Unless not performing the activity would have such a negative economic impact that it would result in the eventual loss of the culture it should have minimal influence on the request for an exemption. While Norway has requested a cultural exemption their primary concern does seems to be the potential economic loss to the community than any other (Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Fisheries, n.d.). If there is an argument that without an activity like whaling the current culture would be lost that is a valid argument to make. Though if this argument is made while ignoring other potential ways to leverage opportunities for a robust economy in the culture it may be a false argument, being used to just prop up a position that otherwise would crumble without such support. However, on this issue the arguments opposing whaling seem to be supported by similar false narratives.
Thus, they feel that the dishonest job even though it is easy but it is mostly illegal. ‘In my opinion, even if you use a dishonest yet fast way to earn money that would not be right,’ a respondent answered. Money can come from many paths but only the honest one will really help us achieve
Once everything is defined, one must now weigh their options, and evaluate the outcome of the actions. Finally, one must choose the option that permits the greatest balance of good overall, so to choose any other action would be considered immoral. That being said, a utilitarian does not always have to choose the option that benefits the most people, since the goal is to bring about the least amount of misery; besides, the benefit of helping the majority may bring a greater cost of well-being to the minority. Additionally, utilitarianism is associated with consequentialism, as they both concur that the results of one 's actions signify whether it was morally right or wrong. In doing so, they must consider the effects to as far as they go into the future.
It was proven also that issues can be misconstrued to be ones of too great importance and one may then overestimate the amount of conflict. There is another implication as a result of the findings. If one is egocentric then they may fail to see opportunities upon which they could benefit, even when they are plain to see. The may be so focused on their issues and what they think is important and because of this both sides may not come out of the negotiation having gained
You may think that I am cruel but as I stated earlier a little amount of them are trustable and it is ridiculously hard to pick who need help. If they are selling something I may make eye contact actually. I might even start a basic dialogue, but if only they are working to get money, not begging. In my opinion, helping several of them won’t be a solution to the refugee problem. Maybe helping some of them might fasten the progress, but it won’t be the best and most accurate solution.
This is a harm to the children and to the husband but it could be enjoyed by the husband in private. So some actions are offending and some are harmful so it is hard to relate which one was Stuart Mill talking about in his harm principle? Cause, a harmful and an offending situations are not easy to separate especially if there are different people involved. Lord Devlin in his book of morals he speaks”there are difficulties with relying on what an ordinary person would find morally acceptable” According to Mills harm principle he assume that one can embark on an action that doesn’t affect others. This might seem impossible or I thought it was but it is not.
Bentham sees monetary penalties as ‘ideal’. This I argue is incorrect. Monetary penalties have so many disadvantages that they should not be used to a greater extent in the criminal justice system. Thus some have gone as far to argue that they should be completely abolished. However Burch has said that this would not be possible so reform should be favoured instead.
John Rawls believed that if certain individuals had natural talents, they did not always deserve the benefits that came with having these abilities. Instead, Rawls proposed, these inherent advantages should be used to benefit others. Although Rawls makes an excellent argument on why this should be the case, not all philosophers agreed with his reasoning, especially Robert Nozick. Nozick believed in distributing benefits in a fair manner in accordance with the Entitlement Theory, which has three subsections: Just Acquisition, Just Transfer and Just Rectification. In this essay we will go over why Nozick rejects Rawls’ idea and what Rawls’ response to this rejection would be.
Under the moral theory of act utilitarianism, I will argue that the elements that define it as a moral theory, do not always hold up as a strong theory in its totality when we critically analyse it. I will also point out a few hypothetical situations and possible consequences when implementation of act utilitarianism is followed through. The consequences will be proven to have the potential to undo the utility of happiness for our loved family members, in order to care for strangers we do not have a connection with, which in my opinion is highly immoral. According to lecture notes ( Weijers & Munn 2016) there are two main forms of utilitarianism, namely act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarians follow the belief that
Being able to trust people is extremely important to our well-being and by committing to an act-utilitarian case by case evaluation method, people become less reliable and trustworthy. Rule-utilitarianism avoids this issue as they are are committed to rules which generate positive expectation effects which tells us how people are likely to behave. While rule-utilitarians do not deny that there are people who are not trustworty, it is clear that their moral code condemns violations of trust as wrongful rather than the act-utilitarian approach which supports the moral view that has the effect of undermining trust. We should, 'therefore accept rules against…breaking promises and violating people's rights because following them as a regular practice promotes general welfare' (Rachels,
Both give good information and examples of what can be done, however neither of them offer real solutions on how to motivate other countries to provide the aid needed. It’s well and good to know what needs to give done, but pointless if there isn’t a plan to get other people
Numbers, statistics, and names will not affect a general audience in the same sense it would a scholarly one, just as emotions or logic might not leave as lasting of an impression on scholars as it would the general public. This distinction does not make one better or worse in an umbrella definition; alternatively, it is relative to the audience the topic and writer’s intended audience. In reference to both Bell Hooks’s and Rose and Baumgartner’s writing, the former more effectively targets an audience lacking the vocabulary a scholar would have. In that perspective, Bell Hooks writes appropriately, as poverty and the judgment associated with the less privileged is an emotional issue (Hooks). With that, an emotional approach seems the most fitting, regardless of audience.
foreign policy goals often fail when we put our equities above other state’s interests and believe that our perceived authority around the world obviates the need for any give-and-take. The notion of uncompromising demands is not as prevalent today. Foreign officials are perfecting the art of diplomacy and states are able to leverage their foreign policy tools (e.g., trade, energy, natural resources, access) to achieve compromising results. However, when U.S. foreign policy officials establish realistic goals and assumes a degree of compromise we can achieve the greater good. On the other hand, when hard lines are drawn and instruments of power, such as sanctions are put in place, relationships do not progress and often the country’s people suffer.
Showing the reader these small numbers compared to large numbers that were originally promised helps with their logos in the argument. If the authors had no evidence of Europe failing to help the refugees, their argument would be a lost cause. Not only do these numbers help with their logos, but also contributes to their
Since the conception of modern medicine in the dark ages, the human population has grown exponentially. Ironically enough the agricultural farming techniques have not grown at such a fast rate, leaving more than a billion of our fellow humans to starve. This semester I explored the topic of hunger and some sustainable options we could use to loosen its grip on the ‘bottom billion.’ Growing up in a community that was very conscious of our environmental impact, I find myself drawn to talk about the environmental problems we are currently facing. This interest lead me to open the Despommier article called, ‘The Rise of Vertical Farming.’ but the writers appeal to my emotions kept me reading. Despommier opens his essay painting a picture of the devastation that unsustainable farming leaves behind using