Assignment in Philosophy, Essay Example

Introduction

It seems that Americans, in a relatively brief span of time, have largely accepted the practice of the government applying “sin taxes” to items such as cigarettes. As the item is universally perceived to be unhealthful, a moral wrong is attached to it which is held to validate the government’s right to demand more money for it, which in turn is intended to go to the benefit of the society. As the following will reveal, deontological and utilitarian theories offer varying degrees of substantiation for the practice. Ultimately, however, and as the utilitarian thinking of Mill makes evident, sin taxes essentially violate the foundational norms of a just society, and inappropriately impose on the individual a collective morality removed from human rights.

Discussion

As noted, the “sin tax” is a sum, here expressed in regard to cigarettes, which exceeds normal taxation because it is held that the product, inherently unhealthful, exists to satisfy desires that are then immoral. The dominant culture then determines that such indulgences may be reasonably taxed more severely, with the understanding that the taxes will be employed for the general public good. Howsoever the money is used, however, the foundation for the practice is clear: those who smoke do wrong to themselves by choice, and such a choice entitles the state to penalize the smoker for doing wrong. The act is not outlawed, but the punitive aspect remains in place. When the government applies such a tax, it is blatantly attaching a moral value to an individual’s personal choice, and this contrasts sharply with Mill’s ideas of utilitarianism. More to the point, the crucial element here is that the choice to smoke harms no one other than the smoker. Mill is unequivocal on this point in general, even as he concedes that society is obligated to act when the interests of others are jeopardized by the actions of the individual. He is clear as well as to the rights of the individual as not implying a culture of rampant self-interest, for the welfare of the majority relies on an exercise of mutual consideration. Nonetheless, there is for him a definitive parameter: “There is no room for entertaining any such question when a person’s conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself” (Mill 76). In essence, the utilitarian view cannot tolerate so blatant an exertion of governmental – or social – interference over what any human being does when their actions affect no others.

In opposition to this is the deontological view of Kant. In Kantian deontology, even the society is subject to a greater authority, that of the need to adhere to absolutes of ethics, and both in collective and individual senses. There is in fact here no morality save that of the complete morality: “A human being should become not merely legally good, but morally good…and thus in need of no other incentive to recognize a duty except the representation of duty itself” (Kant 68).

For Kant, there is an imperative to acknowledge, and maintain as far as is possible, the sense that humanity is obligated to esteem set values. Such a view translates to the societal entitlement to impose penalties when morality is transgressed, as the penalties, such as the sin tax, are seen as only promoting what is both necessary and good for all concerned.

Assessment and Conclusion

On one level, there is a kind of attractive and nearly pristine beauty to Kantian thought. He is so persuasively present morality as virtually demanding adherence, it is easy to be swayed into embracing his deontology. In a sense, it absolves human beings of the difficulty of reasoning; as we all know that smoking is harmful, we serve the good of the smoker by reinforcing through sin taxes the inescapable wrong of their choice. This thinking is also enhanced by the lack of ambiguity regarding cigarettes, in that no rational person may claim them as having any value beyond satisfying an addictive craving. At the same time, however, greater thought is not satisfied with this bowing to absolutes, simply because the right of the individual to choose what they do, provided it harms no others, possesses the same moral integrity as the pursuit of good. They are in fact inextricable, for denying human choice must equate to an ethical wrong. Kant essentially abnegates human responsibility in asserting its need to adhere to moral responsibility, which process dangerously enables authority to intervene in all social and individual affairs. With Mill, there is a more expansive and simultaneously pragmatic approach, and it is fundamentally just. Sin taxes ultimately violate the most basic norms of a just society, as they inappropriately impose on the individual a collective morality removed from human rights.

Works Cited

Kant, I. Kant: Religion Within the Boundaries of Mere Reason: And Other Writings. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Print.

Mill, J. S. ‘On Liberty’ and Other Writings. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Print.