he outlawing of slavery and extending voting rights to women seem to indicate that ethics can have beneficial results. Give an example from the past that indicates a similar result or a current social policy that might be regarded as wrong, which therefore needs to be changed. Give your reasons and indicate which ethical theory you believe provides the best support for your view.
2 answers
In my opinion, it's a crime that health care and health care insurance costs so much and that so many people don't have health insurance. Most industrialized nations tax everyone so that everyone can have free health care.
One idea that could be explored is how our country's First Amendment is currently read and interpreted. Here's the text:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
One type of action I see and read about all over our country lately indicates to me that people are forgetting about six particular words in there: "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
In addition, many people, including lawyers and judges in various places use the phrase "separation of church and state" out of context and without understanding its origin. Those words are not anywhere in the Constitution or any Amendment. They originated in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802:
On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that "the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state."
His letter explained that they need not fear the establishment of a national denomination—and that while the wall of the First Amendment would protect the church from government control—there always would be open and free religious expression of all orthodox religious practices, for true religious expression of all orthodox religious practices, for true religious duties would never threaten the purpose of government. That the government would interfere with a religious activity was a direct menace to the government or to the overall peace and good order of society. (Later Supreme Court identified potential "religious" activities in which the government might interfere: things like human sacrifice, bigamy or polygamy, the advocation of immorality or licentiousness, etc. If any of these activities were to occur in the name of "religion," then the government would interfere, for these were activities which threaten public peace and safety; but with orthodox religious practices, the government would not interfere).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/987191/posts
You must decide what ethical theory you will write about. Ms. Sue and I have given you two to consider. Let us know what you write. =)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
One type of action I see and read about all over our country lately indicates to me that people are forgetting about six particular words in there: "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
In addition, many people, including lawyers and judges in various places use the phrase "separation of church and state" out of context and without understanding its origin. Those words are not anywhere in the Constitution or any Amendment. They originated in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802:
On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that "the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state."
His letter explained that they need not fear the establishment of a national denomination—and that while the wall of the First Amendment would protect the church from government control—there always would be open and free religious expression of all orthodox religious practices, for true religious expression of all orthodox religious practices, for true religious duties would never threaten the purpose of government. That the government would interfere with a religious activity was a direct menace to the government or to the overall peace and good order of society. (Later Supreme Court identified potential "religious" activities in which the government might interfere: things like human sacrifice, bigamy or polygamy, the advocation of immorality or licentiousness, etc. If any of these activities were to occur in the name of "religion," then the government would interfere, for these were activities which threaten public peace and safety; but with orthodox religious practices, the government would not interfere).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/987191/posts
You must decide what ethical theory you will write about. Ms. Sue and I have given you two to consider. Let us know what you write. =)
2 answers