Introduction
Perhaps, the American society is the most divergent, the most accommodating and the most culturally diverse among all societies across the globe. Interestingly, most Americans reflect similar elements of behavior in many respects (these elements are distinct to our American society).
There are a number conscious and unconscious core values which are expected to guide every American character. Most of the American culture has to some extent embedded western civilization: A civilization that accommodates different cultures, merges multiple ideas, and values the freedom of choice.
Still, a number of challenges in the direction of promoting our general wellbeing have been arising; thus, leading to questions on the direction that our society should direct for our common wellbeing. Here, I will be discussing approaches that can be designed in addressing the issues of wealth distribution, and the relationship between politics and community beliefs so as to have an even happier society.
Inequality, Cohesiveness and Civic Virtue
One among the challenges that face our society today is the widening rift between the rich and the poor (Sandel 267). Although our politics has evaded the reality of a widening society, several philosophers have given their opinions on the challenge of wealth distribution (Sandel 267).
Our politics has become so distant from the challenge of widening social gaps that president Obama’s proposal to review tax laws in the direction of burdening the wealthy with more taxes has received heavy criticism from the republican political quarter (Sandel 267). Apart from philosophical ideologies on the topic of wealth distribution, there is a more important challenge which requires the attention of our political leaders: Civic Virtue (Sachs 14).
Getting a picture of our social landscape will be useful here. As the gap between the affluent and the poor continues, the social gap between the rich and the poor is likewise widening; hence, decreasing the elements of cohesiveness and civic virtue within our society (Sachs 14).
While the poor can only afford the often low quality education in public schools, the rich will take their children to expensive private schools (Sandel 268). Moreover, the rich can afford expensive social amenities and can even rely on their own security systems instead of the community policing (Nzich 60). Such an arrangement has two important results. First, it (wealth disparity) has led to a significant decrease in the level of interactions between the poor and the rich (Sahar 50).
While a rich American will prefer to visit a private park for recreation, a poor American will rely on the often deteriorated public park. Secondly, such an arrangement (wealth disparity) has left most of the government’s services to the poor (Hansen 108). The rich are becoming less reliant on government services. For example; they (the rich) can pay for their own security services; they can take their children to private schools; and will often visit private parks (Hansen 128).
As such, the rich will become less enthusiastic in paying for public services which they rarely utilize; thus, presenting the government with a challenge in collecting enough resources required in providing primary services to citizens (Sandel 268). The quality of public services can therefore be expected to deteriorate even further as a result (Nzich 61).
Moreover, it will increasingly become difficult for interactions between the rich and the poor to flourish. Since it is not possible for democracy to exist in a divided society, such an arrangement will deal a blow to our democracy (Hansen 129). A society can only act democratically when it can make choices objectively, and with the consideration of everyone’s good.
Considering the utilitarian moral theory, an act is judged to be good or wrong depending on the measure of happiness/ sadness that the act will cause to the majority of societal members (Mill 9). An act that brings pleasure to the maximum number of societal members is therefore judged to be morally acceptable (Mill 9). Utilitarian philosophers will therefore view wealth distribution as an act that is morally acceptable.
Thus, although the act of wealth distribution is likely to cause a degree of slight sadness among the rich, it will bring numerous benefits/pleasure to a big proportion of our society (Maclntre 15). Moreover, when future generations are considered, the benefits of wealth distribution are even more obvious. In particular, future societies will want to live in a society that is cohesive, democratic and where the majorities are happy (Maclntre 15).
Considering John Rawls’ principle of justice, we are likely to consent to wealth distribution as a right moral act (Rawls 203). John Rawls proposes that we consider ourselves as persons that have self interest (meaning that we intend to always select choices that are beneficial to us), and as a people in ignorance of our common identifiers such as ethnicity, race and class (Rawls 203).
The conditions described above can then be considered as our original position. Here, we are very likely to accept wealth distribution as an approach that can better our wellbeing. Standing on the argument above, a number of philosophers consider wealth distribution as an approach that will be helpful to our society (Rawls 204).
Law Proposal 1
I will therefore agree with Obama’s policy proposal which intends to overhaul our tax system in the direction of distributing wealth. Such a tax system will see the wealthy paying more taxes than the poor. Here, it will be important to come up with measures that will see the development of policies precisely designed to utilize collected taxes in improving the living conditions of the poor.
Promoting government services (like public education and recreation) to levels that can be utilized by both the rich and the poor is important here. I propose the above law in the view of promoting our wellbeing, guarding our democracy and enhancing our cohesiveness.
Linking Politics and Moral Engagement
Having seen the evils that could be perpetuated by a state that has entrenched religion into her government, the formulators of our constitution were careful to emphasis on the separation of the religious institution from the government institution (West 68). We all know about millions of people that have died from the machinery of a government that was against their religious belief.
Today, the question is whether we can engage religion and politics in a fruitful direction for our society. Here, it is important to make it clear that such engagement should not have elements of coercion, discrimination, among such vices (Sandel 269). Rather, as I will describe here, such an engagement should be designed to diffuse tensions, educate our public, help to eliminate religious extremism, and promote unity in our society (Sandel 269).
Religious leanings which are undeniably present in our government cannot be ignored (Sandel 269). When it has come to multiple issues, our governments have at times developed policies considered to lean towards certain religious beliefs (West 70). On the other hand, many people in our society are exhibiting behaviors that have shown to tend towards various degrees of religious extremism.
Following terrorist attacks, racism, among other vices that are linkable to religious extremism, it is important that we find a useful direction in dealing with religious matters (William 53). It is therefore useful to engage politics and religion on a high moral pedestal that is acceptable, just, and fruitful to our society (Zauderer 213).
Such a direction needs to be designed with the recognition that although we have avoided talking about religious and moral beliefs, we have silently held our own perspectives (sometimes in ignorance) on religion and morality (Zauderer 214). Instead of coming out to talk about such issues, we have kept quiet and ignored, despised, and avoided the perspectives of others on religion and morality (William 53).
What should therefore be encouraged is an open discussion on religious and moral issues within our society. Such discussions should be based on a framework which (guided by mutual respect among societal members) would allow societal members to gain enlightenment on various religious and moral ideals, to credit and discredit such beliefs, and to generally give their opinions on such beliefs (Bentham 9).
One might argue that such a direction would be a precipice for religious intolerance. However, such a framework would allow people to diffuse tension, and move further from extremist religious ideologies. Here, people are likely to become more liberal and less religious (Bentham 10).
According to utilitarianism, an act can be judged to be morally acceptable or not depending on the degree of happiness that such an act will bring to societal members (Mill 14). Since an engagement between politics and religion can be helpful in diffusing moral tensions in our society, help in alleviating religious extremism and contribute in creating a more tolerable society than the one that we have, such an act will be helpful in contributing to happiness among the majority of our societal members; hence, it is morally acceptable.
Law Proposal 2
I will therefore propose that we allow for the teaching of various religious beliefs to take place in our schools and other institutions. Instead of only focusing on the teaching of various religious and moral beliefs, students should be allowed to openly present their opinions on various religious matters. Such a direction must be done under an environment that respects the right of people to choose various religious and moral beliefs (which are available in our society).
Conclusion
As I have discussed, I agree with Sandel’s opinions on the two issues (the distribution of wealth, and an open engagement between religion and politics) that I have discussed above. Wealth distribution is especially useful in guarding our democracy, promoting cohesiveness, and improving the welfare of the poor.
On the other hand, an engagement between politics and religion will be useful in promoting unity, tolerance and knowledge within our society. With the emerging challenges (such as poverty, terrorism, and religious extremism) that are threatening to haunt our society, it is important for our society to react accordingly by adopting the measures that I have considered in this particular discussion.
Works Cited
Bentham, Jeremy, Principles of Moral Legislation ed. Michael Sandel. New York: McMillan, 2010. Print
Hansen, Chad. “Utilities” A Journal of Utilitarian Studies, 7.4 (1996): 128-218.
Maclntre, Alasdair. 2007 After virtue: a study in moral Theory. London: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print
Mill, Stuart. Utilitarianism ed. Michael Sandel New York: McMillan, 2010. Print
Nzich, Robert. Anarchy, State and Utopia ed. Michael Sandel New York: McMillan, 2010 Print
Rawls, John. Justice and fairness ed. Michael Sandel New York: McMillan, 2010. Print
Sachs, Jaffrey. The end of Poverty. New York: McMillan Publishers, 2011. Print
Sahar, Ben. How to Live Positively New York: McMillan Publishers, 2011. Print
Sandel, Michael. What’s the right thing to do? New York: McMillan, 2010. Print
West, Henry. An Introduction to Mill’s utilitarian ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004 Print
William, Owen, Arthur. Utilitarianism: for and against. New York: University of Cambridge Press, 1973 Print
Zauderer, Naaman. Descartes’ deontological Turn: reason, will, and virtue in the later writings. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Print