The first one is that our rights are not well enough protected. If we had a written constitution with a proper Bill of Rights, as they have in America, we would feel safer and more sure that we would be protected from governments that wish to take too much power. We have lost many of our rights in the UK and this is because we do not have a written Bill of Rights and because government and Parliament have too much uncontrolled power. Another argument is that the people of the UK would feel more patriotic and identify more with politics if there was a written and codified constitution as they have in the USA. Every American citizen knows about their constitution and they are proud of it.
Care for others such as medical treatment would not have the same basis as a normal society because of how people perceive the responsibility of others in a aspect of individual care. Multiculturalism and diversity would be in play in a big part of society. Gender issues will arise in a society as result of no women’s rights which will make them has less of a say in matters at hand. Crime against the elderly will appear in this society because they are
Giving large sums of our personal profits to other countries will hurt us in the long run, it may be morally rewarding, but financially it is not. Another interesting argument against Peter Singer’s ethical views is that he is not against abortion or euthanasia. Not everyone is against abortion and euthanasia, but it is understandable to see how one can have a fight with these topics. If he wants life and liberty for one group of people, he should be for the life and liberty of all, this includes those in the womb. It is also a valid point to bring up that it is voted more of a reasonable action to save someone “right in front of you” rather than miles away.
Before the wars powers resolution the President even had more power because he didn’t have to discuss anything with congress. When you have this type of power it could go to your head and you might make some bad decisions. And one bad decision could cost our country. As Chief Diplomat, the President has the hard job of dealing with foreign nations. He needs to always be aware of what is going on in the other worlds without
It's very important for us to take care of our own, without helping those who are in need here, we are doing a disservice to our own people. I would argue that our society would have the ability to do both. We don't need to be the policemen of all of the world's problems, but we do need to make sure we are making the world a better place. All politicians campaign on the notion that we are using our military, power, and wealth to create a better place for all and what better way to let this be shown then by helping those who are less fortunate in foreign countries. I feel our government and fellow citizens can do much more to help.
Society dos not want to be lied to, all they want is the true facts and actual reason behind the wars we send our soldiers into. Like in George Orwell’s, 1984, there is a war going on between Oceania and Eurasia, it is later depicted that it is between Oceania and Eastasia. Nobody in Oceania knows who they are actually fighting. This enhances the idea that the government in society today doesn’t want to give the real reason why they go to war with another country. This disconnection between the government and society shouldn’t be happening because we should know why we have to send our loved ones out to another country to fight for a “cause” that the government thinks is right.
If justice is conceived of as being about what individuals would choose were they unaware of who they are (Singer) then people would surely chose an impartial universalist approach to redistributive justice as advocated by Singer if they did not know whether they were a citizen of the USA or Europe. Singer believes that governments give priority to their citizens over the far more urgent and desperate needs of those further away. I believe Singer is right about this because, in most cases the governments don’t give much thought about helping kids with disabilities as much as they do to war or raising tuitions rates like the U.K just
The Tea Party movement believes no American President, Democrat, nor Republican should ever go beyond the Constitution, regardless of the issue at hand. Neither person nor issue can ever precede the Constitution, because it is the basis of the American people and their rights. They claim the government has become too powerful, and have lost connection with the American people that they are supposed to represent. Ideologically, the Tea Party movement believes in complete freedom and individual rights because freedom is what this country is based upon, and without freedom our country is restricted and American people and society as a whole will not be able to grow. They have received hateful ridicule from many socialists and leftists but the Tea Party has stood their post and will not stop despite any criticism.
The activists believe people will have gun fights over things as simple as parking spaces. Basically anti-gun activists believe that normal people can not be trusted with weapons to protect themselves or their families. Americans can be trustworthy with concealed weapons, gun laws do not affect the criminals of the country, and guns are not only used for bad to hurt innocent people. Americans have the constitutional right to own hand guns and stricter laws and licensing will not effectively save lives.
Despite having an alternative which was to gradually stop the war by attacking the Japanese, it would have taken much longer and more people would have died. The US wanted to end the war instead of causing immense suffering to many. Instead, they did it abruptly for the greater good saving many more. This is because the Japanese would not surrender regardless of the circumstance due to their code of Bushido, thus continuing their reign and them constantly gaining more power. On one hand, dropping the bomb freed thousands of Americans from Japanese captivity, but on another, it caused people physical and emotional trauma.