Jane English's Argumentative Analysis

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness— these were the unalienable rights our forefathers bestowed upon our new nation when drafting the Declaration of Independence; what a far cry from independent our nation has become. Our forefathers guaranteed life and freedom, and the pursuit of happiness; happiness was not a guarantee, but set forth as a challenge for every individual to define and actively pursue for themselves. Surely, when our forefathers declared independence from an oppressive and overbearing king they did not intend for the American Government to become a maternal state that coddles its citizens. Sadly, we have become just that: a nation of citizens dependent upon our government for everything from putting food in our stomachs, to saving money for our retirement.

The good parents live in fear of losing their children despite doing the right thing, while

As citizens, we have a moral responsibility to not only do the right thing for ourselves, but for the others around us. Therefore, if we secede our morals to the state, even though it does not define who

There are many different types of parents with diverse parenting styles in the world. Some are efficient in their ways, while others struggle to wonder why their child did not turn out to be everything they hoped. The controversial topic of whether the parent knows what is best for their child hangs over the reader’s head in Amy Chua’s article.

An example would be when he donated money to the Portly Man. In the text, it states, "If you please. Not a farthing less. A great many back-payments are included in it . . ." (2.5.300).

Name given to certificates: Labels on documents conclude that the advances say they are debt, but labels alone cannot change equity to debt. This factor favors the advances treated as debt, but there is less weight to this factor because it is based on form rather than substance.

Once she graduated Johnston Academy with honors, she attempted to apply to Union College, however, they did not accept girls. She begrudgingly went to Willard’s Seminary for Girls instead, and it was here that she was able to study topics such as logic and debate in further detail. She loved nothing more than to debate women’s rights and equality, and she found pleasure in the fact that she was just as intelligent as the boys and men around her. In 1840, she married politician and lawyer, Henry Stanton, however, she was never satisfied or content with married life. She found being a wife and mother boring and without much importance, and she would often complain about attending duties concerning her seven children. She much preferred political and social reform to work in the domestic sphere. She viewed them as obstacle in her life that got in the way of her true calling, and she often complained about the lack of intellectual stimulus that her life offered her. She used this experience in future debates and arguments when discussing women’s work and rights.

(PAP) a person is morally responsible for what he has done only if he could have done otherwise (829)

When one chooses to write on a matter that seems to have been laid to rest decades ago their burden extensively lies not in trying to argue for their position, rather in showing the relevance of their position. This paper attempts to do both of these things when it comes to non-consensual sterilizations of women, specifically disabled women. A practice prominent in the 20th century, this paper examines coerced sterilizations from a feminist care ethics perspective and ultimately concludes that paternalistic arguments for this practice are in fact eugenic arguments, and thus renders coerced tubal litigations as unethical. Although neo-eugenics is starting to gain a number of followers for its genetic benefits, this is but a misconception of

Parents know more than anyone when it comes to their own child. Chaim Potok thought the same way when he wrote The Chosen. David Malter and Reb Isaac Saunders both love their children in very contrasting ways, but they each know an equal amount about their sons’ personalities. They have different ways of loving and teaching children, so they do what they believe is premium for the habits the child possesses. Children try to hide themselves. The world may lose them, but a parent always knows where they are. A father and a son may not always like each other, but they always love and know each other better than anyone else.

Peter Singer is an Australian moral philosopher most known for his book titled “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” in which he talks about just that. One of his biggest and the first of his premises is our obligation to assist if it is within our means to avoid something bad without giving up something of moral consequence. This means that it is not morally permissible to rob a bank to assist those in need just because you have the means to rob a bank. It simply means when thinking about purchasing another item of clothing you should ask yourself if it is necessary. If the answer is no—which it will most likely be—that money is to go towards someone who’s life who depends on it. This, then, is within your means without giving up something of

For example not everyone can afford to pay for an operation which means some females miss out on the correct medical treatment or some elderly people cannot afford to pay for medicine which impacts hugely on their health and not everyone can be with Medicare.

I believe that Jane does have a defense, I would state that it would be self defense. I state that because since Jane was attack by an unknown man and she was trying everything she could to try to get away from him. When she was able to get away from the man she was able to reach a house where she thought she was able to get help and have a safe place to be until law enforcement showed up. I understand that the homeowner did not want her to come inside but I do not believe the homeowner knew the situation and wasn’t able to understand what was going on. I do not believe Jane should have harmed the owner of the home to be able to reach a safe place but I do believe she wasn’t thinking at the time and all she wanted to do was get into the house

Intuitively, a person is morally responsible for what she has done only if she could have done otherwise. This is the Principle of Alternate Possibilities (PAP). For any person and any action, that person is morally responsible for performing or failing to perform that action if and only if she had a genuine alternate possibility open to her at the time. An alternate possibility is simply another option that an agent has at the time that he or she acts. This principle may hold in part because of the Ought Implies Can principle, which states that a subject ought to do something only if she can do that action.1 So, someone ought to refrain from a morally incorrect action only if she has the option, or an alternate possibility, to do so.

A Nobel Prize-winning diplomat, Kofi Annan once said that “To live is to choose. But to choose well, you must know who you are and what you stand for, where you want to go and why you want to get there.” Indeed, our thoughts reflect our value ,our actions account for our future, and our choices define who we are. If choices’ importance are crucially emphasized, shouldn’t we look before leap? What if a student wants to become the best in his major, why shouldn’t he deserve to learn from the best instructor in the business? Who are we to deprive the right of students?