Recent orders
Advantages of college degrees to the police officers
Advantages of college degrees to the police officers
A college degree is an important tool in today’s world. The college degree has many advantages. Therefore college degrees should be mandatory to anyone who wants to join the police force. College environment has proven to be a perfect place to develop and practice certain skills as the ones discussed below.
A college degree helps an officer develop communication, tolerance and reasoning skills. These skills come in handy in the profession of a police officer since they help them deal with and solve crisis that they encounter in their line of duty. Going to college helps a person meet with different people from all walks of life and these helps in networking. Sharing life experiences with other people help students develop these inter-personal skills. These skills help a police officer deal with the people he meets in his line of duty. An officer who attended college tends to be more rational, more open-minded and more consistent in his work. Attending and completing a college degree has been proven to increase in the knowledge of world matters as well as a decrease in prejudice. An officer who has attended college would be able to solve cases involving people from other races other than his without being biased.
In college, a student is required to take many general knowledge courses. These helps the student come out not only with a college degree, but also as a well rounded person with a lot of knowledge in matters affecting the world, which could not have been otherwise gained. A college education also provides a basis for better salary. A college graduate earns a lot more than a high school graduate. An officer with a college degree has a better chance at promotion in their work than their high school graduates counterparts.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Virtue Ethics
Name:
Instructor:
Course:
Date:
Advantages and Disadvantages of Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics is one the three major theories of normative ethics. The two pioneers behind virtues ethics are Aristotle and Plato. Plato argued that being virtuous entails having a clear view of the form of the virtue. On the other hand, Aristotle rejected this position in favour of a naturalistic one. Virtues can be compared to skills and are acquired through proper upbringing. Aristotle identified some virtues and they include: courage, temperance, wittiness, friendliness, modesty, righteous, indignation, truthfulness, patience, ambition, magnanimity, magnificence, and liberality (Adams 67). The cardinal vices are pride, lust, envy, gluttony, anger, sloth and pride. This paper examines the disadvantages and advantages of the virtue ethics theory.
Aristotle believed that virtues are acquired through habituation. Virtues are subject to dispositions where a disposition is defined as a property that results only under certain conditions. This property is influenced by emotions which guide us to respond to the prevailing circumstances. According to Irwin (26) Aristotle also believed that virtues are mean. In this regard, virtuous actions lie between two alternative actions which are classified as excessive and deficient. For instance, courage lies between cowardice and rashness while truthfulness lies between understatement and boastfulness.
Following these observations, it is right to say that in Aristotle’s view, virtues are dispositions that human beings should display depending on the prevailing circumstances. At the same time, just like other living things, the function of the human beings is to live according to reason (Rachels 59). The concept is what Aristotle referred to as the eudaimonia. The term also refers to a fulfilled life or happiness. It is the goal of each person to live a happy life and happiness can only derived from performing virtuous acts. However, in modern times, the concept of eudaimonia is now referred to as human flourishing. Unfortunately, most people define good life as life as full of pleasure, and self gratification.
Virtue ethics purposes to create good human beings rather than promote good acts or rules. In particular, it offers a natural and attractive account of moral motivation. Remember duty and utility are poor explanations of human interaction. This is because carrying out an action as a duty is completely impersonal. In addition, the sense of duty encourages human beings to behave in an inhuman manner as such the agents do not factor in the feelings of others.
When it comes to utility, behaviour that is based on utility does not foster relationships between human beings. Moreover, behaviour based on utility does not take into accounts the feelings of others, rather it emphasizes on an idealized form of happiness. In contrast, by avoiding a distinct formula, virtue ethics theory encourages human beings to become good people. Other advantages of virtue ethics are discussed below.
The ideal of impartiality
Human beings cannot be impartial especially when family members and friends are concerned. In many instances, the love of family members and friends becomes inescapable. On this account, virtue ethics does not emphasize on impartiality unlike other theories.
Unifying reason and emotions
Aristotle observed that human beings have the ability to reason and this ability sets them apart from the other living creatures. Indeed, human beings have the ability to recognize ends and thus can choose an action that will lead to a good end when faced with two options. At the same time, human beings have emotions that inform their judgements. It is not enough to follow rules and regulations irrespective of internal emotions and feelings. This position, which is held by the virtue theory, conflicts with Kant’s view that human beings should act from duty even if they are not disposed to do so. Following Kant’s view it is possible for human beings to choose the right actions, but they may not live good lives besides not developing virtuous characteristics.
Emphasizes moderation
Unlike other theories, the virtue ethics theory does not prescribe to rigid rules and principles of behaviour. Instead, it is based on moral virtues which is a mean between extremes. For instance pride is considered as an average midpoint between vanity and selling yourself short. At the same time, the theory resolves conflict between two absolute duties. For instance, when faced by a mad axe-man demanding his children, a virtuous agent will make a reasonable choice.
Besides displaying moderation, virtue ethics prescribes to situational relativism whereby wrong or right is based on the particular situation. This concept makes the theory more practical because no particular action is ever correct and it provides complete solution to our everyday moral problems. Its flexibility and no-dogmatic approach also resolves disagreements arising from other theories.
Disadvantages
It is not action-guiding
A common manifestation of virtue is an organization’s ‘statement of values’. These values are important to an organization. However, the theory relies on contingencies or variable circumstances. Consequently, it fails to provide clear guidelines on how people ought to behave.
Incompleteness
It has been suggested that virtue ethics theory fails to give a good account of right action. That is why the virtue theory is considered as an adjunct to theories of right action. As a result of its incompleteness, it does may not offer any solution to specific moral dilemmas. The incompleteness of the virtue ethics theory results from concentrating too much on the moral agent.
However, according to Adams (78) even through virtue ethics theory is incomplete, the normative theories too have limitations. For instance, the utilitarianism fails to consider the agent and distinguish the different motives for action. On the other hand, deontological theories are too rigid.
Is selfish
As earlier indicated, the theory emphasizes on reason and emotions. For instance, when faced by a mad axe-man demanding his children, a virtuous character does not give priority to the feelings of the man but the safety of his children. That is why the theory is considered to be selfish in that it sometimes disregards the feelings of other people.
Morals are not natural
Brady (90) posits that an action is right if and only if it is what a virtuous agent would do in the circumstances. This definition is very subjective rather than objective. For instance, soldiers fighting are considered courageous but that doe not make them morally good. In any case, not all human beings have the opportunity to develop morally and so it becomes hard to judge them.
What is virtue and what constitutes the virtues?
The idea of moderation is not applicable in all situations. For instance compassion does not have an extreme vice. More so, it is also sometimes to identify where the mean lies. This position is supported by Hursthouse (1999) who argues that the definition of what is virtuous is ambiguous.
The ambiguity of the virtues ethics theory can be examined through cultural relativism. Different cultures have different moral codes and is also becomes hard to justify whether an action is right or wrong. In addition, virtues ethics does not produce codified principles and so its applicability in the society becomes rather limited. Brady (2005) suggests the problem results from its agent-centred approach rather than embracing the act-centred perspective. Failure to direct what human beings are expected to do leaves room for uncertainty. A case in point, virtue ethics do not subscribe to basic concepts such as rights and obligations. In such a case, it becomes hard to come up with absolute virtues that can be cultivated in the society. At the same time, the theory does explain why human beings should prefer certain ideals to others.
In sum, according to the virtue ethics theory, a moral agent should display an appropriate emotional response depending on the situation at hand. Aristotle observed that virtues are acquired through habituation and disposition. However, the fact that theory does not prescribe to absolute rules creates room for ambiguity and uncertainty. Because it does not have codified principles, it is hard to implement it in the society as it does not offer guidance on how human beings should behave. On the positive side, ethics virtue is moderate and it unifies reason and emotions. Due to its flexibility, the theory provides impartial and practical solutions to some of the moral dilemmas that cannot be solved by other alternative theories.
Works Cited
Adams, Robert Merihew. A Theory of Virtue. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006
Brady, Michael. “The Value of the Virtues”. Philosophical Studies, 125(2005): 85–144.
Hursthouse, Rosalind. On Virtue Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999
Irwin, Terence. Nicomachean ethics. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, 1999
Rachels, James. The elements of moral philosophy. McGraw-Hill, 1999
Does Congress have the power to force people to buy health insurance
Name
Course
Course instructor
Date
Does Congress have the power to force people to buy health insurance?
Constitutionality of the citizens’ obligation to buy healthcare insurance has widely been highly contentious in the recent past. Every American resident is mandated by the Congress to have health insurance either through Medicare, Medicaid or employer provided insurance. There is also another option for paying for personal insurance. The law imposes heavy penalty through income tax for Americans without health insurance. It is argued by the proponents that this mandate will act as a tradeoff aimed at decreasing the cost of healthcare policies nationally as well as offering cheap coverage for individuals who previously had medical conditions.
Congress deem it important for individuals to buy insurance policies they may not want as a way of paying for the near universal healthcare coverage by regarding citizens as part of the risk pool by contributing their premiums yet it is unconstitutional.
The commercial clause, tax clause as well as the “necessary and proper” clause are purported to be supporting the healthcare mandate.it is worth noting that Congress’s authority to make laws is limited by the constitution but the question remains whether the same constitution allows Congress to pass the health insurance bill. According to Robinson it is indeed true that the commerce clause empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce but any attempt to expand this clause may be summed up as an economic activity (Web). The power circles around operating business or consumption of products and therefore failure to buy the health insurance cannot be termed as either commerce or an interstate activity. It is important to note that by refusing to purchase the health insurance as stipulated by the Congress, an individual does not go against commerce or interstate activity that would perhaps made it constitutional because there is no commerce taking place. The congress does have structural limits to her power because inaction to the individual mandate does not have economic effect.
Also, there is the tax clause which gives federal government power to tax the public but does not allow the congress to use the law in raising revenues. Congress cannot singularly use tax to control a particular conduct if it cannot use both constitutional and the commerce clauses. Most of the opponents of the individual mandate believe that the action is “commandeering” of the American people by forcing the U.S citizens to purchase a product that is profoundly regulated by the federal government. However, the proponents argue that the federal government has long been using tax money to subsidize various services thus disregarding the individual mandate as a good idea (Robinson Web).
Nevertheless, there are some advantages that can be accrued from the individual mandate such as the fact that it will be universally applicable. It is actually very right that every individual would receive medical attention from any point even during emergency cases. Unpredictability of health needs is well taken into consideration by the congress move but, in essence, this shifts focus from health insurance to health care thus making the argument off the topic. According to Robinson the defenders strongly believe that because health is an important thing in one’s life, the individual mandate is very essential (Web). Additionally, the protectors of the bill argue that health care is a bit different because sometimes, health care providers normally offer emergency services too uninsured. It therefore seems that if an insurance policy is not bought then the insurance firms may undergo adversarial economic effects.
Looking at the tax clause, the Federal government’s argument appears to have a lot of flaws. The government tries to convince Americans that it is not confining people’s rights but rather a tax like any other tax where violators are compelled to pay fine. The government puts it clear that it will not charge people who refuse to buy the insurance as guilty of crime. Instead, if an individual’s tax refund is due, the government will only withhold money from the refund. Robinson says that proponents also argue that the individual mandate would enforce controls that strike down preexisting condition clauses which is derived from the necessary and proper Clause principle (Web). This necessary and proper clause doctrine empowers the congress to do much in terms of noon economic activity. Some proponents also feel that Congress has all the powers to regulate one’s decisions because failure to do so may interfere with their (Congress) ability to control the overall commerce related to the health insurance.
Looking at the discussion, it is very likely that the Congress do not have power to compel American citizens to buy health insurance. All the economic and non-economic clauses do not seem to empower the Congress to make such kind of laws. Failure to buy the health insurance policy cannot be interpreted to be either commerce or an interstate activity. It is evident that even when Congress’s commerce authority is viewed expansively, the healthcare mandate does not fall within their power.
Works Cited
Robinson, Mark. Is Congress exempted from Obamacare? Factchecker, 28 Sep. 2013. Web. 8 Nov. 2013. <http://blogs.rgj.com/factchecker/2013/09/28/is-congress-exempted-from-obamacare/>.