Tag Archives: mill

by | October 27, 2020 · 8:29 pm

Utilitarian View on Abortion

 

A major issue plaguing the world of politics today is that of abortion. Just so everyone is familiar with the exact meaning of the word, abortion can be defined as “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.” (Merriam-Webster) Abortion is allowed in all states, but at what point do we draw the line?  Is there a line to be drawn?  Should there be a law restricting abortion to six weeks after pregnancy?  In order to answer this, you must look at the consequences and see what policies would lead to the greatest happiness.

Examine the facts.  I believe that abortion, even after six weeks, should be allowed because it can ultimately benefit society.  Look at the argument that out world is overpopulated. If people around the world are starving as it is, it is not in our best interest to bring more lives into the world and prolong the issue.  Think of a child that is unable to be cared for properly by their guardian and becomes a ward of the state and therefor burdens society.  Children raised in broken homes are more likely to turn to a life of crime and drug addiction which costs the states money, and costing states money through that child staying in prison or a rehabilitation center is not in the state’s best interest.  Think of the mother. Telling half of the population what they can and cannot do with their bodies does not seem to allow for the greatest capacity of happiness.  If a mother is simply not ready to have a child, she shouldn’t be forced to do so not matter how far along she is.  If the mother’s life and the lives of other people are negatively affected by this child being born, what right do they have to be miserable?  If a mother was rapped and a child is conceived as a result, it could be in the mother’s best interest and award the most happiness to erase the painful memorythrough abortion.

 

Half of the pregnancies every year in the U.S. are unplanned. With a law in places restricting abortions to only six weeks after pregnancy, the amount of unsafe abortions occurring will undoubtedly skyrocket. With this law the lives of mothers are now in jeopardy as we are telling the million + women who get abortions every year that they either must keep the child to term or have a back room abortion.  This will lead to elevated levels of stress and anxiety and depression that will be detrimental to their health and well-being. Not having these children gives these women a chance to live their own lives and cultivate their own happiness.  They can integrate back into society without the undue burden of a child and live the best version of their lives.

Comments Off on Utilitarian View on Abortion

Filed under Mill

Tagged as

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 14, 2017 · 1:03 am

In Response to Mill’s Piece on Birth Control

As I’ve said before, everyone has the right to make his own decisions, but none has the right to force his decision on others.

In Mill’s Utilitarianism on Birth Control, he attempts to convince the public that President Trump’s rolling back of communist Affordable Care Act provisions that mandated employers to pay for their employees’ birth control are immoral. I, Ayn Rand, beg to differ.

The idea that employers would have to subsidize birth control is just a step away from socialism. Many years ago, the support of socialism may have been somewhat forgivable. The concept of a political theory that aims for benevolence and wellbeing is admittedly appealing. Today, however, we have all seen the results of socialism across the world. Supporting socialism can no longer be considered innocent.

Mill tries to mitigate his immoral argument by listing the benefits of socialized birth control: “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.” This appeal to emotions is thinly veiled and ineffective. Further, our society wouldn’t have to pay for children’s ‘food, education, and healthcare’ if it weren’t for the Nazi welfare policies our government has implemented.

Mill’s argument is that altruism will result in the greatest happiness. But do you know what makes me happy? Freedom. Freedom to spend my money however I choose to spend it. It makes no sense for companies to pay for employee’s birth control. Rather, the company can pass that money on to its employees through higher wages, and the employees can then purchase the birth control themselves if they wish to do so. The benefit of this is that all of the people who don’t use birth control can use this extra money on what they choose.

Yet another issue is that of faith. Not only does this policy take away people’s financial freedom, but it inhibits their freedom of religion as well. For a person whose religion disapproves of birth control to be forced to pay for it is ludicrous as well as illegal. The common argument from those like Mill is that no one is forced to take birth control by paying for it in their insurance premium, but that is beside the point, as it is still forcing them to pay money to a company that provides birth control. Imagine being forced to shop at a store that goes against your values. In fact, it would be immoral for someone who doesn’t believe in contraceptives to pay towards birth control. There is no grey area in this, only right and wrong. If you believe that birth control is wrong, you would be breaking your own ethical code to pay for birth control, even if it isn’t for yourself.

Mill’s ‘greatest happiness’ principal directly conflicts with my objectivist ethics, which “holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest.” Mill believes that we should all give up some (or even all!) of our self-interest if it will benefit those around you, but I disagree. This goes back to the cancer of our society known as altruism. If we all worked towards our own self-interest, as long as we didn’t directly harm anyone else, everyone would be happier.

I don’t condone violence outside of self-defense, but I do encourage everyone to beat Nazi arguments down through strong reasoning.

 

Comments Off on In Response to Mill’s Piece on Birth Control

Filed under Rand

Tagged as , , ,

by | December 12, 2017 · 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 | December 6, 2016 · 5:18 am

Utilitarianism on attending Church

Ever since Supreme Court case in 2015 that legalized same sex couple to get married, there has been controversy over the issue. Recently a reality TV couple, Chip and Joanna Gaines, from TLC’s hit show Fixer Upper, has been put in the spotlight in a controversial BuzzFeed article for going to a church that is anti same sex marriage. Note, that the Gaines family has never spoken out against same sex marriage personally, they are known for showing love and kindness to everyone. I personally believe that people should be free to do all that he or she wishes unless ones actions harm others. In my “On Liberty” chapter of my book I talk about the importance of people, “being allowed to live different lives.” I also think that government should only encroach upon the liberty of mankind when it is for the protection of the society. I also state in my book that, “liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow; without impediment form our fellow-creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them.” All individuals, regardless of their orientation, have the liberty to plan their lives as they wish. Thus, the government has no justification to limit the liberty of homosexuals by prohibiting same-sex marriage. As long as the Gaines family is not causing harm to others, in this case same sex marriage couples; the scrutiny placed on them is unwarranted.

 

I think that just as same sex marriage couples should be allowed to live in their truth happily, so should the Gaines Family as long as their truth and beliefs do not harm others. In my book I also mention that the best way to live is by, “pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.” Coming from the utilitarian standpoint allowing same sex marriages will make put those individuals in a place that increases their utility and capacity to be successful. That being said, the same would go for the Gaines family. Allowing them to go to a church of their choosing will increase the Gaines family’s happiness, therefor increasing their utility and capacity for success. As long as the Gaines family is not affecting anyone else negatively, they should be able to live their lives to the way of their choosing.

 

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/chip-gaines-calls-for-respect-after-anti-gay-church-report-w453790

Leave a Comment

Filed under Mill

Tagged as

Link

Equal Pay in the U.S.

Shannon Mullery

Why should it be that this modern American society can pride itself on being a “melting pot” (of various cultures, ethnicities, religions, sexualities, and other various identities) while simultaneously refusing to treat various Peoples equally? Clearly, this has become an understood issue of gender across the board (77-79 cents to every man’s dollar, depending on who you ask), but we’re not just talking about gender today – statistics show that the wage gap seriously affects Black and Latino Peoples. This graph below estimates the average weekly wages of most adults working full time/earning salaries in the U.S.

 

It is my firm belief that failing to pay women in the United States of America the same wages as working class man undermines us all of equal rights by also failing to set a precedent of equal treatment of all Peoples within our country. I have argued before that men and women are equal, and men enjoy freedom, so women should enjoy the same freedoms. However, this same argument needs to extend to the wage gap as it oppresses people of color – much further beyond the brief, typical mention in a women’s rights piece on the issue, disclaiming that the problem for women is even worse if they are women of color. Clearly, this issue is as much about race as it is about gender. Intersectionality should be taken into account, but not be seen as the furthest extent of this problem. Republican political candidate, Donald Trump, has weighed in on this topic saying that women would make the same wages if they worked as hard as men. However, Donald Trump is a stupid sophist, and nobody cares very much about what he thinks.

Moving on, I found this article on racial disparities and the tolls the wage gap takes on different ethnic groups to be very useful in understanding this complex issue:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/racial-gender-wage-gap-persists-asian-american-men-top-average-n602076

Denying equal pay denies the necessary incentive for working class individuals to achieve their maximum potential and utilize their skill sets to their fullest extents. People who are oppressed are not able to reach their maximum levels of happiness and utility; people who are oppressed are not granted the same emotional well-being as the non-oppressed. It also arguable that financial income is a vital component of a person or family’s happiness. It is unjust that so many people are not granted the freedom to fulfill their greatest happiness, at least as much as select groups have always retain and still do.

And not in the least of my points, financial income is a sort of measurement of success for many people. While there are many different things to take into account when measuring one’s success, in our society financial income is always seen as a telling sign of how hard someone has labored, how many hours they have invested in that labor, and how well they perform at whatever task they have dedicated their time and passions to. However, this measurement is intrinsically flawed if we, as a society, fail to enact policies that require fair, equal rewards for the same jobs and the same achievements in all given careers, for all people. In this society, under a government that fails to account for all of us, motivation is lacking, potential innovation is ultimately lost, and extraordinary individuals slip right through this gap.

Leave a Comment

by | October 17, 2016 · 1:26 pm
by | October 10, 2016 · 7:26 pm

Utilitarians & Professional Athletes Kneeling During the American National Anthem

Is it wrong that professional athletes have recently been taking a knee during the American National Anthem in effort to raise awareness for the Black Lives Matter movement and stand up against police brutality? In short, I believe it is more than acceptable. Opinions are opinions, there are always two sides of something can be viewed. If the majority of the society is in an understanding of one opinion, and only a few in the other opinion, it does not make it just to completely negate the minorities voice.  We must accept the nonconforming voices in order to move forward as a greater society.

To be clear, it does not mean that the non-conformists ideas are more correct or less correct, but it does mean they should be heard.   In my liberty work, I wrote, “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” It is no more right to silence the minority than it is to silence the majority.

An athlete taking a stand for what they believe in is becoming more of a regularity. Colin Kaepernick’s display during a professional football game may have been one of the original non-conforming acts that started it all.   “In this age, the mere example of non-conformity, the mere refusal to bend the knee to custom, is itself a service. Precisely because the tyranny of opinion is such as to make eccentricity a reproach, it is desirable, in order to break through that tyranny, that people should be eccentric. Eccentricity has always abounded when and where strength of character has abounded; and the amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigor, and moral courage which it contained. That so few now dare to be eccentric, marks the chief danger of the time.”   Kaepernick displayed courage inorder to stand up for the Black Lives Matter movement in such a non-conforming way. With his actions he brought forth incredible dialogue and awareness to both himself, and the Black Lives Matter movement. It takes an eccentric person to do such an eccentric thing. It is good that people are allowed to chose to not stand during the national anthem because it allows for more opinions to be voiced. Allowing more opinions to be voiced we will be able to have access to more of truth, and having a more truthful society, we will have a greater society.  Even though Colin Kaepernick’s actions may not be the desired actions of the majority, individuals can decide to punish them inside of their own opinions, not by the Law, or in this case, the NFL. With personal expression and freedom comes happiness, the more individual happiness will lead to more overall society-wide happiness.

In order for our society to move forward intellectually and improve overall we need to allow non-conformists to speak and show their opinions and what they believe to be true.  If we refuse to allow nonconformists like Kaepernick to voice and act upon their voice and opinions we cannot expect to grow as a society, therefore improve our society greater happiness.

 

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000691077/article/colin-kaepernick-explains-why-he-sat-during-national-anthem

Leave a Comment

Filed under Mill

Tagged as ,

by | · 7:10 pm

Utilitarian View on Government Personal Technology Access

Within the past some years, the security within the United States has been violated multiple times. It is understood that a nation with the most utility is a nation that safety is a fundamental standard. Without a doubt, when safety is an issue, utilitarianism will find a way to protect the greater good, even when the decision is abstract and difficult. Was Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, justified in refusing to engineer a software to help create a “backdoor” to unlock the terrorist’s iPhone, in short, yes, Cook’s actions were justified. Cook’s decision to refuse the FBI to mandate them to create a “Backdoor” entrance to go around the security measures of personal property was just because it was necessary in order to protect the greater good of society.

Before we go into a further analysis, I will note how I feel about happiness. Happiness is in two forms, individual happiness and the greater happiness. The greater happiness is the overall happiness a society has. Greater happiness is clearly more substantial than individual happiness as it has a much broader horizon. Simplified, as a society we should attempt to make society as a whole as happy as possible and in doing so we may focus on individual happiness and the happiness of those around us. I will make not back to my thoughts of happiness as I explain the following and how it can be related. Happiness and security I find very synergistic.

One of the more recent attacks on American Soil was the San Bernardino shooting this past December of 2015. The attackers terrorized their workplace and according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) an iPhone was possibly used in effort to organize and plan the attack. The FBI looked towards Apple, the engineers of the iPhone, for help to unlock the software in order to expedite the investigation. Tim Cook, Apples CEO and chairman, claimed to have helped the federal investigation to his full capabilities and that there was no possible way he could unlock the phone without putting the greater nation into further danger. Cook claimed that if he were to create the software necessary to unlock the passcode device, the software in the wrong hands could be a danger to society. It would have the capabilities of figuring out the passwords for essentially everything (banks, emails, phones, homes, etc.).

It is understandable as to why the FBI would request for Apple to create the software, in order to figure out the motivations of the terrorists and to prevent future attacks. However, if the creation of the software would put more of the population in danger than help, it is clear to see that the creation of the software would put the greater nation and well being of the people at risk. A quote pulled from my work On Liberty can be drawn, “Civil, or Social Liberty: the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.”  Clearly, in this instance, the FBI’s desire to unlock the iPhone would, without doubt, help out the case in order to uncover terrorist motivation. For the individual FBI need, the password “backdoor” would help, but in order to maximize the safety of the entire society, the software cannot be created. In short, the creation of the “backdoor” software would cause an enormous security threat for the entire society. Therefore, it will be for the greater good to not create the software. According to utilitarianism, it is unjust for the FBI to force Tim Cook and Apple to create a program to break into locked iPhones, computers, and everything else with a passcode. Though the unlocking of the terrorists phone would aid investigation, the great societies personal tech security is of greater importance.

I want to be clear that it is without doubt that killing is bad, if not one of the worst things to exist. Even though the FBI claims that the invention to create the “backdoor” around security measures could save lives and prevent future terrorist attacks it is not a certainty. What is a certainty is that everyone that has a passcode/secured device with a password would be in danger with the creation of a device that could go around there personal security measures. As I analyze the FBI’s request for Apple and Cook to create a “backdoor” route to gain access into locked personal property I fear that it dangers the greater society that it would help in the long run.

-J.S. Mill

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-wants-apple-to-help-unlock-iphone-used-by-san-bernardino-shooter/2016/02/16/69b903ee-d4d9-11e5-9823-02b905009f99_story.html

Leave a Comment

Filed under Mill

Tagged as ,

by | October 4, 2016 · 7:00 am

Utilitarian View on Same-Sex Marriage

 

The Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges from 2015 which granted same sex couples the right to marriage is one that can be argued for very successfully from both a stance of accepting/encouraging individuality and from a stance of utilitarianism. To begin, I want to turn your attention to the idea of individuality. As I said in the third chapter of my book On Liberty, “it is essential that different people be allowed to live different lives.” Put another way, so long as your own version of living out your life does not infringe on others’ rights of happiness, there is no reason to hinder your ability to live however you would like. This idea shines through in ideas such as freedom of religion and freedom of speech as well. Being able to practice whichever religion you like allows for more diversity in a community which can maintain the small truths in all religions until a more full truth can be discovered through the combination of them all. Similarly, being able to lead whatever type of lifestyle you find most comfortable (whether it be in a heterosexual, homosexual, asexual, or otherwise relationship) allows for a community to remain diverse and keep rigorous debate up which may lead to a better understanding of the truth or relationships which can lead to greater happiness of the society. Conformity puts the nail in the coffin when it comes to the death of social advancement, so requiring couples to conform to heteronormativity may end up making the community so similar that social progress stops.

The best way to live is by “pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.” With that said, from a utilitarian standpoint, allowing same sex couples to pursue their own happiness through being able to marry their partner increases their utility and capacity for achievement. There is no valid argument that says that letting homosexual couples marry will keep a heterosexual couple from being able to either marry or obtain their own happiness through that union. Each person is in charge of maintaining and cultivating their own happiness and health, so if being allowed to marry the person they’re with helps someone to maintain their health or happiness, then they should be able to do it. Just as “different people also require different conditions for their spiritual development,” they also may require different conditions for their own happiness that may not be in line with the current ideas of the time. It is our obligation as a society to encourage individual tastes to keep up the diversity of our community.

http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=006193

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Mill

Tagged as