Article Summary
It is no secret that women often pay more for the same goods and services that men do, often referred to as the ‘pink tax’. This ‘pink tax’ is an estimated 7% depending upon the product such as shampoo, razors, dry cleaning, etc. Why should woman pay more (when we often make less) for the same products as men?
A pharmacy is New York instituted a ‘controversial man tax’ adding 7% to the men products, so they can understand what women are subjected to, but this ‘man tax’ has raised many concerns. Why are concerns only raised when it is affecting males and not females?
Ethical Analysis
As a member of the moral community, any entity that can suffer, women are subjected to many injustices of society but in this instance, is the optimific action being taken? Does the action to ‘pink tax’ women produce the greatest balance of good to bad consequences?
I would have to argue no, there is no optimific action to taxing women more for the same product that men use. A woman should be able to purchase shampoo, razor, shaving cream, etc. in a feminized way (if they so pick that way, if they want men’s product that is cool too) without being penalized because of their gender. By taking women more there is no balance of good to bad consequences, but simply bad.
A woman typically makes less than their male counterparts, therefore women should not have to pay more for the same products and services as a male. I don’t believe that this pharmacy was wrong in instituting a 7% male tax in order to showcase what most females endure in purchasing products (in this case) and/or services. It is a bold statement to be made, but one that I believe needs to be made because women have come far in our society, but we still have milestones to achieve in relation to our male counterparts.
phi325 