«

»

Oct 25

6th Issue New Voice For Politics

6th Issue New Voice For Politics

The Utilitarian Issue – The greatest articles for the greatest number of readers

In this Issue
Why Little Jimmy is Against the Greater Good – What makes a little kid hate a “good” idea
The Greater Good is Not Good for You – Why you need to take one for the team
Imagine a World without Utilitarianism: It’s Easy if You Try– The way out

 

 

Why Little Jimmy is Against the Greater Good

 

By J. A. Gedra

Recently, little Jimmy and his friends learned about the greater good. According to Utilitarianism, an action is considered good if the majority benefit from it. Being open minded little tikes, they decided to apply this principle over the weekend.

Early Saturday morning, Jimmy and company came together to play baseball. As usual, Jimmy brought along his lucky wooden bat that was older than him. The ancient stick had been passed down from father to son. Due to the bat’s age and “lucky” powers, only Jimmy usually used the wooden bat. Today, his friend Jeremy Bentham came up to Jimmy and pointed out that it was selfish for only Jimmy to be allowed to benefit from the lucky bat. Instead, Jimmy should allow everyone on his team to use the bat, because it was for the greater good. Jimmy’s friends used the old bat all morning, until it eventually succumbed to the heavy use and snapped, breaking in two. The bat was no more, sacrificed for the greater good.

Jimmy was bummed by the broken bat, so he and his friends decided to go for ice cream. Little Jimmy was really sad so he acquired the super duper bucket of ice cream to drown his sorrows in chocolate gooey delight. The bucket was improving his mood, until his friend John Mill pointed out that Jimmy has a great deal of ice cream, while his friends had significantly less. It would be selfish to keep all that ice cream for himself; therefore, for the greater good, it would only be fair for Jimmy to share his ice cream. All of Jimmy’s friends had a bite, but then one bite is never enough, so they had another and another until there was nothing left. Jimmy had barely touched the ice cream, but at least his friends were happy.

As his friends were finishing off his ice cream, Jimmy’s girlfriend, the lovely Rachel, came in and gave him a kiss. Jimmy’s friend Joey Stalin pointed out that it was not fair for only Jimmy to receive a kiss. Joey argued that everyone should receive a kiss from Rachel, because it would increase the happiness of everyone there. At first, Rachel was hesitant, but when it was pointed out that it is selfish to give her kisses only to one boy, she gave in and started to kiss Jimmy’s friends.

After Rachel had kissed the fifth boy, Jimmy could not take it anymore and punched Fred, who had seemed to have enjoyed the kiss a bit too much. “I have had enough,” said Jimmy, “you have broken my bat, eaten my ice cream, and repeatedly kissed my girl. All of my sacrifices have been good for you and bad for me. The only thing that I have received from the greater good is greater pain. I am through with the greater good. I would rather be selfish than taken advantage of by others.”

Many times in life, people will tell you that you must suffer in order that they might benefit. Being duped by others is not a virtue. Everyone should be equally respected and valued as an individual. No one has the right to seize something from one person and redistribute it to another. Theft is never a good thing, because it violates the rights of the owner and diminishes them as a person.

 


The Greater Good is Not Good for You

 

By New Voice For Politics Marketing Department

Why should anyone do anything? If you asked a Utilitarian, they would strongly recommend that a person should act “for the greater good.” But what does that mean? The New Voice For Politics’ Marketing Department has come up with an interactive explanation where the reader can help the greater good.

The Marketing Department’s example involves the reader acting for the greater good by  forwarding, retweeting, and sharing this latest issue of New Voice For Politics via email, Twitter, Facebook, or other social media mediums. Instead of utilizing social media for selfish purposes (i.e. annoying friends with pictures of kittens or babies impersonating potted plants and animals), we can all try to achieve a higher purpose. If we each took a few seconds of our time to spread the knowledge and enlightenment contained within this issue of New Voice For Politics, “for the greater good,” together we could launch a new renaissance of personal liberty and freedom. Clearly this sounds like a good deal, and who opposes enlightenment? Does anyone truly want to be left in the dark? Putting forth little effort to help one’s fellow man; only the most depraved of souls would be against such action. Obviously, we are all in agreement that only the vilest of people would not share, forward, or retweet this issue, but what about other examples where people claim that others should act “for the greater good?”

Most often when an individual is told that they must act “for the greater good,” it occurs in the following context. Ed, an employee at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), would like to go to work, but the United States Congress and the White House tell Ed that he cannot. The Federal Government could allow Ed to work and be paid, but they believe Ed should stay home without pay for “the greater good.” Interestingly, “the greater good” also coincidentally demands that the White House and Congressional employees continue to work and receive their pay checks.

This is not unique to the current politicians in the nation’s capital; governments throughout history have been telling their subjects the same thing. Louis XIV was hanging out in Versailles, while his subjects suffered. It was for the greater good that they starved, while he wined and dined with pretty girls. When communism was all the rage in Russia, the U.S.S.R. constantly reminded their comrades that their temporary sufferings were “for the greater good.”

What does “for the greater good” really mean? It means that those who are in charge will benefit at the expense of the weak and poor. Those in power are a minority; they know far too well that if the majority ever realized how they were being taken advantage of they would rise up; therefore, they create a myth that explains why the majority do without to benefit a few. They suffer “for the greater good.” This helps to explain why the typical citizen continues to sacrifice and not benefit for years and years, while those in charge continue to benefit and not suffer for years and years.

obeyThe “for the common good” argument is a poison that weakens every society that endorses such foolishness. Society must develop an antidote for this toxic argument, less it continue to weaken and decay the nation. This will only occur if we have a government that respects the rights of the individual. No person or group of people should be allowed to tell another individual that they must dance for someone else’s benefit. We must agree that everyone has equal rights, and no one should be forced to act against their own self-interests. Is it fair to take money away from one person to give to another? Who decides who should have what? When does a person have too much and another not enough? The only way to make sure a person does not suffer from the myth of “the greater good” is to say that everyone has equal rights and it is never right to forcibly take from one person to give to another.

All that being said, the New Voice For Politics’ Marketing Department still strongly believes that the reader should forward, retweet, and share this article with all of their friends through email, Twitter, and Facebook. The reader should not do this for the benefit of others, but for their own sake. If everyone is taught how the “greater good” harms others, we can through our united action prevent others from using the “greater good” to harm us all.

 


Imagine a World without Utilitarianism: It’s Easy

if You Tried

 

By Hope Paul

Under utilitarianism, if 51% of a group wanted the remaining 49% to pay an additional tax that applies only to the 49%, the 49% would have no choice but to pay up. It does not matter whether the 49% would like to pay or not. They have no choice; the minority must obey the majority. The individual has no choice but to comply with their masters.

Let us be honest; utilitarianism sucks, it is mean and unfair, but imagine a world without it. A group would no longer be able to tell an individual what they must do. The tyranny of the majority would be at an end. What would such a world look like?

Now that a larger group of bullies are no longer able to tell an individual that they must hand over their Twinkies, the majority will need to offer something in exchange. Another word for this is trade. If person A wants one of person B’s Twinkies, a bologna sandwich is not going to cut it. Something of the same or greater value is going to have to be offered up; Little Debbie I’m looking at you.

What will be the result of having to trade, instead of simply taking what one wants from another? People will need to be more honest. If a person tries to pass a knock-off brand as the original, consumers are going to stop trading with them. This is one of the reasons why people do not buy more than one Rolex watch from a street vender.

Another advantage of abolishing Utilitarianism is that people will have to be more productive. If Bob has nothing to trade, he is not going to be able to take Mary’s waffles. No more free loading. Having a need is no longer a justification for taking someone else’s stuff. If Bob is hungry for breakfast, he will need some money to purchase one of Mary’s waffles; otherwise, Bob better L’eggo her Eggo.

What are those groans and complaints, which are predictably arising in protest? “But what about the disabled, frail, and children, which cannot take care of themselves,” cry the takers? Free rides are a thing of the past, so these individuals best figure out something that they can offer. Keeping in mind that under the current system I am forced to give the government a huge chunk of my income and receive nothing in return, the bar has been set pretty low. That being said, if a person provides another with 1/3 of their income, is it too much to ask for a thank you? Yes, I am asking for gratitude. How about a thank you note? If I donate the cost of a cup of coffee to a kid in Ethiopia, the kid provides me with a letter, photo, and a few other things. For a third of my salary, perhaps a phone call would be in order. Call me, maybe?

Under utilitarianism, a gang of thugs are justified in taking your stuff at will, because it is “for their greater good.” When this system of theft is done away with, society becomes more honest, productive, and grateful. Should utilitarianism be embraced or shunned? The choice is ultimately up to you. Will you submit to others “for the greater good” or follow your own desires?

Share

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>