actions, how can they take responsibility of contributing to the capitalist economy that makes this country go? The issue therefore does not lie in lack of educational handouts, but in lack of self-improvement through competitive opportunities.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Rand

by | · 3:46 am

Who is John Locke?

Today, we live in a modern and capitalist world. Upon the shoulders of extraordinary individuals and economic elites, society has blossomed with its many bountiful opportunities. Imagine my shock when I had opened the news this morning, only to find John Locke himself propose the preposterous idea that with a modernized, capitalist world comes the need to restrict and tame the wild beast of capitalism.

How absolutely absurd. He claims that “by failing to provide a sufficient wage, people become incapable of obtaining those three essential rights of [life, liberty, and property].” If he were to open his eyes and realize the endless opportunities that lie in wait if one only possesses the capacity and intellect to seize it, then he would not claim such a thing. How must it be the government’s responsibility to control and pander to the people’s need as if we were children instead of the reasoned beings that we are? I suppose he must want to grant the government power to further their holds on this country. If they were to dictate how much the value of labor of on a whim based on some flimsy altruistic moral, then it is only a slippery slope away from them making some might moral claim to restrict our freedoms “for the greater good” of our the nation or even ourselves.

He even goes as far as to garner the sympathy of the reader by saying that “an individual must work 92 hours a week in order to afford a one bedroom apartment in California at minimum wage.” There is great liberty and choice in that. No one has forced that individual to stay in California and work at that particular job. If it’s too difficult and seeming unreasonable, then quit and move away. Once the demand for that job goes down, then by basic economic processes, the state or the boss will realize that their wage is unsatisfactory. By simply going elsewhere for a job, the individual satisfies supply and demand, and there is no need for a higher tax in order to give more money to those with no skill simply because we feel bad that they are “forced” to suffer through a long job to survive.

As I’ve said, “the minimum wage is a tax on the successful. The market will naturally dictate the minimum wage without the government stepping in to determine arbitrary limits.” One only needs to look at obviously economic consequence to see why raising the minimum wage is an absurd idea. Tell me, John Locke, how raising the minimum wage will help the young adult when he loses his job because he is too unskilled to be hired for such a low wage. “The artificially high wages forced on the economy by compulsory unionism imposed economic hardships on other groups such as non-union works and on unskilled labor which is eventually squeezed out of the market.” What will the benefit of hiring teenagers over the usage of automation in today’s world? What does the immigrant do when he’s excluded from the market because the government will not allow him to sell the worth of his skills that he needs to survive? Raising the minimum wage is a twisted, cruel lie that panders to our idea of noble morality through the guise of altruism in order to destroy us on an economic level.

To you, John Locke, I must ask: who is John Galt? We are.

But you, John Locke, who are you?

https://sites.dwrl.utexas.edu/liberrimus/2017/09/17/the-worth-of-labor/

Leave a Comment

Filed under Locke, Rand

by | · 2:40 am

Wage vs The Cost of Survival: It Matters Not

The government should not be tasked with implementing/maintaining a minimum wage for its nation. Alternatively, the capitalist society in which we live maintains a government tasked to protect the environment which only aims to provide a man the means to express and use his own judgment to pursue what he needs to sustain himself, not to provide, necessarily, those such to survive. While, yes, it may have been important to implement a program such as minimum wage to protect to labor of women in children so they are not subjected to slave labor, it should not be and is not the job of the government to force an employer to pay the employee a specific amount solely because the employee requires it to maintain his property and life or to meet the cost of living

In our capitalist society, if an employer pays their employee an insufficient amount for the cost the employee deems necessary to survive, the employee has the ability to pursue a job that could support the standard of living they would desire to live. The employer is not required to make sure their employee gets to sleep in a bed at night, especially if it means the employer is sacrificing their own profit. This “not requirement”, if you will, is only intensified if the employer does not deem the work of the employee to be worth any more than they are already receiving.

This goes both ways, as a man has the right to utilize his own judgment, he also has the right to not offer his labor for a payment he does not deem fair, either. An employer can choose not to pay for work he does not think is adequate, and an employee can choose not to work for a wage he, too, does not deem adequate. The ensuing results are the problems of those individuals. One of which could be that the employer might find themselves in a position with no employees. This should signify to that employer that their judgment is wrong and would need to offer more pay, which the employee may then find adequate. Oppositely, the worker may realize he has been aiming for a pay for a service that does not require that expense.

Being unable to afford clothes or transportation to maintain a job is not a threat to one’s rights nor is being unable to keep one’s home. However, when a person becomes unable to follow their better judgment (of finding a job or jobs that will supply them the means to live how they want or to work a job they do not agree with to live), that is when rights begin to be threatened. To elaborate, the purpose of (our) government is to protect the rights of its citizens. Those rights are, in actuality, the right of a man over his life and to act according to his own judgment, not to property or a job or a better job. Therefore, government intervention might be necessary when individuals are forced to act against that judgment, provided their judgment is correct.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Locke, Rand

by | December 11, 2017 · 6:47 pm

Gun Control Regulations are Pointless

I have said it before, and will say it again, that I do not know much about guns or the topic of gun control. Because of this, I cannot say that in the past I had a particular opinion as to whether or not guns should be restricted by the government, and I honestly did not see the importance of discussing it years ago, as it seemed arbitrary to me. However, in recent years, the issue of guns has become so prevalent in society that I will concede that it is a relevant topic and is something of importance within our society, enough so that I will share my thoughts.

I would like to begin by saying I believe there is importance in acknowledging the difference between laws and regulations. Laws are necessary limitations that the government has a right to enforce in order to maintain a just society. They must be carried out in society in order to protect the rights we have as individuals. Laws enable government officials to set boundaries that clearly define an act as legal or illegal, giving them the authority to deem acts criminal so that consequences can be carried out. Regulations, on the other hand, are rules that infringe on the individual rights of people within society. They are subjective in nature that give governments the ability to impede on individuals’ rights. Therefore, gun regulations are not something with which I am able to agree.

Ownership of guns is an individualistic pursuit. If someone wants to own a gun because it makes them feel safe, or because they enjoy the sport of hunting, then the government does not have the right to keep them from doing so. As discussed in my book, Virtue of Selfishness, the idea of achieving personal happiness is key in society as “man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself”. I believe that it should be man’s highest moral priority to achieve happiness in and of himself.

Not only do I oppose government regulation on guns as it would strip certain individuals of their ability to be happy, I also do not see the point in imposing pointless rules on the members of a society. I have faith that if a personal is wanting to purchase a gun with the intent of using it in criminal ways, they will find a gun one way or another. Enforcing gun regulations will not going to stop criminals from having them. I do believe that guns are used as tools for murder, such as concealed handguns which are not carried with the intent of killing animals, but I do not think there is a way to decipher if that is the intent of the person buying the gun. Someone with a clean record is not immune to psychotic breaks, so even someone who passes a background check with flying colors could still use their gun in destructive ways. The argument could also be made that the gun is not for the intent of killing others, but for protection in the case of a dangerous situation. Handguns could be used to protect oneself from an attacker. This said, I cannot think of a way to allow individuals to protect themselves without inadvertently giving them the freedom to kill others.

In conclusion, I think that the government should not regulate guns because I stand firm in my opinion of government regulations in general. I believe that people do not have a right to murder, but they do have a right to self defense. I also believe that regulations will not keep criminals from obtaining guns. A gun is simply a tool. In its physical form it does not create any issues. It is the person using it that causes destruction, so regulating the object is not a practical way to prevent the issues that our society faces today. Because of this I am forced to refute the comment made that states, “more people would be safe from mass shootings and homicide” because I disagree that gun regulation would keep homicide and mass shootings from occurring.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

by | · 5:08 pm

Compulsory? More like complicit…

John Dewey’s intent in “Education Reform = Compulsory Community Service” is asinine to liberty. The assertion that there should be mandatory community work for any individual who is seeking a public or high education is impractical and makes several dangerous assertions. It rides on a collectivist ethics approach that usurps a free individual’s rights. Dewey goes on to make the argue that the impetus for this compulsory community service is so that it more closely models and reflects our democratic values. There were a lot of compulsory activities in the USSR. These activities were implemented in a similar light- for the aid and benefit of the community, but nobody had the audacity to pretend like it was advancing a democratic society.

So, we find the proposition, “adults cannot succeed in a democratic society that does not incorporate the value of community service and social support into an already compulsory education. We cannot only focus on molding our children’s minds we must teach them how to be compassionate as well as hard working. We must also teach our citizens that working hard only to benefit one’s own life is not what is best for our community and our posterity.” This sounds like it is spoken directly from the lips of Karl Marx. It’s this justification that makes this idea so dangerous. Here we can see that since the action is altruistic that it justifies the compulsory nature of it. It’s a speculation of what the “society” should do to help a community. Here is the dangerous precedent; the collectivist assumption that regards this issue as a problem or duty of society as a whole. The only way that the security or altruistic value is complete, is to require the expense of others and those contributing. In today’s fast-moving world, people lead busy lives. Many people must go to school and work as well. Many have families that they need to go home to and provide for. While you may be happy with compulsory cleaning of a park for the benefit of everyone, know that it came at the cost of a mother or father not getting to be with their children, at the expense of a person who is not able to provide for themselves because they cannot work and complete the compulsory service as well.

The precedent extends to an even more dangerous ideology. If there be a collectivist premise, whether altruistic or not, it creates the assumption that man belongs to society and not himself. This is the degradation of a free society to one quite literally of communism- sacrifice of one’s self for the greater good. This altruistic approach to humanitarian issues, while seemingly a good idea, leads to the decay of individual rights. This is especially true when it comes in the form of political mandates and legislation. That is a pure dictatorial ideology. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” said Marx. It’s the second portion that’s worrisome. He’s speaking to what he believes should be the sentiment of society. “…to each according to his need,” is the “humanitarian” part of his vision. The problem though, as mentioned, is the means of accomplishing it. Yes, a clean park is nice, but to whom? The working mother trying to obtain her college degree who is having to spend time picking up dog feces and candy wrappers because she is mandated to by the government? Tending a community garden could be another example. What will you say to the elderly woman finally obtaining her degree who is on medication that requires her to stay out of direct sun and arthritis that prevents her from stooping over? Will she receive special accommodations? Alternative assignments? How will we know that her altered work is equivalent to what the others are doing? It’s impractical.

This concept is frightening. Compulsory anything can’t be an advancement of a free and democratic society. Don’t be fooled by the guise of altruistic collective ethics. They are just as dangerous as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Any forced humanitarian work will be the demise of individual right and the first stepping stone towards Communism. Dewey misinterprets what’s best for a society, by advancing government intervention in individual decisions of what is considered ethical, or just.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Dewey, Rand

Tagged as , , , ,

by | · 4:44 pm

Public School… Prison… What’s The Difference?

I chuckle with wholehearted disgust at John Dewey’s assertion in “Private Education Disrupts Democratic Education System” (https://sites.dwrl.utexas.edu/liberrimus/2017/11/15/private-education-disrupts-democratic-education-system/) that the collectivist values imbued in public schooling’s curricula serve to “[allow] the majority of the population reach their individual freedom”.

Dewey boldly claims that the “encouragement” of parents placing their children in private schools “violates the student’s opportunity to be submerged in various perspectives, cultures, and religions.” I fail to see any violation here; if a student or parent decides that they would rather not engage in an opportunity to be exposed to X or Y, then that is entirely within their prerogative. Johnny here seems to forget that we have the right to pursue our interests, whatever they may be, and are not inherently entitled to them; education, jobs, healthcare, adequate pay, etc. are all commodities — you have the right to obtain these, of course! But you’ll have to earn them. If you yearn for something, you must work hard for it. (Similarly, if an option is as unsavory to you as is Dewey’s argument to me, you could just walk away from it – spend your time striving toward your interests.) The laziness that ensues when individuals feel as though they are entitled to everything is a heavy detriment to the well-being of the country. Rather, the fervor, ambition, and strength of character born of passionate efforts toward self-realization are reflective of both the vitality of the people and of the nation.

Beyond this, encouraging people to enroll their children into public schools is the true evil.

Children are not property of the state — the people responsible for them are their guardians. The government has no place in familial life, since its major and only purpose is to ensure our rights; it is our protective agent, not a separate entity who can extend its own judgements to decide what brand of cereal schools serve and what poisonous propaganda their teachers regurgitate onto our children’s fresh and feeble minds. Schooling, being a commodity, necessitates an intimate agreement made by the parent/student and the teacher deciding the worth of the service. When the government overreaches (whether it be a Federal or National government) and decides what kids ought to learn and what to what to wage their teachers, it nullifies, it destroys, the need for personal agreements because it becomes the one deciding the value! Were anyone entitled by the light of the heavens to any commodities, it would mean that the hard-working endeavors of the individuals providing the services would be given without their deserved cost… I thought you had moved past your adolescence, past slavery, America?

Dewey argues in further perpetuation of slavery, this time, of the mind:
“The state set education system, while separate from other parts of the country, is a broader reflection of the cultural and physical aspects of the given society that each individual who graduates from public schools must assimilate into.”

Individuals are not and should not be constricted by their roles in “society”, because they are people. People’s responsibility is to the self, for acting in accordance to the whims of an invisible collective is a compromise the weak must engage in with total internal dishonesty. Acting in dependence to others disintegrates the sense of self – was America not built on the voraciousness of the individual? If our brightest stars are dulled because of a pressure to conform to the masses, what hope is there for continued intellectual or economic success? The mere thought of forced, or, in Dewey’s terms, “encouraged”, assimilation rattles everything within me, from my sturdy Russian bones to whatever morsel of respect I have left for America, given its tragic Progressive streaks.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Rand

Tagged as ,

by | December 7, 2017 · 11:03 pm

Selfish Collective Happiness

In the article “Mill on the Utility of Red Meat”, John Stuart Mill claims the idea of moral sanctions over legal, Food and Drug Administration approved, sanctions on regulating the food industry, specifically regarding red meat, will result in the greatest possible happiness for all the parties involved in the process of producing red meat. He backs his assertion through several supporting facts, which when looked at holistically, can appear to bring about a collective happiness. But therein lies the problem, the existence of collective happiness does not ensure happiness for the individual. Collective happiness exists when the greatest number of people have achieved greatest happiness. Despite the large number of people in United States who eat red meat on a daily basis, Mill believes that these moral sanctions can result in conformity to the no longer binding Paris agreement, positive health trends, and the preservation of natural lands. However, to sacrifice a daily habit, let alone in eating, a habit that one has no choice but to partake in, must require the individual to make a significant change in one’s meal schedule, and this is without taking into consideration of the interest to do so and emotional attachment to eating red meat. To do so would imply a certain level of altruism, fueled either by the interest of appearing to be good or the fear of appearing to be evil. It is possible to achieve the benefits of morally sanctioning red meat without sacrificing one’s interests. Though it may not be as easy, these moral sanctions are not the only way to reduce carbon emissions, carcinogenic intake, and industrialization of natural lands.

Mill seems to believe that these goals from the moral sanction are shared among the greatest number of people. The mere assumption that his interests in the benefits mentioned above are the goals of the masses is, if anything, presumptuous and conflicts intrinsically with the collective happiness of the nation. If by consuming red meat, most Americans are achieving the greatest happiness, then why would imposing moral sanctions lead us to an even greater happiness? The evidence is clear in that many Americans do like their red meat, Mill even references the existing success and the soon-to-come success of American meat manufacturers with Trump’s pledge to preserve red meat in America. Mill seems to confuse the heath of the environment and the people in it with happiness although many people knowingly engage in activities that are detrimental to the environment and their bodies to bring them a sense of joy. Mill’s argument hinges solely on the basis that Americans share his same interests and by making that assumption, he cannot definitively prove that the greatest happiness can be brought about with moral sanctions. To do so, would present a double standard in that meat manufactures are not able to assume what American’s greatest happiness is while Mill could.

In the most optimal sense, if everyone were to be happy, then a total collective happiness would be achieved. Therefore, if every single person were to choose whether or not they want to abstain from red meat to either share Mill’s values or indulge in a tasty meal and that would result in their happiness, then by definition collective happiness would be achieved. To be truly “selfish”, to be concerned with one’s own interests, can actually result in a collective happiness. To assume that one’s interests are representative of the collective whole is wrong and is often lumped together with the misconstrued definition of selfishness, which is to act with no regard for any living being and only for oneself.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized