According to this article by the New York Times, Last month, President Trump order that for every new regulation that government makes in the fields like environmental protection, food and drug safety, and consumer finance, the government must get rid of two old ones.
The article states that this act is extremely misguided because it will provide particular benefits to a certain type of people and leave others in the dark on being protected by the unsung heroes that these regulations truly are.
Paradoxically, the article also mentions the immense logic there is behind putting such a law in order. For example, there are many government regulations in these fields that the general public is just unaware of and do not work for their benefit, but have been left unaddressed. Therefore, this law may be of service to the general public.
There are many philosophical perspectives that can be taken after reading this situation. Specifically, Mill’s utilitarianism is extremely relevant. That decision which produces the most net good is what our society wants to see done, but often we frame different decision in a particular light to illuminate a perceived value that may not always be clear. Moreover, if many people may be harmed by the decision that President Trump has made, but more business owners will benefit (who make a larger contribution to society), than the most net good may be created by doing what is in their favor.
That which produces the most net good is highly debatable in this situation and makes the decision of what is right difficult. Lastly, and interesting point to note is that the United States promotes equality and if someone is valued more because of their status or power than it will combat the values that most people see as paramount.