Honestly in this type of argument it comes down to the better facts rather than opinions and that’s why Cillizza makes the better argument. From both sides of the argument we can see the basic ideas of each authors but now let’s go deeper On the side of privacy. As privacy is an important issue as to the people, we can see that the people believe that if you “watch someone long, and you’ll find something to arrest”. (Paragraph 4). Schneier shows this to prove that doing nothing can lead to trouble with blackmail or abuse with surveillance information.
This can be interpreted as self interest is part of, or is, morality, which can lead to justifying actions which go against the consensus of society e.g. lying, stealing and killing. For this reason Kant believes it is better to live according to reason as opposed to desire. For example, if you wanted to buy something which was more expensive than you could afford your reason would tell you it wasn’t possible to have it, not desire as it cannot realise this. Kant sees this as similar to making moral decisions as the moral choice is not always the desired choice and therefore not in your self interest.
We can keep our assumptions to ourselves but unless we consider all aspects of the situation we are not thinking critically. It is also important to recognize when you have made an assumption and attempt to rid yourself of the assumption, keeping it there will only make matters more difficult. • Fallacies are a mistaken belief, especially one based on an unsound argument. Fallacies in written arguments generally come from some type of news source: Biased material that tries people to believe something though it may just be for their gain. Fallacies in oral arguments are similar to written arguments.
This statement can be debated. Many people tell lies to protect others, not get ourselves in trouble, and even for our own self benefit. These topics will be discussed and proven that being truthful isn’t always the right thing to do.”Like the sun”, and “The Censors” by R.K Narayan and Luisa Valenzuela, both show that by not telling the truth, it may sometimes benefit the society in the future. To begin with, “Like the sun” and “The Censors” show that lying may benefit us in the future. Protecting others is one reason people lie.
Why Fear National ID Cards? Dershowitz makes the concept of national identity cards seem so simple when in fact it is not. What makes him so sure that a national identity card would stop a terrorist from being a terrorist? Although I can attest that it would be a great idea to have national identity cards, I do not suppose that they would decrease the likely hood of another terrorist attack or increase the level of security in our society. In the essay “Why Fear National ID Cards?” by Alan Dershowitz, Dershowitz elaborates his views on national identity cards and the benefits of having one.
Case Study #3 Building a Coalition MGMT 591-10559 Leadership & Organizational Behavior Part I: Group Development The group is at the forming stage. Our textbook states the forming stage is characterized by a great deal of uncertainty about the group’s purpose, structure and leadership. Members “test the waters” to determine what types of behaviors are acceptable. After reading over the case study I was torn between the group being at the forming stage or the storming stage. The group does have purpose as they plan to create an after-school program which will improve school performance both by the students and the teachers.
Ethical beliefs vary from person to person; however for the most part, there are ethical standards that everyone knows and for the most part understands. Teaching ethics to someone would be defining the basic difference between what is right and wrong and how to apply that to daily life. Here is a simple example of an ethical dilemma a student could face: a friend gives a student the answers to the upcoming test; he or she could do no work and just copy the answers from their friends paper to their own. However, the student chose not to do this and takes the test himself or herself. This student showed a strong positive moral understanding of this ethical dilemma and chose to make the better decision.
Political Correctness hasn’t gone far enough Today im here to talk to you about whether or not political correctness has gone far enough. There are a number of reasons why political correctness hasn’t gone far enough and it is because political correctness protects people that are from a different race, people who are seen different by society, such as disabled people and people’s religious beliefs. Political correctness breaks the barrier of putting people in different categories and instead people become one and they can respect each other’s differences without controversy. Firstly, I would like to argue the fact that people do not have the right to question and judge the identity others have created for themselves. Andrew Bolt, a writer to the Herald Sun writes, ‘Her father was Swiss, and her mother only part aboriginal.
The two virtues, certainty and doubt are very controversial. The doubt somebody has can cloud their judement but it can also guide them in making a better decision. On the other hand, certainty can blind someone from seeing their true colors of something. In our modern society, doubt is looked down upon; or viewed as a negative idea. Doubt doesnt always contradict certainty, but instead somewhere in between.
The positive side is that for the most part, new stations will broadcast the truth. This helps insures that the people know the true pros and cons of the two major candidates, instead of just the paid advertising. News reporting also has adverse effects, they tend to only display and talk about the democratic and republican parties and thus only show two or even only one side on a specific issue. This can be extremely bad for the American people. If the people don't know all the different potential solutions, how can they be expected to choose the best one?