This paper applies utilitarian ethical theory to the policy question of raising gasoline taxes as a means of reducing overuse and dependence on foreign oil. The analysis argues that increased gasoline taxes are unlikely to satisfy the utilitarian standard of producing the greatest good for the greatest number of people, because the burden falls disproportionately on low-income individuals and families with limited disposable income. The paper extends this reasoning to the treatment of developing nations, arguing that restricting their access to existing fuel technologies similarly limits their capacity to grow and innovate. The utilitarian alternative proposed is to grant industry greater freedom in researching new and cleaner fuels.
Applying the utilitarian approach to the problem of overuse and dependence on foreign oil means that the first course of action is to study the various options available. Those options include limiting vehicle use by increasing the gasoline taxes used to fuel those vehicles. A variety of other options exist for consideration as well; however, since this paper's primary concern is to address the gasoline tax option, the others are set aside for now. For the sake of argument, this paper will discuss just the one option, even though under true utilitarian theory all available options would be considered.
The central question to be considered is whether increased gasoline taxes are consistent with utilitarian theory. The answer is: probably not. The reason is that raising gasoline taxes does not equate to the best possible choice benefiting the greatest number of people — the defining standard of utilitarian ethics.
Quite the contrary would likely occur if such an option were chosen for implementation. The first immediate effect of raising gasoline taxes would fall on that portion of the mobile public least able to afford higher costs: individuals and families with the smallest amount of disposable income. The price hike would limit their options considerably. In all probability, they would have to spend more on gas in order to continue generating what little income they have. Their difficult choices could include spending the extra money on fuel while foregoing essentials such as food and housing.
"Why alternatives fail in a mobile society"
"Restricting technology limits developing nations similarly"
"Expanding research as the utilitarian alternative"
You’re 41% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.