Example Of Imperceptible Effect

Sit down with a group of individuals and ask each one of the same exact question. It’s guaranteed that you will get several different answers. No two people are going to look at any situation exactly the same. This weeks’ lesson called for our team to answer questions and discuss our different answers. We are all able to come to a general consensus on how we felt about a few things. The topics included good Samaritans, vigilantism, and civil disobedience.

High Noon, which is an old western type of movie, is about a sheriff named Will Kane that has to fight to save his town. "The Most Dangerous Game", which is a short story about a man named Rainsford who has to fight for his survival. High Noon and "The Most Dangerous Game" have similar main characters and similar story patterns, but have a different overall theme.

For example, imagine that I was going to spend £100 on a pair of shoes for myself but instead, decide to give the money to an aid organization. That particular aid project loses 90% of their donations due to administrative costs and inefficiencies and the final £10 results in 5 people in Nigeria receiving malaria injections. These injections prevent malaria and consequently prevent the deaths of these 5 people. In a case like this, the good that is caused in Nigeria- saving 5 lives, outweighs the good that would have occurred if I had spent the money on shoes—the pleasure I would have received from new shoes, regardless of the high rate of ineffectiveness. What is important to Singer, is whether the bad that is be prevented by one’s actions outweighs whatever inconvenience which may be involved in carrying out the action and that is the case in this example and is also the case for many affluent citizens today.

Philosophical thought provides the infrastructure that allows society to author moral laws. While morality may be the aim, other variables can cause these laws to become corrupt. The urge for power is one of many, recurring, variables that infect morality. During these times of ‘infection,’ society must contest those who oppose just laws. In order to shine a light on unjust laws, laws are bound to be broken. It is not only lawful to break unjust laws, but the duty of the people to speak up and be a voice for change. It is critical, during these times, to work towards equilibrium with the goal to change the law. Regardless of the circumstances, it is lawful to break unjust laws with the goal to make them just again.

Peter Singer's shallow pond example is used to demonstrate the moral importance of preventing bad things from occurring and how reducing suffering is somewhat of a moral imperative. If I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to step in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy and wet, which is insignificant, but the death of the child would be a very bad thing. For this principle, It takes no account of proximity or distance. It makes no difference whether it is a child I know, or a child that lives ten thousand miles who's name I will never know. This principle makes no indication of me being the only person around who could possibly doing anything or of me being in the same position

Breaking the law might or might not be morally permissible in special situations. It is not clear whether it is morally correct to always follow laws. Two points of view were examined: Martin Luther King in the “Letter from Birmingham City Jail” and Socrates in “Crito”. King, (1991) says that breaking the law can be excused for good reasons. However, Socrates says that breaking the law is never permissible (Gallop, 1997). Breaking the law is not moral because it breaks the conditions to be a citizen.

Hearts sinking, fists clenching, frustration building up, American voters prepare for yet another painful presidential election. American elections are notorious for candidates bashing each other, constant television and telephone ads, and above all, shockingly low voter turnout. The list of reasons citizens do not vote goes on forever, but at the top of this ever-long list is one fact: voters in America simply do not believe that their votes matter in the grand scheme of things.

Your one vote could mean the difference between the right and the wrong person gaining a very important position. For example, in the year 2000’s United States Presidential Race, George Bush only gained victory due to winning the state of Florida by a hair. It was the closest race in U.S. history. If only a few thousand would have voted Al Gore would probably have gained the presidency. Picture it like this, what if there were a candidate that wanted to attack your rights? Maybe you’re a woman and you believe you should be able to have an abortion and a particular candidate wants to take that choice away. Maybe you’re a law abiding Muslim and a certain person in the running for an office wants to kick all of your race out of the country. Perhaps

Imagine two candidates running for the presidency of a country. They are both outstanding candidates, and it is a close race. Going into the days of the voting, no one knows who is going win the election, and become the president. When the votes are tallied it shows that one candidate received more overall votes from the people of the country than the other. He, obviously being the favorite of the people, loses the election. Many of the people of the country are confused why he lost the election even though he won the popular vote. The winning candidate won because the country he won the presidency of, uses an outdated and flawed voting system. This candidate assumes the presidency knowing that he does not have the support of more than half of the nation that he is now

At a City Hall meeting in Cleveland, Ohio when asked about the topic of mandatory voting laws (Jackson 2015), President Obama stated, “If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country.” (Stephanopoulos 2015 p5) (Evidence: Testimony) He is right, if everyone voted the political map in the country would be completely different---and not for the better. Compulsory voting can potentially cause the nation 's true political viewpoints to be misrepresented, thus hindering political progression, by making voters feel obligated to choose candidates that may not represent their ideas and forcing the politically disengaged to select random ballots.

Gerrymandering, a tactic used by the federal government, separates people of an opposing party using county lines just enough so that their favored party gets the majority of the votes. By this logic, the outcomes of the presidential election has already been decided before candidates begin the campaign trail. Gerrymandering is the reason we can assume which states are swinging Republican or Democratic. The votes that don't coincide with the state’s previously chosen candidate are completely forgotten, and can only be valid in the popular vote race. While trying to come up with a plan to participate everyone, the government has therefore silenced other voters. Voters who care about their country. Voters who believe in change. Voters who don’t want to be punished for an amendment they weren’t even alive to see it take

Actions and inactions all have moral implications; they are either right or wrong depending on the individual and what s/he believes or feels is right or wrong. Each person’s conduct can and does have implications and ramifications. For every action there is an equal and/or opposite reaction not only for the average person but also for professionals; especially in the area of law enforcement, criminal justice, and criminal procedure. Just discussed is known as moral philosophy.

In this sense, a person can do the “right” thing, but if it is not done by his own will or choice, it is not morally virtuous. The claims of Books II and III directly contradict each other. The former argues that force must play a part in the development of moral virtue, while the latter explicitly states that what is done by force is not at all morally virtuous.

Yet supporters of the Supreme Court’s decision can argue that even when a part of the population loses faith in the election system, the overall trust in it can be maintained. However, on this important issue, the court should not render meaningless the distrust of a portion of the population, especially when this distrust arouse out of a lack of judicial deference toward the legislature. In other words, as a matter of public policy, courts should refrain from ruling in ways that would create an environment in which a portion of the population could lose faith in the very essence of our society.

There are several theories that try to explain the morality of the actions; however, two stand out. the first is deontology, and the other one is utilitarianism. The former follow the idea that the consequences of you action hold no importance in what we ought to do. But rather, some actions are morally wrong or good by itself. The latter follows an opposite view in which the consequences of an action are what it makes an action moral. Specially, if that action produce the greatest happiness over unhappiness. In this essay I will focus on two Utilitarianism ramifications, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. They both agree that consequences must be the greatest factor in deciding what we ought to do. Nonetheless they have one big difference. Rule Utilitarianism generalize acts and recreate the consequences of a rule. If the consequences are ultimately favoring, then it is morally right. By way of contrast, Act Utilitarianism evaluate each action individually, and similar situation would have different outcomes depending on the situation. There is no universal rule unlike rule utilitarianism.