Utilitarianism and Taxes
Taxes are an important part of most modern societies. Nevertheless, as with almost anything, one has the option of actually going through with the action or not. Some might say that not paying taxes would be acceptable, as this implies taking personal property away from one person. Nevertheless, Utilitarianists would surely agree that one should pay one’s taxes, as it would ensure that everybody’s needs are covered.
According to Utilitarianists, ethics is a way to maximize the greatest amount of good among the greatest number of people, minimizing the harmful effects. Typically, taxes are not high, so the latter are trivial, as they only take a percentage of the amount that the person earns. On the other hand, it helps those who do not earn as much by redistributing the money so that they may cover their basic needs. In this sense, people who would not usually have access to certain services, such as safety, education and health, can obtain these goods, because everybody in society is paying towards this goal of group well-being.
Nevertheless, it is important to note that there should be a correct use of the money and that the percentage should not be too high. Many modern states are worried about corruption, which would imply the incorrect allocation of these resources, failing to benefit everybody, which would go against Utilitarian ethics. Furthermore, taxes that are too high would also be disadvantageous, as it would inflict undue harm by taking away a great part of what people earn; the poor would not have enough to fill their other needs, and the rich would be disgruntled that they are working for other people. If these conditions are not met, some could argue that the ethical course of action for Utilitarians would be not paying taxes.
Release for Good Behavior: Retributist and Deterrence Views
Many jails across the world allow criminals loose if they show adequate behavior in jail, yet this is a controversial policy. Retributivists would think that this is unacceptable, as people would not have been duly punished for the crime that they had committed. However, Deterrence theorists would believe that this would make the jails reformative institutions, encouraging prisoners to change so that they do not do the same criminal action again. Even though both of these answers are coherent within their systems, they both have flaws and important speculative points.
For Retributivists, allowing people to leave jail early would be unacceptable, as they believe that one should be punished in proportion to the crime that they have committed. Obviously, letting criminals out early would contradict this, as it would mean that they did not serve the sentence that they had to in order to pay for their crime. This is an interesting theory because it seeks to uphold the law, which some may believe to have to be made flexible in order to let people out. It establishes a clear punishment for the action and does not waiver, which some would argue to be effective and just. However, it is also inadequate because sometimes punishment cannot hold up to the crime or fix what was done wrong. There is not enough jail time to bring back a murdered loved one, for example.
On the other hand, Deterrence theorists would probably agree with letting people out early, as this helps make society better. They have the great idea that prisons should be correctional institutions in order to reform criminals and reduce crime. Nevertheless, the problem then is transferred to evaluating if people have really been changed or not. Many would argue that this would only lead prisoners to act well so that they are let off quicker without truly having changed. In general, it is somewhat ideal and almost unreachable.
Local Poverty and Robert Nozick
The problem of poverty has long haunted both politicians and ethics philosophers. The 20th century American philosopher Robert Nozick was one of the latter, and his theories could be used to examine what the correct path would be if there were a city with great amounts of poverty with respect to the rest of the country. Here, it is important to note that the following analysis will assume that 1 in 7 is a large fraction of people in poverty, with regards to the rest of the country. Basically, he would take into account that people have the duty to not make decisions for other people, implying that citizens both inside Clallam County and outside it should be consulted on what they would do.
First, it would be important to ask those Clallam County residents that live in poverty whether they would like not to do so. Even though this may seem trivial, it would be important as Nozick believes in the autonomy of free will. After this, the other residents should be asked if they actually want to help these people in poverty out or not. The action of the state should be kept at a minimum in order to allow individual rights and property to flourish. For example, if the government were to take money from the other people in the country in order to help the poor in Clallam County without their consent, it would be considered an abuse. He would consider the correct course of action to have the other people in the nation offer their help voluntarily, with coercion on behalf of the state, yet not obligation.
