If you look at the teleological argument in the way that God created mankind because of their intricacy, you would view people sort of like machines. The theory of evolution proves that humans evolved from an ancestor species. Things evolve by mutation, the reason that people’s bodies are the way that they are is because over thousands of years; peoples bodies have adapted to their environment in order to survive. There are many things in a human body that are not perfect. If the teleological argument is correct in saying that God created humans like a machine, then you would expect humans to be perfect creations, but we are not.
While patents don't seem to be encouraging the development of discrete new ideas that no one else has, that doesn't mean they aren't motivating innovation at all. The incentives provided by a patent, in other words, must be filtered through the realities of a patent race. In some (though by no means all, or even a majority) the inventors are acutely aware of the possibility of patent rights and of the risk that others might obtain the core patents. As John Duffy has observed, the benefit of a race is that people run faster than they otherwise would. As a result, a patent race should both cause inventions to be made sooner than they otherwise would be and, because patent terms are measured from the filing date, cause the resulting patents to expire earlier than they otherwise would.
Intentional misrepresentation should be dealt with in the harshest and quickest ability of the department and the law. There should be no leeway in dealing with individuals, or groups, that purposefully falsify assignments; it was a decision that they made and the consequences were known, or should have been seen. Some are lead down this path by official oppression or financially, but the result of their decisions should at best be seen as integrity and reliability issues. In conclusion, we need to search for the root cause of errors, identify them and attempt to correct them by enhancing training and mentorship or removing it from the process. The person(s) that are placed in a position to oversee things must be allowed to make changes where they deem necessary.
That before we know it our appliances will be smarter than us one day and that’s not how man intended life to be; humans are supposed to be on top. Not being able to use today’s technology rings in Barry’s purpose. Technology has gone wild and he makes it very clear with several examples. His ability to discredit these technologic advances brings credit to his point. One can always refute anything they’d like, but to be effective, one needs to have appropriate facts for back-up and a dominating style that brings it all together.
Murphie and Potts identify dichotomous attitudes toward technological change depicted within works of science fiction. Such attitudes can be described as celebration and fear. Where celebration or hope are evident the scene set is one of ‘technological utopia’. The utopia is achieved by using technological advancement for the betterment of both moral and material. Star Trek is a good example of this utopia; a seemingly infinite abundance to draw upon the society seeks to discover, catalogue and understand the elements within the universe with peaceful mission that forbids the Federation’s advanced Star Fleet to interfere with any world or civilisation it comes into contact with.
Society benefits from firearms in the hands of responsible, and law abiding people. Attempts to keep firearms away from these people do more harm than good. To begin lets define a “responsible person”. According to a definition from the School of Champions web-site, “a person who is able to act without guidance or supervision, because this person is accountable and responsible for their own actions Such a person can be trusted, and depended on to do things on their own”. These people must be law-abiding, have no criminal offences, not be mentally ill, and not known to abuse alcohol or drugs.
Drug addicts and alcoholics should not involuntarily be committed to a hospital for assessment and treatment. All individuals have the right to self-determination and their personal autonomy to live their life the way they choose should always be respected. Individuals of age should have the liberty to decide what is best for them without government paternalistic interference. If interference is required because an individual’s actions harm others, legal actions should be taken to punish them lawfully by still respecting their rights. 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.
And article 3 states that people should not have to live in fear and that all people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To create laws that interfere with these, or the lack of laws that protect people in the United States and Indiana, defies the Universal Declaration of Human
Introduction to Duty Of Care Children's or Young People's Settings 1-1.1 Duty of Care is a legal obligation to work to the best interests of the service user and also to colleagues and yourself. You should always make sure that anything you do is not detremental to the wellbeing, health or safety of anyone, and only carry out actions that are within your own levels of competence, role and responsbility. 1.2 I should only carry out duties for which I have been trained and which are within my job description, and refuse to do anything I am not competent to do. I am responsible for my own decisions, and ultimately accountable for all my actions. I must work within the standards of care, and codes of practice provided by my company.
Hick's approach to the necessity of free will grows from the idea that God wants humans to genuinly love him and show faith, without free will we could not make a decision as to whether or not we had faith, belief or even love for God, we would merely be robots designed to love him. From Boethius' idea of God's omniscience we can take that human beings do not possess free will, Boethius states this here 'for If God sees everything in advance and cannot be decieved in any way, whatever his providence foresees will happen, must