| 7 | State one argument made by the author. | Rich patients in need of organs take advantage of the worlds poor. Promises of cash rewards for donation are sometimes not kept and when they are kept they can be for less than agreed upon. Given these disparities, legal organ trade will always lead to the exploitation of impoverished donors. A better solution to the global shortage of organs can be used unless the decreased had requested otherwise.
Consider, for example, the controversial issue of abortion. Individuals with particular religious beliefs tend to view laws allowing mothers an abortion choice as unjust, while individuals with other value systems might view such laws as just. Similarly, some people might find some laws unjust because of their personal interests. For example, law that limits the emission of harmful substances from the factories protects people from the harmful hazards of these things. However, a factory might find this law unjust, as he has to install expensive filters to dispose of the harmful gases and chemicals from its waste.
Furthermore, proposed indirect taxes on luxury goods such as motor cars and petrol would have affected the Lords as they were among the few rich enough to afford such luxuries. The Lords set up a budget protest league and denounced the budget as “confiscation and robbery”, and breaking with convention overwhelmingly vetoed the budget. A less important reason was that the Lords believed the budget amounted to a social revolution. They were worried by the idea of progressive and redistributive taxation which taxes the rich more heavily. They feared once these principles were established they could be extended to ‘soak the rich’ and even out the unfair distribution of wealth in Edwardian Britain.
My theory also is that eventually people will start bidding on artificial organs and the richer people will have say over a family that doesn't have a lot of money. If doctors wanted to replace original organs with artificial ones, it would take a lot of perfecting and obligating a clean bill of health for the patient. Who, if anyone, should be a prime candidate for these types of artificial/synthetic replacements? Do you feel that anyone should have access to them? Even a life-long smoker or alcoholic who knowingly subjected themselves to harmful substances?
The question we all as taxpayers should be asking is whether or not we will see a good return on our investment. The Democratic proposal is a bit more negotiable since the taxpayers would at least own an equity interest in these companies. However, even that modified plan seems too expensive and way too intrusive. We should consider alternative plans that are not quite as intrusive to market mechanisms such as the Lindt plan. The Paulson plan also seems to signal a dangerous shift away from liberal market mechanisms into an age of neo-mercantilism.
Technology in every aspect can be misused by wrong people. Inventors or people can come up with an innovative invention to benefit people; however there are also people who would who would use this invention to do wrong things. Publius is a new technology that guarantees individuals the freedom of speech and to express their thoughts and not be victimized for what they say. Publius offer safety to certain levels that hackers or government entity cannot just read your file. In my opinion it is ethical to market Publius because it creates of open the door for people to speak out about the different malpractices that happen in their country and couldn’t speak about it.
After reading and getting a sense or idea of what wilding is, things made more sense. I do believe that the idea of wilding can make people go crazy or obsess about their greed and the only thing stopping us all from wilding is not understanding what wilding is. I also believe that people would rather take shortcuts to being wealthy other than working hard and earning it. Like what Derber said, “Many signs point to a corruption of the American Dream in out time. Most Americans do not become killers to make it up the ladder or to hold on to what hey have, but the traditional restraints on naked self-aggrandizement seem weaker-and the insatiability greater” (Derber, p. 14).
For example, the buyer believes that the seller is selling him a product or service that will not be up to standard and he is charging too high a price for it. Whereas the seller believes that they buyer is trying to get his product or service for too cheap a price because he assumes that it is a flawed transaction even if this is not the case2. This is where the Mafia have found a gap in the market. In order for the transaction to happen,
Throughout this paper you will quickly realize that I am in favor of the concept in commercializing the sale of organ transplants. In defense of my position on this topic, I will incorporate the validity of my argument with sound moral judgments and principles through the normative theory of moral decision making. For and Against In today’s economy, businesses are in the market to make profit. The concerns business organizations have are making sure that their decisions are ethical when it comes to making profits. Good and sound business ethics have become the forefront in today’s business market.
Beside that the PEST also easy to 99 Speedmart to make analysis for the business future such as in business and strategic planning, marketing planning, organizational change, business and product development. By analysis all that 99 Speedmart can maximize the opportunities and minimize the threats to the organization. Political The political is one factor that will affect the business. This is because the political is one component that dictates on success of the business. In term of politic that will affecting the 99 Speedmart is government policy.