Elevated costs of living characterize present today’s every country’s economies. This has brought about some outcry from the general public. Recently, it has emerged that people are taking advantage of the schemes offered by the government. Among them is the fact that the government offers a reliable retirement scheme mostly to low-income citizens. This has led to an increase in the number of people who are dependent on the schemes. Unfortunately, the contributions of the members are low meaning the government has a hard time trying to implement the schemes. As it is now, the government has opted to raise the amounts in the retirement scheme. The reason behind it is to discourage these individuals from depending on the government through the schemes. It is also seen as a measure of reducing congestion into the country by forcing individuals into outside nations. There is however a dilemma on whether it is morally upright for the government to introduce the new measures.
The action taken by the government could be morally right or wrong depending on the angle of the argument. First of all, there is the utilitarianism which is characterized by the principle utility(Mill, 2016). It is said to be the ultimate source of morality may it be in society or otherwise. The principle further states that choices have to be made based on the best consequence of those concerned. In this case, the concerned parties are the government and low-income individuals. In case the said proposal comes to pass, it does not favor the low-income individuals in any way. All that the government is after is cutting on the cost of running the nation. At this present day and age, nations are struggling with their internal affairs which include matters of security. Security does not entail issues of borders alone but also aspects of food security and whatever the future holds for the nation.
Overpopulation is a real menace that countries have challenges with. As it is currently, the land available is not sufficient for the population that is growing day by day. This justifies the reason why the government is after the policies. Unfortunately, the policies seem to benefit the government alone. Utilitarianism advocates for the implementation of policies that favor both sides. In this case, however, low-income earners have no benefits to reap. If anything they are likely to lose on both sides including aspects of land as well as their retirement schemes. In steading of using the hard way to serve a different agenda, it would be wiser for the government to invest in ways and means to educate the society on the importance of planning.
On the other side, there come the issues of Mohism which addresses issues of inclusive care. The same case here decisions have to be made but with considerations to self-interests. However, it has to benefit both parties. In most cases, it applies in government. When a government understands the fate of the people it leads, there is likely to order. However, when the opposite happens, there is expected to be a disorder. In this case, the government is justified to enforce its laws but then, it’s a sign of confusion. At the same time, Mohism talks of principles and everyone being their own master (Hansen, 2013). This is to mean that everyone controls themselves without the influence of other parties.
On one side, Mohism seems to justify the actions of the government while on the other, it is against it. The inclusivity aspect of the theory is not evident in the government’s case. It would be more reasonable for the government to seek an alternative towards dealing with the issues. At the same time, Mohism allows for diversity which means that both low and high-income earners should be accommodated into the country (Fraser, 2011). Unfortunately, the government has been the livelihood so hard with a view of pushing the poor out of the state.
In normal circumstances, every government takes care of its population. Even the poorest states make arrangements for its citizens suffering abroad to return into their country (Soss and Weaver, 2017. It is unfortunate this particular government is opting to through its citizens out of the state with the aim of easing the population. At some point, the government is honest in its actions. There is the need to decongest the cities as well as the nation. However, the mechanisms put in place are not the beat when it comes to dealing with a population of a known origin.
On the other hand, low-income individuals have become a bit mean. All they need is good services form the government, yet their contributions are minimal. The demands of these people have forced the government to draft policies that are meant to safeguard government resources from extortion. Although not done in the right manner, the government has the entire mandate to implement it since their arguments make sense. No individuals should be more powerful than the state. The government then has the moral right to enforce its policies and raise the schemes.
Retirement schemes have become the new way through which some individuals extort the government. The above-discussed scenario represents a case where the government has drafted some policies to regulate and raise the number of contributions in retirement schemes. This being done to control the influx in the number of people who are dependent on the government. Among the theories that support and oppose the actions of government is the theory of utilitarianism. The theory states that before policies are made, it is essential to put the interests of both parties into consideration. This means that the consequences should not hurt any party. At the same time, every party has its principles as it is in the Mohism theory. In as much as the government is being castigated for its action, it was the wisest thing to withdraw the initial schemes. This is to mean that the government was on moral grounds when it drafted the policies. It is, therefore, the individual members to adapt to the changes or move to more favorable environments.
Fraser, C. (2011). Mohism and motivation. Ethics in Early China, edited by Chris Fraser, Dan Robins, and Timothy O’Leary, 83-105.Retrieved from http://cjfraser.net/site/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/fraser-mohismmotivation1.pdf
Hansen, C. (2013). Mohism: Later (Mo Jia, Mo Chia). Encyclopedia of Chinese Philosophy, 461.
Mill, J. S. (2016). Utilitarianism. In Seven masterpieces of philosophy (pp. 337-383). Routledge.Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/26443440/stuart-mill_utilitarianism.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1553371691&Signature=1A2jIuSpogPNvgajm7RRubnr4zQ%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DUtilitarianism.pdf
Soss, J., & Weaver, V. (2017). Police are our government: Politics, political science, and the policing of the race–class subjugated communities. Annual Review of Political Science, 20, 565-591.