Would an ethical egoist agree that the U.S. should provide funding so that all families who would otherwise be homeless or live in substandard housing can live in adequate housing? Why or why not? (Be sure you state and explain the ethical egoist principle and go through the ethical egoist reasoning process.)
Ethical egoism is a concept that centralizes around the interests of a person. The principle of ethical egoism states that, “Ethical Egoism says that a person ought to do what really is in his or her own best interests, over the long run.” (Rachels, p.71). Evidently an ethical egoist believes that the moral decision is to benefit themselves. It is therefore considered unmoral to not uphold the interests of him or her. The decision of an ethical egoist also depends on the perspective and situation they may be in. Due to the dependence on perspective there are multiple different scenarios in which someone may agree or disagree that the US should provide funding for impoverished people. A drastic difference for example lies between someone living in poverty and someone who has all of their needs and numerous wants. Someone who is well off in life, making more than 1 million dollars may not think about the hardships of others. It is a thought that is not relevant to their daily life, and therefore rarely discussed.
An ethical egoist in this successful position has two contrastingly different options. The process of the ethical egoist must start by stating each choice: agree that the US should provide funding so that all families who would otherwise be homeless or live in substandard housing can live in adequate housing, or to disagree with this statement. Within the principle of ethical egoism, it is also important to discuss such benefits in the long term, but also short term. In agreement with support of U.S funding, a short-term benefit is the happiness that comes from helping others. Within the Elements of Moral Philosophy, it is noted, “Sometimes your interests will coincide with the well-being of others, so you’ll help yourself by helping them” (Rachels, p.71).
Evidently an ethical egoist may be willing to help others because it also helps themselves. A well-off ethical egoist may also think out into the long term, and see interest in the better place the U.S may become due to the funding. There could be long term changes to better cities, control violence, remove heavy drug use, and essentially make the ethical egoists world safer. The ethical egoists’ interests have accordingly coincided with the well-being of the impoverish population. On the other hand, the ethical egoist may disagree with the U.S providing funding. Short term, there is no alteration to their own interests or happiness, and therefore no gain. The ethical egoist in the long term ends up paying more taxes, taking away from their own money. Thinking long term, and ethical egoist may not trust that the increase in U.S funding will create any substantial assistance to those living in poverty, and therefore not help in their own safety or well-being.
In terms of the parties’ best interest, an ethical egoist would agree that the U.S should provide funding for families who would otherwise be homeless or live in substandard housing can live in adequate housing. The ethical egoist is not in support because it will help others, but rather this act to support funding is right because it causes the greatest benefit to the ethical egoist. This ethical egoist who agrees feels that by placing those in need into adequate housing it will cause a positive chain of events. It will allow the societies ethical egoists live in to become more developed and respectable. Public education may be improved, and able to teach to higher standards. Ethical egoists find interest in this, in that it can help themselves or their offspring. Helping people in poverty move in to adequate housing, helps the ethical egoist feel safe in their environment. Despite the increase in taxes, the ethical egoist makes more than one million annually, and safety and betterment of their own society outweighs this factor. This decision interests the ethical egoist and provides them with the best long-term benefits, in terms of their life and well-being.
Would a supporter of the Libertarian Party Platform agree that the U.S. should provide funding so that all families who would otherwise be homeless or live in substandard housing can live in adequate housing? Why or why not? (In your answer cover both what the Libertarian Party Platform says the government’s role should be and why, as well as any specific articles in the document relevant to this question.)
Members of the Libertarian Party Platform believe there should be no interference among the government and certain rights of the people. In the 2018 Libertarian Party Platform, the preamble defines: “As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty: a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and are not forced to sacrifice their values for the benefits of others” (Libertarian Party Platform). Libertarians focus on the individuals, and are opposed to being controlled by outside forces. Their perspective on the government’s role is that they shall not break any rights of the individual: the right to life, liberty and property. In terms of government spending and funding, libertarians are in support of the “Balance Budget Amendment”. This concept outlines that the budget should be balanced, and in order for this to happen the government should limit spending. Libertarians are against the idea of imposing more taxes.
Supporters of the Libertarian Party Platform would disagree that the U.S. should provide funding so that all families who would otherwise be homeless or live in substandard housing can live in adequate housing. In their statement of principles, it identifies that they are against forfeiting what they have to help others. Therefore, to help impoverished people live in adequate housing is against their ideals. In the Economic Liberty section of the platform, Government Finance and Spending, it is stated, “We support any initiative to reduce or abolish any tax, and oppose any increase on any taxes for any reason” (Libertarian Party Platform, 2.4).
In order for the U.S to increase funding for people to live in adequate housing, this would mean for a heavy increase in taxing for those who make more than one million annually. People of this status whom are a part of the libertarian party would not in any way allow for support of funding. They would encourage the government to instead limit their expenditures, but ultimately it is their belief that they owe nothing to benefit others. For example, Ivan was a 5-year-old boy with nowhere to live. He slept on one single chair with his mother and younger brother. A libertarian would feel that each individual is in control of their own lives, and the government should therefore not need to support. Government support would mean taking away from other individuals, against what their principles outline.
Would a supporter of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights agree that the U.S. should provide funding so that all families who would otherwise be homeless or live in substandard housing can live in adequate housing? Why or why not? (In your answer cover both what the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights says the government’s role should be and why, as well as any specific articles in the document relevant to this question.)
Would you agree that the U.S. should provide funding so that all families who would otherwise be homeless or live in substandard housing can live in adequate housing? Why or why not? You can agree with reasoning stated for a theory above (if so say why) or develop your own reasoning.
The moral theory of the Libertarian Party Platform poses many controversial discussions. I disagree with their principle stating, “People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others” (Libertarian Party Platform). Their ideals surrounding what role government plays are unrealistic and unmoral in my perspective. The libertarian party would disagree with the U.S providing funding to families who would otherwise be homeless or live in substandard housing can live in adequate housing.
The idea that people should not sacrifice anything for the benefit of others is unjust. I disagree that it is not acceptable for the government to raise taxes. In terms of governmental spending, there should be limits, but not total opposition to involvement. I disagree with their approach to human rights, and believe that others should be entitled to help from others. It is social responsibility to care about the well-being of people within society. The Libertarian Party Platform would be under mutual understanding that helping Ivan, and his mother is something that is not their responsibility. One of the party’s principles states, “We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives…” (Libertarian Party Platform). This statement holds true that each individual has its own freedoms, however the idea that they owe nothing to others is a false assumption. The Libertarian Party Platform is too strict in the roles individuals should be allowed without government involvement. From my perspective I disagree with this, and believe individuals need certain controls from the government to operate societies.
