Prompt: Human Right Vs. Majority Rule
My Take on the Issue
Many people have different opinions when it comes to human rights vs. majority rule. An issue began in Miami several years ago rapidly spread across the nation. The issue was to attempt to legally abolish public employment discrimination based on sexual preference. I believe it is immoral to discriminate against someone due to sexual preference. If you judge someone solely on his or her sexual identity, then you will be missing out of the chance to meet what could be a new friend. Some people do believe differently. A part of society doesn’t want homosexuals a part of their lives or their children’s lives. This is when the clash between human rights and majority rule comes into play.
Human rights and majority rule has been a touchy issue for some time now. It seems to be half-and-half on the subject. The gay community is not alone in the argument over human rights. Most liberals believe in them as well. People should be considered equal regardless of sexual preference. For example: If a gay man was to be an elementary school teacher and he didn’t act inappropriately or improperly, what would the problem be in him teaching to kids? On the other side, there is majority rule. People on this side might have a problem with a gay male teacher in the example above. They most likely would say something along the lines of having a gay teacher in an inappropriate role model and would worry about the effects he might have on his students. In my opinion, this is a completely unrealistic way or thinking. I don’t believe that because a child is around homosexuals that the child would be homosexual as well. When these two issues collide a mass war of morals erupts.
I believe a person has the right to be himself or herself and not have to hide any part of themselves. As long as everyone acts decent, I don’t see any reason for the discrimination. Morally, I feel it is unethically to discriminate against anyone especially just because of whom they are attracted to. This is also my opinion socially. No one should be judged because of sexual preference.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
My Opinion on the U.S. Policy of Terrorism
My Opionion on the U.S. Policy of Terrorism
Prompt: Hijack!
The US’s policy on terrorism isn’t right. If an airliner is hijacked by terrorists who threaten to blow up the plane and all its passengers if your nation does not release from custody certain convicted criminals, I believe the US policy is wrong not to make concessions with the terrorists in all situations. To make a deal with the terrorists would create more a likely chance to save the American lives in certain cases. According to http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/1101/ijpe/pj63policy.htm the U.S. Counter terrorism Policy is:
First, make no concessions to terrorists and strike no deals;
Second, bring terrorists to justice for their crimes;
Third, isolate and apply pressure on states that sponsor terrorism to force them to change their behavior; and
Fourth, bolster the counterterrorism capabilities of those countries that work with the U.S. and require assistance.
The United States Government will make no concessions to terrorists holding official or private U.S. citizens hostage. It will not pay ransom, release prisoners, change its policies, or agree to other acts that might encourage additional terrorism. At the same time, the United States will use every appropriate resource to gain the safe return of American citizens who are held hostage by terrorists. Hostage-taking is defined under international law (International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, adopted December 17, 1979) as the seizing or detaining and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain a person in order to compel a third party to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the seized or detained person.
It is internationally accepted that governments are responsible for the safety and welfare of persons within their borders. Aware of both the terrorist threat and public safety shortcomings in many parts of the world, the United States has developed enhanced physical and personal security programs for U.S. personnel and has established cooperative arrangements with the U.S. private sector. It also has established bilateral counter-terrorism assistance programs and close intelligence and law enforcement relationships with many nations to help prevent terrorist incidents or to resolve them in a manner that will deny the perpetrators benefits from their actions.
If it was my responsibility to decide how my nation would respond, my decision would be to hear out the terrorists demands. I would depend upon who was on the plane as well as who the terrorist would want released. For example, if the plane only had one American who was not going to live much longer, then I don’t see much point in arranging a deal with the terrorists due to the fact that they were going to die very soon anyway. However, if it was a plane full of healthy people and the terrorist wanted a few prisoners released who weren’t important to us, then I might consider it. In a case where it’s a plane of healthy Americans and the terrorists wanted Osama Bin Laden released, then I feel the US policy on terrorism is correct in its decision not to make concessions or deals with the terrorists. In my opinion, I feel the U.S. policy is wrong because it should not be concrete in all situations. The U.S. should take into consideration the situation and keep the policy as a background. I think moral principles play a huge part in my decision of if the Americans should be helped or not. In most cases, I would say do not let them go. We have counter terrorism teams. The teams have things planned such as:
Smoking out terrorists from their hiding places,
Draining the swamp where terrorists find safe haven,
Pressuring states to stop supporting terrorism,
Preventing planned terrorist attacks, and
Bolstering the capabilities of our friends and allies to combat terrorism.
So consider the situation, keep the policy as the background and mostly rely on the policy and the counter terrorism teams.
Prompt: Hijack!
The US’s policy on terrorism isn’t right. If an airliner is hijacked by terrorists who threaten to blow up the plane and all its passengers if your nation does not release from custody certain convicted criminals, I believe the US policy is wrong not to make concessions with the terrorists in all situations. To make a deal with the terrorists would create more a likely chance to save the American lives in certain cases. According to http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/1101/ijpe/pj63policy.htm the U.S. Counter terrorism Policy is:
First, make no concessions to terrorists and strike no deals;
Second, bring terrorists to justice for their crimes;
Third, isolate and apply pressure on states that sponsor terrorism to force them to change their behavior; and
Fourth, bolster the counterterrorism capabilities of those countries that work with the U.S. and require assistance.
The United States Government will make no concessions to terrorists holding official or private U.S. citizens hostage. It will not pay ransom, release prisoners, change its policies, or agree to other acts that might encourage additional terrorism. At the same time, the United States will use every appropriate resource to gain the safe return of American citizens who are held hostage by terrorists. Hostage-taking is defined under international law (International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, adopted December 17, 1979) as the seizing or detaining and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain a person in order to compel a third party to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the seized or detained person.
It is internationally accepted that governments are responsible for the safety and welfare of persons within their borders. Aware of both the terrorist threat and public safety shortcomings in many parts of the world, the United States has developed enhanced physical and personal security programs for U.S. personnel and has established cooperative arrangements with the U.S. private sector. It also has established bilateral counter-terrorism assistance programs and close intelligence and law enforcement relationships with many nations to help prevent terrorist incidents or to resolve them in a manner that will deny the perpetrators benefits from their actions.
If it was my responsibility to decide how my nation would respond, my decision would be to hear out the terrorists demands. I would depend upon who was on the plane as well as who the terrorist would want released. For example, if the plane only had one American who was not going to live much longer, then I don’t see much point in arranging a deal with the terrorists due to the fact that they were going to die very soon anyway. However, if it was a plane full of healthy people and the terrorist wanted a few prisoners released who weren’t important to us, then I might consider it. In a case where it’s a plane of healthy Americans and the terrorists wanted Osama Bin Laden released, then I feel the US policy on terrorism is correct in its decision not to make concessions or deals with the terrorists. In my opinion, I feel the U.S. policy is wrong because it should not be concrete in all situations. The U.S. should take into consideration the situation and keep the policy as a background. I think moral principles play a huge part in my decision of if the Americans should be helped or not. In most cases, I would say do not let them go. We have counter terrorism teams. The teams have things planned such as:
Smoking out terrorists from their hiding places,
Draining the swamp where terrorists find safe haven,
Pressuring states to stop supporting terrorism,
Preventing planned terrorist attacks, and
Bolstering the capabilities of our friends and allies to combat terrorism.
So consider the situation, keep the policy as the background and mostly rely on the policy and the counter terrorism teams.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
What am I?
Prompt: Right or Wrong
Are you a moral relativist or an absolutist? Relativism is sometimes identified (usually by critics) at the thesis that all points of view are equally valid. In ethics, this amounts to saying that all moralities are equally good. Absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act. I believe I am more of a moral relativist than an absolutist. I tend to see all points of view of a situation rather than just one side. I try to understand and take into consideration everyone’s opinion of whatever subject is in question.
As a devout Christian, my religion plays a huge part in my perception of “rightness” and “wrongness.” The tend commandments are what I try to live my life by. However, In certain situations, I think exceptions should be made. For example, thou shall not kill. This is a very clear commandment. Although ,in a case such as someone is going to kill you and the only way to live is to kill them first then I believe you are right to kill them. In the news recently, It had a story about a man who killed someone because he believed they molested his daughter. I don’t condone murder, however, I do understand his side and his reasoning in killing the person he believes violated his daughter.
All people have a view of “right” and “wrong.” Some believe what is right is what gets them more money. Others see right as what comes easiest or what feels right. “Wrong” may mean doing something bad but only if you get caught. In my opinion, “Right” is what you feel in your heart is good and what you know in your mind won’t hurt anyone. “Right” is a subjective word. I believe it’s a conscience feeling and that there is no true definition that will validate to what everyone interprets “right” to be. “Wrong” is what you know you should not do but most likely will end up doing anyway. “Wrong” I believe is also a feeling but that there are many more people that would probably agree upon what they think “wrong” is.
Are you a moral relativist or an absolutist? Relativism is sometimes identified (usually by critics) at the thesis that all points of view are equally valid. In ethics, this amounts to saying that all moralities are equally good. Absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act. I believe I am more of a moral relativist than an absolutist. I tend to see all points of view of a situation rather than just one side. I try to understand and take into consideration everyone’s opinion of whatever subject is in question.
As a devout Christian, my religion plays a huge part in my perception of “rightness” and “wrongness.” The tend commandments are what I try to live my life by. However, In certain situations, I think exceptions should be made. For example, thou shall not kill. This is a very clear commandment. Although ,in a case such as someone is going to kill you and the only way to live is to kill them first then I believe you are right to kill them. In the news recently, It had a story about a man who killed someone because he believed they molested his daughter. I don’t condone murder, however, I do understand his side and his reasoning in killing the person he believes violated his daughter.
All people have a view of “right” and “wrong.” Some believe what is right is what gets them more money. Others see right as what comes easiest or what feels right. “Wrong” may mean doing something bad but only if you get caught. In my opinion, “Right” is what you feel in your heart is good and what you know in your mind won’t hurt anyone. “Right” is a subjective word. I believe it’s a conscience feeling and that there is no true definition that will validate to what everyone interprets “right” to be. “Wrong” is what you know you should not do but most likely will end up doing anyway. “Wrong” I believe is also a feeling but that there are many more people that would probably agree upon what they think “wrong” is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)