(no subject)
I have a definite love/hate relationship with utilitarianism. There's a call that Obama is redistributing wealth, and a cry from the left [edit: originally i wrote "west" instead of left, apparently i was thinking of left side of the map unconsiously] that socialism is an governmental pestilence that needs to be eliminated. We've already nationalized the banks - is it because they equate socialism with communism and totalitarianism? because john mcCain Was alive during the red scare and McCarthyism?
Mill writes "Thus a person is said to have a right to what he can earn in fair professional competition, because society ought not to allow any other person to hinder him from endeavoring to earn in that manner as much as he can. But he has not a right to 3 hundred a year, thought he may happen to be earning it - because society is not called on to provide that he shall earn that sumn. On the contrary, if he owns ten thousand pounds three-per cent stock, he has a right to three hundred a year because society has come under an obligation to provide him with an income of that amount. To have a right, then, is, I concieve, to have something which society ought to defend me in the posession of."
Can a millionaire come up to someone, working just to support themselves, possibly with children and a mortgage that is destroyed and can barely afford to put food on the table and shelter for the children, can he truly defend his position in front of a society full of people who are suffering and struggling? They worked hard and became rich because society allowed themselves to get rich. Hard work alone doesnt make a man rich, there are levels of interdependence ignored by most individuals in this country. He may have made favorable decisions, but those decisions were based in accordance to the behavior of the society he is in.
"the most marked cases of injustice...are acts of wrongful agression or wrongful excercise of power over someone; the next are those which consist of withholding something from soneone which is his due." 230 years ago, life liberty and property were enough for an oppressed people. We believe that freedom lies in only these things, but in the west we characterize ourselves with progress. We are given a right to life, should that include the ability for all humans to prolong their lives? the access to universal health care? the ability to get educated, regardless of wealth or social class? is not education the path to a better quality of life? society doen not defend the rich because they are capable of defending themselves, and are not deprived of any of life's basic needs. Society should instead be defending those who do not have health care, or cannot afford college but desperately want to learn. It is justice, then, according to mill, not injustice, for the richest members of society, not to give to charity, but to give that money to society as a whole, so that everyone may be given the rights they are entitled to, not on a moral level, but on the level of justice. These people are owed these things by the rich, who are duty bound to help them achieve those rights.
As we become a more advanced society, what we consider rights expand, for the entire span of human history has been the quest for freedom, and Americans believe that they are truly free. They are lying to themselves, for we are enslaved by our government, and our culture, and our relationships with our fellow humans. we are always sacrificing something, and true freedom is theoretically inattainable according to some (and i believe they are correct." but that shouldnt limit us from getting as close as we possibly can to attaining that goal. We need to start thinking of ouselves, not as individuals, but was individuals contributing to the greater good of utility, and of humanity.
Mill writes "Thus a person is said to have a right to what he can earn in fair professional competition, because society ought not to allow any other person to hinder him from endeavoring to earn in that manner as much as he can. But he has not a right to 3 hundred a year, thought he may happen to be earning it - because society is not called on to provide that he shall earn that sumn. On the contrary, if he owns ten thousand pounds three-per cent stock, he has a right to three hundred a year because society has come under an obligation to provide him with an income of that amount. To have a right, then, is, I concieve, to have something which society ought to defend me in the posession of."
Can a millionaire come up to someone, working just to support themselves, possibly with children and a mortgage that is destroyed and can barely afford to put food on the table and shelter for the children, can he truly defend his position in front of a society full of people who are suffering and struggling? They worked hard and became rich because society allowed themselves to get rich. Hard work alone doesnt make a man rich, there are levels of interdependence ignored by most individuals in this country. He may have made favorable decisions, but those decisions were based in accordance to the behavior of the society he is in.
"the most marked cases of injustice...are acts of wrongful agression or wrongful excercise of power over someone; the next are those which consist of withholding something from soneone which is his due." 230 years ago, life liberty and property were enough for an oppressed people. We believe that freedom lies in only these things, but in the west we characterize ourselves with progress. We are given a right to life, should that include the ability for all humans to prolong their lives? the access to universal health care? the ability to get educated, regardless of wealth or social class? is not education the path to a better quality of life? society doen not defend the rich because they are capable of defending themselves, and are not deprived of any of life's basic needs. Society should instead be defending those who do not have health care, or cannot afford college but desperately want to learn. It is justice, then, according to mill, not injustice, for the richest members of society, not to give to charity, but to give that money to society as a whole, so that everyone may be given the rights they are entitled to, not on a moral level, but on the level of justice. These people are owed these things by the rich, who are duty bound to help them achieve those rights.
As we become a more advanced society, what we consider rights expand, for the entire span of human history has been the quest for freedom, and Americans believe that they are truly free. They are lying to themselves, for we are enslaved by our government, and our culture, and our relationships with our fellow humans. we are always sacrificing something, and true freedom is theoretically inattainable according to some (and i believe they are correct." but that shouldnt limit us from getting as close as we possibly can to attaining that goal. We need to start thinking of ouselves, not as individuals, but was individuals contributing to the greater good of utility, and of humanity.