Bentham and Mills on Utilitarianism Essay Example for Free

Bentham and Mills on Utilitarianism Essay Im Researching Saved Recents Uploads My Answers Account Products Home Essays Drive Answers Texty About Company Legal Site Map Contact Us Advertise  ©2016 Bentham and Mills on Utilitarianism Utilitarianism, Ethics, John Stuart Mill Mar 28, 2006 1882Words 355Views PAGE 5 OF 5 As an American society statues and laws are placed before us to set a standard of morality and justice. But what truly determines whether an action is moral or immoral? As I analyze the works of Jeremy Bentham, in his Principle of Utility, Alongside John Stuart Mill, on Utilitarianism, we will better understand what the foundations of morality are in accordance to their writings. Furthermore, through their standards of utility I will analyze the situation proposed as to whether cheating on your income taxes can be justified as morally right or wrong in the eyes of the utilitarian. In his Work, Jeremy Bentham states Utilitarianism as that principle which approves or disproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have augmented or diminished the happiness of the party whose interest is in question. Plainly stated, Bentham defines utilitarianism as the ethical rightness or wrongness of an action directly related to the utility of that action. Utility is more specifically defined as a measure of the goodness or badness of the consequences of an action. J. S Mill later expands Benthams definition of the term by saying utility holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to promote the reverse of happiness. Mill defines happiness as the absence of pain. Mill further states that there are different levels of pleasures. He states that some pleasures are of higher quality than others and thus more desirable. Mill states that, if all pleasures are equal and the only difference is in their quantities then human beings and lesser beings (such as a pig ) would receive gratification from the same sources of pleasure. Whereas Benthams utilitarianism makes no distinction between different beings and assigns the same pleasure to all members of the community, Mill separates human beings and lesser beings, which have pleasure that is of different category and worth. Mill gives an example by saying, It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. In comparing the two, one can see that Bentham and Mill agree that utility is measured by the result of happiness (or absence of pain) of an action. The next firm foundation of utility, according to Bentham, is the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people who are affected by the performance of an action. He states, The interest of the community (the sum of the interest of several members who compose it) is one of the most general expressions that can occur in the phraseology of morals. He supposed that social policies are properly assessed in light of their effect on the general well-being of the majority of the population that is involved. In a utilitarian philosophy the effects of an action is to be meticulously calculated for the greater good of the masses. Mill later describes the perfection of utilitarian morality with the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth. In this rule he alludes to the section in the Bible where Jesus claims that we should do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbor as yourself. In saying this he states that laws and social arrangements should place their happiness of every individual as nearly as possible in harmony with the interest of the whole. It can be said that maximum utility results when the following process is undertaken: 1) analyzing the majority (level of happiness experienced by people) after each action made. 2) Summate the levels of happiness experienced in each case. 3) And lastly, compare the results. The one that can be said to lead to the greater amount of total pleasure or happiness is the superior alternative. Perhaps the difference between the two can be that Bentham believes in a precise calculation of the utility of each possible action in a given situation. This precise calculation is achieved through different criteria which are as follows: 1)Pleasure minus pain 2)Intensity 3)Duration 4)Fruitfulness 5)Likelihood The first criteria, of pleasure minus pain, refers to whether the pain produced by the decision is worth the happiness produced. The second, being intensity, refers to the resulting strength. Duration, as the third criteria, relates to the length of time the experience lasts. The fourth factor of fruitfulness refers to the long-term results of the pleasure. And finally, likelihood determines whether it is likely the choice will result in the presumed effect. Through careful calculation of these factors, Bentham believes it is possible to come to select the greatest choice, thus bringing pleasure to the most amount of people. Mill, on the other hand, does not oppose the very nature of calculating utility, but merely the effort and time it would take to calculate the decision made. Mill believes that decisions are superiorly made through the application of rules that have been calculated ahead of time. He states, We shall examine presently of what nature are these considerations; in what manner they apply to the case, and what rational grounds, therefore, can be given for accepting or rejecting the utilitarian formula. With the afore mentioned foundations of Utility, can the following given circumstance be said to be morally right in the eyes of the Utilitarian: Suppose you have a dear friend who needs $1000 for her mothers medical bill and, if not treated, her mother will die and the pain of her family will be enormous. Suppose further that the only way to help your friend is to cheat on your income taxes that will never be audited. You believe that the money will not affect the IRS greatly because the government wastes billions of dollars anyways. You do not tell your friend how you got the money so that her and her family can experience enormous happiness. In deciding whether or not to cheat on your income taxes, a utilitarian must evaluate both sides of the overall welfare of the people affected by this action and the consequences of the action taken. In this case, the people affected would be (on one side) your friend, her mother, her family, and yourself, also (on the other side) the US government. The next step taken by Utilitarians would be to measure the pleasure and pain which would be caused by cheating on your income taxes. The consequences that can relatively be calculated, on the side of your friend, if the action is not taken can be: 1)the mother will have pain and die 2)your friend and her family will suffer enormous pain 3)you will suffer alongside your friend. And the pleasure would be the opposite. On the other hand, the consequences for the government, in your eyes, will be minimal since you will not be audited: 1) they will be oblivious to the fact that they should have received $1000 more 2) the government usually wastes billions of dollars. However, the true consequences of cheating on your taxes can be said to: 1) break the law of paying your taxes in their entirety 2) bring you pain if you are caught 3)effect the budget of a certain program that your money would have gone to. In this case, from the eyes of the person cheating on the income taxes, the greater pain would be to deprive their friend of the money at the present time. However, according to Mill, utilitarianism must be qualitatively weighed. This requires for one to consider, not only, the amount of pain and pleasure, but also the quality of each pain and pleasure. Mill states, According to the Greatest Happiness Principle, the ultimate end, is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quality and quantity. A flaw in utilitarianism, is that nothing is really said to be absolute. Every circumstance is relative to each person. What one person may consider to be morally right and just and of good quality, may not be the same for another. Mill suggests that to distinguish between different pains and pleasures a person who has experienced both sides of pleasure and pain should be able to measure and choose which result concludes in more happiness. In this particular case, many things can result from cheating on your taxes. For example, the $1000 that you withheld from the government could have gone to help a school in a poor community, therefore causing pain to the teaching staff that will not receive the money they deserve, or the students who will not receive appropriate supplies. Another result can be that one less item can be bought to support the nation in a fruitless war, which will bring happiness to those who oppose war. In such a case, there really is no way to be able to determine the direct result of what ones income taxes will benefit, so it is very arduous to weigh the quality of pain and pleasure in each side of the circumstance. With the previously given examples it is no wonder why Mill states, It is often affirmed that utilitarianism renders men cold and unsympathising; that it chills their moral feelings towards individuals due to the fact that an individual can not calculate the measured unhappiness of each action. Therefore because we do not have the time to calculate accurately in every instance, Mills supposed, we properly allow our actions to be guided by moral rules most of the time, which in this case would be the laws set forth by the government. As Mill stated we should be able to rely absolutely on ones feelings and conduct, and to oneself of being able to rely on ones own, that the will to do right ought to be cultivated into this habitual independence. Plainly stated, if one feels that it is morally wrong to cheat on your taxes, because it is a direct violation of the laws given by the government, then we must rely on those feelings to make the morally right decision to not cheat on the taxes. Therefore it can be concluded that the action of cheating on your income taxes to help a friend in need can not be accepted as morally right. Though the intentions may be noble, and may be meant to bring quantitative and qualitative happiness, the action still remains morally wrong and can bring about even more quantitative and qualitative unhappiness. In such a case, the conclusion will always be met with some sort of pain. Mill stated that neither pains nor pleasures are homogeneous, and pain is always heterogeneous to pleasure. So alongside the pain caused by an action to cheat or not cheat on your taxes will always bring alongside a pleasure. In conclusion, the utilitarian foundations as stated by Jeremy Bentham and J. S. Mill altruistically put the happiness of others or of the majority ahead of the individual. As stated by Mill, in the long run, the best proof of a good character is good actions and such actions place the masses over the mutually exclusive. So through the works of Bentham and Mill, a greater perception has been given of what the foundations of utilitarianism truly are.

The Color Purple by Alice Walker Essay -- essays papers

The Color Purple by Alice Walker The Color Purple by Alice Walker is the story of a poor black woman living in the south between World War 1 and World War 2. This was at a time when, although slavery had ended,many women were still virtually in bondage, and had to put up with many conditions that was reminiscent of the days of slavery. The problem was that they had to endure being treated like an inferior being by their own families sometimes, as well as from the white people that lived there. It was a life that was filled with misery for many black women, and they felt helpless to do anything about their situations. The book focuses mainly on a woman named Celie, who has lived a hard life already when, at the age of 14 she begins writing letters to God to have someone to confide in,and tell her thoughts and secrets to. In her first letter, she says â€Å"I have always been a good girl. Maybe you can give me a sign letting me know what is happening to me.† (1) Already at that age she has been taking care of her brothers and sister, and has been working very hard at trying to get something of an education. On top of this, she has been raped by her father repeatedly because, as he says, â€Å"You gonna do what your mammy wouldn’t.† (1) She has had two babies by him already, and he’s taken both of them away right after they were born. She thinks at first he might have killed one of them, but later finds out that he sold them to a couple in town. Celie doesn’t do anything about her situation, because she’s used to being treated like that. She’s scared, and she fears for her sister Nettie too, when her Pa starts looking at her the same way. Eventually, a man referred to as Mr. ______ comes along and wants to marry Nettie, but he’s too old for her, and ends up marrying Celie. He takes a couple of months to think it over, but goes ahead and marries her because he needs someone to watch over his kids, and besides, she will bring the cow she was raising along. It’s not so much he wants a relationship, he just wants someone to take care of things for him so he doesn’t have to do much, and he wants something else when he wants it. Her father even tells Mr. ____ that â₠¬Å"She ugly... But she ain’t no stranger to hard work. And she clean. And God fixed her. You can do everything just like you want to and she ain’t gonna make you feed it or clothe it.† (9) As soon ... ...inds that she can be happy and content having her own life, without being treated like a doormat by others. She is finally truly happy with her life and the way it is going, except for one thing. Her life is complete when, after years of wondering about her sister, and then years of waiting, Nettie finally comes home, bringing â€Å"their† children, and Adam’s wife from Africa. As Celie puts it, â€Å"I feel a little peculiar around the children. For one thing, they grown. And I see they think me and Nettie and Shug and Albert and Samuel and Harpo and Sophia and Jack and Odessa real old and don’t know much what going on. But I don’t think us feel old at all. And us so happy. Matter of fact, I think this the youngest us ever felt.†(295) With her long lost sister, and her kids reunited with her after so much time, there really wouldn’t be any other way to feel besides young again, except for maybe an urge to make up for lost time. Now that she’s being treated like she should be, it should be easier to make up the time to her family, because she can be herself, and be happy about it. That’s saying a lot after all she’s been through, and Celie will surely make the best of her from this point on.

The Yoshida Doctrine

Every foreign relation that a Nation-State enters is always self-serving. A country enters into an agreement with another for the purpose of achieving its national goals, and preserving its national security. When a country is in need of aid, whether in the economic or defense facet, the first option that that country would take is to enter into relations with other nations, and the first country on their list would be the United States. The United States has been the World Superpower since time immemorial, dominating the world in almost all aspects. Consequently, when countries are in need of aid, the US is their first option in mind to turn to. When Japan was grappled by the crippling effects of the Second World War, their intuition dictated for them to enter into foreign relations with the US – Thus, the Yoshida Doctrine was born. The doctrine was named after Yoshida Shigeru, a Japanese diplomat and politician who served as Prime Minister of Japan from 1946 to 1947 and from 1948 to 1954, during the critical transition period after World War II (http://www. newworldencyclopedia. rg/entry/Yoshida_Shigeru). This paper aims to give an overview on the foreign relations of Japan on a global level focusing on the present time period. Times are changing in unimaginable ways. There have been great changes which can be viewed as positive or negative depending on whom the observer is; in this case, the relations between Japan and the US. What was once an acceptable agreement in the past may now be of little or no importance when applied to the present. Often times we hear the quote: â€Å"the only thing constant in the world is change. With this in mind, everything that a country would enter must be done with utmost clarity, and must take into consideration the circumstances of every case which may be applicable to it. The circumstances which may have warranted the application of the Yoshida Doctrine in the past may not anymore be applicable at present; thus, there would be a need to abolish or amend certain provisions of the aforementioned agreement for the proper application thereto. The Yoshida Doctrine was the product of an agreement between then Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida with the United States. The agreement was made to help Japan recover economically from the effects of the World War II. To be able to achieve this, Japan heavily relied on the United States for its military protection. This was the tactic seen by then Prime Minister Yoshida to alleviate the effects of the war and to help it recover as a nation economically. It can be said that the Yoshida Doctrine that Japan entered with the US was bilateral and asymmetrical. The doctrine was bilateral mainly because it was an agreement only between the US and Japan. Also, the doctrine was asymmetrical for the reason that the agreement was leaning more on the US’ benefit. At first glance, the doctrine truly is beneficial for Japan; however, in the long run, this benefit would be at the expense of Japanese national dignity. At the time of the Cold War, the doctrine dictates that the US will leave economic matters to the Japanese government. On the other hand, defense issues will be handled by the US. This would mean that the US would act in behalf of the Japanese military in handling Japanese defense. The military is an instrument of a state that holds the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence. The military is tasked to defend the nation-states’ people from internal and external threats, and to maintain peace and order. These are the traditional roles of the military. A state’s hold on its military is essential to its survival, and for the assurance of its sovereignty. If one is to be nuance about the situation concerning the Yoshida Doctrine that the US would handle matters on Japanese military on external defense, then this would mean that positions in the United Nations most especially the seats in the United Nations Security Council, the United States would as well hold. It is of utmost importance to point out that although I would like to prove that Japan could defend itself and stand on its own, it is still important for it to become a member of the United Nations Security Council. Being a member of the United Nations is crucial, since this international organization plays a huge role in fostering unity amongst the member countries. Japan is already a member of this prestigious organization and it should build on improving its relations with it. The United Nations was established in order to foster peace and unity among those countries who are parties to it. The United Nations does not seek to trample on the manner by which a country runs its government but aims for each of its country members to abide by its generally acceptable principles such as peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, and the like. As such, the members of the United Nations are in agreement that it is important to respect the rights of the different sovereignty that are part of it. This is important because it would give a sense of peace of mind to governments of the various member Nation-States since it knows that it has the freedom to govern its people without any outside influence, while at the same time knowing that it has alliances from other countries which would be of help when the need arises. There is no direct evidence that the United States benefited from the Yoshida Doctrine. But, a closer look into the agreement would reveal that the United States was able to influence Japan to a formidable extent. The United States has been touted as the most powerful country at present; consequently, every country would aspire to establish a relation with it, in one way or another. The presence of the United States military force in Japan gave the former the chance to control the latter by the mere presence that it has in their country. The Yoshida Doctrine has already served its purpose, and its dictate on the Japanese government at the present is no longer applicable. The doctrine’s purpose of giving Japan economic aid in exchange for handling the Japanese military has long since been able to establish itself. On the economic aspect, Japan is considered as one of the top countries in terms of economic growth. A country as rich as Japan has sufficient amount of resources needed to sustain its military workforce. At present,, It would be a very crucial decision to stray away from the Yoshida Doctrine since this may result to having a strained relation with the United States. However, it is still possible to enter into peaceful negotiations with countries to maintain their diplomacy with each other. At the present, Japan can now stand on its own both financially and on the level of security. This country has mastered economic policies with proofs from its domestic growth in colossal amounts.. Every government must have sufficient amount of income in order to support its needs such as education, livelihood, military, infrastructure and other relevant projects. The economic growth being enjoyed by Japan signals stability for their government. A crucial decision to remain free from the influence and dependence of the United States is a very difficult decision for Japan. However, these are risks that a government must be willing to take. The security force of any government should be taken seriously. The military is akin to the commander in chief of any organization. The military should pledge its loyalty to only one government otherwise, various problems and conflicts may arise. If the United States would continue to extend its aid to Japan pursuant to the Yoshida Doctrine, then I believe that the presence of the former in the latter country is there for the wrong reasons. This is where the argument becomes significant that an amendment of the doctrine is in order. The initial understanding of Japan and the United States is that the latter would extend its military service to the former to help it recover economically. I believe that this concern is no longer of issue at this day and age. The agreement should be rendered moot and academic. If Japan would still want to have the United States military force to be present in their country then a new agreement is in order, so that it would correspond to the present need thereof. As history would tell us, it is safe to say that too much alliance with a particular country affects the independence of that country. Whether the party concerned likes it or not, there will be decisions that it has to make in consideration of the country with whom it has an agreement with. This could adversely affect the foreign policy of that particular country to the prejudice of its constituents. It would be best for Japan to keep its alliance with the United States to a minimum and focus instead on its relations with, not only the United Nations, but more so, with all the other countries as well. It is better to maintain a good and harmonious relationship with the United Nations which is composed of several countries than to focus on enhancing its relations with a single country. The relationship of Japan and the United States could be eventually criticized to the prejudice of both countries. If Japan would continue its close relations on this intimate level with the United States it could be regarded as a country which would do everything and agree on anything that the latter agrees on. It is very important for any country to have independence and liberty free from any form of outside influence. I believe it would be best for Japan to nurture is relationship with other countries than to focus on the United States. For instance, Japan can improve its relations with countries with whom its relationship is not as strong as with the United States. Japan has a good head start, it is already a member of the United Nations and of the Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors or more commonly known as G-20. The G-20 is composed of 19 countries and of the European Union whose aim is to address global economic issues. The group is composed of, United Kingdom, China, Mexico, Argentina, Australia, France, Germany, these countries among others. The point of the matter is that Japan should improve its relations with these countries instead of merely being complacent with its relationship with the United States. Japan should nurture its relations with France, China, Mexico and other countries comprising G-20 as this would be of great and beneficial advantage for their country. Japan has already proven its loyalty to the United States, thus, it is now time for it to move on to other countries. Japan may instead work on enhancing its relations with its neighboring countries in order to work on more policies for their benefit. Every country needs to maintain diplomatic relations with every possible government in order to better achieve its goal. Further, it can also be argued that the resources of Japan should be shared not only with the United States but with all other countries that are desperately in need of it and vice versa. The United States should not only favor those countries with whom it is able to receive something but it should also strive to allocate its resources even to those with whom it is unable to gain in return. It may sound ideal; however, it only means being civil. It only means living under agreements where profit is not the main reason for living. On a political aspect, the Yoshida Doctrine was made during the time of then Prime Minister Yoshida. The factors by which Then Prime Minister Yoshida was surrounded with may no longer be applicable at this present time of Prime Minister Taro Aso. The situation of Japan during the post World War II period is entirely different than today. Through several years, Japan has evolved politically. When Japan was still on the verge of recovery from the effects of World War II, it needed to have an ally to be able to rise up again. As such, then Prime Minister Yoshida, entered into an agreement which was to be known as the Yoshida Doctrine with the United States. In 2009, many years after World War II, Japan is regarded as the third largest economy. Japan has gained this status after years of hard work. Japan is considered as technologically advanced and has been accepting more and more investments, making it economically self sufficient. Statistics show that it has 0% population below poverty line. The relation of its economic growth with its political aspect is important. A government that has a flourishing economy is self-sufficient, thus, its government is capable of standing on its own. Thus, the Yoshida Doctrine would no longer be applicable at this time. Although it can be argued that it would be very difficult to just suddenly nullify the Yoshida Doctrine since there is a risk of misinterpretation on the part of the United States. Such act would consequently invite questions regarding Japanese intentions or its loyalty, still, a thorough study of this matter is proper for the best interests of Japan. Prime Minister Aso is faced with different challenges that his leadership and term has to face. The leaders of any government should view every agreement on a long term basis. Any crucial agreements being made should be examined in the light of all factors such as economic, military, or political aspects. A leader must always bear in mind that he is merely the representative of the country that he represent, he does not occupy the position to establish personal or beneficial interests for his own agenda. Instead, the thinking should always be two steps ahead. There should be a projection of circumstances with a thorough analysis of every possible conflict that may arise as a result of any agreement or treaty. Any agreement that a country seeks to enter must not be for the benefit of the reigning political party or person occupying the highest position of the land. The underlying reasons for entering into any agreement must transcend the political interests of a particular party. With this, it can be said that a revision of the Yoshida Doctrine is in order so that it would be made to adapt to the present situation facing Japan. The Yoshida Doctrine affected Japan’s foreign policy post World War II to a great extent. Japan surrendered its military force to the United States since it wanted to rehabilitate its economy which was destroyed by the war. As a result, the United States was tasked to take control of the military defense of Japan. Up to this day, Japan has maintained strong ties with the United States. Japan took the risk of allowing the United States to take control of their security while it was busy with gathering resources for its economic recovery. This set-up has its consequences that are being felt even to this day. When Japan agreed to enter into an agreement with the United States it did not look far into the future since it was merely concerned with the situation, post World War II. There was lack of foresight in analyzing the future. The criticism that could be raised today is that, as a result of the Yoshida Doctrine, Japan now finds it hard to gain â€Å"independence† from the United States and to gain a representing seat at the United Nations Security Council. If the Yoshida Doctrine be not amended, Japan will forever bear the stigma of being an ally of the United States. Japan has surrendered a very powerful weapon to the United States that is their military force. It can be said, that this would also result to giving up a big chunk of their sovereignty and independence as a country. Japan must re-examine its position and its resources. It must look at the bigger picture and determine whether or not it is still profitable for it to maintain close ties on this level with the United States. Japan must have given itself options and widened its horizons by thinking twice when it surrendered its military force in favor of another country, in this case, the United States. If the situation would be taken from a bigger perspective, avoiding any myopic view of the matter, a problem could be detected. One aspect that we can see is that the Yoshida Doctrine does not support the resort to war as a means to resolve conflicts. On the other hand, the United States is known to be active in supporting its military workforce by engaging in war with other nations to eliminate terrorists. There seems to be a conflict of principles undertaken by these two countries who aim to work as one. When the need arises for Japan to follow United States orders on the military aspect, Japan would have no voice and would have to abide by the agreement that it has entered with the United States. Japan is therefore left with no voice, no autonomy and no independence to protect its own country through ways that it believes in. The amendment of the Yoshida Doctrine would not totally cut the ties of Japan from the United States. It merely seeks to place Japan on its proper place. The leaders of Japan should take this matter seriously if it does not want to be forever bound to the doctrine that should have long been amended. Too much of everything is bad. A middle ground should be established between the ties that bind Japan and the United States. There should be room left for the government officials of Japan to exercise its decision making when it comes to defending the security of their country. Japan may use the experiences that it has acquired from the United States during those times when the latter has extended its aid to the former. From here, Japan could form its own strategy, its own plan, a defense system that it can call its own, free from any influence by the United States. In this way, Japan would gain more respect from other countries and could set a good example for other nations, giving the idea that a strong nation can do anything on its own with a little help from others. If, after a thorough analysis of the situation, Japan believes that it is not ready to go on an all out independence from the United States, then it may enter into an agreement with the latter that would still give them enough freedom to decide on their own. The United States in this regard would merely be there to guide Japan, instead of totally taking away the military sovereignty and independence of the latter. I am of the opinion that the Yoshida Doctrine should be reshaped to be made more applicable at this present time. Japan has long been able to stand on its own and has since recovered from the crisis that it was faced with in the past which necessitated surrender of the military to the United States. Independence of any country, free from any external influence should be the guiding principles of any nation since it must learn how to stand on its own. It would not however hurt to seek help from another country but this does not mean that one should have total reliance thereto. Japan should begin to reexamine and delve deeper into its motive for its close alliance with the United States. The United States has its own concerns and issues to address independent of Japan. This means that the United States always has to look out for its country first and foremost without having to consider the stake that other allies have over it. Throughout the years from the 1970’ up to the present, many things have transpired. Japan has flourished economically, the United States became involved with defending its country by resorting to war, terrorism has become the major problem of the United States and so on. Japan should begin to take a different course from its overdependence with the United States, it should start taking the path that would give it more independence from the latter. To end my article, let me share with you a line that deserves to be pondered on: â€Å"Freedom is the emancipation from the arbitrary rule of other men. † This quote that was once uttered by Mortimer Adler fully encompasses the relationship that Japan has with the United States. If Japan puts its national sovereignty on its lists of priorities, then Japan must rethink its relationship with the United States, and think more than twice on their future transactions.

8 requisitos visas J-1 maestros para trabajar en EE.UU.

Los maestros extranjeros que desean trabajar en Estados Unidos en las escuelas de primaria o de secundaria pueden obtener distintos tipos de visas para trabajar, como la H-1B para profesionales o la J-1, tambià ©n conocida como de intercambio. En este artà ­culo se explica quà © debe saberse del programa J-1 para docentes, incluida la obligacià ³n de residir fuera de Estados Unidos al finalizar el programa  y quà © agencias està ¡n autorizadas para patrocinar una visa de este tipo.   Asimismo se explican los requisitos mà ­nimos que se piden para obtener la visa, quà © gastos corren de cuenta del maestro solicitante, quà © familiares pueden viajar a Estados Unidos con lo que se se conoce como visa derivada y, finalmente, si econà ³micamente compensa trabajar con una visa J-1. Pasos para J-1 para maestros extranjeros Obtener patrocinio a travà ©s de una agencia o un organismo oficialObtener el DS-2019Pagar SEVISAcudir a un consulado estadounidense para obtener visa J-1 Caracterà ­sticas de las visas para docentes J-1 Tiempo de vigencia La J-1 es una visa ampliamente utilizada por los que desean ejercer de profesores de primaria o secundaria en EE.UU. Su periodo de vigencia es de entre uno y tres aà ±os.   Cabe destacar que para enseà ±ar en una universidad se puede obtener este mismo tipo de visa, pero en otro programa.   Materias Puede enseà ±arse cualquier materia, desde Ciencias y Matemà ¡ticas a Mà ºsica. Pero lo cierto es que todos los aà ±os se ofertan muchas plazas para docentes del idioma espaà ±ol. Obligacià ³n de salir de EE.UU. Al finalizar el contrato, el maestro debe necesariamente regresar a su paà ­s de origen. Ademà ¡s, deberà ¡n pasar al menos dos aà ±os antes de que pueda solicitar otra visa, como por ejemplo la H-1B, para entrar de nuevo en Estados Unidos. Incluso es posible solicitar de nuevo participar en el programa J-1. La visa J-1 no permite que se busque intencionadamente obtener una oferta de trabajo en EE.UU. o emigrar permanentemente a EE.UU. mediante la obtencià ³n de una tarjeta de residencia permanente. Aunque hay excepciones – conocidas como waiver– a esta regla de estancia fuera de EE.UU. por un periodo de dos aà ±os, lo cierto es que en la mayorà ­a de los casos es muy difà ­cil conseguir anular la obligacià ³n de regresar al paà ­s de origen por un par de aà ±os. Es fundamental entender esta restriccià ³n ya que sorprende a muchos maestros extranjeros ya que aplica incluso en casos en los que la persona con una visa J-1 se casa de buena fe con un ciudadano americano que a continuacià ³n pide los papeles para su cà ³nyuge extranjero. Este matrimonio no es suficiente para levantar la obligacià ³n de residir fuera de los Estados Unidos por dos aà ±os al acaba el programa. Patrocinador de profesores para enseà ±ar en EE.UU. El docente extranjero puede trabajar en una escuela pà ºblica, privada o una charter, es decir, una escuela pà ºblica gestionada privadamente. La à ºnica condicià ³n es que està ©n acreditadas con el programa. En este tipo de visas es fundamental la figura del patrocinador. Esta es una lista de 10 agencias autorizadas por el Departamento de Estado para contratar maestros extranjeros. No todos los patrocinadores son iguales y algunos està ¡n especializados en determinadas materias o en determinados estados, por lo que se recomienda solicitar informacià ³n de varios de ellos y comparar antes de decidirse por uno de ellos. Los patrocinadores y la escuela proporcionarà ¡n al maestro toda la documentacià ³n necesaria, entre ellos el formulario DS-2019, para comenzar el proceso de peticià ³n de visa ante el consulado estadounidense correspondiente, que puede denegarla  por ser inelegible si no se cumplen todos los requisitos y tambià ©n si no se cumplen los requisitos para ser admitido a los Estados Unidos. Ademà ¡s, el patrocinador serà ¡ el punto de contacto principal del maestro durante su estancia en EEUU y deberà ¡ resolver cualquier problema que pueda surgir. 8 requisitos para obtener la visa J-1 para maestros Para que un maestro extranjero pueda trabajar en EE.UU. con una visa J-1 es necesario cumplir, como mà ­nimo, con los siguientes requisitos. Fluidez en inglà ©s. Pueden exigir un puntaje mà ­nimo en el TOEFL o pueden comprobarlo en una entrevista o ambas cosas.Tà ­tulo que de maestro de primaria o secundaria en su paà ­sCumplir con los requisitos de certificacià ³n para enseà ±ar que exija el estado de la Unià ³n americana en el que quiere enseà ±ar.Experiencia profesional mà ­nima de dos aà ±os (24 meses) como maestro o en una actividad relacionada.Disponibilidad para trabajar a jornada completa.  En muchos casos se pide que el maestro tenga licencia de manejar con una antigà ¼edad mà ­nima de dos aà ±os.Acreditacià ³n de los credenciales educativos por una organizacià ³n aprobada por el patrocinador de la visa.Finalmente, el candidato debe ser una persona de buen carà ¡cter moral. Es decir, bà ¡sicamente, que nunca haya sido condenado por un delito. Una condena puede hacer imposible conseguir una visa en un Consulado estadounidense. Viajar con familiares El maestro que obtenga una J-1 puede viajar a EEUU acompaà ±ado por su cà ³nyuge y sus hijos solteros menores de 21 aà ±os de edad. Los familiares obtendrà ¡n una visa J-2, de naturaleza derivada, esto es, si la J-1 es cancelada o expira, tambià ©n lo harà ¡ la J-2. El marido o la mujer del maestro, que tendrà ¡ una visa J-2, podrà ¡ trabajar en EEUU siempre y cuando pida permiso al Servicio de Inmigracià ³n (USCIS, por sus siglas en inglà ©s) y le sea concedido. Para solicitarlo deberà ¡n probar que los ingresos se destinarà ¡n a mantenerse a sà ­ mismo y a hijos menores de edad, si los hubiese, pero no al titular de la J-1. Si à ©ste fuera el caso, el USCIS denegarà ¡ el permiso. El formulario para pedir el permiso es el I-765 y que en la actualidad tiene un costo $410  para procesarlo y que puede incrementarse en cualquier momento. El permiso expirarà ¡ al mismo tiempo que la visa. Los hijos de un maestro con J-1 y que tienen a su propio nombre una visa J-2 pueden estudiar en escuelas pà ºblicas o privadas de EE.UU. Quà © gastos pagan los docentes titulares de visas J-1 En primer lugar, se debe pagar la denominada tasa SEVIS por un importe de $220 para cubrir los gastos de gestià ³n del programa de intercambio. La excepcià ³n son los programas de intercambio con patrocinio federal. En estos casos no se paga tarifa por SEVIS y son los programas cuyos cà ³digos comienzan por G-1, G-2, G-3 o G-7. No se paga tarifa SEVIS para el cà ³nyuge e hijos del maestro que recibe la visa J-1. El pago de SEVIS debe hacerse directamente al Departamento de Seguridad Interna (DHS) antes de acudir al consulado a obtener la visa. Si el maestro viaja a EEUU con su familia, la tasa no aplica ni para los hijos ni para el cà ³nyuge. Es decir, sà ³lo la paga el titular de la J-1. A continuacià ³n deberà ¡ pagarse un arancel de $160 por tener la visa estampada en el pasaporte. Cada uno de los familiares que acompaà ±e al maestro deberà ¡ abonar otros $160 por cada visa derivada J-2 que se emita. Ademà ¡s, algunos consulados exigen pequeà ±os gastos adicionales, como pago de hasta $20 por cerrar una cita por telà ©fono o abono por el envà ­o por correo de documentacià ³n. En el momento de acudir al Consulado o Embajada para ser entrevistado y obtener la visa hay que enfatizar que algunos consulados piden al solicitante una gran cantidad de documentacià ³n para probar que no tiene intencià ³n de quedarse en EEUU. Los requisitos varà ­an de paà ­s a paà ­s, hay que estar preparado para ello y lo cierto es que se pide mà ¡s documentacià ³n en los paà ­ses con un nà ºmero alto de nacionales que han violado los tà ©rminos de sus visas al no abandonar EEUU cuando tenà ­an que hacerlo. Salarios de maestros en Estados Unidos Trabajar en Estados Unidos como maestro brinda conocidas ventajas, como conocer otro paà ­s y practicar inglà ©s. Pero es tambià ©n importante saber  cuà ¡nto ganan los maestros en Estados Unidos. Las cantidades varà ­an enormemente segà ºn el estado, la ciudad, la especialidad y los aà ±os trabajados. Ademà ¡s, es importante conocer el monto de los impuestos y de la canasta alimenticia en el lugar donde se piensa trabajar. Puede suceder que se gane mucho mà ¡s que en el paà ­s de origen pero que, desde el punto de vista econà ³mico teniendo en cuenta los gastos, no resulte ventajoso. Este es un artà ­culo informativo. No es asesorà ­a legal.