With 2020 now nearly complete, our hopes of the COVID-19 pandemic coming to an end by 2021 have been dashed. When faced with the prospect of operating for the 2020-21 school year almost all colleges and universities decided to switch to a virtual learning environment. In itself, this decision made sense; yet, when combined with their decisions to retain their high tuition fees, many students and their guardians started to raise complaints. After all, why should they continue to pay large sums of money for an educational experience that is not what they had signed up for? As a result, the following question is one that now plagues colleges and universities across the world: is it morally justified to keep the tuition fee the same despite college moving to the virtual platform and remote from campus?
As stated above, most would argue that the virtual format is not as conducive to learning as if it were in-person. Moreover, some of us live in homes that are distracting and diminish our learning experience, especially given we no longer have access to a quiet, study space like the library. Therefore, to keep tuition costs the same is contradictory to the product. I believe Mill’s recommendation to this dilemma would be relatively straightforward. How does the school operate in a way in which it recognizes its students and vouches for their progression?
As of right now, students are upset because they feel as though the school is acting as a private entity instead of a collegiate institution governing by and for its students. Moreover, there is a reserve pool of money each school has that they can tap into for emergencies, and if Covid isn’t considered one, then I do not know what is. With that being said, Mill would argue that the school needs to give back to the student by reducing the tuition costs. Obviously, the school should ensure that it does not reduce the costs so much it finds itself in bankruptcy, but a calculated amount that shows appreciation for the students. In turn, the students will be happy, not only because the cost of tuition has decreased, but also because they feel fortunate and proud to be represented by an institution that sincerely cares about and listens to its students. And the school, in response to this good deed, may receive heartwarming feedback from the community thanking them for this decision, which may motivate the school to continue acting accordingly in the future.
Our world is ever-changing as just as we know that the sun will rise in the morning, we know that it takes time for the global pandemic to decline. Colleges should reduce tuition in a grand way. Thus we, the students, haven’t been cheated out of our money and we can still get the quality education that we all want. Education must prevail and no worldwide pandemic can change or hinder how education can and should be taught. Mill would agree with us as in utilitarianism the many outweigh the few because there are far more students than professors or administrators. Mill would agree that a reduced tuition would “make up” for a semester over the internet.
There are many people who hate Donald Trump. After all, were it not for him and his ever-changing administration, a significant portion of the population in the United States believes that many horrors could have been avoided. For instance, the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic. Or the promotion of racism and white nationalism. And here’s the kicker: the objective perspective would likely prove this claim to be true. After all, nations outside of the United States constantly look upon Trump and his administration with horror. As reality stands, Trump and his administration have influenced the death of hundreds of thousands (and that’s just COVID-19). As such, it comes as no surprise that there are people who would (and do) wish death upon Donald Trump. Only one question remains in their way: is this wishful thinking ethical?
This situation potentially seems complex and nuanced, but is relatively simple, especially from Mill’s standpoint of subjective consequentialism. Regardless of how one truly feels about Donald Trump (whether or not one thinks that he deserves to have death wished upon him), I think that it is very hard to argue that wishing death upon him is truly unethical. This is because, according to subjective consequentialism, the act of wishing death upon a president does not impede anyone else’s happiness; in fact, it may even make a lot of people happy (as in, it might make the person doing the wishing happy). Also, just wishing death upon another person, especially if that wish is kept to oneself, does not harm anyone, even the target of the wish. And if this is, in fact, the case, that wishing death upon Donald Trump makes the wisher happy and also does not make anyone else unhappy at all, then this act is definitely ethical according to Mill’s theory and model of subjective consequentialism.
Ultimately history will continue and all beings on this planet will eventually be consumed by the sun as we slowly die and all we know is lost. Covid 19 is yet another road bump in the journey that we are taking to that moment in time. Mill would say, because utilitarianism accounts for the majority of people, that because one person would die it doesn’t matter, this instead of wishing death upon him allows him to live in banishment. However because he is responsible for allowing over 250,000 Americans to die because of the pandemic he should be held responsible for all the deaths. History will frown upon Donald Trump, but utilitarianism and Mill’s ideals will live on forever because democracy’s main purpose is to adhere to the will of the majority of people, not the rich with wealth and power.