Category Archives: Uncategorized

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.

President Trump has officially acknowledged the opioid addiction as a national problem over the past few weeks. He went so far as to declare it a 90-day public health emergency. President Trump, however, has not issued a specific plan to address the issue and it does not seem like he will do so in the near future. Many suggest that there should be an expansion in the treatment of insurance coverage for Americans who struggle with opioids. Yet I urge you, the reader, to think about it twice. You might be suspicious of my intention and well, do I approve of the prohibition of drugs? No, I don’t. I think drugs should be sold openly because it is the individual’s right to do with them as they please. We must not forget our individual rights, our freedom and our pursuit of happiness.

President Trump should reconsider his past statement. This is not a crisis. If the individual wants to consume drugs and the result is a fatal overdose, then the decision of the individual must be respected. If drugs were to be sold legally, it would put the whole underworld out of business. Also, all the drug traffickers would be put out of business because they wouldn’t have to commit crimes to buy and sell overpriced illegal drugs. We as a society need to pressure the system to become a country free of government intervention, free of the regulation and the controls of an oppressive system. I must clarify that this does not mean that I am in favor of any type of handouts or free medical services that would come with it. It is simply a matter of economic policies. Allow me to explain, no one in a free market can become a monopolist and it is only under government regulation that you can keep competitors out of the field. Free health services are not free if there is a monopoly in every overpriced and restricted drug.

Governor Charlie Baker’s plans to increase the requirements necessary to buy opioids oversteps the true intentions of government. A true government should respect the liberties of the people and their decisions, regardless of the outcome if it does not cause harm to others. Although we do not live in a free market we must do our best to live our lives to the best our ability, guided by our own moral values.

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.

            “It is much better for one to be morally gray than morally neutral.”

America is in a time of Trump. On November 9, 2016 Donald Trump officially became the 45^th President of the United States. This came as a shock to many Americans, as this once-unimaginable scenario became reality leaving some Americans with a feeling of deep uncertainty for our country’s future. Donald Trump and his opponent Hillary Clinton had several different views on Individual Rights, such as abortion, hiring women and minorities, and EPA regulations, their views also differed in domestic, economic and defensive views. These contrasting views created a divide amongst the nation.

Through out the election supporters from both sides were incredibly vocal, and post election they continue to be so. While many people actively show their support for President-elect Trump other Americans are holding protests. In New York City alone, it was estimated that 5,000 people showed up for a protest against Donald Trump yelling “Not my president! Not today!” However, there were many Americans that actively supported either candidate, there still remained a significant amount of people who didn’t feel comfortable in making a choice.

According to The New York Times, for every 10 people who vote there are 4 that do not. Benjamin Highton, a professor of political science at The University of California, Davis stated that “Most of the differences between people who vote and those who don’t vote can be accounted for by motivational reasons — levels of political interest and engagement.” Two weeks after the election many nonvoters are voicing their dissatisfaction with the election. I believe that these people who initially lacked political interest should be ashamed. We live in an irrational society, and if one is given the opportunity to have free choice then one should take advantage of that freedom and become engaged in the world around them. It’s important for one to speak up in situations where silence can objectively be taken to mean agreement with or sanction of evil. Voters may think by not voting it excludes them from agreeing with either party, and leaves them “neutral.” But people need to accept that there is no escape, that rational men must make difficult choices.

I understand that both candidates have very different views on very controversial subjects. It is possible that an individual may agree with different aspects of each candidates platform; for example an individual might simultaneously agree with Hilary Clinton’s stance on gun control and Donald Trump’s stance on abortion laws. The individual then may choose not to vote because it is easier to remain neutral in this situation than to engage in critical analysis of the individual platforms in order to choose who they feel is the best candidate. I acknowledge that this is not an easy task, however, an individual must engage in objective and rational analysis in order to make these difficult choices so as not to remain in a state of moral neutrality.

Therefore, when people are claiming that these two distinct parties are dividing our country I believe what is really dividing our country is the lack of engagement. Ultimately, I believe it’s important that individuals speak up. If people don’t speak up, we will develop and even more irrational society because people will let their fear of judgment drive their disengagement in important political decisions.

“My dream is that every terminally ill American has access to the choice to die on their own terms with dignity. Please take an active role to make this a reality.” – Brittany Maynard

On November 1, 2014, Brittany Maynard died in the arms of her husband. While many American’s were shocked by the decision and action she took, others were accepting of this human right. Twenty-nine year-old Brittany Maynard had terminal brain cancer and with her family’s support decided to move to Oregon, one of the six states that legally offers aid-in-dying medication. After moving to Oregon Brittany became an advocate for death with dignity amongst terminally ill Americans.

While many do not agree with Brittany’s decision, others completely accept her action as a human right. The question however to consider in the larger issue of the ‘death with dignity’ movement, is not what society can do, but  should anything be done? As a firm believer in individual rights, I think it is important to implement Brittany’s beliefs and recognize that people have the right to make their own choices, particularly when it comes to how individuals live their life. If a patient has a desire to end their own life due to a terminal illness that creates a feeling of loss and suffrering, I believe it’s acceptable for them to make the choice of whether or not they want to continue living. In psychological terms, the issue of man’s survival does not confront his consciousness as an issue of “life or death,” but as an issue of “happiness or suffering.”

Man must make the decision for his own life. Man must think, with rationale whether or not this action will ultimately be “good” or “evil”,  while an outsider may subjectively view this as selfishness, defined as concern with one’s own interests. The concept of selfishness does not include a moral evaluation, it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interest is good or evil. Moreover, it is a task one must take upon himself. Man must choose his actions, values and goals, by the standard of that which is proper to man—in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value end in itself which is his own life.

I believe there are three cardinal values, which encompass one’s ultimate values. These virtues are Rationality, Productiveness and Pride. Rationality, is defined as judgment for one’s actions according to his knowledge and means of recognition. A terminally ill patient will, in good judgment, consider his disease and the suffering he is feeling to end his terminal pain. The next virtue is Productiveness, defined as the most beneficial and purposeful way to use your mind. I suppose when hearing shocking news such as this, an individual may feel like there is no longer purpose to one’s life. As Brittany Maynard says, “”I still feel good enough, and I still have enough joy, and I still laugh and smile with my family and friends enough that it doesn’t seem like the right time right now. But it will come, because I feel myself getting sicker. It’s happening each week.” This illness restrains her from being as productive as she wants to be which leads me to the last virtue is Pride: Pride can best be described as “moral ambitiousness,” one must hold themselves to the highest value by achieving their own moral perfection. When being diagnosed with a terminal illness people may feel powerless, and that they can no longer reach their moral perfection. With the help of this end-of-life- option individuals are able to die with dignity.

It is difficult for some to understand an action like this in our culture today, but with the help of Brittany and other advocates, patients will be able to have choice. Brittany made a choice to no longer suffer and in doing so, she was able to impact lives and change the legislative law in California. Although she died, her powerful message lives on. I will close and leave you with the question of Brittany Maynard, “who has the right to tell me that I don’t deserve this choice?”