Reading Rawls' essay, a certain somewhat timely example came to my mind: healthcare. Many people agree with the telos of reforming healthcare in the United States. Nobody enjoys refusing individuals proper medical care. But a large and vocal group of Americans do not want to be forced to pay for others' medical bills. While they may be sympathetic to the suffering individuals, they do not want to have their own good minimized or less than maximized. People want to keep their money so that they may achieve their own satisfaction or good. So America is faced with a conflict of ideologies. Do we follow what Rawls claims is utilitarianism and ignore the sufferings of the minority so to better maximize the satisfaction, or good, of the larger society? Or do we follow a different theory of justice and try to satisfy every individual equally?
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Happy Thanksgiving
John Rawls attempts to prove in his essay, "Classic Utilitarianism" that "[u]tilitarianism does not take seriously the distinction between persons," (19). He does so by listing and explaining the appeals of utilitarianism only to then undermine utilitarianism using its own teleology. Classic utilitarianism, according to Rawls, assumes a society's structure is correct and so major institutions should try to allow the greatest amount of satisfaction throughout the society (14). We find utilitarian forms of justice appealing because it seems rational that a group should strive to advance their society's welfare as far as possible. If an individual tries to further his own good, should not a group of individuals attempt to further the group's good? But Rawls points out the flaws in that thinking. Utilitarianism simply requires a distribution of satisfaction throughout a society, not an achievement of satisfaction in all of a society's members. As Rawls points out, a strict utilitarian theory would attempt to combine the desires of all (or at least the majority of citizens) into one systematic desire. This leads to the belief that the greater satisfaction of some individuals would balance the losses of other individuals or, in theory, "the violation of the liberty of a few might... be made right by the greater good shared by many" (17). Essentially, as long as the society as a whole is satisfied, a smaller number of individuals (citizens) may suffer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
You bring up a really good point in that example of health care. It's pretty easy for one to read this piece and agree, but when it is applied to real life situations it becomes difficult. I guess, according to Rawls, we would forget the overwhelming group of people who are without health care or who can barely afford to keep their own because we all want to be given the best.
However, he does say that "a person quite properly acts, at least when others are not affected, to achieve his own greatest good, to advance his rational ends as far as possible" (15). So wouldn't that mean that the healthcare example is not applicable? Others are clearly affected by the greed of the few that want to keep their money rather than keep people dying in the streets...
I'm glad you brought up that quote from page 15 Natasha, I had the same question. I guess he was simply referring to an individuals actions in that one quote, in order to compare the individual to the society. He does clarify that it the individual alone that seeks to advance his own desires, while the society seeks to advance the benefits of the group. An individual is capable of balancing gains and losses within their own life, but must be concerned with external factors (such as the welfare of other individuals), while it is the welfare of these individuals that makes up the goals of the society. For this reason I think that the question of healthcare is still very applicable, as it is what affects others that is essential to classic utilitarianism.
I have to agree with Jaime, in that healthcare is still applicable to John Rawls “Classical Utilitarianism.” John Rawls tries to project the idea that an individual should seek to please himself and places it on the emphasis of a society. Society must then seek the greatest desires of the group. He says, society must distribute “its means of satisfaction…so as to achieve this maximum (the end you desire to reach) if it can” (17). The only way to do this though, is to have society manage through “the imaginative acts of the impartial sympathetic spectator” (19). In that case, our society must find a way to be impartial and sympathetic to everyone, not just the larger group.
I think it's really interesting to apply utilitarianism to the health care debate. One perspective, which Maggie raised, implies that in order to serve the greater good we should ignore the minority without health care. This makes sense, because more people will get to keep more of their money.
But, I don't think we should assume that this is the only utilitarian point of view. What if by providing health care for the majority of the country, we are in fact creating a more productive and healthy society, which will in turn sustain pleasure for a greater number of people? What if, by accepting a temporary financial burden, we are actually creating possibilities for balanced budgets and surpluses in the future? After all, when 46 million uninsured people in this country get sick, they often resort to emergency room visits, which cost tax payers far more money than health would. Could this temporary sacrifice of the majority's pleasure, actually
maximize pleasure for even more people?
Is it possible that the utilitarian point of view might accept this sort of vantage point? Does ignoring the minority, just so we can keep our money, actually maximize pleasure and good?
In response to Maggie's final questions, I feel it would be unreasonable to have a theory of justice, which satisfies every individual equally. Rawls states in his critique, that utilitarianism is unconcerned with distribution of satisfaction of justice and the distinction between people. If it were the case, that an equal distribution of satisfaction were to occur, society would be spread thin and the satisfaction would be quite minimal. Continuing with the healthcare example, would it make sense to stress the healthcare system? To treat more patients then the system can hold, even with monetary support from increased taxes? If we are looking at society as a whole, it is not that utilitarianism isn't concerned with the distribution of satisfaction, it is just that in order to maintain a developing society there must be sacrifice.
In response to the distinction between people, it isn't considered true utilitarianism, but nations are formed so that the majority of that nation can be satisfied. As more and more nations form (the more people become the majority of that society), less and less people are considered the minority. and, thus more people are treated in respect to their ideals. But do we considered this utilitarianism even if the utilitarian ideals are only applicable to the individual nations? Or am I just running in circles around this idea?
I found it interesting what Jacqui said about sacrifice. It reminds me of something from History class where the writer (I can't remember the paper's name) said that for an economy to work well, it is the natural course of action to just let the poor people die of hunger. When you first hear that, it's disturbing. Because you think America was born with the ideals of land, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But, if you think about it in an utilitarian point of view. It might be the best way to succeed. Should nations sacrifice their citizens for the benefit of all? With the health care for example, how much do we give for others to live healthy? What if I can barely afford my house to begin with, and now your giving me another tax because other people need health care. Or what if my overall happiness just declines because now I can't take that vacation I wanted to? At what point and how does a nation say that it's too much?
In response to the whole healthcare question, I would have to agree with Caitlin, in that there is most likely more than just one utilitarian response to the matter. While is is true that maximizing the good for the most people is an end of utilitarianism, I feel that the degree to which certain things are good are the weight of certain goods must also be considered. Though more people may be satisfied by keeping more of their money and not having to pay the healthcare bills of others, is this a more worthy good than lifesaving or life-improving healthcare that would result from these people having to pay more taxes for universalized healthcare?
I should have elaborated more in how I saw money achieving the maximum good for the majority of people. Many Americans struggle financially day to day. i know in Delaware minimum wage unfortunately doesn't cover the cost of living anymore. These people, most likely, do not have health care. But the people in the bracket above them: who struggle paycheck to paycheck, but manage to scrape enough to afford heathcare or receive some healthcare from their jobs. To tax them would make their lives seriously more difficult. It's not just a matter of money, but a matter of the quality of life for millions of Americans. In a recession where the unemployment rate is 10%, can we really afford to tax American families? I don't have an answer, but just wanted to explain that I didn't see money as an end, so much as a means to an end for many Americans.
But in a completely utilitarian outlook, we completely ignore the needs of some as being more important than the needs of others. So in essence we must analyze whether there will be more people helped/people hurt in either taxing the higher classes or by not doing anything. It really doesn't matter that the tax would be bad in a recession as long as the ends would outweigh this means.
Another part of utilitarianism which I think everyone else is forgetting is the worth of higher versus lower pleasures. Now this idea is a stretch, but I feel it's warranted seeing as all worth of pleasures and people seem to be judged subjectively:
What if by raising taxes for healthcare for the benefit of the minority's bodily pleasures, we are in fact decreasing the number of people who can afford higher education? And by that, in the next generation of Americans, starting with the kids who are 14 years or younger right now, we have significantly less higher pleasure that can be shared in society? This greatly uneducated society of people, although they might live longer, will live empty, shallow and worthless lives because of their lack of worthwhile, higher pleasures.
I completely see what Sami brings up and what was also mentioned in class, that utilitarianism fails to see someone's needs to be more important than anothers. But with this example, I think if we place a high worth on education, and we think very long term, utilitarianism actually seems to see some people's needs as being greater than others. It's just the people with the greater needs we wouldn't expect. Those who are living worthwhile lives full of higher pleasures have a need to continue enjoying those pleasures, for their great contribution to overall utility, which is greater than the need of those who are unconcerned with higher pleasures and are purely focusing on bodily pleasures.
I back up Sean whole-heartedly, and add on my own thoughts:
"Though more people may be satisfied by keeping more of their money and not having to pay the healthcare bills of others, is this a more worthy good than lifesaving or life-improving healthcare that would result from these people having to pay more taxes for universalized healthcare?"
Not only is it a more worthy good, but It would also be returned in the form of healthcare when they most need it.
Post a Comment