Tag Archives: utilitarianism

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

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

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

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

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.

us_gender_pay_gap_by_sex_race-ethnicity-2009

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-equal-pay-womp-womp_us_561d2079e4b050c6c4a2d888

 

However, Donald Trump is a stupid sophist and nobody cares very much about what he thinks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-rhetorical-device_us_56c358cbe4b0c3c55052b32b

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 of individual success is intrinsically flawed, when we live in a society that is governed by a body that does not account for systematic oppression placed on people of color and women in the work force. The amount people are paid does not, in fact, actually reflect the job we do. Our hapiness cannot be algorithmically increased, or anything close to, simply by working hard and pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps – not for all of us, not by working as hard as one another, for equal compensation and recognition as one another.

 

And we cannot expect these conditions to breed the emergence of all the extraordinary individuals that we have – not when we allow them all to slip through this uncompromising gap.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Mill

Rethinking the War on Drugs

Is the war on drugs a war worth fighting?  As Gary Becker and Kevin Murphy wrote in a 2013 Wall Street Journal piece, “The direct monetary cost to American taxpayers of the war on drugs includes spending on police, the court personnel used to try drug users and traffickers, and the guards and other resources spent on imprisoning and punishing those convicted drug offenses.”  At the time the article was written, those direct monetary costs amounted to over $40 billion a year.  Additionally, that figure doesn’t take into account the indirect harmful effects of the war on drugs, such as increased dropout rates, more attractive profit margins for successful (and violent) drug operations in the U.S. and abroad, and the perpetuation of crime, all of which are more difficult to trace and quantify.  On the other hand, at a time when overdose death rates are rising in all 50 states, it’s clear that doing nothing isn’t an option.

There are many who believe that the possession and use of drugs should remain a criminal offense because drugs are harmful and/or immoral, and that the law must act as a deterrent.  I argue, however, that such laws are unjust if their benefits in reducing the amount of people with harmful drug addictions do not outweigh the immense monetary and social costs they impose.  People on both sides of the debate call for the continued criminalization or legalization of drugs based on self-supporting moral premises, but these categorical arguments are of little use because they by definition place too much importance on the sanctity of the principles themselves.  I would argue that virtues like liberty are desirable as means rather than ends, and that the ultimate end, or test, for determining whether a law is just should instead be whether the law will increase or decrease the aggregate level of happiness in society.

Considering a drug policy based on maximizing the utility (i.e., helping the maximum amount of people while imposing the least costs to their liberty to pursue property and happiness) of each taxpayer dollar spent, rather than one largely based on moral principles, will allow for both greater success in helping people avoid or escape drug addiction while at the same time freeing up public funds to be put to better use.  Studies and comparable examples in places like Portugal have shown that treating drug use as a public health issue rather than a criminal issue makes greater economic sense and results in much better outcomes for addicts needing treatment.

Focusing on reducing demand for narcotics through programs that, for example, help abusers of prescription painkillers get over their addictions before they progress to using heroin would be both less costly to taxpayers and more helpful to individuals with drug problems.  Additionally, instead of criminalizing recreational users of marijuana, which imposes significant costs on the justice system and turns otherwise normal people into criminals, redirecting marijuana demand toward legal sources of the drug would help erode the power of the drug cartels.  As Tom Wainwright argues in a February 2016 Wall Street Journal article, “A dollar spent on drug education in U.S. schools cuts cocaine consumption by twice as much as spending that dollar on reducing supply in South America; spending it on treatment for addicts reduces it by 10 times as much.”  If cutting spending on the war on drugs, legalizing recreational use of marijuana, and putting the funds saved toward public health initiatives to treat addicts will create net utility for society, Congress should take action and do so.

Sources:

http://wgno.com/2016/09/23/this-is-america-on-drugs-a-visual-guide/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-economists-would-wage-the-war-on-drugs-1455895053

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324374004578217682305605070

Leave a Comment

Filed under Mill

The Utility of Carried Interest

Do millionaires and billionaires who run private investment firms really deserve to pay a lower tax rate on the slice of returns they generate?  My answer – who cares whether they deserve to?  The highest principle we should adhere to in determining public policy is that of maximizing utility, or the aggregate “net happiness” experienced by everyone in our society.  Laws exist to protect rights so long as the protection of those rights is desirable, and those laws are “just” simply because they are desired by the many as a means to happiness.

Armed with this principle of maximizing happiness, let us examine the question of how carried interest should be treated by the tax code.

Private investment firms, which include private equity and venture capital funds, make long-term investments in businesses using capital raised from “limited partners,” hopefully allowing the businesses to grow and become more profitable so that years later the funds can sell their ownership in them and realize substantial profits. Top-level investment managers at these funds, also called “general partners,” typically both put some of their own capital on the line and make the majority of their salaries in the form of a share of their company’s profits called carried interest.  Carried interest is essentially the share of their investments’ return (say, 20%) that fund managers get to keep in exchange for setting up deals and doing a ton of due diligence and research on target investments.  The limited partners don’t do any work at all – they simply invest their capital with the fund managers in the hopes of growing their wealth.

pe-explained

The amount that each general partner takes home out of this amount of carried interest is currently taxed at the lower capital gains rate (maximum of 20%) rather than the higher income tax rate  (maximum of nearly 40% at the federal level).  Many argue that this constitutes an unfair loophole in the tax code.  Additionally, the Treasury Department has estimated that taxing carried interest as income will raise about $1.8 billion in additional tax revenues each year, revenues that can be spent on public services.  I argue, however, that doing so would violate the principle of maximizing utility.

Even if the tax code is inconsistent in the way it treats carried interest (which is itself debatable), such inconsistency is only worth remedying through legislation if the $1.8 billion increase in annual tax revenue would benefit society more than the resulting decrease in private investment (and potential outflow of competent fund managers) would harm it.

Private equity and venture capital funds are critically important to business development.  When the infusion of capital into a business allows it to survive and expand, everyone is better off for it – a better business will be more valuable and provide its investors with a greater return while at the same time bringing new products and services to market and creating jobs.  Additionally, specialized investment firms are often the only option for smaller or distressed companies who need to raise capital but cannot go to traditional lenders like banks because they’re deemed too risky.  The capital gains tax rate is lower than the income tax rate to encourage productive investment and economic growth.  Extending this tax break to general partners who risk both their own capital and their time and expertise in such ventures is critical to ensuring that the most skilled managers in the industry have the maximum incentive to work to identify potential “diamond in the rough” businesses.

$1.8 billion a year could pay for a lot of social services, services that would undoubtedly make a lot of people happier.   Yet while it is difficult to quantify, the encouragement of successful capital allocation and meaningful risk-taking likely generates far more widespread and lasting happiness by fostering entrepreneurial innovation and creating new jobs, products, and markets.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/16/business/dealbook/the-carried-interest-loophole-what-loophole.html

http://www.ibtimes.com/what-carried-interest-tax-loophole-2100059

Leave a Comment

Filed under Mill