In a recent Oklahoma legislature meeting, Republican representative Mike Reynolds asserted "they have no responsibility to ensure access to college education."
The discussion arose in the midst of the ongoing debate of whether or not to expand Oklahoma's Promise. This program provides funding to low-income students for their secondary education. One side believes that it is the state government's job to ensure bright, qualified students get a chance to receive higher education. According to Democratic representative James Lockhart, these students are imperative to help because of their potential future value; it is this type of student "that will cure cancer, create the next big invention or possibly become a great leader."
Reynolds', on the opposition, denied society's responsibility to fund any one else's education and, regardless of how bright a student may be, "their potential benefit is irrelevant." Just to clarify though, Reynolds is not opposed to funding public K-12 education. His support towards providing financial assistance simply stops at the 12th grade level.
The education continued to delve into the politically-charged nature of the discussion and the circulation of money within the state. However, my attention was caught on the question: is it our job to help pay for brilliant, low-income kids' educations? How would a consequentialist assess this moral qualm?
As we've been discussing in class, the sole concern of consequentialism is to make the world a better place. Discerning the right action requires the identification of which option has the greatest net balance of good-bad consequences. So in regards to this article, the two options at hand are: 1). Fund higher education or 2). Don't fund higher education.
Funding education would result in a loss of money from the people and the state, but would offer the benefit of not only the individuals being educated, but also of potentially improving society through this now-educated, bright individual's actions and thoughts.
Based on the ratio of good-bad in both options, it would seem that the right option is providing the funding for higher education. The issue of expected versus actual consequences then enters the equation though.
If we are looking at this issue through the lens of expected consequences, then the decision to provide the funding would still be morally right. We intend to provide funding so that student will complete their education and then make a valuable contribution to society.
Say though, the actual consequence is that the student flunks out and ends up working at a fast food restaurant. Then everyone's money would be wasted and there would be little net good. Wasting money on a seemingly undeserving candidate would not make the world a better place and thus, would not be morally applaudable.
Though the semantics of consequences cloudy the true answer, it would seem that helping another and promoting education generally better the world. Providing funding is more optimific than denying it. Thus, Reynolds is in the wrong. It is his job.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/08/mike-reynolds-education_n_3038157.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
I think that a consequentialist (more specifically a utilitarian) would find Mike Reynolds' actions of opposing changes to the law as immoral because by opposing this law he is choosing not to produce the greatest amount of well-being for the overall world. Supporting this law could bring the potential of finally substantially decreasing the socioeconomic gap between the upperclass and the lowerclass families.
ReplyDeleteGenerally speaking, we all feel that allowing everyone the right to a higher education is important, especially for those less privileged than us, but this does not mean that someone that goes against the proposed changes of this law is always immoral. This is because there is no intrinsic morality according to a utilitarian. If someone opposes this law because they believe the money could instead be used to feed homeless children and provide essential needs then opposing the bill would be moral according to the utilitarian. I just want to show that under utilitarianism, there is no moral rule that is absolute. Of course in this instance we know that Reynolds does not have a true moral reason to oppose this proposed change in law. I agree with Becca that because he is directly decreasing the overall well-being of society by opposing the changes, his actions are immoral.
Good insights from both Becca and Joe. Here's a little further clarification about the case. The Oklahoma Promise program provides free tuition to students who (1) meet financial need and academic requirements, and (2) are pursuing a college degree. The proposed change to the law would expand the program "to offer scholarships to students pursuing industry certifications in areas the Oklahoma Department of Commerce has identified as critical" (Allen 2013). So the proposed change would help not only lower-income students who want to go to college, but also those who want to pursue vocational programs in certain areas: "aerospace and defense, energy, agriculture and biosciences, information and financial services, and transportation and distribution" (Deaton 2013).
ReplyDeleteBoth Becca and Joe seem persuaded that the net consequences of approving this expansion are better than the consequences of not doing so. This also seems to be the reason the bill was introduced and is supported by the state Department of Commerce. But as Joe points out, whether the bill is morally required according to consequentialism depends on what the available alternatives are. Someone could oppose the bill on consequentialist grounds if they believed that either that the bill would have worse consequences than its supporters expect, or if they believe there are other possible actions that would have an even better net balance of good to bad outcomes - e.g., Reynolds could conceivably think that, instead of providing scholarships for bioscience tech programs and the like, Oklahoma should expand other programs. Then the options we are considering would not be (a) do, (b) do not expand the OK Promise Act, but rather (a) expand it, (b) don't expand it, (c) don't expand it but expand something else.
I suspect that Reynolds's opposition to the bill, however, is at least in part based on NONconsequentialist moral beliefs. Much conservative political opposition to social programs does not come from disagreement about the good those programs do, but rather comes from the belief that it such public support programs require wrongful violation of the rights of those whose taxes fund them. If people have a right not to be taxed, then this right can be overridden only if there is another, and stronger, conflicting right that requires such taxation. This is why he argues that there is no such conflicting right. Those who believe in moral rights will believe that potential benefits cannot be used to justify violations of those rights. Hence the quote by Reynolds cited by Becca: "regardless of how bright a student may be, 'their potential benefit is irrelevant.'"
We'll get into conflicts between a rights-based approach to ethics and consequentialist approaches when we begin to consider challenges and objections (S-L chapter 10), and deontological ethical theories.
Allen, Silas. 2013. Oklahoma commerce officials optimistic about impact of CareerTech scholarship expansion bill. 3/29/2013. http://newsok.com/oklahoma-commerce-officials-optimistic-about-impact-of-careertech-scholarship-expansion-bill/article/3775311?custom_click=pod_headline_education
Deaton, David. 2013. Senate Approves 'Oklahoma's Career Promise Act.' Oklahoma Welcome. 3/6/2013. http://oklahomawelcome.com/news/regional/whatzup/whatzup-politics/94429-senate-approves-oklahomas-career-promise-act.html
I feel as though he is not wrong in what he believes should be the law in this instance. From what I took away from what Professor Everett said, he could believe that these programs perhaps just might not be reason enough to increase the taxes on the citizens of OK. While I find it noble that someone would want to increase the funding for lower class students or people that in general just cannot afford college, one also must consider the impact this could have on the people of the state who would be getting taxed. They may not be able to lead the same lives that they had previously been living if their taxes were increased and thus would then decrease the utility or happiness that would come from this decision. While it may indeed be the states responsibility to provide funding for schools, there are several other factors to consider prior to making such a decision. If this bill were to pass, in order to receive the maximum utility from the expansion a more rigorous process of applying would have to be put in place in order to assure the taxpayers that their money was going to good use by only choosing students that are 100% certain they will be finishing school and not just going, dropping out, and then working at a fast food restaurant.
ReplyDelete