Utilitarians see environmental problems as the "tragedy of the commons". Basically, people act in their own self-interest. Consider one man's utilitarian argument:
If I decide to dispose of my waste here in this lake.. it will be very small pollution relative to the size of the entire lake, and the affects so such that it would be beneficial for me to pollute here.This may be so. We've all had that moment: Eh, it's just ONE empty can. There's no way it will affect the environment. Well, this is true... But, if everyone thinks logical.. then the sum of all that pollution WILL cause environmental harms. Ergo, the tragedy of the commons.
There are two solutions. We can either turn over all common resources to the government, limit personal freedoms, and allow the government to regulate these resources (socialism). OR we can limit the commons by privatizing such resources, and allowing the market economic system to prevail.
With regards to proper rights and allocation of resources, I believe the market system is the most efficient way to do so. The market economy is clearly more efficient and economical about allocating resources. With the market economy and property rights, ask and bid prices help to stabilize that resource. Resources are better cared for, as the ‘invisible hand’ guides the economy. Government interference, on the other hand, cripples the economy because the decisions of the allocation of such resources are made by a select few political leaders. In the market system, the thoughts of all individuals in the market are consequently taken into consideration. The decentralized control of the market provides diversity, individual freedom, flexibility, etc. Also, governments are near-sighted and only care about immediate benefits. This is contrary to the market economy in which foresight and speculation is actually rewarding. History has proven this time and time again. The most obvious example is that of the market economic system of the United States of America and the command economic system of the Soviet Union; the most efficient and superlative market economic system enabled America to survive to present day whilst collapsing the command economy and destroying the USSR.
The issue regarding environmental concerns as discussed by Paul and Anne Ehrlich versus Bjorn Lomborg is rather interesting. The Ehrlichs proposed that humans could not accurately recognize futuristic problems as easily as we can immediate threats. This seems evident, and history does back it up. It did take us many years to finally recognize the long-term affects of smoking, CFCs, pollution, etc. In their view, concentration on environmental issues and high-cost initiatives are beneficial to society. Lomborg disagrees. He says that in terms of life-years saved, most environmentalist initiatives are in fact inefficient. He goes on to say that we could save an additional 60,000 Americans by reallocating funds from environmental initiatives to concerns elsewhere. I believe both are correct. Humans fail to recognize threats which could be devastating in the future. Thus, the problem arises as how to foresee such events. While Lomborg is correct in saying that most environmental initiatives are inefficient, perhaps we have yet to reap the full benefits from these initiatives. It is impossible to determine what will happen in the future, and equally impossible to affectively plan and eliminate future problems which may or may not occur.
DRUG LEGALIZATION
As Milton Friedman stated, “The drug war cannot be won by [those] tactics without undermining the human liberty and individual freedom that you and I cherish.” Friedman is referring to the militant and violent practices of the United States in the ‘drug war’. To preserve democracy, we must limit the scope of the federal government. I believe individuals should be informed of the possible consequences of their actions, but should be allowed to make decisions on their own. By criminalizing drugs, we limit our own freedoms and foil the democracy and liberty that we fought so hard to protect.
It is evident that legalizing drugs would boost our treasury. We now spend tens of billions of dollars to enforce and prosecute drug trafficking. However, if we were to legalize drugs, we could turn that $10 billion deficit into a $10 billion profit. We could use this extra money on programs which discourage drug usage (such as in schools), programs which seek to help those who have fallen to addiction, scientific research of the drugs, etc. Not only that, but the money we could collect off taxing drugs would be kept at the expense of drug lords. Such a readily available and cheap supply of drugs would eliminate drug trafficking and other acts of violence. Crime would undoubtedly decrease, thus decreasing the amount spent on prisons, court fees, judges, lawyers, etc. Those previously participating in the illegal activity of buying/selling drugs would be forced to search for an alternate way to make a living, and although many may still choose a life of crime, some would be forced into a decent living. Hence, by legalizing drugs we simultaneously destroy drug trafficking, increase total revenue, provide better programs to dissuade drug usage, force some criminals into the legitimate work force, and ultimately, we win the war on drugs.
Some may argue that this isn’t winning at all; it’s surrender. However, there will always be a supply of drugs weather they are legal or illegal. People obviously desire to use such substances. You and I may choose not to use drugs.. but this is a democracy in which minority opinion is protected. We should research and publish the affects, but still give the people the choice. In the best interest of the people, it is reasonable to legalize drugs, and allow agencies such as the FDA to administer and distribute such drugs. Under the watchful eye of the FDA, we can ensure that all drugs are made properly. We can eliminate the chances of poisonings and deaths caused by toxic drug concentrations.
The best argument for the legalization of drugs was best stated by Ethan Nadelmann. It isn’t only the failure of drug control both foreign and domestic, the high costs of maintaining prohibition, the crime associated with illicit drug usage, or even the un-administered distribution of potentially dangerous drugs. The fact of the matter is that we have been in this exact same position before. Alcohol is nothing more than a depressant; a drug. However, alcohol is legal. Alcohol is not much different from drug usage. It affects the body in a harmful way, causes negligence, violence, crime, etc. Thus, it is not fair to selectively choose which drugs to legalize; it’s all or nothing. Besides, in the case of alcohol prohibition, it was indeed much more beneficial to society to repeal prohibition. We should learn from the past, else we are doomed to repeat it.
PORNOGRAPHY
Is pornography harmful to society? I believe that pornography is fundamentally protected by the first amendment of the United States constitution, that pornography promotes freedom of speech and liberty, that pornography is not degrading to women, and that it does not incite violence.
I’ll begin with the attorney general’s conclusions of pornography. The attorney general found that “... substantial exposure to
sexually violent materials as described here bears a casual relationship to antisocial acts of sexual violence and, for some subgroups, possibly to unlawful acts of sexual violence.” The attorney general viewed sexually violent material and ‘degrading’ material as ultimately harmful to society. They concluded that the more individuals exposed to such material, the higher probability of violent, sexual crimes against women. Now, I do not necessarily refute these claims. However, it should be noted that not all pornography is categorized as such, and so porn that is in neither category should therefore be legal. Also, as Wendy McElroy pointed out, there may not be such a distinct relation between violent porn and acts of violence. Simply because event B almost always follows even A, this does not mean B is a cause of A. As Hume explains, priority, proximity, and a necessary connection must exist for causation to exist. It is not particularly clear in their findings whether or not there is a necessary connection between violent porn and acts of violence.
As for Catharine
MacKinnon’s argument, I find it belittling and inane. She seems to believe all porn is necessarily harmful. Not all pornography actually depicts rape, battery, sexual harassment, etc. The fact that she bases her argument on violent pornography is what inevitably weakens her argument. As discussed previously, all pornography that is non-violent would then pass right through MacKinnon’s argument. I side with McElroy when she says “… censorship on grounds of sex discrimination treats women as children whose interests must be protected by law because they are incapable of taking responsibility for their own actions.” Contrary to whatever MacKinnon may believe, women enjoy sex too. If women want to be in sex videos, if women want to have sex outside of marriage, if women want to have sex without love, if women want to contribute to pornography, then they have every right to do so. Porn stars obviously enjoy what they do, and they make quite a bit of money off it. Who are you to tell someone what they can or cannot do with their own body? I believe in the equality of men and women, and women do not need any special protections under the law. Women are competent, and should be free to choose what they do with their own body, and free to make any binding legal contracts. Thus, pornography falls under the jurisdiction of the first amendment, and should not be made illegal.
PRIVACY
Privacy is a major concern for many American citizens. As Richard Posner says, protecting the liberty or rights of one requires restricting others' liberty. Where does one individual's rights end and another's begin? For instance, when does "free speech" become harassment? Posner states that privacy is a means to control information about an individual. He believes businesses should have more privacy protections and individuals should have less, which is far from the case today. I believe people should have some control over their own information (credit score, criminal record, accumulated wealth, etc.), but some of it should be easily accessible by others. For instance, what if businesses were unable to access criminal records and verify who was a convicted felon? Or if sex offenders did not have to register?
In my opinion, privacy and individual security are antithetical. Increasing one ultimately decreases the other. Technology is also a deterrent on privacy. As technology has increased, personal information has become more readily available to the public. Also, law enforcement agencies have used technology to their advantage in criminal investigations (cameras, wire/phone tap, virtual spying, etc.). We must decide which liberties and privacy we wish to retain, and which we wish to forfeit in order to increase security and decrease crime. For example, if we decide to legalize red-light cameras, we will forfeit some of our freedom and privacy, but people who break the law will be easier to catch and prosecute.
ABORTIONThe issue of abortion is a very controversial, and constantly of political interest. The conservative pro-life and liberal pro-choice ideologies are often essential values of politicians. The current Roe v. Wade decision has been in place since 1973, but mostly serves as a compromise between the two opposing views. The 1973 Supreme Court justices decided that the constitution guarantees a right to privacy, implying that the state may not restrict abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy. This decision was based on the court’s belief that in the first trimester of pregnancy, abortions were not as detrimental to one’s health, and that the rights of the unborn eventually come into play. I believe they arbitrarily drew a line to try and compromise between the pro-choice and pro-life advocates.
Judith Jarvis Thomson, a pro-choice advocate, attempted to make an argument for abortions by assuming a pro-life premise that fetuses have the same rights as adult humans. She proves that in situations of rape or unwanted, forced pregnancy, that abortions are quite logical and moral. Her well-known metaphor is the following:
A violinist is ill, and needs the use of someone else's kidneys to live. So, the violinist's fans kidnap a random person and connect that person to a machine in which his/her kidneys are connected to the terminally-ill violinist. The violinist can no longer live without the use of the kidnapped person's kidneys. Is it okay for the kidnapped person to leave-- or must that person now wait until the violinist is healthy again?Thomson argues that we would not force the kidnapped woman to share her kidneys, even if disconnecting herself from the machine meant the death of the violinist. She concludes that “…having a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person’s body- even if one needs it for life itself.” Thomson also attempts to prove that almost all abortions should be legalized, but her argument falls to scrutiny, and I believe it does not do as she intended.
Mary Anne Warren rejects Thomson’s argument appealing to pro-life individuals. Warren believes the only way to truly solve this dilemma is by asserting the question of whether or not a fetus has rights. She concludes that fetuses are not ‘people’ in that they share similar characteristics of adult humans. She says that they are simply potential people, and thus, do not have the same rights as actual people. Warren assesses a list of five characteristics that she believes help define ‘people’, and attempts to show that a fetus has none of these characteristics, and therefore cannot be considered equal to real people. This same logic can also be applied to infants, and the elderly who no longer show human thought and/or consciousness. Warren says, however, that infants should not be killed since they pose no threat to the mother's life.
I would also like to input a utilitarian viewpoint that looks at the outcome of not aborting the baby. Most people who tend to want abortions are young teenagers. Thus, the child would be born to a young, immature, and unfit mother. The child will not enjoy the same benefits as a child born to a mature family. A single teenager cannot provide the same care for a child as an adult, financially stable man and wife. The child has a higher chance of growing up in an ailing environment and has a higher chance of becoming a criminal. Thus, the cost to society of not aborting the baby is greater.
This same logic can be applied to embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells are much more dynamic and powerful cells, and can offer cures for many diseases. These cells are ready for harvest within a few weeks of fertilization.. Thus, the potential person is killed within the first trimester period. During this time, the embryo is nothing more than multiple cells.. it resembles a human being in no way whatsoever. It's nothing more than a mitotic microscopic cell. Why not harvest and research it? Such research can be easily performed in small labs and in a petri dish. At such an early stage in life, the cell is NOT a human as it shares only genetic resemblance.
EUTHANASIAEuthanasia is a controversy which has been around for hundreds of years. Today, Euthanasia is illegal in most US states, and most western democratic countries. The most controversial question is the conflicting right to privacy of an individual and the fundamental ‘interest of the state’ to keep its citizens alive.
J. Gay Williams makes three main arguments against Euthanasia. He says that euthanasia violates the natural goal of survival. This argument from nature suggests that humans naturally seek to sustain life, and euthanasia acts against nature. Williams also makes an argument from self-interest: He says doctors make mistakes and a wrong prognosis is possible. Also, there is a chance of some ‘miraculous’ event occurring to patients declared to be in a persistent vegetative state, because our knowledge of science and medicine is not complete. His third argument is based on practical affects: He believes the use of euthanasia would lead to a lowered respect for life, and thus a decline in the quality of medical care. It could also be a tool used by a corrupt government entity in which some people are declared ‘too ill’ to work or be useful to society, and thus, put to death.
James Rachels makes several arguments for the morality of Euthanasia. He first claims that euthanasia is not murder, but mercy for those who are in intense pain. Rachels claims that if humans witnessed a dog in extreme, unrecoverable pain then we would not hesitate to put it out of its misery. So, why should humans be treated with any less respect? If a friend or family member is in deep misery and unrecoverable pain, it would be acceptable to ease their passing. Rachels then makes an argument from the Utilitarian standpoint, in which he states “Killing a hopelessly ill patient, who is suffering great pain, at his own request, would decrease the amount of misery in the world.” Thus, euthanasia is morally acceptable since it decreases pain and suffering. Rachels also makes the argument from the Kantian/Christian perspective. Citing the Golden Rule and the categorical imperative, one would conclude that it is morally acceptable to assist someone in suicide (when they are in extreme, incurable pain), and this could be applied as a universal law.
I tend to agree with James Rachels on the issue of Euthanasia. We have the right to life and death. The government should have no control of personal choices. If someone decides that they wish to die, then they should be free to seek whatever resources they need in order to have a painless death. The government is not our mother or father. The government should not have the authority to overrule our decisions because they feel our decisions were hasty, made in ignorance, or were wrong. This right to both life and death is guaranteed in our right to privacy and in our liberties outlined in the constitution.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
What exactly does the right to life entail? Do we have the right to defend ourselves, and possibly murder our attackers? Does this same right extend to the State regarding criminals? Is it moral to murder? When is murder justified? These are all questions we must ask ourselves when dealing with the issue of capital punishment.
Kantianism: Immanuel Kant believes that justice requires an equality between offense and punishment; Murderers have committed themselves to the maxim of killing, and the State is simply applying the murderer’s own maxim to him. Given Kant’s categorical imperative, it seems that capital punishment is justified. If the murderer did not want himself to be killed, then he should not have killed others: An eye for an eye.
Utilitarianism: Murderers have committed the ultimate crime: They've unfairly and unjustly taken a life. Murder ends one's life, and thus causes immense suffering and pain. These monsters are subhuman, and have immorally attacked a modern society which we have spent years perfecting. To allow such a person to go on living is absurd. The murderer has already caused great unhappiness, and could very well do so again. The death of this murderer increases overall good in society by ultimately preventing the murderer from killing again, and its retributive affects are beneficial. Also, this could prevent future slaughter by sending a message to all that murder will not be tolerated- you will die if you commit this crime.
The death penalty is the worst punishment our society has devised, and thusly it is only given to those who commit the worst crime- murder. What's my biggest argument for capital punishment? Well, its preventive power is debatable.. some believe it actually does help prevent others from murdering, yet others believe most people kill without thinking it through, such as in crimes of passion.. so, the death penalty could do nothing to prevent these crimes. However, the only reason I am an advocate of capital punishment is because of retribution. If your brother, sister, mother, wife, etc. were murdered for no reason.. Could you sit idly by as the murderer is simply sent to prison.. most likely with a chance of parole? I could not; Only one punishment could satisfy me- death. I would want that person to die for his transgressions against me and those who loved the victim.. Only then could the punishment seem just.
