A Utilitarian Perspective on Social Justice

I've recently been trying to figure out what to do with this life of mine and as you can probably understand it's a difficult process. Yes, there are certain things that I definitely gravitate towards... creativity, justice work, having the opportunity to not stare at a computer for eight hours a day. These are all elements that I'd like to incorporate into my life, but when it comes down to I keep coming back to the same answer: be happy and help to make those around me happy. Life seems so short that to me this seemed the best use of it. But my mind retorts, "Leila that is utterly selfish! You have one life to live and you squander it on happiness? Where are your grand plans?!" This entry will be a justification to myself that happiness is indeed a good measure "doing the right thing" for yourself and for others.

If you had to boil moral utilitarianism down to a catch phrase, I believe it would be "maximize pleasure and decrease pain." Essentially, one can measure the moral worth or how "good" an action is, by placing its consequences on this spectrum. For example, I love relying on utilitarianism to justify my vegetarianism because it's so darn difficult to dispute! If you're interested in reading more about that particular argument, click here.

Let's talk about social justice. I understand that it centered on the idea of human rights, but can we extend the notion past simply ensuring that our basic rights are met? I think so. Utilitarianism suggests that for instance, the right to life is good, because arguably one would suffer less and suffering is usually undesirable. So the question then becomes, when we’re talking about social justice what is it that we are fighting for: equality, dignity, and our basic rights?

My thought is that those things wouldn’t necessarily be worth fighting for if they didn’t illicit some sort of happiness response within us. For instance, I feel good when I’m treated with dignity and I feel dignified when I’m given equal status with others. Rights then become constructed tools to help us actualize happiness, rather than being innate in of themselves good things. This argument would also lend itself nicely to a relativistic approach to morality that accounts for changes in what constitutes a “right” given a particular cultures conception of what allows for a happy of good life.

I’m a dabbling utilitarian, a relapsed moral universalist who has lost too many arguments. The thing is utilitarianism just makes so much sense, even if it doesn’t appeal to my romantic sensibilities. Such is life I suppose, we start out thinking we’re in it to do “good” and then we eventually realize we do it all for a little happiness. 

Measuring a life in fireworks

I sometimes think that I can measure my life in fireworks. It's a privilege that was afforded to me growing up in a country with a pension for them and a state that has a full industry that relies on them (theme parks, I'm looking at you). We can measure our lives by so many different things... achievements earned, friends, lovers, hairstyles, flights taken, or Chipotle burritos eaten. Fireworks though, they have a certain romance about them in of themselves. They are the ultimate symbol of grandeur - for a moment in time everyone stares up at a glittering sky and marvels at the wonders of human creation against the backdrop of a vast unyielding universe.

My favorite moment comes at the end, when everyone gasps at the big finale and claps. It's the ultimate movie that I've come back to see at various different points in my life. Here are some:

I am 21 with my best friend Suzie. I am home from studying in England and she is home from college. We travel to the ocean and meander around a floating dock swelled with party goers. We watch the smoke from the fireworks drift over the Atlantic ocean. 

I am 9 and visiting L.A. It's the 4th of July and we spend way too long looking for a space in a full parking garage. We bring a blanket out to a hilly park and sit as a large family to see the fireworks. I am upset because of the loud noises.

I am 15 and at Disney World. The firework show begins and I have my first kiss. I think that this is unbelievably corny, but appreciated my boyfriends dedication compositing the perfect moment.

I am 22 and I've just biked through crowds of families and hippies. Arriving at an inlet in the San Francisco bay me and my friends who also work on the farm put down our bikes and lay in the grass. I look at them with their heads on top of each others bellies with fondness. 

I am 17 and in Boston, it's the 4th of July again and I sit in a harbor with new friends who will soon become old acquaintances. It's my first time away from home and I feel exhilarated with independence. 

What are some of your most vivid memories of fireworks?

Animal Intentions

Don't ask me how I end up where I do on the internet. One click leads to another and you get the idea, it's a slippery slope. The other day I came across this 2 year old article in the NY Times about the Sea World Killer Whale trainer that was killed mid-performance. It's a sad story to be sure, but I found myself giggling at lines like these in the article:

"There were no signs of foul play on the part of anyone other than the whale, but questions about the mammal’s intent continued to linger."

"His [the whale's] record is hardly clean."

“This was not an insane, uncontrollable act, this was premeditated.”

I think what struck me most about this article was the strange double standard that our society holds animals to. This article was arguing that evidence shows that the whale, Tilly, was most likely killing with a plan out of some sort of anger. The article references that other animals, such as Chimpanzees, also kill with intent supposedly giving the grounds for the animals euthanasia... a similar practice to what we do with some humans who also willfully kill.


Does anyone else see the double standard here? If we're going to take the plunge and say that some mammals have the capacity to plan a murder (whether or not this is actually true is irrelevant) then why do we insist on their enslavement? Is Sea World enslaving dolphins? It seems to me that if we are willing to grant sentience to these mammals, then we can also argue that they are being imprisoned without consent. Sure it may be silly to think that we need "obtain consent" from Shamu, but is any more silly than debating his revenge plots? 


In my opinion the moral of the story is that as a society we need to be consistent about our representation of animals. It doesn't seem right to anthropomorphize them on the one hand and then use them for cosmetics testing on the other. I hope that we can vere on the side of dignity and respect for all creatures, even if it turns out that Tilly the whale was just acting out of a natural impulse. Either way, it seems like we want to believe that other species feel more than just instincts.  

Read the article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/us/26whale.html?_r=1