DR.

DORMAN
Objective Socialism

MORAL THINKING;
POLITICALLY
Parker Van Roy

For a bit of a different paper than your norm, I am going to be very politically
focused when writing this piece.

Im a Photoshop master. I spent half an hour on that. But hey, its close enough,
right?

Moralistic thinkers have paved the way for modern thinkers to propose
societal ideals. Utilitarianism, Libertarianism, and other political philosophies
came about during the European enlightenment. John Stuart Mill is one of the
most prominent developers of utilitarianism, and John Locke a developer of
libertarianism. Immanuel Kant developed the Metaphysics of Morals, which
is neither utilitarian nor libertarian. Aristotle, an ancient Greek philosopher,
believed that people should receive what they deserve for their actions,
almost on a karma-level basis.
Political derivatives of Utilitarian and Libertarian movements have had
major impacts in world ideals, with the ideas of Communism and Capitalism
at the fronts. To the extremes, we can look at Ayn Rand, the developer of
objectivism, and Karl Marx, the developer of communism in the modern
world. These are polar opposite political systems that have their bases in the
moral philosophies.
To start with, we shall examine the ideas of John Stuart Mill.
Utilitarianism is the simple idea that in society, the most correct action is one
that generates the greatest total happiness minus unhappiness in the
society. Happiness would be defined as pleasure and absence of pain. Mill
differentiates himself from prior utilitarian by stating that pleasure and
absence of pain should be separate values, with pleasure having a greater
value in making decisions than the contentment, or absence of
unhappiness. He also states that higher forms of pleasure, such as higher
forms of art over simple pleasures should receive more focus in society, as
they are more preferable to the society as a whole. Mill advocates the
removal of censorship of media, as it lowers the standing of higher forms of
art, thus reducing the greater goal of reaching a higher mode of existence.
Mills theories hold some merit, however, they are very flawed.
He has a greater value of happiness held for more sentient beings. While

at first glance, this may seem fair, as those people are more important in
societys progress, it leads to a caste-type system based on intelligence
which, aggregated with Mills own belief of free markets and equal taxation
to create a massive social gap between the more intelligent/educated and
less intelligent/educated peoples.
On a basic level, utilitarianism is extremely successful at improving the
happiness among a society; the ideas of Mill to reward the more intelligent
are found in Capitalism as well as Socialism, but the problems that plague
utilitarianism on a small scale have a major impact on the effectiveness; I
would propose that on a large scale, for major decisions in government
regarding many people, utilitarianism would be a crucial ideology to be held,
but in personal affairs it fails, even with Mills attempted bandages over
those problems.
To move to a nearly polar opposite, we can examine the ideas of John
Locke. Lockes ideas of libertarianism, unlike those of Mill, reverberate at an
individuals level, but in major decisions, they fail. Locke proposed that
people have unalienable rights, found in examples such as the constitution.
He thinks that by nature people are free and government is based on the
peoples will to uphold it. Locke theorizes that property is based on the
individuals labor towards it. He felt that personal property was untouchable
by governmental forces and that people can accomplish their own goals to
increase happiness in society.
Lockes theories have major aspirations; Locke agrees that people are
selfish, and thus currency exists. However, this point is brushed aside in
many of his points. If all people do want to help society, then Lockes
theories hold significant merit. However, Locke himself states that people are
selfish. Without a powerful government to enforce fair regulations, anybody
can declare ownership over anything that they work on. If people do not
individually agree with the government because it blocks their personal gain,

they will come to depose of the government, leading to either a split in

governments or anarchy.
Lockes libertarianism do not give enough power to control the people,
and would lead to many political fractures. Imagine the city-states of ancient
Greece; constantly warring, and fighting for supremacy. If the 50 states of
the U.S.A. were all individual and constantly warring, the entirety of North
America could be ravaged by war- or it might not, and the society would be
successful. Libertarianism is problematic because it is uncontrolled, and
based on individual wills.
Immanuel Kant is a bit of a wild card in the argument between
Utilitarian and Libertarian. Kant feels the ultimate goal is not happiness or
personal goals, but directly the benefit of humanity. While Locke and Mill
used the benefit of society as a means to propose their goals, Kant uses
society as the goal. Kant also feels that the benefit of society must be the
goal of the people for their actions to be considered good; there has to be no
selfish reason for an action, even pleasure derived from an action. The
intention of an action must be the benefit of society for it to be morally
correct.
Kant decrees that only by peoples free will, it is moral of them to help
society. Kant proposes interesting points, but his philosophy is very
implausible to enact. Similar to Lockes libertarianism, people who derive
pleasure from immoral actions, such as stealing the newest iPhone because
they are too poor to purchase it, would break Kants society because most
people do not necessarily want to be moral just to be moral. Kant wants
people to help society freely; without advertising or influence towards that
action. However, how would people know to help society if the moralistic
gain is not advertised to them? People need to be taught morals, but that
itself is against Kants own proposal.

Aristotle, a Greek philosopher predating the other philosophers

discussed, had his own thoughts on societal arrangement. He feels that
moderation is key in all actions, but that the ultimate goal of an action is
prioritized to whatever the greatest benefit of that action lies. To Aristotle,
currency is meaningless; food should go to who needs it most. The most
moral person has a personality balanced between reason and desire, and
that virtue should be held above material possessions.
Aristotles theories are majorly pertinent; the type of society they
propose would be nearly impossible to implement, but would be successful if
it were implemented. It would follow a Utilitarian viewpoint, because it would
directly increase happiness as the society progressed. It would support
Libertarianism, as people would be free to follow their morals, but has that
government support of the people wanting to have other people have their
goals accomplished because they are prioritized in the system. It would even
follow Kants philosophy because all benefits individual benefit society with
the purpose of benefitting society. However, implementing Aristotles system
is nearly impossible like Kants, as changing the viewpoints of the masses is
very difficult morally.
The political derivative of Utilitarianism is Communism,
developed by Karl Marx. Marx felt that all people should be judged as equal
and reward should be based only on being a functional member of society.
He felt that all people should be treated equally and that was the most
morally correct society.
Marxs society is very ideological, but impossible. Those who dont
work at all would still receive equal benefit, and thus the society would
become dysfunctional; if the farmers receive food without doing enough work
for more than one person, how can the society ever develop past everyone
being a farmer? If there is no intrinsic goal of an action, people see no reason
to work at that action. As stated by these philosophers, people can be
assumed inherently selfish; why would they work if they can not work and
5

get the same reward? The society has no momentum, and like many of the
other proposed societies, is difficult to purely integrate into society.
The polar opposite of Marxs ideology and the derivative of
Libertarianism is Ayn Rands Objectivism. Objectivism can be simply
described as pure Capitalism; where business is all. In objectivism, man is
entitled to the sweat off his brow; anything a person individually works for is
theirs. However, this causes objectivism to become a glorified anarchy; there
are no real rules other than those artificially set; as Marxs communism
contains the similar problems to where it was derived from, Objectivism
suffers from Libertarian problems. There is no control of the society, and if
falls into the cycle of falling apart with no formal rule. Ayn Rand attempts to
fix Libertarianisms basic problems by giving power to business, but the
businesses themselves, even if large enough to control the people, can suffer
from similar city-state style conflicts as the Libertarians could.
Moral obligations are very powerful forces. Libertarians such as Locke
would say that there are loyalties to everyone that are mandatory, and
voluntary obligations we impose upon ourselves, that we must follow our
promises. This would mean treating all people fairly, and not being unfaithful
to people. There should be no prejudice among people, and all regular
conditions should be followed for all circumstances.
I feel that there should be an obligation to people with shared
identities; forming relationships with people is a massively necessary value
to humanity, and the ability to do this should have apart in judgement in
which would allow people to evade punishment or gain some special
privilege based on people whom with there is a connection with; however, I
do not feel a negative prejudice towards people of a certain group is morally
correct, as there is nothing in that negative connection but a prejudice based
either on experience or passed down with experience with others in that
group.

I think that people obligated to multiple conflicting actions should use

judgement in deciding the correct action; for example, if two people are
about to die, and you can only save one, and you share a religion with
somebody, and know that another person is a very important and moral
person, you would not know anything about the person with whom you share
a religion other than that fact that says very little about them; it would be a
better idea to help the moral and important person. This is similar to the
ideas of Aristotle, in which the more important goal of the action is the result.
There are necessary intrinsic obligations; saving a life versus not, and
just lying on a couch is an example. If you can save a life by walking to a
lever and pulling it, but receive no personal gain or happiness, whereas lying
on a couch and being entertained would make you happier, you should still
be obliged to save the person. This is a very basic example of what every
philosopher discussed would agree on.
Libertarians would propose that government stay uninvolved in
controversial moral issues, and allow people to make their own moral
decisions. Utilitarians would argue that the government should have the final
say in those controversial matters, to improve overall happiness. Kant would
find that the people together should find a solution to the problem, and
Aristotle would argue that the controversy should be handled by the
intelligent. In this argument, the similarities between libertarians and Kant,
and between utilitarians and Aristotle become more apparent.
I would agree with both the Kant and Aristotle ideologies here; similar
to a presidential election, which itself is a controversy between different
thinkers taking control, there should be a public showing of the favored
choice, followed by second opinions by the upper members of society, to
reinforce or contrast the decision of the people, to allow for popular desires
as well as intelligent reason to be valued.

Economics is a major part of any government. Libertarians would argue

that cash should be important, because people have earned that; Aristotle
would not necessarily disagree, as he feels that money would just be
representative of who deserves privileges, however costs of products should
be relative to the people paying and the situation. Utilitarians would not
agree that money should give privilege, as it is an unequal distribution that
leads to unfair privileges, causing more unhappiness than happiness. Kant
would agree with the utilitarians, because money is a source of personal
selfishness.
I believe that cash should be important for all matters of luxury and
supporting a lifestyle that has more privilege, but I do not think that money
should be able to buy things that are obligary actions, such as a military
draft. However, money should be able to purchase anything nongovernmental, assuming it is being sold; something owned by a private
institution can be bought, whether other people agree with the purchase or
not. However, I think that costs can fairly be varied based on person, like
taxes are, to compensate for different conditions. This reduces a socioeconomic gap by allowing for greater gain by purchasing from percentages
of wealth, instead of set values.

Park
er
Van
Roy