Reference no: EM132869783

Here is a dilemma for our class. It illuminates the value of and the issues surrounding utilitarianism.

You are a senator in the United States Senate. You represent your home state. Congress has sent the Senate a bill that will make college education free for any American who wants one. It is now up to the Senate to sign it into law. You are also a businessperson, and like most others in America, you paid for your own education with loans. It took you almost 20 years to pay yours back. Your home state is split about 50/50 for and against this bill. The arguments for the benefits of an education without debt are pretty obvious; they include strengthening of consumer power (less debt) and a more educated workforce and populace. The arguments against it include the fact that almost all college students up to this point have paid for their own educations and the fact that individuals and businesses will see a raise in taxes to fund it. As a senator, you should do some research (and cite it) to understand the numbers involved (e.g., potential number of students who will benefit, potential dollars in tax burden for individuals and businesses, and potential number of ex-students who've paid off or are paying off their student loan debt).

The majority rules, here, so you must be extra-careful, as a utilitarian, not to abuse that power: You are looking out for the most happiness for the most people, regardless of any personal or procedural beliefs.

1. How would a utilitarian senator vote on this dilemma? Why?
2. How would a senator using care-based ethics vote on this dilemma? Why?