Utilitarianism Vs. The Golden Rule

“The question is, does Utilitarianism and the Golden rule have the same outcome. Why or why not.”

As little children, we were all taught vehemently the golden rule and the possibilities of positive effects on society. Once childish rhetoric, it has been only until recently that our eyes have been opened to the true and vast possibilities of what the golden rule could actually do for our society, as a community, a state, or even a nation. On the other hand, as grown adults and being introduced to other philosophical outcomes, such as utilitarianism, we see an ever growing divide in opinions as we measure out what is practical and what is merely wishful thinking.

Utilitarianism, in a nutshell, would be the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. A great example of this would be the United States government, a type of democracy based off of utilitarian values. However, this still leaves room for minorities, more importantly disgruntled minorities, for what may seem to be the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people will almost assuredly place the remaining minorities at a disadvantage. Although this country has made astronomical advances in equality as a nation, there will always be those disadvantaged by the governmental system; it is inherent in utilitarianistic beliefs, as well as democracy. For such a thing as a perfect democracy cannot exist, there will never be a time where everyone is satisfied. Winston Churchill once said, “If it was perfect, it wouldn’t be called a democracy.” Even though harsh it may seem, utilitarianistic views is the most practical of two choices previously mentioned, as the Golden rule is merely an idealistic wish for those helpless hopefuls.

The golden rule states “do unto others as you would have done unto yourself,” would a wonderful way to live life, but is frankly impossible. If it were possible, the world would have already achieved it by now, but there is one thing standing in the way. Us. Such philosophers as Thomas Hobbes and many others have agreed on the idea that man is born evil, constantly striving to fulfill his own needs and willing to disregard others whilst striving for personal gain. While taking this into consideration, and factoring this world’s historical record for destruction as well as the modern day criminal rates, plainly you can see that there is no chance for the Golden rule. To impose this as the only law would be to ask for someone to take advantage of your blind trust, and, dare I say, stupidity, for that is what happens so often these days, trust is so often mistaken for stupidity it is quite a shame. The only way for the golden rule to be used without total destruction ensuing would be to follow the ideals of those such as St. Thomas Aquinas, or John Locke, who both to a degree agree that man is born inherently good, but is shaped by the community he is raised in, which could result in both a good or horrible outcome. A good example of this would be the propagation of poverty, seeing as those who are born into poverty stricken homes with decimated family relations often further this cycle once they come off age, reciprocating only more poverty. Seeing as this is the case and a major part of our reality today, the only way the golden rule could be effective and result in a positive outcome in anyway we would have to take drastic measures and “jumpstart” our society, totally starting anew. This, of course, will not happen anytime soon.

Both completely different things, such as utilitarianism and the beliefs of the golden rule could not possibly sustain the same outcome. The fact of the matter is, utilitarianism is the most practical, and most successful, theory of governmental discipline wherein the standards of the golden rule are so impractical that it results in a form of idealistic rather than practical viewpoint and would have such devastating effect on today’s society that it will be forever the wishful thinking of childish hopefuls, and nothing else.

Why Teens Shouldn't Vote

Wars, disease, political chaos, moral ambiguity and overall confusion; these are just some of the key phrases used to describe this generation. However, after reading an article heralding teens and demanding the ability for teens to vote, I was compelled to speak out against what could be a disastrous misconception.
There are a couple reasons teens aren’t allowed to vote until they are old enough to have been given the opportunity to graduate from High School. Firstly because they, we, just don’t know enough to make a major decision. We don’t have the knowledge, the experience as a whole to change the world for better just yet, and frankly, many of us don’t gain that knowledge or experience until quite a while down the road. That’s why we go to high school, to educate ourselves so we can make knowledgeable, decisive choices that will turn out well for everyone affected. Just picture this, you have a young child anxiously standing in front of you, his eyes shifting from the gum drop machine to the quarter in your hand. You give him the option of either using the quarter to buy a gumball, or he can invest it in a savings account to use later in life when he really needs it. Without a doubt, the young child would instantly snatch that quarter out of your hand and mere seconds later be chewing that gum, and why, do you ask? Because he doesn’t know any better! He doesn’t have the foresight to see the impact of his decision, nor does he have the long-term endurance to choose what is best for him. He just doesn’t get it. But with a little education, say a high school diploma’s worth, could change all of that. In fact, it could change the world.
Another reason that teen voting is just plain unconstitutional is that we have not made an impact or definitively contributed to society. We have done nothing but take, take from our parents, take from our schools, take from our government. It is not until the age of eighteen that we become true citizens of our country, because that is the time when people begin to reciprocate the investment made in them as children and teenagers and contribute to our society, propelling us ever forward. That is the time when we become a member of society, so that is the time when our voice is granted unto us. The laws we abide by are made for adults, by adults. And face it, one of these days we’ll all be adults. Enjoy teenage-hood while it lasts.

Capital Punishment? A Capital Idea!

I strongly agree with Capital punishment, in fact, it’s the best idea I’ve heard in a long time. Those who commit inexplicable crimes or irreparable damage, such as mass murders, should ultimately be put to death as a result of their heinous crimes. Why kill them? Because, my friends, they deserve it. If they are to abuse the right to live, they should lose the right to live. Once they have encroached on another’s rights and take the lives of innocent people, these criminals should be tried in court, and then sentenced to death. A perfect example of the effectiveness of Capital punishment would be that of Saudi Arabia and other Asian countries where Capital Punishment is used as a deterrent for crime, and guess what? It works. Here’s an example—if you were to cut a hand off of every thief, I assure you the rate of theft in that given area would drop dramatically. Now, I’m not saying we should do that here, that’s just an example of how punishment can deter crime. And, of course, many of you will read this and shake your fists at me stating statistics and blasphemous garbage about the “Brutalization effect.” Sadly I have never heard such a disappointing theory in my lifetime, besides that of the Big Bang. The “Brutalization effect” perverts statistics to correlate the rate of Capital punishment use to the crime rate of the American state capital punishment is being used. According to this effect, the more we put people to death, the more people want to go and commit crime. The first time I heard this I laughed at what I thought was a well planned joke. To make such a correlation is to openly display your desperation for a good argument and your gluttony for humiliation.
I’d like to allude to a historical philosopher if I may. He’s not that influential I guess, I mean, his ideas are only the basis of the very foundation of our constitution. John Locke, the most influential mind to reach America since colonial times once stated that we give the control the amount of power given to our government, and if they should abuse it, we have the right to overthrow that government and start anew. This idea alone leaves many of those fighting against capital punishment without words, as it very well should be.
Of course, there are some parameters that need to be set in order for capital punishment to be the best option. First of all, we need to readjust our judicial system, it’s blown so far out of proportion through appeals and such that nothing through that system is efficient. If we were to revamp the judicial system and refit it for optimal efficiency, then justice could be dealt much faster, and cheaper as well. Along with this, as long as we use Capital Punishment sparingly, we should feel the betterment of society quickly as those who are unchangeable in their disastrous ways are removed from society altogether, creating a safer environment in which justice and freedom can flourish.