Author Archives: johnsmill1859

by | December 11, 2017 · 5:40 pm

Student Debt and Tax Reform Does Not Bring the Greatest Happiness

Congratulations on finishing your intensive training and medical school. It is quite an achievement that I hope inspires others to pursue their dreams just the same.

Your argument is that having done so much schooling to prepare yourself to become a doctor and having spent so much money to pay for college, you should in fact be taxed less. The new tax bill will do just that—lower your taxes by 4%—despite the fact that you, as a doctor, will make enough income to be considered to be of a high income bracket. The lower tax rate will help you pay your student loans and ensure that you are a happier individual as a result.

I find your reliance on monetary argumentation troubling. I believe there is utility to taxing those who have more to give higher than those with less income. We should also not ignore the negative consequences that the tax bill will have on the happiness of others.

By the logic you provide, we should tax everyone with student loans less. Having student loans is stressful and they can, potentially, take away significant amounts of income. So, why not extend the same tax breaks to others with student loans? I believe your argument defends the tax break for your own individual only, but you are not the only person to have pursued years of schooling and have taken out loans to do so. All of those students sacrifice their happiness afterwards by having to dedicate income to paying those loans. It would thus be in the interest of society as a whole to provide tax breaks for everyone with student loans. That way we have not only happy doctors, but many more happy graduates. We can achieve a greater happiness by extending the tax breaks to more individuals.

The higher tax bracket, to which you will soon belong to, is not unfair. People who are taxed less than doctors still end up with less income than doctors. The increase in taxes with an increase in income is not meant to be a deterrent from earning money. It is meant to take more from those who can afford to give more. The happiness that you give up by paying higher taxes is less than the happiness which a person of lower income gives up, because you have more money left over afterwards. Thus, the utility to tax those with higher income is greater.

The tax bill, which will give a tax break to the rich while having uncertain consequences on the middle and lower classes, has far too many negative consequences to simply be ignored. It is an infringement on happiness of many others whose taxes will not be lowered like yours. Many of those who make less than a doctor will potentially be required to sacrifice more of their own happiness. I believe that the higher number of individuals who will have some of their happiness taken away outweighs the happiness which you will lose.

You have to appreciate the greater utility of your newly acquired education. You pursued your passion, which is the best sacrifice you could have made for society. All those hours you’ve spent studying? You did that to achieve virtue and your own happiness! All those loans you’ve taken out? You did that to achieve virtue and your own happiness! You should consider whether you would be the same person you are today if you did not pursue that virtue, and how of your happiness the tax break is really going to affect. I think you will find that the student loans and the higher taxes do not negate the happiness you’ve achieved by becoming a doctor.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Rand

by | October 25, 2017 · 5:06 pm

Mill on the Utility of Red Meat 

President Trump’s plan to withdrawal the U.S. from the Paris agreement, has brought to light conversations about the utility of various practices that contribute to carbon emissions and environmental degradation. At the forefront of this conversation is a debate over the morality of beef as a staple in Americans’ diets. Were the U.S. to remain in the agreement, switching from beef to beans would nearly bring us to the goal outlined in the accords, a goal which we should strive for because it would enhance the over happiness of all people on earth.

According to a study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, four million people around the world live a diet of mostly plants. Vegetarianism, or at least a primarily vegetarian diet, is commonplace for these people, and other studies have shown that health is not negatively impacted by this lifestyle. Yet, Americans remained attached to this cultural practice and President Trump has shown his commitment to preserving the success of American meat manufacturers. As outlined in a recent article in Pacific Standard magazine, the issue of beef in international trade, decisions on the matter are not not usually made on the basis of environmental concerns, but on the basis of trade agreements and economic implications.

While legal sanctions exist regulating the food industry in the U.S. via organizations like the FDA, I argue that Americans should implement moral sanctions in favor of vegetarianism because this lifestyle has the greatest potential of happiness for all parties. Whereas the happiness of those consumers of meat is brought about by their consumption alone, the numerous pleasures of life limited by the production meat is cause enough to advocate for its reduction. Among the various pleasures limited by the production of meat are the health of its consumers, the natural beauty of pristine lands, and the adequate nutrition of all.

Red meat has been classified as a class one carcinogen by the World Health Organization. The medical costs associated with resulting cancer, not to mention the physical and emotional suffering, are proof of vegetarianism’s utility. But not only does the consumption of meat limit the happiness of its consumers, but also the rest of the population because of the wastefulness associated with its production. Red meat produces 5 times the climate warming emissions of pork of chicken, and 11 times those of stapes like potatoes, wheat, and rice. The expended energy devoted to the meat production process could have greater utility were it devoted to the production of more food. In fact, I would argue that the utility brought about by less overall hunger in the world far outweighs the happiness of those 2 million consumers of mostly meat. Though it would require a lifestyle adjustment on their part, it would be worth the increased happiness of those 4 million consumers of mostly plants.

Though legal sanctions against red meat would infringe drastically upon the liberties of all individuals, moral sanctions seem an appropriate remedy to rectify the great harm caused by red meat’s production. Because the pleasure created by the consumption of red meat is incomparable to the pain caused by it, we should all strive toward vegetarianism.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Mill, Uncategorized

by | · 6:12 am

Mill on Free Speech

Freedom of speech is a right guaranteed by the 1st amendment, it is an opportunity to express personal views and ideas without the risk of detriment to ones quality or quantity of utility. Recently, a Colorado Cub Scout was denied his right to freedom of speech after he asked a controversial question to a senator. The scout in question, Ames Mayfield, asked a question regarding gun control in the wake of the recent Las Vegas shootings that questioned the views of the senator. The leader of Mayfield’s Cub Scout Pack contacted his mother to discuss that her son was “…no longer welcome back to the den.”. This action violates Mayfield’s liberty because his question did not cause harm anyone and therefore did not warrant any negative consequences.

I argue in my essay On Liberty, “That the only purpose for which power can be fully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” The den leader violated this principle when he kicked Mayfield out of the pack solely because his personal views differed from Mayfied’s. Although I do not generally apply these principles to children, in this instance I believe it is still relevant because Mayfield, though young, acted in a mature manner and worked with the assistance of his mother (an adult). The den leader communicated with Mayfield’s mother in an attempt to stifle Mayfield but in this situation Mayfield did not need to be protected from his actions as his speech did not harm himself or others, it merely posed a question.

The den leader did not act in a utilitarian way when he attempted to force Mayfield out of his troop in response to Mayfield’s exercise of his right to free speech. I believe that the leader took away Mayfield’s utility when he removed him from the troop. Furthermore, since utility is integral to all ethical questions, the den leader acted unethically. He also violated the Greatest Happiness Principle discussed in Utilitarianism by removing part of Mayfield’s greatest quantity and quality of happiness. It is my belief that freedom of speech is an important part of liberty and, unless harmful to other’s utility, it must be protected and allowed.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Mill

by | · 6:09 am

Mill on the Refugee Ban

This week, President Trump passed an executive order that re-admits refugees into the United States with tighter security. This Executive Order also states that 11 unidentified countries will face a further 90 days of assessment for potential threats. These policy changes align with actions already taken by Trump to severely decrease the number of refugees allowed into the United States. This tightened security and extended assessment of the refugees has the potential to keep many people out of the United States who are not terrorists, the group this policy attempts to target, but are impacted negatively by methods implemented on a society as a whole.

I believe this policy does not support the principle of utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, because by not allowing refugees to leave the country they are trying to and come to the United States Trump is keeping these refugees from achieving pleasure with the absence of pain. In Utilitarianism, I explain that actions that promote happiness are right, while actions that are wrong create the opposite of happiness.

Refugees who are attempting to leave their current country and come to the United States are trying to leave pain and unhappiness and find a life where they can find greater utility day to day. I believe that in order to achieve the greatest quantity and quality of happiness it is imperative that refugees are allowed into the United States without excessive hold-ups from policies that are vague and aggressive. The United States can afford safety and opportunities that are not currently available to these refugees; this will increase their utility immensely.

I argue that morality, or the rules that define human manner, is rooted in utility. Morality determines what ends are being pursued by society but; by denying refugees entry into the United States and subsequently a chance for the greatest quality and quantity of happiness, they are not allowed the chance at morality through comparison with the rest of society. It is my belief that, by making it inordinately difficult for refugees to enter the United States Trump is denying them of their right to happiness and, by my utilitarian view, subsequently hurting society as a whole.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Mill, Uncategorized

by | · 4:08 am

Gun Control Regulation Needed Now More Than Ever

Many people own weapons for many reasons. Some people collect guns for fun and others own multiple types of guns for hunting. But more and more people are owning guns as a form of protection. However, there are people in society that believe that the removal of weapons in certain areas will improve our quality of life.

In a decade when violence is becoming more and more prominent, people believe owning weapons provides them with safety, security, and ultimately the freedom to live their lives without fear. Legally, guns are privately sanctioned in someone’s home as long as they have the right paperwork for them. But after the recent shooting in Las Vegas, it has been questioned whether or not we should morally sanction guns.

Someone abuses their access to guns, decides to begin shooting in public, and then results in a mass casualty. On October 1, 2017, Stephen Paddock opened fire on Route 91 Concert goers from inside his hotel room on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel. This event led to 59 deaths and injured more than 527 people, labeling this as the deadliest shooting in modern US history.  This issue isn’t localized to one person or group of people. This has been a reoccurring tragedy that can be traced back to loose gun regulations. The 2012 incident in Newton, Connecticut where a man killed 27 people, 20 of the children, is yet another example of a preventable massacre.

Those opposed of more gun control laws fear a loss of individuality and happiness because this encroaches on their Second Amendment right. Although it can be argued that social virtue of the freedom and wellbeing of others is a more pertinent concern regarding this social issue. Democrats have entertained the opinion of those who are against tighter gun restrictions because they want to make sure they are truly enacting laws that are best for the entirety of the United States population and not just a select few. But with the surge of mass murders on the rise, it’s time that we do something to solve this problem. How many others need to be killed before people are willing to set aside their personal desires?

Though Congress is not the only one at fault. The NRA’s inability to effectively enact gun policy changes have led us to where we are today. Democrats believe controlling the types of guns, the amount of access to modifiable equipment, requiring psychological testing, universal background checks, bans on high-capacity magazines, and repealing an NRA backed bill that makes it easier to purchase gun silencers, will decrease mass casualties.

Our duty as citizens is to maximize enjoyment. Therefore, people shouldn’t be denied pleasures, such as guns for hunting, as long as they aren’t harmful to others. Though it’s imperative that we don’t continue to partake in foolishness by supplying people with too much weaponry. A tool designed to keep someone safe has been doing the exact opposite and further putting off the regulation of deadly weapons will merely continue to cause injury to one another. We should be using our experiences to making a change and improve society, not allow it to become even more dysfunctional and harmful by not updating our laws to reflect the changes in modern society.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/02/democrats-urge-gun-law-changes-after-las-vegas-shooting-massacre.html

Leave a Comment

Filed under Mill

by | · 3:34 am

Mill on Gun Control

In the wake of the devastating tragedy in Las Vegas, the morality of the implementation of new gun control laws looms larger than ever. Some action must be taken, though the “right” course of action, pursued by legislators and voters alike, is unclear, buried beneath statistics and rights that some refuse to give up. It is my suggestion to view the issue through the Greatest Happiness framework, which asserts that what makes an action “right” or moral is it’s capability to produce pleasure. However, in this instance, certain pleasures are positioned to compete against one another, forced by the fundamentally different views of supporters and opponents of enforcing stricter gun control.

 

On the one hand there is the happiness that comes from owning and keeping firearms for protection. Supporters of lax gun control laws argue that the laws in place are adequate; perhaps stricter screening on those who purchase guns will ultimately prevent gun violence. They argue that anything more is a breach of their second amendment right to bear arms. This loss of a right infringes on happiness, as they lose the freedom to ensure self-defense should they be presented with the need to use a firearm. On this end of the debate, there is a legitimate belief that protecting one’s rights produces happiness.

 

Here, I must present a few statistics in order to make it easier to frame the issue of gun control legislation in a way that truly captures the meaning of “Greater Happiness.” First, a mere twenty-two percent of the American population owns guns. This is a significant minority compared to the remaining seventy-eight. It would seem then, that since such a marginal portion of the population seeks happiness and protection through the ownership of guns, that the rest of the population would be left alone, to the pleasure and happiness that they derive from staying away from firearms. But in 2015, there were 374 mass shootings. There were 64 school shootings. What I aim to expose with these numbers is that the happiness that twenty-two percent of the population seeks through gun ownership is without question, taking away from that of the remaining SEVENTY-EIGHT percent of the population who remain at the mercy of those who own or wish to not restrict firearms.

 

Which brings me to the issue of quantity and quality of happiness. One of the biggest indicators that stricter gun laws would result in the Greater Happiness is simply that more people would benefit from them. More people would be safe from mass shootings and homicide, the latter of which, the United States leads at a rate that is 25 times that of the next 22 countries. Thus, happiness achieved by the majority of the population is quite literally the “Greater Happiness.” And what of the remaining minority of the population that must then abandon their happiness? It is my firm belief that sacrifices made in the name of the greater happiness and utility are sacrifices that are not made in vain. It is perfectly moral to ask a minority to give up some happiness for the just cause of upholding the happiness of those in the majority. To this end, legislation must be passed that restricts gun ownership.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Mill

by | · 1:49 am

Mill and Taylor on Speech Codes in Universities

Freedom of expression, perhaps one of the most fundamental and sacred tenets of democracy, is consistently reexamined as society progresses. College campuses always seem to be at the height of this reexamination, as social progress and debate is often prevalent in educational environments. One of the most pressing issues facing colleges and universities in the United States right now is the constitutionality of speech codes, and whether such codes infringe on freedom of speech and expression.

Speech codes, according to The Encyclopedia of the First Amendment, prohibit “offensive or intolerant speech directed at individuals or groups based on their race, color, religion, ethnicity disability, sex, age, or sexual orientation” (Aichinger 2009). Speech Codes were created as a response to the increase in “incidents of racist, homophobic, and sexist harassment,” that occurred in the 1970s when “the number of women and minority students on campuses significantly increased as a result of expanded recruiting efforts by colleges and universities and federal policies” (Aichinger 2009).

Critics argue that these speech codes are overly broad and deter students and faculty from debating on serious social issues relating to discrimination. Speech codes do not prevent these topics from being addressed, though; rather, they require those in discussion to act with civility and respect.

While it may seem as though speech codes limit debate, they actually act as a preventative barrier to such speech that silences constructive dialogue. These codes do not prevent constructive debate. The collision necessary to further truth remains intact, with opinions not entirely silenced but regulated for civility. By requiring civility, constructive dialogue on important societal issues will flourish, allowing for greater discovery of truth or further cementing of values and beliefs. 

When there is a lack of civility, individuals may be silenced by the cruel or rude nature of the discussion. This is particularly true of topics related to issues of discrimination, that carry the weight of decades of horrific discrimination and violence. Therefore, speech codes are necessary to allow for healthy debate, because they regulate the type of speech that has no place in public discourse.

 

http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=GVRL&u=txshracd2598&id=GALE|CX2143300245&v=2.1&it=r&sid=summon&authCount=1

Leave a Comment

Filed under Mill

by | October 24, 2017 · 11:34 pm

Utilitarianism on Birth Control

This month, the Trump Administration made moves toward rescinding the federal law that requires corporations to provide birth control in their insurance policies. Posing a debate between religious freedom and women’s rights advocates, the controversial choice arguably appeals to corporations of religious and moral beliefs that are against birth control. Although I do not wish to shut those beliefs down, I do believe that we are potentially causing harm by taking this mandate away. From a Utilitarian perspective, I believe that mandating corporations to include birth control in their insurance policies will uphold the standard of the Greatest Happiness principle: the highest quantity and quality of happiness, with the absence of pain.

In order to secure greatest happiness, it is my opinion that birth control should always be covered under insurance policies. Birth control is not only used for pregnancy prevention, but it also has other health benefits. In order to establish greatest happiness, pain must be absent, and if birth control can fight pain, then we most certainly should make it easily accessible to women. In addition, birth control prevents teen pregnancy, in which the economy arguably pays heavily for in the long run. Essentially, birth control is small price to pay compared to the latter of paying for children’s food, education and healthcare. 

Not only is birth control imperative to the happiness of women and families, the inclusion of birth control in insurance policies upholds an important moral duty to protect individual independence. It is a civil liberty for women to have access to contraception, yet many cannot afford it. Moreover, providing birth control allows women to plan their own life, thus satisfying the liberty of tastes and pursuits. In conclusion, is both economical and ethical to support insurance covering contraception.

While some may argue that their insurance premiums increase as a result of the inclusion of birth control in their policies, I argue in favor of the inclusion of birth control because I believe it provides the greatest quality and quantity of happiness. Yes, this small increase may impact some people’s happiness, however, it is for the greater good of the greater population that insurance covers birth control. Not only does it benefit the happiness, health and individuality of women. In many cases, it supports the happiness of men and their families as well. In addition, I reiterate that it is more cost effective to have slight increase in insurance premiums, than an increase in births. Still, I understand that people of various religions and beliefs disagree with birth control and mandating its inclusion in insurance policies. However, I also uphold the belief that there is no harm caused to those who choose not to use it. Therefore, I must reason that birth control covered by insurance ensures collective happiness.

Access to contraception is paramount to the happiness of not just women, but men and families too. While we should allow open discourse about the use of birth control, we should not legally let the belief system of some affect the happiness and well-being of others. By mandating that birth control be covered under insurance policies, the government would not be imposing harm, but rather ensuring women their civil liberty to choose how they live their lives. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/politics/trump-birth-control.html

Leave a Comment

Filed under Mill

by | · 10:21 pm

Avoid Millionaire Tax or End Homelessness

It is very unsettling that in the United States there are half a million homeless people, and one quarter of these individuals are children. While there are many homeless shelters provided, numerable homeless individuals have mentioned that they will avoid homeless shelters at all costs due to known violent incidents, including sexual assault. Thousands of people are living in unsafe conditions on the streets and avoiding homeless shelters, due to fear for themselves or for their children. If we do not take a step as a society towards improving these conditions, then we will continue to let these homeless individuals live in danger; causing more harm to the copious amounts of unfortunate human beings living around us. If we have the tools to improve this horrific situation, we must do what is in our power for the overall benefit of society.

Running Mayor of Sacramento Sen. Darrell Steinburg was an architect for Proposition 63 (The Mental Health Services Act of 2004). This places a 1% tax increase on earnings over a million dollars and produces $1.75 billion a year. This idea was embraced by Sen. Pro Tem Kevin, and would use $130million of that amount annually to finance a $2 billion housing bond in LA (latimes.com). Housing Bonds are debt securities that are issued by state or local government to raise money for affordable housing development. Wealthy individuals earning $1 million or more annually might oppose this, and believe that being taxed due to their higher earnings to help someone else live a better life is unfair and should not be required. This sense of entitlement while being aware of the current struggles in society shows great disregard towards the livelihood of the ones who are not as fortunate. I would rather be a person dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, therefore we should strive for a better society as a whole, not just individual comfort levels.

In addition to helping many homeless individuals live better and healthier lives, the money being taxed could possibly be used in ways that will result in the benefit of  many aspects of society. By solving homeless we can fix many more societal issues such as “truancy from schools, food insecurity, drug and alcohol abuse, and unemployment. It is possible that directing more resources towards solving homelessness could actually save society money by helping to fix its other ills at the same time” (latimes.com). A step to help the homeless can go a very long way, and consequently greatly improve society as a whole.

 

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-lopez-homeless-solutions-20160510-column.html

http://time.com/money/4356367/millionaire-tax-los-angeles-homeless/

Leave a Comment

Filed under Mill