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.<\/p>\n
Mill tries to mitigate his immoral argument by listing the benefits of socialized birth control: \u201cBirth 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\u2019s food, education and healthcare.\u201d This appeal to emotions is thinly veiled and ineffective. Further, our society wouldn\u2019t have to pay for children\u2019s \u2018food, education, and healthcare\u2019 if it weren\u2019t for the Nazi welfare policies our government has implemented.<\/p>\n
Mill\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019t use birth control can use this extra money on what they choose.<\/p>\n
Yet another issue is that of faith. Not only does this policy take away people\u2019s 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\u2019t 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\u2019t for yourself.<\/p>\n
Mill\u2019s \u2018greatest happiness\u2019 principal directly conflicts with my objectivist ethics, which \u201cholds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest.\u201d 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\u2019t directly harm anyone else, everyone would be happier.<\/p>\n
I don\u2019t condone violence outside of self-defense, but I do encourage everyone to beat Nazi arguments down through strong reasoning.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/sites.dwrl.utexas.edu\/liberrimus\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/28\/2017\/12\/97314496_nazi-punch-composite-300x169.jpg\")
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
As I\u2019ve said before, everyone has the right to make his own decisions, but none has the right to force his decision on others. In Mill\u2019s Utilitarianism on Birth Control, he attempts to convince the public that President Trump\u2019s rolling … Continue reading