Utilitarianism: Income Inequality In The United States

Utilitarianism is amongst the most famous moral theories to argue social issues. Developed by Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarianism is a belief that welfare and happiness should be maximized. Bentham believed that the morality of an action was determined by how much overall utility resulted from that action. Following were philosophers like include John Stuart Mill and John Rawls who mentioned that utilitarianism was a moral theory that could be used to justify inequality. Utilitarianism however is perhaps the most efficient theory to approach normative ethics. This consequential theory is understood to hold that the right action will always produce the greatest good. It is not concerned with the means to achieve the greatest good but how much good is produced. So, to refer back to Rawls’ comment, utilitarianism is a theory most commonly effective to argue against inequality since both Bentham and Mill will agree that, the action that produces ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ will always be the right action. Because utilitarianism in all emphasizes social welfare, it is best to acknowledge that the rising income inequality in the United States is unethical.
Bentham and Mill were initially concerned with social reform.
Following 18th century unjust laws, Philosopher’s like Bentham and Stuart Mill saw social actions that effected everyone and sought to develop a normative theory to call upon this actions. To better understand the relationship between income inequality and Utilitarianism it is imperative to understand the historical background of how Utilitarianism started. A native of London, Bentham lived to see a massive social-political uproar. This change included a rise in the newly created middle class and the French revolution. With the revolution, he though that those who advocated for social welfare would also follow with
actions. With a corrupted political atmosphere, he sought to create a normative theory to call out the division of labor where there will always be a class division. Paul Krugman emphasizes just that on a “New Gilded Age”. Krugman seeks to argue income inequality as immoral. Thomas Piketty at the Paris Scholl of Economics adds that we are living in a “Second Gilded Age defined by a rise of the ‘one percent’”. Piketty, amongst others have followed the statistical techniques I order to follow the concentration of wealth. Krugman adds that in oast evaluation, the rich were left out of the picture but now, we are seeing more and more of a class warfare that there has always been. “Of the tendencies that are harmful to sound economics, the most seductive, and in my opinion the most poisonous, is to focus on questions of distribution,” declared Robert Lucas Jr. of the University of Chicago. Before the mention of the rising one-percent, the fight was between the middle class and the working class. Piketty adds that in America, the rich have primarily enjoyed the shares of income. With rising technology, one would expect that unlike the 19th century, wealth would be earned and not inherited. Not much as actually changed since then. We are back to the “Patrimonial Capitalism”. Piketty states that accumulation of capital will create the second Gilded age as “its all about r versus g” where rate of return and economic growth. If economic growth falls, then that means that slower growth will be heavily experienced by the middle and lower class. The change will result in a switch from income by labor to income by capital holders. Since the recession of 2008, corporate profits and the pockets of the very rich have rapidly increased. This rising share of capital, piketty adds, increases inequality.

Tie utilitarianism to income inequality using Bentham’s stupid formula pleasure/pain whatever the fuck: