Critical Analysis Of The Retirement Scheme In Developed Countries

Introduction

Welfare expenditure in developed countries is high, and there is a continuous flow of pensioner that are dependent on social welfare. Overpopulation and population aging are soon grave concerns. To solve these issues, sometimes it has been suggested that governments permanently move financially dependent elderlies to nearby countries. However, this essay will instead reject the proposed retirement scheme for it is morally unjustifiable from the viewpoint of Kantian ethics and Utilitarianism. Not only is the suggested scheme lacking ethical standards, but it also has major flaws. This will be further affirmed by referring to Immanuel Kant’s Categorial Imperative, the concept of duty, how such a retirement scheme is not universalizable. The stance will also be supported by social science research papers and John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism.

The government has the duty to ensure public welfare, hence establishing this retirement scheme would firstly disregard this duty. The rationale why the government has this moral duty is appealing to Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative, stated in the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. According to Kant, we should act under a maxim which at the same time can be desired that the action must always be applied in similar situations without contradiction. In this instance, the principle requires people to offer aid when others are in great hardships. However, setting up the retirement scheme would implicitly yield the maxim ‘It is tolerable for the government to not help their needy citizens’. This maxim produces a contradiction when it is universalized. This is because a society where no state provides welfare would be undesired for the state who behaves by that maxim. Hence, the regime bears the responsibility to ensure public welfare for its own citizens. They are obliged to fulfill it, not simply tossing this burden to neighboring countries. It is a misconception that welfare is solely a matter of charity or tampered feelings to impel benevolence. Welfare and protection do not hinge on pity, empathy, or congeniality. It is clear to Kant, that welfare is a case of government pledge and obligation. Hence further persuasions through sentiments are excessive. In brief, social welfare is parallel to the moral duty of parents to nurture their children, not simply driven by filial affections.

Argument

In this moral dilemma, opposing moral theory, Utilitarianism also supports the stance. The Principle of Utility proposes whatever action or social policy that would have the best consequence for everyone concerned. Introducing such a retirement scheme would bring suffering to the old people in the form of loneliness and depression, failure to adapt to their new surroundings and resulting in increased depressive symptomatology. George compiled several depressive indications related to social factors found in later life. He observed that increasing age, lower quality, and quantity of social interactions, racial status, are all associated with elevated depression. Culture shock, different social environment, and acculturation are hard to adapt and are definite stressors that elderlies need to adjust and encounter. To lure these elderlies out of their comfort zone is wrong, solely because it nets a lower pleasure count, as the elderly are going to occupy a large chunk of the population. The estimated projection for the number of US citizens older than 65 is forecasted to more than double by 2060, rising to 24 percent of the total population, making it a substantial age group within the people. This retirement scheme is not sustainable, at least while population aging is still an unresolved issue. Simply put, the greatest happiness of the greatest number is violated.

Acknowledge the counterargument

A popular moral theory that might support the retirement scheme is Utilitarianism. Utilitarians might suggest that the scheme brings more happiness to the elderly, lifts them from bankruptcy, and grant them more control over their retirement funds. While this reasoning might sound unequivocal, it, however, runs into three obstacles. John Stuart Mill, also a utilitarian himself, argues that some pleasures are naturally of greater value than others, and it is rational to barter any amount of lesser pleasure in exchange for a small but of superior pleasure. In this regard, Mill states that a higher quality pleasure can be attributed to happiness earned actively, and lower quality to pleasure offered passively. Thus, for the aged, maintaining social interactions with long-time companions would be of higher worth than simply receiving a lump sum of money. Another flaw of the retirement scheme is that money does not equal happiness. Professor Hsieh concluded in his research paper that although there was a significant association between happiness and income for younger adults. There was no meaningful correlation between the two for older, retired people. This begs the question, whether the elderlies would even consider the scheme. A third problem for adopting the retirement scheme is the money offered itself. Professor of Law, Marta Skiba examined the financial consequences of giving a lump sum of money to financially dependent people, lottery winners. She found out that while lump-sum compensations curtail the likelihood of bankruptcy in the first two years, winners still filed for bankruptcy within five years after receiving. Skiba stipulated that winners had myopic behavior, unable to handle huge sums of money wisely. In short, a fool and his money are soon parted. It seems clear that enlisting for the retirement scheme might have worse consequence in the long run. These three rebuttals, therefore, reveal the drawbacks the pension plan would encounter.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the project might seem desirable from an economic perspective but introduces major flaws and shortcomings. From a morality standpoint, the retirement scheme is not morally justifiable from both Kantian ethics and Utilitarianism. This essay has clarified that delivering welfare is the government’s duty. On that note, the establishment of the plan would undoubtedly abolish government duties towards the citizens. Also, the scheme would furthermore present suffering for the elderlies as they would have a tough time readjusting to new surroundings. This results in a lower happiness level among the population. Every government should, therefore, refrain from such a retirement scheme and hopefully strive for the betterment of their civilians.