Category Archives: Mill

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

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/

There has been recent scrutiny over Planned Parenthood and what it really stands for. Planed Parenthood helps mothers to be as well as young people trying to prevent themselves from becoming mothers get the health care they need and assist them on any sexual related health issue. One if the most controversial things Planned Parenthood provides is the help for a woman to get an abortion. In a recent article a planned parenthood was shut down after Donald Trump won the election for president. Trump has pledged to defund Planned Parenthood as long as it continues to fund abortions. The closing of this site has been taken as precaution in regards to Trumps threats. The question really is, is abortion ok? I think that although hard to come by, yes it is.

Basing my claim off of the utilitarian view I live by, we should do whatever is possible to achieve ultimate pleasure with the least amount of pain. In my book, “Utilitarianism,” I state that, “…Utility, or the Greatest Happiness principle, holds 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,” This idea is what I call the greatest happiness principle. In the greatest happiness principle, the rightness and wrongness of an action are determined by the amount of pleasure and pain each creates. With this being said, the amount of pleasure and pain are determined by both quality and quantity. However, I think it is difficult to judge different qualities of pleasure unless that individual has experienced both types of pleasure. I also state in my book, “Utilitarianism,” that, “It is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.” I think this is a difficult thing to take a stance on without experiencing the quality and pleasure that would come from each position. I think that the best thing to do would be to analyze each position, by looking at it and comparing it with the greatest happiness principle I have talked about above.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/first-planned-parenthood-closing-since-election-scheduled-in-pennsylvania

This year, the United States senate passed the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act into effect. As part of this legislation, women that turn 18 on or after January of 2018 will be required to register for the United States military draft. Does this overstep the limits of an individual’s sovereignty over herself? I would argue that yes, it undoubtedly does. The draft in general is a way of getting members of society to participate in something against their own personal will, and therefore puts their lives at the hands of society instead of at the hands of their own individuality. On these grounds, military participation is not a decision for the government to have a say in. Instead, individuals should be granted the ability to choose. If not granted this ability, they will be performing national duty for the wrong reasons – out of obligation rather than passion. Regardless of how heavily correlated the government and the military are, it is socially moral and necessary to leave the decision to participate in military service in the hands of individuals.

In this particular piece of legislation, it is not only the nature of the issue that is immoral, but also the nature of the discourse surrounding it. Military service, in any form, is an action that affects all of society. Therefore, the issue should be discussed publicly rather than privately. Ted Cruz’s expressed concern regarding the discourse surrounding the law, saying that “the provision including women in the draft entered the bill through committee, rather than in public, open debate.” Was this the correct way to handle it? Is this an issue to be decided by the public or by elected officials only? I will argue that the section of 2017 National Defense Authorization Act that specifically deals with the draft should not have been left exclusively to private discussion among members of the senate. Due to the large effect the decision has on the public as a whole, it should have been placed within the realm of public debate. This is even more true when dealing with the possibility of incorporating the mandatory service of women. If the natural abilities of females would in fact prevent them from succeeding in combat to the same extent as their male counterparts, as many conservatives seem to believe is the case, then our military performance is at risk of suffering. A direct threat to our national safety, such as this one, should have been given more attention that it was granted.

In the midst of the already tense political arena of modern America, members of the transgender community have been fighting for their right to use the public bathroom of the gender they identify with. Especially since North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory signed House Bill 2 into effect in March of this year. The controversial piece of legislation blocks transgender people from using the public bathroom that aligns with their gender identity. They must instead use the bathroom that corresponds with their biological sex. By not allowing members of the transgender community to choose, the government of North Carolina is overstepping the boundaries of their power. The issue of gender identity is purely a private issue and does not belong within the realm of public discourse, as it does not affect anyone other than the individual. It can be stated that, although gender identity is a private matter, the actions (choice of public bathroom) that result from it have a direct influence on the rest of society. This argument would be void of any truth to support its validity. Pat McCrory attempted to justify his support of the Bill using this reasoning by implying that tolerance of transgender bathroom rights would be equivalent to allowing men into women’s locker rooms. If there were significant evidence that cisgender men have used gender identity as a way to commit perverted acts, I could admit the validity of this claim. However, considering the lack of recorded cases of men using a false transgender identity as a way to gain access to female public bathrooms, this argument is purely based on assumption and therefore should remain in private discourse only.

In August following the passage of the North Carolina bill, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review a case (Gavin Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board) concerning a lower court decision that ruled in favor of a high school student’s right to use the bathroom that aligned with his gender identity. The supreme court blocked the original ruling on the case on the grounds that they needed to “preserve the status quo” of traditional bathroom use based on biological sex. By deciding to rule in favor of the status quo, the supreme court is oppressing the individuality of the high school student. Without the individuality of minorities – in this case, transgender individuals – new truths will not be discovered, we will become stagnant in our current practices, and society will miss the opportunity to become more well developed. The judges should have upheld the original ruling on the case so that the publicly accept definition of “normal” could have been challenged. Challenging “normal” would promote a healthy public discussion on the topic, and inevitably lead to a new and more developed understanding of truth. In the long run, this would have brought a greater benefit to society than leaving the status quo undisturbed.