If conduct that is counter-productive to the aim of helping families resolve conflict is brought to our attention, regardless of whether it had to do with compliance with standards or statutes, we have the discretion to remove the appointed individual and never to appoint them again. There is no need for external standards to have a process of accountability for these appointed individuals. The argument that the statute would provide greater protection for the parties by requiring licensure is not persuasive, since the other side of the coin is that the proposed amendments presumes the parenting coordinator is acting in good faith. Licensure is not what makes an effective parenting
“Compare and Contrast intuitionism and Emotivism” Both Intuitionism and Emotivism are meta-ethical concepts to explain the terms “good” and “bad” without being caught in the naturalistic fallacy described by GE Moore. Moore’s theory states that good cannot be categorised in any physical manner as theories – but instead “good” can not be defined in terms of anything but itself, and following this through to a moral theory we can conclude “that neither science nor religion can establish the basic principles of morality.” Intuitionism holds that there are objective moral truths, but rather than reasoning or deducing these truths, they are self evident to the “mature” mind. Moore contends that just as we know there is a world out there, we know objective moral truths – they are just common sense or intuition. These truths are universal and beyond human experience and reasoning, and from them we gain our sense of what is “good” and what is “bad”. Moore would say we can see these self evident truths when, in an argument, we are reduced to “it’s just wrong,” they require no further explanation, proof or justification.
JF's rights should be enforced the same as if he were an adult. In this case, the fact that he is a minor has no serious effects on the decision. I do not believe it is reasonable to search a minor’s locker without abiding by the charter of rights and freedoms. Just because J.F. was at an educational institution run by the state doesn’t mean the Charter should be overseen.
Milgram’s conclusion really advocates King’s belief, because the surprising conclusion of obedience to authority is what King does not believe to be the way of social relations. In the period of segregation, no one was doing anything even though they knew it was wrong because the government was the authority. So King opposes obedience based on his
He continues to believe that one person can make a difference and those actions will change principle. However, if an individual leads and no one follows, then one must at least refuse to condone the evil and must withhold one’s vote or expedience. Thoreau claims, "If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting on another man's shoulders" (p. 969, Thoreau). By all means, noncompliance was Thoreau's preferred approach to most social injustice. All together, if one did not follow a leader’s actions for justice and passively accepted the majority vote, that individual should remove themselves from the undemonstrative submissive
Locke believed that the government should never even be given such a great amount of power. Locke believed that the government was only there to protect people’s rights and to do so in the simplest ways. Locke believed that if there were ever problems with the government then it should be done away with, not fixed. Locke and Montesquieu shared a similar idea of limited
So something besides the fact that these people do not have health care, makes it morally right for them to receive it. And that would be up to Kant to decide. Kant is not the type of philosopher that would be in favor of this because he uses rational principles to think and make his final decisions on things. Which essentially means that an action follows a logical principle; Is it logical or not?. In this case with healthcare, based on what Kant is about and the way he goes about ethics, I do not see him being in favor of this act of giving healthcare to all citizens of the United States.
Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?” I think it speaks for itself. Why you’ll always say things should be but yet doesn’t give opportunity to be. Anti-Federalist wanted the states to have most of the powers, and have one government. If that was the case we wouldn’t have a really stable
There is nothing that says judges, individuals, or companies can ignore a law once its made because their beliefs don't follow under that law. Some people may believe in human sacrifice but that doesn't make it any less then murder. In The Judge John Kane case it was said that they were merely trying to follow through with their First Amendment right of freedom of religion. Although freedom of religion means they have the freedom to have it within the boundaries of the law. Health insurance is not a part of the religion therefore they must follow the Obama mandate.
In the eyes of some people, this is a good investment. Unfortunately, they cannot see that other areas that are very important to our future are being neglected. John Stossel’s opinion article entitled, “Stupid in America,” states that the public school system in the United States is not advancing whatsoever because the government isn’t actually concerned with the education of America’s youth. This is troubling news because even though new technology and innovations are important, they cannot create themselves and require an educated generation for their invention. An uneducated generation equals no future advancement.