Isolation Motivates Destruction Everyone deserves to be treated respectfully and not judged by the way they look, but rather by the content of their character. It is not right for people to treat others a certain way just because they look a certain way that you are not used to. People act the way they do towards others, because that is how they were treated or raised. If you expect others to be nice to you, then you should treat others the way that you want to be treated. For example, if you look at serial killers and bullies, the reason why they are so angry towards society and innocent people is because that is probably how they were treated while they were growing up.
Placing profits above people isn’t socially responsible but is rather sociopathic and a microcosm of the larger problem that entails the current Capitalistic system that is used across the world. Company Q, is displaying a common capitalistic mind-frame that many companies engage in wherein they would rather focus on lost revenues than assisting the less fortunate. It’s troubling that the company wouldn’t donate day-old products to a food bank. The company does offer some organic foods, and this could be conceived as socially conscious if the food is obtained from traceable sources that are environmentally friendly growers. This social responsible act is overshadowed by the company’s decision to leave the inner city areas because of alleged loss of profits.
A relativist theory is one the judges a situation and depending on the circumstances in this theory there is no universal right or wrong. An example of this would be a woman stealing from the supermarket to feed her child. A relativist would say that the woman does not see this as wrong because she is just trying to feed her child, however from the store point of view no matter what circumstances the woman is in stealing from there shop is seen as wrong. this suggest that there is no convincing reason as to why people should be good as a from a relativists point of view what is right or wrong depends on the circumstances of a situation. Therefore people may think what they're doing is right in their certain situation but in reality they are actually in the wrong.
Evaluation of Company Q’s Current Attitude towards Social Responsibility Jennifer Salisbury Western Governors University Evaluation of Company Q’s Current Attitude towards Social Responsibility Section A: Evaluation Company Q’s current attitude towards social responsibility is being perceived as a costly nuisance that they are avoiding. The lack of concern in assessing the organization’s current culture is apparent due to the recent store closures in the higher crime rate areas. Also, consumer requests are not being addressed in a timely manner, and if they are, it is below satisfaction, by offering a bare minimum of high-end products. The fact that a local area food bank approached Company Q should have set a new standard in its conduct
In Ursula K Le Guins' story "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" and "Why The Future Doesn't Need Us" by Bill Joy, both authors conclude that individual freedom endangers the safety and well being of society. Individual freedom demands individual responsibility if their society is to remain safe. This point is explored from different views in the respective works, and while Le Guin puts the power in the most underprivileged, Joy shows the destruction in the hands of the elite. Both agree that the end result of irresponsible freedom of individuals could lead to the destruction of society both physically and socially. "I do not know the rules and laws of their society, but I suspect that they are singularly few" (Le Guin, Ursula K. "The ones who walk away from Omelas").
The idea of legal paternalism in ethical reasoning is somewhat of a kind gesture from the Government to try to help individuals from themselves in the assumption that those individuals do not know what is best for them. But, forcing individuals to paternalistic laws in order to protect them is limiting their natural born rights and is unconstitutional. The Government must respect people's choices because respecting individuals choices manifest a respect for them as liberated individuals protected by the constitution of the United States. Government should not interfere with people's personal lives; because
What racial profiling does is not protect us, but I believe it endangers us more. If police, airport security or any other form of enforcement are looking for someone that “fits the profile”, they could be letting people, that may not necessarily “fit the profile,” walk right on by, when he or she could be an eminent danger. You can’t put a whole race, religion, or ethnic group into one big category and assume that they all are a threat. Everyone should be treated with equality, and not based on what their background is. I also think that racial profiling encourages hatred between races.
I’m concerned that the government is not doing enough to protect the people event those who don’t want protecting. Even those who put up a fight and want to stay behind it’s best to chain them up and make them go because if it was one of your family members you would do the same. You would want them to be safe even if the disaster was a false alarm and they were in no
This has worried human rights activists as such active surveillance will erode the freedom of ordinary people. Such forms of surveillance is more of a restriction to the people’s rights and choices to act freely, confining them to agree with the Government, never to question them. Such is an act of oppression that does not work in the ‘best interest’ of the people. By Locke’s take on the social contract, since the State has “ceased to uphold its end of the” social contract, the people own the right to revolt and overthrow the (State)” which “makes the contract void”3. The State, is therefore stripped of its right to interfere with the private lives of
It would be absurd to think that there is a need to criminalize a conduct if an individual’s feelings are hurt or an individual is offended by another’s actions. The harm done must be towards protected interests and conduct that are not just offensive in nature. In response to the Report, Devlin argued that criminal law was not just for the protection of individuals but also for society as a whole. The society, Devlin felt, was a community of shared ideas about how people should live their lives. As such, the law is entitled to create laws that protect the society even if it means infringing on an individual freedom to make his or her own decisions.