Category Archives: Mill

by | March 27, 2019 · 9:43 pm

Mill on the Expedient Nature of Fossil Fuels

Fossil Fuels: Utility or Expedient

In the case of energy provided by burning fossil fuels, Mill urges the public to consider whether fossil fuels are in our short term or long-term interest. He asks the public to consider the topic of climate change and the fuels we use as a matter of public interest, and not a matter of immediate economic benefit. According to an article comparing the financial, social, and environmental impacts of the differing fuel sources by Walker and Reid, “Fossil fuels have been used for many years due to their inexpensive nature, but the use of them generates hydrocarbons that create greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.” They also emphasize that fossil fuels are exhaustible and set to run out in 50- 150 years.  

   What is important about the discussion of what fuels we should be using for the greatest overall long-term happiness; it is important to discuss how they affect the environment long- term as well. According to Mill, a decision or action rooted in utility rather than expedience is going to produce the greatest overall happiness long- term. He argues that expedient choices may have pleasurable short-term consequences but are ultimately hollow and interested only in instant gratification. Mill agrees that the use of exhaustible fossil fuels is an expedient decision rather than one of utility. While the inexpensive costs of fossil fuels are helpful to the economy right now, the use of fossil fuels neglects the happiness and well- being of future generations. 

   Mill argues that the consequences of the greenhouse gas affect directly violate the rights of future generations. The consequences of climate change would infringe on future generation’s rights to liberty, property, and happiness. This is due to the environmental repercussions of greenhouse gas emissions; the inevitable result would be damage to the environment that will cause serious health implications to the future generations, thus infringing on their right to happiness. However, while the justice for future generations is a big factor on what makes using fossil fuels an expedient choice, the economic consequences highlight this as well. 

   If the argument for the utility of the use of fossil fuels is rooted in the inexpensive cost, Mill would argue based on the economic evidence that the economic benefits are short-term and the long- term costs of continual use of fossil fuels will undo the short- term benefits. According to Environment America, “The United States cannot afford to wait to break our dependence on fossil fuels. The cost of fossil fuels to our economy and our environment will continue to mount in the years to come unless the nation takes bold steps now to embrace the benefits of a clean energy future.” Mill argues that long- term benefits are in the interest of the achieving the greatest total happiness for the most people. Mill agrees in the case of whether switching to renewable sources of energy is a “moral” decision is based entirely off the consequences of the decision. It is clear that the consequences of switching to renewable sources is not only in the best interest of public happiness, but also an economically smart decision. 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Mill

Tagged as ,

by | December 12, 2017 · 7:35 am

Gun Control Locke vs. Mill

Mill argues that gun control is more necessary now, in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting that occurred earlier this year, than ever because of the danger this poses to all citizens. However, Locke would disagree with this argument. He would argue that enforcing gun control limits the right to property that is inherent to all citizens and therefore is not a public issue that should be legislated upon.

The blog post “Gun Control Regulation Needed Now More Than Ever” argues that abuses to gun access has lead to an increase in gun violence and asks, “How many others need to be killed before people are willing to set aside their personal desires?” Although this was written after an instance of gun abuse, Locke would still argue that this was an exception committed by someone who is not capable of full reason and therefore that person must be punished by society. In The Second Treatises of Civil Government Locke says, ““the state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind…that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” (6).

Locke’s emphasis on the value of life, liberty, and property allow him to dictate what he deems a public or a private issue. Locke believes that public issues should not be discusses by the government because they are important only to the individual they regard. The right to own a gun would fall into this public category because they are the property of the individual who owns them and therefore a natural right.

The blog post argues, “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.” Locke would disagree with this by saying that maximizing enjoyment and minimizing the amount of weaponry an individual can own infringes on their right to property and therefore is not a response of the government to control.

While Mill’s argument about the importance of gun control is only intended to protect and support the community, Locke would be against it because of its attempt to control citizen’s personal property. To Locke, the right to own a gun should not be taken away from reasonable and rational citizens merely as a response to irrational citizens that are few and far between. Locke would call for consequences on these citizens before he would support gun control because when a citizen harms another citizen it becomes a public issue and can be legislated upon.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Locke, Mill

by | · 4:20 am

Slaves to the unproductive? More like slaves to systematic racism, classism, and misogyny

Slaves to the unproductive? More like slaves to systematic racism, classism, and misogyny. To fix an issue, you have to identify and acknowledge what’s causing it. In this case, the issue is homelessness, and the proposed solution is an additional tax on the rich. You argue against an additional tax on the rich by saying my argument frames “issue as rich vs. poor, [rather than] industrious vs. the unproductive,” but doing so implies homelessness is synonymous with being unproductive, a narrative conservatives push often. It also implies that everyone who is extremely wealthy has made their money honestly, which is actually the funniest thing I’ve ever heard. In actuality, homelessness is often attributed to rising housing costs and the socio-political norms and attitudes strongly rooted in our governing policies that enable poverty. For example, many district zoning and county lines were written during times of segregation, ultimately putting those communities at a disadvantage due to lack of income and poor school systems. Another major cause of homelessness for women is domestic violence, a cause that has absolutely nothing to do with being unproductive.

As for your argument stating man should live for himself and his well-being rather than the collective good, you must have forgotten our society is too complicated to live so selfishly, as we rely on one another too deeply in terms of commerce already. And how can you argue there’s no “we” or “society” in the UNITED States, a country built on an extreme sense of nationalism and patriotism? You also mention that “a slave can be categorized as anyone who doesn’t benefit from their labor and that’s what this tax will do,” as if these millionaires aren’t going to pocket millions regardless, so I’m pretty sure that counts as ‘benefiting from their labor’.

I agree, every man has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And because I believe that, I also believe the people in power should try their best to level out the playing field for everyone under their care by dispensing  necessary resources to those who are unable to do so themselves. The theory is that by providing equal resources to everyone, you’re giving people the equal opportunity to become productive citizens in society. By supplying these resources, you’re allowing people opportunities they wouldn’t have otherwise, and in doing so, you have a better chance of harvesting knowledge and creativity from poorer cities and towns that are typically at a disadvantage, which could most definitely benefit society as a collective. Say the cure for cancer is planted in the mind of someone born into poverty, but our governing policies are written to disadvantage lower-class families so the or she never receives a proper education, ultimately falling victim to our crooked judicial system only to end up in jail for a small misdemeanor. Meanwhile, politicians among the top 1% commit crimes far greater and remain in power, continuing to enforce to policies that benefit them.

Again, most of your argument is built on the claim that the wealthy make their money honestly, and purely through hard work, so they shouldn’t have to give it to give it those who are “unproductive”, discrediting all of the hard working people that live in poverty. Though it may seem so, there isn’t a direct correlation between hard work and the amount of money you earn, as you could work very little and make 6 figures or work 50-60+ hours a week and live paycheck to paycheck. Additionally, I’m positive that, in a society built on commerce, there wouldn’t be a loss in productivity if an additional tax on millionaires was put into place because people will ALWAYS want to make money, period. The upper-class threatening to withhold goods and services birth from their “productivity” because they’re being asked to share their resources with those they’ve robbed is an empty threat I refuse to believe.

P.s. I, one of your fellow liberal peers, forgive you for writing that article.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Mill

Tagged as ,

by | · 3:50 am

Mill Says, Greater Happiness Over Assisted Suicide

According to Mill’s Utilitarianism, his most remembered argument is the Greatest Happiness Principle. Mill presents utility, or the existence of pleasure and the absence of pain, as both the basis of everything that people desire, and as the foundation of morality. However, utilitarianism does not say that it is moral for people simply to pursue what makes them personally happy. Rather, morality is dictated by the greatest happiness principle; moral action is that which increases the total amount of utility in the world. Pursuing one’s own happiness at the expense of social happiness would not be moral under this framework.

The greatest happiness principle says that, “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.” Mill states that society aims towards the greatest happiness. “[E]very action we make, we decide based on this principle.” Whatever brings about the greatest happiness is the greatest good.  Thus, the best life to live is one that is the most filled with happiness, and has the least unhappiness in it.  

Assisted Suicide is a debate that’s been going on in the United States and whether or not it should be legal in more states than the six that have already legalized it. Assisted suicide is available for the six states if a patient is terminally ill with fewer than six months to live. The doctor prescribes the  fatal dose of drugs to their patient. Rand argues that every person has a choice to make when it comes to their life and the choice is based on desire. Rand would argue for assisted suicide by stating:

“Nobody should infringe upon an individual’s selfishness…even if that interest is their own death. Since right to life is a person’s only true fundamental right, they have the right…to act on one’s own judgment, without pressure, to achieve one’s own personal goals. [Their] decision is based upon their own process of reason in determining what is right…They do not act on a desire without either being aware of the potential results or making themselves aware of the potential results.”

For Mill, however, a greater happiness for society is reached by not legalizing assisted suicide. If assisted suicide is allowed and more people decide that they want to commit suicide, then the population can decrease. The people who have a short amount of time to live might regret after taking the prescribed pills to end their life after they’ve taken them or they may even get better. Thus, from a greater happiness point of view from Mill, it’s better just to wait and that way, the population won’t affect society, the person, although might be miserable for the time being, might get better or won’t regret it if the person just waits out death.

Thus, because the greatest happiness principle considers the total amount of happiness, a noble character, even if it is less desirable for the individual, is still desirable by a utilitarian standard.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Mill

Tagged as , ,

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