Is The Threat Of International Security - 1141 Words

Is ISIS a threat to international security? ISIS is a threat to international security because they attack, murder, torture and slaughter innocent people, villages and cities. ISIS sees itself as the Islamic Caliphate and controls lots of land in western Iraq and eastern Syria. They also pledge allegiance from different radical Islamic groups around the world. ISIS started from U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Saddam Hussein fighters were left without a job, and they were furious. Al Qaeda chose to capitalize on their anger and established al Qaeda in Iraq, to wage an insurgency against U.S. troops in Iraq (Saddam was secular, but his intelligence and military supporters were able to make common cause with the jihadis of al Qaeda).†¦show more content†¦Ã¢â‚¬Å"By late 2014, the Pentagon was claiming that over 20,000 ISIS supporters had been killed by its air war. If this estimate is remotely accurate, then ISIS should be very badly affected and in retreat from much of the terri tory it holds.†(Par 3). Although many ISIS fighters are being killed from air war, they ve yet to retreat from land where they are getting hit from. â€Å"Fighting the terrorist group ISIS from the air is coming at a high price for US taxpayers — about $11 million per day, according to the latest Defense Department Data. The air war has cost the US about $5.5 billion total since it began in August 2014. The Military Times noted that the daily cost of the war has jumped about $2 million since June.†(Par 12 from Business Outsider). Although the repetitive airstrikes on ISIS may be costly, they are necessary in the fight to let them know we won t stand down and we will keep fighting. â€Å"My testimony today will focus on comparing Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. I argue that Al Qaeda and its affiliates remain a threat to the U.S. homeland, while the Islamic State’s danger is more to the stability of the Middle East and U.S. interests overseas. Much of their rivalry involves a competition for affiliates, with both trying to spread their model and in Al Qaeda’s case to ensure its operational relevance. For now the Islamic State’s focus is primarily on Iraq and Syria and to a lesser degree on otherShow MoreRelatedNational And International Security Threats896 Words   |  4 PagesNational and international security threats are typically perceived as conflict between nations or populations of people and are addressed with military strategies. However, as security is defined as †¦ (Define security) not all threats emanate from nations in conflict. The environment, for example, can threaten the safety of people, and therefore becomes and national security issue. Brown (1977) states â€Å"†¦threats to security may now arise less from the relationship of nation to nation and moreRead MoreThe International Security Threat Report989 Words   |  4 PagesThe â€Å"International Security Threat Report† provides data on cybersecurity attacks and threats throughout 2012. The report shows that there was a 42% increase in targeted attacks (page 10). Although the types of attacks have been evolving, the number of people affected and the amount of damage has increased. Cyber attacks have evolved in such a way that allows them to be a large threat for citizens, businesses, and governments. Cyber attacks have been putting the privacy and information of citizensRead MoreInternational Terrorism And The Security Of The United Kingdom1665 Words   |  7 Pagesargument that international terrorism represents the greatest threat to the security of the United Kingdom. It will begin by defining, within the context of this essay, what is meant by the concepts of national security, terrorism and international terrorism, and how international terrorism threatens our nation through both direct and indirect means. Throughout, it will identify a snapshot of the current gamut of security threats to the United Kingdom and analyse, through these threats, how internationalRead MoreThe issue of security has long been the preoccupation of international relations. It has been800 Words   |  4 PagesThe issue of security has long been the preoccupation of international relations. It has been argued that there is no common concept of security and disagreement in the normative and metho dological approach. In the simplest form, the core of security is survival, and consequently a lack of threat. In terms of international relations, the state has been the main referent object of security. Arnold Wolfers proposed the definition of security as the (security), in an objective sense, measures theRead MoreNuclear Facilities Are Among The Most Highly Secured Infrastructure1592 Words   |  7 Pageson digital system can endanger cybersecurity and the physical security of nuclear facilities. Air gapping and standalone systems are somewhat ineffective when it comes to protecting nuclear facilities against complicated and targeted cyber-attacks. Cyber-attacks on nuclear power plants and their control system could expedite the theft of usable nuclear materials and malicious acts by adversaries. The Problems Critical safety, security, and emergency systems at all nuclear facilities are isolatedRead MoreThe Treaty Of The Nonproliferation Of Nuclear Weapons866 Words   |  4 Pagesgather and work together to strengthen the security. Correspondingly, Collective Security is a group of countries that joint the international peace agreements. Similarly, collective security â€Å"has formed the foundation of international bodies such as the U.N. and the League of Nations. The member states of accepted certain limitations on self-defense which are the reciprocal of its promise of collective security.†(Essays, UK. 2013). Collective security ensures that self-defense does not escalateRead MoreSecurity Is A Threat Of Security1493 Words   |  6 PagesIntroduction: Security is a central concern in the study of international relations (IR). Yet despite being the focus of considerable scrutiny, few agreed conceptions of security exist (Buzan, 1991; Huysmans, 2006; Terriff et al., 1991; McSweeney, 1999; Morgan, 1992; Croft 2012; Smith 2000). Buzan even goes as far to posit that the very conception of security is â€Å"essentially contested† and thus poses an unsolvable debate (Buzan, People, states and fear; Little, ideology and change, p35). These disagreementsRead MoreWhy Do Some States Engage In War? This Has Been A Crucial1744 Words   |  7 Pagesmany international relations scholars that study the relationship between states and how they coexist in the international context. Throughout history, many influential thinkers have come up with theories to explain the nature of the international system and the behavior of states. Liberal theories such as the democratic peace theory argue that war can be justifiable if it represents the esta blishment of a democratic government, which would then represent a collective good for the international systemRead MoreInternational Law Threatens Western Countries1262 Words   |  6 Pagesattention to varieties of international crime, comparative criminology becomes a major field in criminology and criminal justice (Bennett, 2004:2). Comparative criminology is important for the designation and implementation of international policies and preventive measures on international crime; hence there are a rising amount of studies regarding crime and control on a cross-national level. Therefore, in this essay, how do violations of international laws present a direct threat to Western countriesRead MoreTraditional Security vs Human Security1349 Words   |  6 PagesTRADITIONAL SECURITY VS HUMAN SECURITY INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS INSTRUCTOR: SURAT HORACHAIKUL 12/13/2012 TRADITIONAL SECURITY VS HUMAN SECURITY 2012 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 2 2. TRADITIONAL SECURITY VS HUMAN SECURITY .................................................................................... 3 2.1. TRADITIONAL SECURITY ........

Is Isis A Threat - 899 Words

Ishank Tandon GS163: International Relations Dr. Terence Casey July 14, 2015 Is ISIS a Threat to United States? ISIS stands for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. It is referred as a terrorist group by the United States, whereas ISIS considers themselves to be an army instead. ISIS has been responsible for many gruesome attacks all over the world one of them being the execution of Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kasasbeh. They originated from Al-Qaeda in Iraq but they had big ambitions by kicking America out and setting up an Islamic state. To this date hold their land there unlike other groups like Al-Qaeda and Taliban. They have a huge support from people as their count being over 30,000 soldiers and followers. They are heavily armed, can fund themselves, have an organized infrastructure, and can cause a lot of damage. Later in 2006, their brutality lost them the support of Iraqi Sunnis who partnered with US forces to help push them out of the country. And for this incident, America takes a lot of credit for this and call it the Surge in which they helped Sunnis rise up against Al-Qaeda in Iraqâ€℠¢s rule. This led to Al-Qaeda in Iraq being defeated but not destroyed by only being driven out of the land they used to control and later they began rebuilding themselves by being involved in the fighting in Syria as they were trying to throw the Shiite Assad regime. Due to their brutal and severe tactics, Al-Qaeda disavowed Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Later in February 2014, the group Al-Qaeda in IraqShow MoreRelatedIsis : A U.s. Threat?1371 Words   |  6 PagesISIS: A U.S. Threat? ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) is a terrorist group that is trying to build a caliphate in Syria, as well as evoking war with the United States. ISIS first started as a branch off of Al- Qaeda; until February 2014, when they broke away from Al- Qaeda. According to K.T. McFarland, a national security analyst, ISIS has raped and tortured it’s way through Syria and Iraq, killing those who won’t join their group.. They have managed to recruit thousands of citizens fromRead MoreThe Continued Threats Of Isis Essay1298 Words   |  6 PagesThe continued threats of Isis are a growing foreign policy problem in the United States. The policies brought by the two Presidential Candidates have both positive and negative consequences. Candidate Hillary Clinton’s policy towards Isis includes taking out Isis strongholds, work with allies, and strengthen defenses at home. Presidential Candidate Donald Trump’s foreign policy toward Isis is to eliminate them with f ull military force. Isis is a growing problem in our world and should not beRead MoreThe Threat Of The Terror Group Isis1727 Words   |  7 PagesIraq and Syria, ISIS. Within twelve months, ISIS grew by creating of an organizational structure, engaging in violent military campaigns, developing an economy and establishing successful recruitment techniques. ISIS now controls large swaths of territory in both northwest Iraq and Eastern Syria. Political leadership in the United States is now debating what action should be taken to combat the terror group ISIS. To prevent ISIS from harming our national security, to stop the threat of internationalRead MoreAustin Iannitti Isis : Our Biggest Threat1432 Words   |  6 PagesAustin Iannitti ISIS: Our Biggest Threat Period 2 Mr. Danforth Music is often said to connect people to each other and have positive effects on people. However, what happens when the music talks about a much darker topic? An example of this type of song is American Terrorist by Lupe Fiasco. In the song, Lupe Fiasco sings about a smallpox blanket to keep us warm/OnRead MoreThe Global Threat As A Global Movement Of Iraq And Syria / Levant ( Isis / Isil ) Essay1385 Words   |  6 Pagesoptions available for the operational artist to counter it where it occurs? This paper examines the global jihadist threat as currently manifesting itself through groups such as Al Qaeda and Islamic State of Iraq and Syria/Levant (ISIS/ISIL). There are several arguments furthered by this paper building on the works of other scholars and analysts. Primarily that the current jihadists threat is actually a global revolutionary movement against the established world order following Mao’s three phases ofRead MoreAn Islamic State Of Iraq And The Levant851 Words   |  4 PagesISIS is known as the Isalamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Its goal is to create an Islamic state across Sunni areas of Iraq and in Syria. ISIS is notoriously known for holding public executions and committing large-scale attacks to capture and maintain conquered territory. The leader is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, but little is known about him. However, it is known that before he joined Al Qaeda in Iraq, he had formed a militant group in Salaheddin and Diyala provinces north of the Iraq capital. Al-BaghdadiRead MoreIsis And The Islamic State1527 Words   |  7 PagesISIS continues to dominate the news and internet. With each news report of beheadings, executions, and crucifixion, people want to understand what is ISIS and where did they come from. The acronym ISIS, in English, stands for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, but in Arabic it stands for   The Islamic State in Iraq and Ash-Sham.   It is also   known as ISIL, because sometimes Syria is replaced with the ter m the Levant. ISIS is a radical  Sunni  Muslim organization  whose  aim  is  to  restore  an  IslamicRead MoreIs The Threat Of International Security?1141 Words   |  5 PagesIs ISIS a threat to international security? ISIS is a threat to international security because they attack, murder, torture and slaughter innocent people, villages and cities. ISIS sees itself as the Islamic Caliphate and controls lots of land in western Iraq and eastern Syria. They also pledge allegiance from different radical Islamic groups around the world. ISIS started from U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Saddam Hussein fighters were left without a job, and they were furious. Al Qaeda choseRead MoreMiddle East Essay720 Words   |  3 PagesIslamic State (ISIS) and (2) a future nuclear-arm Islamic Iran. It worthy of noting that the intricacy of the Middle East did not start with ISIS, arguably so, the Middle-East was always a chaotic place. After the rise of ISIS, this organization manag ed to expand its operation beyond the Middle. The ISIS group became and still is the most dangerous criminal organization. Among many of their criminal activities, they are in part responsible for terrorism activities throughout the world. ISIS is not onlyRead MoreThe Global Community And Defeating Isis1039 Words   |  5 PagesLaurin Collins Mrs. Dannolfo LA 3: 8 11 May 2016 The Global Community and Defeating ISIS Osama bin Laden. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Akhtar Mansour. These names are not the words will hear on the street. Or in the shopping mall. But if switch on the 9 o clock news,some might hear these names following Al Qaeda, Taliban, or ISIS. These are not the name everyone would think would decapitate a young christian man on live television. Or would murder more than 130 people and wounded many

Egoism and Altruism free essay sample

The term â€Å"meta† means after or beyond, and, consequently, the notion of metaethics involves a removed, or bird’s eye view of the entire project of ethics. We may define metaethics as the study of the origin and meaning of ethical concepts. When compared to normative ethics and applied ethics, the field of metaethics is the least precisely defined area of moral philosophy. It covers issues from moral semantics to moral epistemology[-gt;0]. Two issues, though, are prominent: (1) metaphysical issues concerning whether morality exists independently of humans, and (2) psychological issues concerning the underlying mental basis of our moral judgments and conduct. a. Metaphysical Issues: Objectivism and Relativism Metaphysics is the study of the kinds of things that exist in the universe. Some things in the universe are made of physical stuff, such as rocks; and perhaps other things are nonphysical in nature, such as thoughts, spirits, and gods. The metaphysical component of metaethics involves discovering specifically whether moral values are eternal truths that exist in a spirit-like realm, or simply human conventions. There are two general directions that discussions of this topic take, one other-worldly and one this-worldly. Proponents of the other-worldly view typically hold that moral values are objective[-gt;1] in the sense that they exist in a spirit-like realm beyond subjective human conventions. They also hold that they are absolute, or eternal, in that they never change, and also that they are universal insofar as they apply to all rational creatures around the world and throughout time[-gt;2]. The most dramatic example of this view is Plato[-gt;3], who was inspired by the field of mathematics. When we look at numbers and mathematical relations, such as 1+1=2, they seem to be timeless concepts that never change, and apply everywhere in the universe. Humans do not invent numbers, and humans cannot alter them. Plato explained the eternal character of mathematics by stating that they are abstract entities that exist in a spirit-like realm. He noted that moral values also are absolute truths and thus are also abstract, spirit-like entities. In this sense, for Plato, moral values are spiritual objects. Medieval philosophers commonly grouped all moral principles together under the heading of â€Å"eternal law† which were also frequently seen as spirit-like objects. 17th century British philosopher Samuel Clarke described them as spirit-like relationships rather than spirit-like objects. In either case, though, they exist in a sprit-like realm. A different other-worldly approach to the metaphysical status of morality is divine commands issuing from God’s will. Sometimes called voluntarism (or divine command theory[-gt;4]), this view was inspired by the notion of an all-powerful God[-gt;5] who is in control of everything. God simply wills things, and they become reality. He wills the physical world into existence, he wills human life into existence and, similarly, he wills all moral values into existence. Proponents of this view, such as medieval philosopher William of Ockham[-gt;6], believe that God wills moral principles, such as â€Å"murder is wrong,† and these exist in God’s mind as commands. God informs humans of these commands by implanting us with moral intuitions or revealing these commands in scripture. The second and more this-worldly approach to the metaphysical status of morality follows in the skeptical philosophical tradition, such as that articulated by Greek philosopher Sextus Empiricus, and denies the objective status of moral values. Technically, skeptics did not reject moral values themselves, but only denied that values exist as spirit-like objects, or as divine commands in the mind of God. Moral values, they argued, are strictly human inventions, a position that has since been called moral relativism[-gt;7]. There are two distinct forms of moral relativism. The first is individual relativism, which holds that individual people create their own moral standards. Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, argued that the superhuman creates his or her morality distinct from and in reaction to the slave-like value system of the masses. The second is cultural relativism which maintains that morality is grounded in the approval of one’s society – and not simply in the preferences of individual people. This view was advocated by Sextus, and in more recent centuries by Michel Montaigne and William Graham Sumner. In addition to espousing skepticism and relativism, this-worldly approaches to the metaphysical status of morality deny the absolute and universal nature of morality and hold instead that moral values in fact change from society to society throughout time and throughout the world. They frequently attempt to defend their position by citing examples of values that differ dramatically from one culture to another, such as attitudes about polygamy, homosexuality and human sacrifice. b. Psychological Issues in Metaethics A second area of metaethics involves the psychological basis of our moral judgments and conduct, particularly understanding what motivates us to be moral. We might explore this subject by asking the simple question, â€Å"Why be moral? † Even if I am aware of basic moral standards, such as don’t kill and don’t steal, this does not necessarily mean that I will be psychologically compelled to act on them. Some answers to the question â€Å"Why be moral? † are to avoid punishment, to gain praise[-gt;8], to attain happiness, to be dignified, or to fit in with society. i. Egoism and Altruism One important area of moral psychology concerns the inherent selfishness of humans. 17th century British philosopher Thomas Hobbes[-gt;9] held that many, if not all, of our actions are prompted by selfish desires. Even if an action seems selfless, such as donating to charity, there are still selfish causes for this, such as experiencing power over other people. This view is called psychological egoism[-gt;10] and maintains that self-oriented interests ultimately motivate all human actions. Closely related to psychological egoism is a view called psychological hedonism which is the view that pleasure is the specific driving force behind all of our actions. 18th century British philosopher Joseph Butler[-gt;11] agreed that instinctive selfishness and pleasure prompt much of our conduct. However, Butler argued that we also have an inherent psychological capacity to show benevolence to others. This view is called psychological altruism and maintains that at least some of our actions are motivated by instinctive benevolence. ii. Emotion and Reason A second area of moral psychology involves a dispute concerning the role of reason in motivating moral actions. If, for example, I make the statement â€Å"abortion is morally wrong,† am I making a rational assessment or only expressing my feelings? On the one side of the dispute, 18th century British philosopher David Hume[-gt;12] argued that moral assessments involve our emotions, and not our reason. We can amass all the reasons we want, but that alone will not constitute a moral assessment. We need a distinctly emotional reaction in order to make a moral pronouncement. Reason might be of service in giving us the relevant data, but, in Hume’s words, â€Å"reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions. † Inspired by Hume’s anti-rationalist views, some 20th century philosophers, most notably A. J. Ayer, similarly denied that moral assessments are factual descriptions. For example, although the statement â€Å"it is good to donate to charity† may on the surface look as though it is a factual description about charity, it is not. Instead, a moral utterance like this involves two things. First, I (the speaker) I am expressing my personal feelings of approval about charitable donations and I am in essence saying â€Å"Hooray for charity! † This is called the emotive element insofar as I am expressing my emotions about some specific behavior. Second, I (the speaker) am trying to get you to donate to charity and am essentially giving the command, â€Å"Donate to charity! † This is called the prescriptive element in the sense that I am prescribing some specific behavior. From Hume’s day forward, more rationally-minded philosophers have opposed these emotive theories of ethics (see non-cognitivism in ethics[-gt;13]) and instead argued that moral assessments are indeed acts of reason. 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant[-gt;14] is a case in point. Although emotional factors often do influence our conduct, he argued, we should nevertheless resist that kind of sway. Instead, true moral action is motivated only by reason when it is free from emotions and desires. A recent rationalist approach, offered by Kurt Baier (1958), was proposed in direct opposition to the emotivist and prescriptivist theories of Ayer and others. Baier focuses more broadly on the reasoning and argumentation process that takes place when making moral choices. All of our moral choices are, or at least can be, backed by some reason or justification. If I claim that it is wrong to steal someone’s car, then I should be able to justify my claim with some kind of argument. For example, I could argue that stealing Smith’s car is wrong since this would upset her, violate her ownership rights, or put the thief at risk of getting caught. According to Baier, then, proper moral decision making involves giving the best reasons in support of one course of action versus another. iii. Male and Female Morality A third area of moral psychology focuses on whether there is a distinctly female approach to ethics that is grounded in the psychological differences between men and women. Discussions of this issue focus on two claims: (1) traditional morality is male-centered, and (2) there is a unique female perspective of the world which can be shaped into a value theory. According to many feminist philosophers, traditional morality is male-centered since it is modeled after practices that have been traditionally male-dominated, such as acquiring property, engaging in business contracts, and governing societies. The rigid systems of rules required for trade and government were then taken as models for the creation of equally rigid systems of moral rules, such as lists of rights and duties. Women, by contrast, have traditionally had a nurturing role by raising children and overseeing domestic life. These tasks require less rule following, and more spontaneous and creative action. Using the woman’s experience as a model for moral theory, then, the basis of morality would be spontaneously caring for others as would be appropriate in each unique circumstance. On this model, the agent becomes part of the situation and acts caringly within that context. This stands in contrast with male-modeled morality where the agent is a mechanical actor who performs his required duty, but can remain distanced from and unaffected by the situation. A care-based approach to morality, as it is sometimes called, is offered by feminist ethicists as either a replacement for or a supplement to traditional male-modeled moral systems. . Normative Ethics Normative ethics involves arriving at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. In a sense, it is a search for an ideal litmus test of proper behavior. The Golden Rule is a classic example of a normative principle: We should do to others what we would want others to do to us. Since I do not want my neighbor to steal m y car, then it is wrong for me to steal her car. Since I would want people to feed me if I was starving, then I should help feed starving people. Using this same reasoning, I can theoretically determine whether any possible action is right or wrong. So, based on the Golden Rule, it would also be wrong for me to lie to, harass, victimize, assault, or kill others. The Golden Rule is an example of a normative theory that establishes a single principle against which we judge all actions. Other normative theories focus on a set of foundational principles, or a set of good character traits. The key assumption in normative ethics is that there is only one ultimate criterion of moral conduct, whether it is a single rule or a set of principles. Three strategies will be noted here: (1) virtue theories, (2) duty theories, and (3) consequentialist theories. . Virtue Theories Many philosophers believe that morality consists of following precisely defined rules of conduct, such as â€Å"don’t kill,† or â€Å"don’t steal. † Presumably, I must learn these rules, and then make sure each of my actions live up to the rules. Virtue ethics[-gt;15], however, places less emphasis on learning rules, and instead stresses the importance of developing good habits of character, such as benevolence (see moral character[-gt;16]). Once I’ve acquired benevolence, for example, I will then habitually act in a benevolent manner. Historically, virtue theory is one of the oldest normative traditions in Western philosophy, having its roots in ancient Greek civilization. Plato emphasized four virtues in particular, which were later called cardinal virtues: wisdom, courage, temperance and justice. Other important virtues are fortitude, generosity, self-respect, good temper, and sincerity. In addition to advocating good habits of character, virtue theorists hold that we should avoid acquiring bad character traits, or vices, such as cowardice, insensibility, injustice, and vanity. Virtue theory emphasizes moral education since virtuous character traits are developed in one’s youth. Adults, therefore, are responsible for instilling virtues in the young. Aristotle[-gt;17] argued that virtues are good habits that we acquire, which regulate our emotions. For example, in response to my natural feelings of fear, I should develop the virtue of courage which allows me to be firm when facing danger. Analyzing 11 specific virtues, Aristotle argued that most virtues fall at a mean between more extreme character traits. With courage, for example, if I do not have enough courage, I develop the disposition of cowardice, which is a vice. If I have too much courage I develop the disposition of rashness which is also a vice. According to Aristotle, it is not an easy task to find the perfect mean between extreme character traits. In fact, we need assistance from our reason to do this. After Aristotle, medieval theologians supplemented Greek lists of virtues with three Christian ones, or theological virtues: faith, hope, and charity. Interest in virtue theory continued through the middle ages and declined in the 19th century with the rise of alternative moral theories below. In the mid 20th century virtue theory received special attention from philosophers who believed that more recent approaches ethical theories were misguided for focusing too heavily on rules and actions, rather than on virtuous character traits. Alasdaire MacIntyre (1984) defended the central role of virtues in moral theory and argued that virtues are grounded in and emerge from within social traditions. . Duty Theories Many of us feel that there are clear obligations we have as human beings, such as to care for our children, and to not commit murder. Duty theories base morality on specific, foundational principles of obligation. These theories are sometimes called deontological, from the Greek word deon, or duty, in view of the foundational nature of our duty or obligation. They are also sometimes called nonconsequentialist since these princi ples are obligatory, irrespective of the consequences that might follow from our actions. For example, it is wrong to not care for our children even if it results in some great benefit, such as financial savings. There are four central duty theories. The first is that championed by 17th century German philosopher Samuel Pufendorf, who classified dozens of duties under three headings: duties to God, duties to oneself, and duties to others. Concerning our duties towards God, he argued that there are two kinds: a theoretical duty to know the existence and nature of God, and a practical duty to both inwardly and outwardly worship God. Concerning our duties towards oneself, these are also of two sorts: duties of the soul, which involve developing one’s skills and talents, and duties of the body, which involve not harming our bodies, as we might through gluttony or drunkenness, and not killing oneself. Concerning our duties towards others, Pufendorf divides these between absolute duties, which are universally binding on people, and conditional duties, which are the result of contracts between people. Absolute duties are of three sorts: avoid wronging others, treat people as equals, and romote the good of others. Conditional duties involve various types of agreements, the principal one of which is the duty is to keep one’s promises. A second duty-based approach to ethics is rights theory. Most generally, a â€Å"right† is a justified claim against another person’s behavior – such as my right to not be harmed by you (see also human rights[-gt;18]). Rights and duties are related in su ch a way that the rights of one person implies the duties of another person. For example, if I have a right to payment of $10 by Smith, then Smith has a duty to pay me $10. This is called the correlativity of rights and duties. The most influential early account of rights theory is that of 17th century British philosopher John Locke[-gt;19], who argued that the laws of nature mandate that we should not harm anyone’s life, health, liberty or possessions. For Locke, these are our natural rights, given to us by God. Following Locke, the United States Declaration of Independence authored by Thomas Jefferson recognizes three foundational rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson and others rights theorists maintained that we deduce other more specific rights from these, including the rights of property, movement, speech, and religious expression. There are four features traditionally associated with moral rights. First, rights are natural insofar as they are not invented or created by governments. Second, they are universal insofar as they do not change from country to country. Third, they are equal in the sense that rights are the same for all people, irrespective of gender, race, or handicap. Fourth, they are inalienable which means that I ca not hand over my rights to another person, such as by selling myself into slavery. A third duty-based theory is that by Kant, which emphasizes a single principle of duty. Influenced by Pufendorf, Kant agreed that we have moral duties to oneself and others, such as developing one’s talents, and keeping our promises to others. However, Kant argued that there is a more foundational principle of duty that encompasses our particular duties. It is a single, self-evident principle of reason that he calls the â€Å"categorical imperative. A categorical imperative, he argued, is fundamentally different from hypothetical imperatives that hinge on some personal desire that we have, for example, â€Å"If you want to get a good job, then you ought to go to college. † By contrast, a categorical imperative simply mandates an action, irrespective of one’s personal desires, such as â€Å"You ought to do X. † Kant gives at least four versions of the categorical imperative, but one is especially direct: Treat people as an end, and never as a means to an end. That is, we should always treat people with dignity, nd never use them as mere instruments. For Kant, we treat people as an end whenever our actions toward someone reflect the inherent value of that person. Donating to charity, for example, is morally correct since this acknowledges the inherent value of the recipient. By contrast, we treat someone as a means to an end whenever we treat that person as a tool to achieve something else. It is wrong, for ex ample, to steal my neighbor’s car since I would be treating her as a means to my own happiness. The categorical imperative also regulates the morality of actions that affect us individually. Suicide, for example, would be wrong since I would be treating my life as a means to the alleviation of my misery. Kant believes that the morality of all actions can be determined by appealing to this single principle of duty. A fourth and more recent duty-based theory is that by British philosopher W. D. Ross, which emphasizes prima facie duties. Like his 17th and 18th century counterparts, Ross argues that our duties are â€Å"part of the fundamental nature of the universe. † However, Ross’s list of duties is much shorter, which he believes reflects our actual moral convictions:  ·Fidelity: the duty to keep promises Reparation: the duty to compensate others when we harm them  ·Gratitude: the duty to thank those who help us  ·Justice: the duty to recognize merit  ·Beneficence: the duty to improve the conditions of others  ·Self-improvement: the duty to improve our virtue and intelligence  ·Nonmaleficence: the duty to not injure others Ross recognizes that s ituations will arise when we must choose between two conflicting duties. In a classic example, suppose I borrow my neighbor’s gun and promise to return it when he asks for it. One day, in a fit of rage, my neighbor pounds on my door and asks for the gun so that he can take vengeance on someone. On the one hand, the duty of fidelity obligates me to return the gun; on the other hand, the duty of nonmaleficence obligates me to avoid injuring others and thus not return the gun. According to Ross, I will intuitively know which of these duties is my actual duty, and which is my apparent or prima facie duty. In this case, my duty of nonmaleficence emerges as my actual duty and I should not return the gun. c. Consequentialist Theories It is common for us to determine our moral responsibility by weighing the consequences of our actions. According to consequentialism[-gt;20], correct moral conduct is determined solely by a cost-benefit analysis of an action’s consequences: Consequentialism: An action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable. Consequentialist normative principles require that we first tally both the good and bad consequences of an action. Second, we then determine whether the total good consequences outweigh the total bad consequences. If the good consequences are greater, then the action is morally proper. If the bad consequences are greater, then the action is morally improper. Consequentialist theories are sometimes called teleological theories, from the Greek word telos, or end, since the end result of the action is the sole determining factor of its morality. Consequentialist theories became popular in the 18th century by philosophers who wanted a quick way to morally assess an action by appealing to experience, rather than by appealing to gut intuitions or long lists of questionable duties. In fact, the most attractive feature of consequentialism is that it appeals to publicly observable consequences of actions. Most versions of consequentialism are more precisely formulated than the general principle above. In particular, competing consequentialist theories specify which consequences for affected groups of people are relevant. Three subdivisions of consequentialism emerge:  ·Ethical Egoism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable only to the agent performing the action.  ·Ethical Altruism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the agent. Utilitarianism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone. All three of these theories focus on the consequences of actions for different groups of people. But, like all normative theories, the above three theories are rivals of each other. They also yield different conclusions. Consider the following example. A woman was traveling through a developing country when she witnessed a car in front of her run off the road and roll over several times. She asked the hired driver to pull over to assist, but, to her surprise, the driver accelerated nervously past the scene. A few miles down the road the driver explained that in his country if someone assists an accident victim, then the police often hold the assisting person responsible for the accident itself. If the victim dies, then the assisting person could be held responsible for the death. The driver continued explaining that road accident victims are therefore usually left unattended and often die from exposure to the country’s harsh desert conditions. On the principle of ethical egoism[-gt;21], the woman in this illustration would only be concerned with the consequences of her attempted assistance as she would be affected. Clearly, the decision to drive on would be the morally proper choice. On the principle of ethical altruism, she would be concerned only with the consequences of her action as others are affected, particularly the accident victim. Tallying only those consequences reveals that assisting the victim would be the morally correct choice, irrespective of the negative consequences that result for her. On the principle of utilitarianism, she must consider the consequences for both herself and the victim. The outcome here is less clear, and the woman would need to precisely calculate the overall benefit versus disbenefit of her action. i. Types of Utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham[-gt;22] presented one of the earliest fully developed systems of utilitarianism. Two features of his theory are noteworty. First, Bentham proposed that we tally the consequences of each action we perform and thereby determine on a case by case basis whether an action is morally right or wrong. This aspect of Bentham’s theory is known as act-utilitiarianism. Second, Bentham also proposed that we tally the pleasure and pain which results from our actions. For Bentham, pleasure and pain are the only consequences that matter in determining whether our conduct is moral. This aspect of Bentham’s theory is known as hedonistic utilitarianism. Critics point out limitations in both of these aspects. First, according to act-utilitarianism, it would be morally wrong to waste time on leisure activities such as watching television, since our time could be spent in ways that produced a greater social benefit, such as charity work. But prohibiting leisure activities doesn’t seem reasonable. More significantly, according to act-utilitarianism, specific acts of torture or slavery would be morally permissible if the social benefit of these actions outweighed the disbenefit. A revised version of utilitarianism called rule-utilitarianism addresses these problems. According to rule-utilitarianism, a behavioral code or rule is morally right if the consequences of adopting that rule are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone. Unlike act utilitarianism, which weighs the consequences of each particular action, rule-utilitarianism offers a litmus test only for the morality of moral rules, such as â€Å"stealing is wrong. Adopting a rule against theft clearly has more favorable consequences than unfavorable consequences for everyone. The same is true for moral rules against lying or murdering. Rule-utilitarianism, then, offers a three-tiered method for judging conduct. A particular action, such as stealing my neighbor’s car, is judged wrong since it violates a moral ru le against theft. In turn, the rule against theft is morally binding because adopting this rule produces favorable consequences for everyone. John Stuart Mill’s version of utilitarianism is rule-oriented. Second, according to hedonistic utilitarianism, pleasurable consequences are the only factors that matter, morally speaking. This, though, seems too restrictive since it ignores other morally significant consequences that are not necessarily pleasing or painful. For example, acts which foster loyalty and friendship are valued, yet they are not always pleasing. In response to this problem, G. E. Moore [-gt;23]proposed ideal utilitarianism, which involves tallying any consequence that we intuitively recognize as good or bad (and not simply as pleasurable or painful). Also, R. M. Hare proposed preference utilitarianism, which involves tallying any consequence that fulfills our preferences. ii. Ethical Egoism and Social Contract Theory We have seen (in Section 1. b. i) that Hobbes was an advocate of the methaethical theory of psychological egoism—the view that all of our actions are selfishly motivated. Upon that foundation, Hobbes developed a normative theory known as social contract theory[-gt;24], which is a type of rule-ethical-egoism. According to Hobbes, for purely selfish reasons, the agent is better off living in a world with moral rules than one without moral rules. For without moral rules, we are subject to the whims of other people’s selfish interests. Our property, our families, and even our lives are at continual risk. Selfishness alone will therefore motivate each agent to adopt a basic set of rules which will allow for a civilized community. Not surprisingly, these rules would include prohibitions against lying, stealing and killing. However, these rules will ensure safety for each agent only if the rules are enforced. As selfish creatures, each of us would plunder our neighbors’ property once their guards were down. Each agent would then be at risk from his neighbor. Therefore, for selfish reasons alone, we devise a means of enforcing these rules: we create a policing agency which punishes us if we violate these rules. 3. Applied Ethics Applied ethics is the branch of ethics which consists of the analysis of specific, controversial moral issues such as abortion, animal rights, or euthanasia. In recent years applied ethical issues have been subdivided into convenient groups such as medical ethics, business ethics, environmental ethics[-gt;25], and sexual ethics[-gt;26]. Generally speaking, two features are necessary for an issue to be considered an â€Å"applied ethical issue. † First, the issue needs to be controversial in the sense that there are significant groups of people both for and against the issue at hand. The issue of drive-by shooting, for example, is not an applied ethical issue, since everyone agrees that this practice is grossly immoral. By contrast, the issue of gun control would be an applied ethical issue since there are significant groups of people both for and against gun control. The second requirement for an issue to be an applied ethical issue is that it must be a distinctly moral issue. On any given day, the media presents us with an array of sensitive issues such as affirmative action policies, gays in the military, involuntary commitment of the mentally impaired, capitalistic versus socialistic business practices, public versus private health care systems, or energy conservation. Although all of these issues are controversial and have an important impact on society, they are not all moral issues. Some are only issues of social policy. The aim of social policy is to help make a given society run efficiently by devising conventions, such as traffic laws, tax laws, and zoning codes. Moral issues, by contrast, concern more universally obligatory practices, such as our duty to avoid lying, and are not confined to individual societies. Frequently, issues of social policy and morality overlap, as with murder which is both socially prohibited and immoral. However, the two groups of issues are often distinct. For example, many people would argue that sexual promiscuity is mmoral, but may not feel that there should be social policies regulating sexual conduct, or laws punishing us for promiscuity. Similarly, some social policies forbid residents in certain neighborhoods from having yard sales. But, so long as the neighbors are not offended, there is nothing immoral in itself about a resident having a yard sale in one of these neighborhoods. Thus, to qualify as an applied ethical issue, the issue must be more than one of mer e social policy: it must be morally relevant as well. In theory, resolving particular applied ethical issues should be easy. With the issue of abortion, for example, we would simply determine its morality by consulting our normative principle of choice, such as act-utilitarianism. If a given abortion produces greater benefit than disbenefit, then, according to act-utilitarianism, it would be morally acceptable to have the abortion. Unfortunately, there are perhaps hundreds of rival normative principles from which to choose, many of which yield opposite conclusions. Thus, the stalemate in normative ethics between conflicting theories prevents us from using a single decisive procedure for determining the morality of a specific issue. The usual solution today to this stalemate is to consult several representative normative principles on a given issue and see where the weight of the evidence lies. a. Normative Principles in Applied Ethics Arriving at a short list of representative normative principles is itself a challenging task. The principles selected must not be too narrowly focused, such as a version of act-egoism that might focus only on an action’s short-term benefit. The principles must also be seen as having merit by people on both sides of an applied ethical issue. For this reason, principles that appeal to duty to God are not usually cited since this would have no impact on a nonbeliever engaged in the debate. The following principles are the ones most commonly appealed to in applied ethical discussions:  ·Personal benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial consequences for the individual in question.  ·Social benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial consequences for society.  ·Principle of benevolence: help those in need. Principle of paternalism: assist others in pursuing their best interests when they cannot do so themselves.  ·Principle of harm: do not harm others.  ·Principle of honesty: do not deceive others.  ·Principle of lawfulness: do not violate the law.  ·Principle of autonomy: acknowledge a person’s freedom over his/her actions or physical body.  ·Principle of justice: acknowledge a person’s right to due process, fair compensation for harm done , and fair distribution of benefits.  ·Rights: acknowledge a person’s rights to life, information, privacy, free expression, and safety. The above principles represent a spectrum of traditional normative principles and are derived from both consequentialist and duty-based approaches. The first two principles, personal benefit and social benefit, are consequentialist since they appeal to the consequences of an action as it affects the individual or society. The remaining principles are duty-based. The principles of benevolence, paternalism, harm, honesty, and lawfulness are based on duties we have toward others. The principles of autonomy, justice, and the various rights are based on moral rights. An example will help illustrate the function of these principles in an applied ethical discussion. In 1982, a couple from Bloomington, Indiana gave birth to a baby with severe mental and physical disabilities. Among other complications, the infant, known as Baby Doe, had its stomach disconnected from its throat and was thus unable to receive nourishment. Although this stomach deformity was correctable through surgery, the couple did not want to raise a severely disabled child and therefore chose to deny surgery, food, and water for the infant. Local courts supported the parents’ decision, and six days later Baby Doe died. Should corrective surgery have been performed for Baby Doe? Arguments in favor of corrective surgery derive from the infant’s right to life and the principle of paternalism which stipulates that we should pursue the best interests of others when they are incapable of doing so themselves. Arguments against corrective surgery derive from the personal and social disbenefit which would result from such surgery. If Baby Doe survived, its quality of life would have been poor and in any case it probably would have died at an early age. Also, from the parent’s perspective, Baby Doe’s survival would have been a significant emotional and financial burden. When examining both sides of the issue, the parents and the courts concluded that the arguments against surgery were stronger than the arguments for surgery. First, foregoing surgery appeared to be in the best interests of the infant, given the poor quality of life it would endure. Second, the status of Baby Doe’s right to life was not clear given the severity of the infant’s mental impairment. For, to possess moral rights, it takes more than merely having a human body: certain cognitive functions must also be present. The issue here involves what is often referred to as moral personhood, and is central to many applied ethical discussions. b. Issues in Applied Ethics As noted, there are many controversial issues discussed by ethicists today, some of which will be briefly mentioned here. Biomedical ethics focuses on a range of issues which arise in clinical settings. Health care workers are in an unusual position of continually dealing with life and death situations. It is not surprising, then, that medical ethics issues are more extreme and diverse than other areas of applied ethics. Prenatal issues arise about the morality of surrogate mothering, genetic manipulation of fetuses, the status of unused frozen embryos, and abortion. Other issues arise about patient rights and physician’s responsibilities, such as the confidentiality of the patient’s records and the physician’s responsibility to tell the truth to dying patients. The AIDS crisis has raised the specific issues of the mandatory screening of all patients for AIDS, and whether physicians can refuse to treat AIDS patients. Additional issues concern medical experimentation on humans, the morality of involuntary commitment, and the rights of the mentally disabled. Finally, end of life issues arise about the morality of suicide, the justifiability of suicide intervention, physician assisted suicide, and euthanasia. The field of business ethics examines moral controversies relating to the social responsibilities of capitalist business practices, the moral status of corporate entities, deceptive advertising, insider trading, basic employee rights, job discrimination, affirmative action, drug testing, and whistle blowing. Issues in environmental ethics often overlaps with business and medical issues. These include the rights of animals, the morality of animal experimentation, preserving endangered species, pollution control, management of environmental resources, whether eco-systems are entitled to direct moral consideration, and our obligation to future generations. Controversial issues of sexual morality include monogamy versus polygamy, sexual relations without love, homosexual relations, and extramarital affairs. Finally, there are issues of social morality which examine capital punishment, nuclear war, gun control, the recreational use of drugs, welfare rights, and racism.

Jason Essays - Canada, United Kingdom, United States, Edwardian Era

Jason We alone can not go down and get close enough to explore the Titanic. We now have the technology to build robotic machines to explore the ocean floor like Jason or Jason Jr. They are smaller than a submarine, actually a lot smaller, almost like a remote control car. The Titanic sank in the north Atlantic in 1912. Jason Jr. is very handy, it can reach as deep as 4000 meters. The reason they do not have Jason Jr. any more is because it got lost in 1991 off the Galapagos Island and was found 9000 feet down in the water, so it was replaced by Jason. They use remote controls like Jason and Jason Jr. because divers can not get in as close as Jason can. There also is a risk of a diver getting caught on something or getting stuck in the Titanic. Someone could die if something went wrong so if they use underwater vehicles like Jason they are not taking a risk of someone dying, but they cost about one million dollars which requires they still be careful. Jason is a somewhat small vehicle with about four fans. Jason has two special headlights that could withstand underwater pressure to about 4000 meters and a video camera and also a small 35mm still camera. Jason Jr. gave the world the very first look at the Titanic so that we can see what they are looking at and where the are going. It has a 91-meter cord attached to it from Alvin. Alvin is a little submarine that fits one person and he is the controller of Jason. Titanic disaster was said to be one of the worst maritime disasters in history. The British luxury liner Titanic on its voyage from Liverpool to New York City struck an iceberg about 95 mi. south of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland just before midnight on April 14, 1912. Of the more than 2220 persons aboard about 1513 died including the American millionaires John Jacob Astor Benjamin Guggenheim, 1865-1912, and Isidor Straus. The ship was said to have been unsinkable because of its 16 watertight compartments but the iceberg punctured five of them, one more than had been considered possible in any accident. The Titanic sank in less than three hours which seems like a long time, but not for a huge ship like that. Scientist found that the ship had been moving too fast in unsafe waters and that lifeboat space had been provided for only about three-fourths of the passengers and crew. I really found this topic interesting about how a huge ship like that could sink and how they were able to go down and investigate the Titanic after so long. I think Jason and Jason Jr. were very smart ideas so they could see what really happened and investigate the ocean floor. Bibliography none Science Essays