Private Prisons And Its Effects On The United States

This is a relatively new industry and it is startling to imagine how much power they will have in another 30-40 years. They have already managed to manipulate the fourth amendment. At this rate, your simple municipal violation might turn into an arrest record in the future. One possible sign of things to come happened with a Texas man, Jory Enck. He was thrown in jail for allegedly not returning a GED study guide to the public library. The non-profit public interest group, PR Watch, reported in 2012 about a foreboding incident in which CCA had participated in drug raids of an Arizona high school. The local police were provided with drug sniffing dogs by CCA. The school went into a prison style â€Å"lockdown† in which students were forced to line up against the wall and were not allowed to leave the building. This is part of a theme in which private prisons are specifically targeting adolescents to fill their juvenile facilities. There was a perfect example of this corruption with a scandal labeled as â€Å"cash for kids† by the media. Two Pennsylvania judges had accepted approximately $2.6 million in bribes from private juvenile detention centers. In return, those judges increased the number of youths in their facilities by convicting teens for minor offenses that normally would have been thrown out of court. One example was a 15 year old with no prior indiscretions, who spent three months in a boo t camp because she had created a MySpace page which mocked her high school sShow MoreRelatedPrivate Prison And Its Effects On The United States1284 Words   |  6 PagesLobbying As previously stated, private prison companies have to rely on the big prison population in order for them to make money because he main concern of these private corporations that run these facilities is money. Due to this, these companies will do whatever it takes to make sure the prison population increases so they can keep making money. Therefore, the private prison companies will lobby for laws to boost the prison population. Due to this financial motive they will do whatever it takesRead MoreDefining Accreditation675 Words   |  3 Pagessystem in which correctional agencies must comply with under the American Correctional Association. Privatization brings about competition between prisons and jails in the community. As a result, prisons and jails are encouraged to make improvements as deemed necessary. In addition to affecting prisons and jails, accreditation and privatization also has an effect on the professional development of corrections officers. In recent years, the correctional administration has become quite familiar with accreditationRead MoreThe Growing Prison Industrial Complex1700 Words   |  7 Pages The growing Prison Industrial Complex is an intricate web of profit-maximizing business endeavors at the expense of the livelihood of people of color in the continental United States and abroad. With immigration from Mexico and Latin America increasing each year and definitions of who is â€Å"legal† becoming more constricting as the Obama administration cracking down on illegal border crossing, undocumented immigrants are the fastest growing prison population. This research projects aims to look howRead MorePrivatization of American Prisons1661 Words   |  7 Pagesrunning prisons out of the hands of state and federal authorities and contracting it out to private organizations. Along with the drift to privatization is a plethora of research pertaining to the subject taking many different approaches to analyzing the effectiveness. The majority of research focuses on one of three areas. The first questioning whether or not it is cost effective to make the switch. The second being the ethical problems that can and have risen from the privatization of prisons. TheRead MoreThe Incarceration Of The United States1519 Words   |  7 Pagesin recent decades, violent crimes in the United States of America have been on a steady decline, however, the number of people in the United States under some form of correctional control is reaching towering heights and reaching record proportions. In the last thirty years, the incarceration rates in the Unite d States has skyrocketed; the numbers roughly quadrupled from around five hundred thousand to more than 2 million people. (NAACP)In a speech on criminal justice at Columbia University, HillaryRead MorePrivatization Within The Criminal Justice System Essay1510 Words   |  7 Pages The United States has an incarceration problem that personifies issues throughout the entire criminal justice system. The United States, with just 5 percent of the world s population, currently holds 25 percent of the world s prisoners (Khalek). This issue runs deeper than just incarceration; it permeates every level of the criminal justice system, from incarceration to probation. Many states have turned to private institutions in an attempt shed operating costs, while also increasing effectivenessRead MoreAmeric Land Of The Incarcerated1296 Words   |  6 Pagesthe poem The Star Spangled Banner after witnessing the attack on Fort McHenry by the British Royal Navy in the War of 1812. The poem was sang to the tune of a well-known British song and eventually, Key’s once amateur patriotic poem became the United States national anthem in which the lyrics strongly symbolize our country’s perseverance and freedom. The Star Spangled Banner can be heard at a variety gathering s such as official military functions and sporting events where celebrity singers oftenRead MoreMass Incarceration Of The United States1417 Words   |  6 Pagesleap in time typically served for crimes in America’s society? Either the justice system was too lenient in the past, or the justice system is too strict now. Have we just now realized the real gravity of murder, or are we now overreacting? The United States currently over-incarcerates its citizens, prisoners have become part of the economy, manufacturing and assembling products for major corporations. Based on the research, it would be unethical to continue a trend of mass incarceration when the conditionsRead MorePrison Overcrowding : The United States1535 Words   |  7 Pages 2017 Prison Overcrowding The United States has the highest number of incarcerated individuals than other countries. Offenders are arrested every day for minor and major offences such as murder. America is hard on crime. When someone breaks the law the criminal justice’s system seeks an eye for an eye. Prison overcrowding has become a major problem in the United States, it is very expensive to house an inmate and there are other methods to punish offenders without sending them to prison for extendedRead MoreThe Prison Industrial Complex Is The Economic Interrelation Between Private Prisons And Various Public1748 Words   |  7 PagesThe prison-industrial complex is the economic interrelation between private prisons and various public and private job sectors that have become dependent on the expansion of the private prison system. A partial list of these sectors includes construction, pharmaceuticals, and law enforcement, including probation and parole. The prison-industrial complex also runs a cheap inmate labor force for various corporations. Approximately 2,266,800 adults are currently imprisoned in America. In addition to

Essay Readers Sympathies in Mary Shelleys Frankenstein

Readers Sympathies in Mary Shelleys Frankenstein Frankenstein a gothic horror, written by Mary Shelley in 1818, can be interpreted as a subtle autobiography; whose narrative reflects on the characters throughout the story. It was written at the time where the Romantic period replaced the age of reason, the time where dreams and ideas replaced logic and science. The two main characters in the story, Victor and the monster are used as metaphors for this. Shelley uses them to make social and personal comments about the time when the book was written. Shellys mother died only nine days after her birth. At the beginning of the novel, Victors mother dies and Safia also has no mother. Waltons diary†¦show more content†¦Victors parents bestowed love and affection on him. By the end of the novel, Victor is considered to be a bad person who lacks human qualities. This quote does not relate to Shellys childhood, as she did not have a happy one as it was plagued with misery. The monster however brought himself into the world by nature. After Victor deserted him immediately after his creation the monster was left to look after himself. Unlike Victor he was shown no examples or given any rules. Part of the debate at the time the novel was written was which was better: nature or nurture. After being abandoned by Victor and rejected by society, the monster flees to the woods and brings himself up by learning from nature the elements, senses and English language: I found a fire and was overcome with delight at the warmth I experienced from it. In my joy I thrust my hand into the live embers, but quickly withdrew it again with a cry of pain As the monster had no one to teach him he did not know about fire and was surprised when it burnt him; he learnt from nature. At first, the monsterShow MoreRelatedSympathy And Sympathy In Frankenstein1525 Words   |  7 PagesTo be able to feel sympathy, humans first must be able to read into and understand another’s emotions. Mary Shelley uses this human aspect in her novel Frankenstein, as readers’ emotions are played. Set in the early 1900s, the novel is a recount of Victor Frankenstein’s life as he tells it to Robert Walter, a man leading an exploration to the North Pole. Frankenstein starts his narrative explaining how he was a very curious child, and eventually went off to college and conducted an experiment onRead MoreAnalysis Of Mary Shelley s Frankenstein 1589 Words   |  7 PagesExtended Response (Q2) - Frankenstein By Mary Shelley Rachel .Corrie The perspective, from which a story is told, causes an influential response from readers to certain issues, characters and conflicts that are found in literary texts. Mary Shelley’s gothic novel, Frankenstein, was published in 1818 and tells the story of a scientist known as Victor Frankenstein who reanimates life in an unethical science experiment. In this novel Walton, Victor and the creature tell their sideRead MoreMary Shelley s Use Of Point Of View1467 Words   |  6 PagesJoyner English IV Honors 17 December 2015 Mary Shelley’s Use of Point of View Mary Shelley uses point of view in Frankenstein to naturally develop her reader’s opinions and feelings in regards to her characters. Shelley forms her own Chinese Box structure along with a frame narrative stirred together to give the nature of stories within stories in a completely unique way (Narrative Technique in Frankenstein). When Shelley’s readers interpret Frankenstein, they tend to have mixed feelings when viewingRead More Comparison between Characters of Frankenstein Essay1513 Words   |  7 Pagesbetween Characters of Frankenstein      Ã‚  Ã‚   In Frankenstein, Mary Shelley combines three separate stories involving three different characters--Walton, Victor, and Frankensteins monster. Though the reader is hearing the stories through Waltons perspective, Walton strives for accuracy in relating the details, as he says, I have resolved every night,...to record, as nearly as possible in his [Victors] own words, what he has related during the day (Shelley 37). Shelleys shift in point of viewRead MoreIn The Year Of 1818, Author Mary Shelley Published A Novel1568 Words   |  7 PagesIn the year of 1818, author Mary Shelley published a novel that depicted a concept nobody has ever seen before. The novel of Frankenstein is well known for its association with mystery, evil, and romanticism but the question many people ask is, why is it still relevant after all of these years? Frankenstein is a fictional story and is known as â€Å"The Modern Prometheus†. In Greek mythology, a titan named Prometheus stole fire fr om the Gods and gave it to mankind. Being that, Victor is compared to theRead More Is Frankenstein a Creature or Monster? Essay2170 Words   |  9 PagesIs Frankenstein a Creature or Monster? Whether Frankensteins creation is a creature or indeed a monster is a key factor of the novel as a whole. Mary Shelley successfully uses language to create and manipulate the readers opinion of this nameless creation. Frankenstein is from a well respected and well educated family; my family is one of the most distinguished of that republic. This immediately gives the reader the impression that he will be a benevolent character. The reader feelsRead MoreAnalysis of Mary Shelleys Frankenstein Essay1720 Words   |  7 PagesAnalysis of Mary Shelleys Frankenstein Analyzing a book can be a killer. Especially when it contains tons of subtle little messages and hints that are not picked up unless one really dissects the material. Mary Shelleys Frankenstein is a prime example. It is analyzed by scholars all the time because of the subtle messages it sends through its themes, one of which needs to be discussed that is called Romanticism. Romanticism dealt with simplifying things as a break from the previous age whichRead MoreMary Shelley s `` Golden ``1339 Words   |  6 PagesMary Shelley’s â€Å"Golden† Trio Many deem multi-narrative stories a novelty, and difficult to pull off without sounding kitschy or clichà ©. This is not so in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. The book includes both a framing device (a story within a story) and epistolary narration (a story told through someone reading or hearing it.) Yet, the effect that comes with these strategies of narration is quite different from the boy/girl chapter switch we see so often in modern literature. Each of the three narratorsRead MoreSigmund Freud s Frankenstein 1299 Words   |  6 Pagesrelation of the uncanny to May Shelley’s Frankenstein, the monster that was created by the character named Victor Frankenstein was greeted with fear by the people he meets. The monster’s treatment of fear put him under the category of Sigmund Freud’s The Uncanny. we see a point of commonality where the relation of the Freudian theory and Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein is implying towards to each other. This implicati on reveals The Uncanny and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein to fear itself as it shows theRead MoreCompare and contrast the Frankenstein novel and Coleridges rime of the ancient mariner in terms of narrative voice, theme and literary techniques1558 Words   |  7 PagesMary Shelley and Samuel Taylor Coleridge are two established writers of the Romantic era. Works by both writers are unique in many ways. The profound influence of Coleridges The Rime of the Ancyent Marinere is reflected in Shellys Frankenstein in terms of narrative structure, themes and literary techniques. This essay will compare and contrast the Frankenstein extract and the poem, The Rime of the Ancyent Marinere in three aspects, namely the narrating voice, the themes and the literary

Egoism and Altruism free essay sample

The term â€Å"meta† means after or beyond, and, consequently, the notion of metaethics involves a removed, or bird’s eye view of the entire project of ethics. We may define metaethics as the study of the origin and meaning of ethical concepts. When compared to normative ethics and applied ethics, the field of metaethics is the least precisely defined area of moral philosophy. It covers issues from moral semantics to moral epistemology[-gt;0]. Two issues, though, are prominent: (1) metaphysical issues concerning whether morality exists independently of humans, and (2) psychological issues concerning the underlying mental basis of our moral judgments and conduct. a. Metaphysical Issues: Objectivism and Relativism Metaphysics is the study of the kinds of things that exist in the universe. Some things in the universe are made of physical stuff, such as rocks; and perhaps other things are nonphysical in nature, such as thoughts, spirits, and gods. The metaphysical component of metaethics involves discovering specifically whether moral values are eternal truths that exist in a spirit-like realm, or simply human conventions. There are two general directions that discussions of this topic take, one other-worldly and one this-worldly. Proponents of the other-worldly view typically hold that moral values are objective[-gt;1] in the sense that they exist in a spirit-like realm beyond subjective human conventions. They also hold that they are absolute, or eternal, in that they never change, and also that they are universal insofar as they apply to all rational creatures around the world and throughout time[-gt;2]. The most dramatic example of this view is Plato[-gt;3], who was inspired by the field of mathematics. When we look at numbers and mathematical relations, such as 1+1=2, they seem to be timeless concepts that never change, and apply everywhere in the universe. Humans do not invent numbers, and humans cannot alter them. Plato explained the eternal character of mathematics by stating that they are abstract entities that exist in a spirit-like realm. He noted that moral values also are absolute truths and thus are also abstract, spirit-like entities. In this sense, for Plato, moral values are spiritual objects. Medieval philosophers commonly grouped all moral principles together under the heading of â€Å"eternal law† which were also frequently seen as spirit-like objects. 17th century British philosopher Samuel Clarke described them as spirit-like relationships rather than spirit-like objects. In either case, though, they exist in a sprit-like realm. A different other-worldly approach to the metaphysical status of morality is divine commands issuing from God’s will. Sometimes called voluntarism (or divine command theory[-gt;4]), this view was inspired by the notion of an all-powerful God[-gt;5] who is in control of everything. God simply wills things, and they become reality. He wills the physical world into existence, he wills human life into existence and, similarly, he wills all moral values into existence. Proponents of this view, such as medieval philosopher William of Ockham[-gt;6], believe that God wills moral principles, such as â€Å"murder is wrong,† and these exist in God’s mind as commands. God informs humans of these commands by implanting us with moral intuitions or revealing these commands in scripture. The second and more this-worldly approach to the metaphysical status of morality follows in the skeptical philosophical tradition, such as that articulated by Greek philosopher Sextus Empiricus, and denies the objective status of moral values. Technically, skeptics did not reject moral values themselves, but only denied that values exist as spirit-like objects, or as divine commands in the mind of God. Moral values, they argued, are strictly human inventions, a position that has since been called moral relativism[-gt;7]. There are two distinct forms of moral relativism. The first is individual relativism, which holds that individual people create their own moral standards. Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, argued that the superhuman creates his or her morality distinct from and in reaction to the slave-like value system of the masses. The second is cultural relativism which maintains that morality is grounded in the approval of one’s society – and not simply in the preferences of individual people. This view was advocated by Sextus, and in more recent centuries by Michel Montaigne and William Graham Sumner. In addition to espousing skepticism and relativism, this-worldly approaches to the metaphysical status of morality deny the absolute and universal nature of morality and hold instead that moral values in fact change from society to society throughout time and throughout the world. They frequently attempt to defend their position by citing examples of values that differ dramatically from one culture to another, such as attitudes about polygamy, homosexuality and human sacrifice. b. Psychological Issues in Metaethics A second area of metaethics involves the psychological basis of our moral judgments and conduct, particularly understanding what motivates us to be moral. We might explore this subject by asking the simple question, â€Å"Why be moral? † Even if I am aware of basic moral standards, such as don’t kill and don’t steal, this does not necessarily mean that I will be psychologically compelled to act on them. Some answers to the question â€Å"Why be moral? † are to avoid punishment, to gain praise[-gt;8], to attain happiness, to be dignified, or to fit in with society. i. Egoism and Altruism One important area of moral psychology concerns the inherent selfishness of humans. 17th century British philosopher Thomas Hobbes[-gt;9] held that many, if not all, of our actions are prompted by selfish desires. Even if an action seems selfless, such as donating to charity, there are still selfish causes for this, such as experiencing power over other people. This view is called psychological egoism[-gt;10] and maintains that self-oriented interests ultimately motivate all human actions. Closely related to psychological egoism is a view called psychological hedonism which is the view that pleasure is the specific driving force behind all of our actions. 18th century British philosopher Joseph Butler[-gt;11] agreed that instinctive selfishness and pleasure prompt much of our conduct. However, Butler argued that we also have an inherent psychological capacity to show benevolence to others. This view is called psychological altruism and maintains that at least some of our actions are motivated by instinctive benevolence. ii. Emotion and Reason A second area of moral psychology involves a dispute concerning the role of reason in motivating moral actions. If, for example, I make the statement â€Å"abortion is morally wrong,† am I making a rational assessment or only expressing my feelings? On the one side of the dispute, 18th century British philosopher David Hume[-gt;12] argued that moral assessments involve our emotions, and not our reason. We can amass all the reasons we want, but that alone will not constitute a moral assessment. We need a distinctly emotional reaction in order to make a moral pronouncement. Reason might be of service in giving us the relevant data, but, in Hume’s words, â€Å"reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions. † Inspired by Hume’s anti-rationalist views, some 20th century philosophers, most notably A. J. Ayer, similarly denied that moral assessments are factual descriptions. For example, although the statement â€Å"it is good to donate to charity† may on the surface look as though it is a factual description about charity, it is not. Instead, a moral utterance like this involves two things. First, I (the speaker) I am expressing my personal feelings of approval about charitable donations and I am in essence saying â€Å"Hooray for charity! † This is called the emotive element insofar as I am expressing my emotions about some specific behavior. Second, I (the speaker) am trying to get you to donate to charity and am essentially giving the command, â€Å"Donate to charity! † This is called the prescriptive element in the sense that I am prescribing some specific behavior. From Hume’s day forward, more rationally-minded philosophers have opposed these emotive theories of ethics (see non-cognitivism in ethics[-gt;13]) and instead argued that moral assessments are indeed acts of reason. 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant[-gt;14] is a case in point. Although emotional factors often do influence our conduct, he argued, we should nevertheless resist that kind of sway. Instead, true moral action is motivated only by reason when it is free from emotions and desires. A recent rationalist approach, offered by Kurt Baier (1958), was proposed in direct opposition to the emotivist and prescriptivist theories of Ayer and others. Baier focuses more broadly on the reasoning and argumentation process that takes place when making moral choices. All of our moral choices are, or at least can be, backed by some reason or justification. If I claim that it is wrong to steal someone’s car, then I should be able to justify my claim with some kind of argument. For example, I could argue that stealing Smith’s car is wrong since this would upset her, violate her ownership rights, or put the thief at risk of getting caught. According to Baier, then, proper moral decision making involves giving the best reasons in support of one course of action versus another. iii. Male and Female Morality A third area of moral psychology focuses on whether there is a distinctly female approach to ethics that is grounded in the psychological differences between men and women. Discussions of this issue focus on two claims: (1) traditional morality is male-centered, and (2) there is a unique female perspective of the world which can be shaped into a value theory. According to many feminist philosophers, traditional morality is male-centered since it is modeled after practices that have been traditionally male-dominated, such as acquiring property, engaging in business contracts, and governing societies. The rigid systems of rules required for trade and government were then taken as models for the creation of equally rigid systems of moral rules, such as lists of rights and duties. Women, by contrast, have traditionally had a nurturing role by raising children and overseeing domestic life. These tasks require less rule following, and more spontaneous and creative action. Using the woman’s experience as a model for moral theory, then, the basis of morality would be spontaneously caring for others as would be appropriate in each unique circumstance. On this model, the agent becomes part of the situation and acts caringly within that context. This stands in contrast with male-modeled morality where the agent is a mechanical actor who performs his required duty, but can remain distanced from and unaffected by the situation. A care-based approach to morality, as it is sometimes called, is offered by feminist ethicists as either a replacement for or a supplement to traditional male-modeled moral systems. . Normative Ethics Normative ethics involves arriving at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. In a sense, it is a search for an ideal litmus test of proper behavior. The Golden Rule is a classic example of a normative principle: We should do to others what we would want others to do to us. Since I do not want my neighbor to steal m y car, then it is wrong for me to steal her car. Since I would want people to feed me if I was starving, then I should help feed starving people. Using this same reasoning, I can theoretically determine whether any possible action is right or wrong. So, based on the Golden Rule, it would also be wrong for me to lie to, harass, victimize, assault, or kill others. The Golden Rule is an example of a normative theory that establishes a single principle against which we judge all actions. Other normative theories focus on a set of foundational principles, or a set of good character traits. The key assumption in normative ethics is that there is only one ultimate criterion of moral conduct, whether it is a single rule or a set of principles. Three strategies will be noted here: (1) virtue theories, (2) duty theories, and (3) consequentialist theories. . Virtue Theories Many philosophers believe that morality consists of following precisely defined rules of conduct, such as â€Å"don’t kill,† or â€Å"don’t steal. † Presumably, I must learn these rules, and then make sure each of my actions live up to the rules. Virtue ethics[-gt;15], however, places less emphasis on learning rules, and instead stresses the importance of developing good habits of character, such as benevolence (see moral character[-gt;16]). Once I’ve acquired benevolence, for example, I will then habitually act in a benevolent manner. Historically, virtue theory is one of the oldest normative traditions in Western philosophy, having its roots in ancient Greek civilization. Plato emphasized four virtues in particular, which were later called cardinal virtues: wisdom, courage, temperance and justice. Other important virtues are fortitude, generosity, self-respect, good temper, and sincerity. In addition to advocating good habits of character, virtue theorists hold that we should avoid acquiring bad character traits, or vices, such as cowardice, insensibility, injustice, and vanity. Virtue theory emphasizes moral education since virtuous character traits are developed in one’s youth. Adults, therefore, are responsible for instilling virtues in the young. Aristotle[-gt;17] argued that virtues are good habits that we acquire, which regulate our emotions. For example, in response to my natural feelings of fear, I should develop the virtue of courage which allows me to be firm when facing danger. Analyzing 11 specific virtues, Aristotle argued that most virtues fall at a mean between more extreme character traits. With courage, for example, if I do not have enough courage, I develop the disposition of cowardice, which is a vice. If I have too much courage I develop the disposition of rashness which is also a vice. According to Aristotle, it is not an easy task to find the perfect mean between extreme character traits. In fact, we need assistance from our reason to do this. After Aristotle, medieval theologians supplemented Greek lists of virtues with three Christian ones, or theological virtues: faith, hope, and charity. Interest in virtue theory continued through the middle ages and declined in the 19th century with the rise of alternative moral theories below. In the mid 20th century virtue theory received special attention from philosophers who believed that more recent approaches ethical theories were misguided for focusing too heavily on rules and actions, rather than on virtuous character traits. Alasdaire MacIntyre (1984) defended the central role of virtues in moral theory and argued that virtues are grounded in and emerge from within social traditions. . Duty Theories Many of us feel that there are clear obligations we have as human beings, such as to care for our children, and to not commit murder. Duty theories base morality on specific, foundational principles of obligation. These theories are sometimes called deontological, from the Greek word deon, or duty, in view of the foundational nature of our duty or obligation. They are also sometimes called nonconsequentialist since these princi ples are obligatory, irrespective of the consequences that might follow from our actions. For example, it is wrong to not care for our children even if it results in some great benefit, such as financial savings. There are four central duty theories. The first is that championed by 17th century German philosopher Samuel Pufendorf, who classified dozens of duties under three headings: duties to God, duties to oneself, and duties to others. Concerning our duties towards God, he argued that there are two kinds: a theoretical duty to know the existence and nature of God, and a practical duty to both inwardly and outwardly worship God. Concerning our duties towards oneself, these are also of two sorts: duties of the soul, which involve developing one’s skills and talents, and duties of the body, which involve not harming our bodies, as we might through gluttony or drunkenness, and not killing oneself. Concerning our duties towards others, Pufendorf divides these between absolute duties, which are universally binding on people, and conditional duties, which are the result of contracts between people. Absolute duties are of three sorts: avoid wronging others, treat people as equals, and romote the good of others. Conditional duties involve various types of agreements, the principal one of which is the duty is to keep one’s promises. A second duty-based approach to ethics is rights theory. Most generally, a â€Å"right† is a justified claim against another person’s behavior – such as my right to not be harmed by you (see also human rights[-gt;18]). Rights and duties are related in su ch a way that the rights of one person implies the duties of another person. For example, if I have a right to payment of $10 by Smith, then Smith has a duty to pay me $10. This is called the correlativity of rights and duties. The most influential early account of rights theory is that of 17th century British philosopher John Locke[-gt;19], who argued that the laws of nature mandate that we should not harm anyone’s life, health, liberty or possessions. For Locke, these are our natural rights, given to us by God. Following Locke, the United States Declaration of Independence authored by Thomas Jefferson recognizes three foundational rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson and others rights theorists maintained that we deduce other more specific rights from these, including the rights of property, movement, speech, and religious expression. There are four features traditionally associated with moral rights. First, rights are natural insofar as they are not invented or created by governments. Second, they are universal insofar as they do not change from country to country. Third, they are equal in the sense that rights are the same for all people, irrespective of gender, race, or handicap. Fourth, they are inalienable which means that I ca not hand over my rights to another person, such as by selling myself into slavery. A third duty-based theory is that by Kant, which emphasizes a single principle of duty. Influenced by Pufendorf, Kant agreed that we have moral duties to oneself and others, such as developing one’s talents, and keeping our promises to others. However, Kant argued that there is a more foundational principle of duty that encompasses our particular duties. It is a single, self-evident principle of reason that he calls the â€Å"categorical imperative. A categorical imperative, he argued, is fundamentally different from hypothetical imperatives that hinge on some personal desire that we have, for example, â€Å"If you want to get a good job, then you ought to go to college. † By contrast, a categorical imperative simply mandates an action, irrespective of one’s personal desires, such as â€Å"You ought to do X. † Kant gives at least four versions of the categorical imperative, but one is especially direct: Treat people as an end, and never as a means to an end. That is, we should always treat people with dignity, nd never use them as mere instruments. For Kant, we treat people as an end whenever our actions toward someone reflect the inherent value of that person. Donating to charity, for example, is morally correct since this acknowledges the inherent value of the recipient. By contrast, we treat someone as a means to an end whenever we treat that person as a tool to achieve something else. It is wrong, for ex ample, to steal my neighbor’s car since I would be treating her as a means to my own happiness. The categorical imperative also regulates the morality of actions that affect us individually. Suicide, for example, would be wrong since I would be treating my life as a means to the alleviation of my misery. Kant believes that the morality of all actions can be determined by appealing to this single principle of duty. A fourth and more recent duty-based theory is that by British philosopher W. D. Ross, which emphasizes prima facie duties. Like his 17th and 18th century counterparts, Ross argues that our duties are â€Å"part of the fundamental nature of the universe. † However, Ross’s list of duties is much shorter, which he believes reflects our actual moral convictions:  ·Fidelity: the duty to keep promises Reparation: the duty to compensate others when we harm them  ·Gratitude: the duty to thank those who help us  ·Justice: the duty to recognize merit  ·Beneficence: the duty to improve the conditions of others  ·Self-improvement: the duty to improve our virtue and intelligence  ·Nonmaleficence: the duty to not injure others Ross recognizes that s ituations will arise when we must choose between two conflicting duties. In a classic example, suppose I borrow my neighbor’s gun and promise to return it when he asks for it. One day, in a fit of rage, my neighbor pounds on my door and asks for the gun so that he can take vengeance on someone. On the one hand, the duty of fidelity obligates me to return the gun; on the other hand, the duty of nonmaleficence obligates me to avoid injuring others and thus not return the gun. According to Ross, I will intuitively know which of these duties is my actual duty, and which is my apparent or prima facie duty. In this case, my duty of nonmaleficence emerges as my actual duty and I should not return the gun. c. Consequentialist Theories It is common for us to determine our moral responsibility by weighing the consequences of our actions. According to consequentialism[-gt;20], correct moral conduct is determined solely by a cost-benefit analysis of an action’s consequences: Consequentialism: An action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable. Consequentialist normative principles require that we first tally both the good and bad consequences of an action. Second, we then determine whether the total good consequences outweigh the total bad consequences. If the good consequences are greater, then the action is morally proper. If the bad consequences are greater, then the action is morally improper. Consequentialist theories are sometimes called teleological theories, from the Greek word telos, or end, since the end result of the action is the sole determining factor of its morality. Consequentialist theories became popular in the 18th century by philosophers who wanted a quick way to morally assess an action by appealing to experience, rather than by appealing to gut intuitions or long lists of questionable duties. In fact, the most attractive feature of consequentialism is that it appeals to publicly observable consequences of actions. Most versions of consequentialism are more precisely formulated than the general principle above. In particular, competing consequentialist theories specify which consequences for affected groups of people are relevant. Three subdivisions of consequentialism emerge:  ·Ethical Egoism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable only to the agent performing the action.  ·Ethical Altruism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the agent. Utilitarianism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone. All three of these theories focus on the consequences of actions for different groups of people. But, like all normative theories, the above three theories are rivals of each other. They also yield different conclusions. Consider the following example. A woman was traveling through a developing country when she witnessed a car in front of her run off the road and roll over several times. She asked the hired driver to pull over to assist, but, to her surprise, the driver accelerated nervously past the scene. A few miles down the road the driver explained that in his country if someone assists an accident victim, then the police often hold the assisting person responsible for the accident itself. If the victim dies, then the assisting person could be held responsible for the death. The driver continued explaining that road accident victims are therefore usually left unattended and often die from exposure to the country’s harsh desert conditions. On the principle of ethical egoism[-gt;21], the woman in this illustration would only be concerned with the consequences of her attempted assistance as she would be affected. Clearly, the decision to drive on would be the morally proper choice. On the principle of ethical altruism, she would be concerned only with the consequences of her action as others are affected, particularly the accident victim. Tallying only those consequences reveals that assisting the victim would be the morally correct choice, irrespective of the negative consequences that result for her. On the principle of utilitarianism, she must consider the consequences for both herself and the victim. The outcome here is less clear, and the woman would need to precisely calculate the overall benefit versus disbenefit of her action. i. Types of Utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham[-gt;22] presented one of the earliest fully developed systems of utilitarianism. Two features of his theory are noteworty. First, Bentham proposed that we tally the consequences of each action we perform and thereby determine on a case by case basis whether an action is morally right or wrong. This aspect of Bentham’s theory is known as act-utilitiarianism. Second, Bentham also proposed that we tally the pleasure and pain which results from our actions. For Bentham, pleasure and pain are the only consequences that matter in determining whether our conduct is moral. This aspect of Bentham’s theory is known as hedonistic utilitarianism. Critics point out limitations in both of these aspects. First, according to act-utilitarianism, it would be morally wrong to waste time on leisure activities such as watching television, since our time could be spent in ways that produced a greater social benefit, such as charity work. But prohibiting leisure activities doesn’t seem reasonable. More significantly, according to act-utilitarianism, specific acts of torture or slavery would be morally permissible if the social benefit of these actions outweighed the disbenefit. A revised version of utilitarianism called rule-utilitarianism addresses these problems. According to rule-utilitarianism, a behavioral code or rule is morally right if the consequences of adopting that rule are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone. Unlike act utilitarianism, which weighs the consequences of each particular action, rule-utilitarianism offers a litmus test only for the morality of moral rules, such as â€Å"stealing is wrong. Adopting a rule against theft clearly has more favorable consequences than unfavorable consequences for everyone. The same is true for moral rules against lying or murdering. Rule-utilitarianism, then, offers a three-tiered method for judging conduct. A particular action, such as stealing my neighbor’s car, is judged wrong since it violates a moral ru le against theft. In turn, the rule against theft is morally binding because adopting this rule produces favorable consequences for everyone. John Stuart Mill’s version of utilitarianism is rule-oriented. Second, according to hedonistic utilitarianism, pleasurable consequences are the only factors that matter, morally speaking. This, though, seems too restrictive since it ignores other morally significant consequences that are not necessarily pleasing or painful. For example, acts which foster loyalty and friendship are valued, yet they are not always pleasing. In response to this problem, G. E. Moore [-gt;23]proposed ideal utilitarianism, which involves tallying any consequence that we intuitively recognize as good or bad (and not simply as pleasurable or painful). Also, R. M. Hare proposed preference utilitarianism, which involves tallying any consequence that fulfills our preferences. ii. Ethical Egoism and Social Contract Theory We have seen (in Section 1. b. i) that Hobbes was an advocate of the methaethical theory of psychological egoism—the view that all of our actions are selfishly motivated. Upon that foundation, Hobbes developed a normative theory known as social contract theory[-gt;24], which is a type of rule-ethical-egoism. According to Hobbes, for purely selfish reasons, the agent is better off living in a world with moral rules than one without moral rules. For without moral rules, we are subject to the whims of other people’s selfish interests. Our property, our families, and even our lives are at continual risk. Selfishness alone will therefore motivate each agent to adopt a basic set of rules which will allow for a civilized community. Not surprisingly, these rules would include prohibitions against lying, stealing and killing. However, these rules will ensure safety for each agent only if the rules are enforced. As selfish creatures, each of us would plunder our neighbors’ property once their guards were down. Each agent would then be at risk from his neighbor. Therefore, for selfish reasons alone, we devise a means of enforcing these rules: we create a policing agency which punishes us if we violate these rules. 3. Applied Ethics Applied ethics is the branch of ethics which consists of the analysis of specific, controversial moral issues such as abortion, animal rights, or euthanasia. In recent years applied ethical issues have been subdivided into convenient groups such as medical ethics, business ethics, environmental ethics[-gt;25], and sexual ethics[-gt;26]. Generally speaking, two features are necessary for an issue to be considered an â€Å"applied ethical issue. † First, the issue needs to be controversial in the sense that there are significant groups of people both for and against the issue at hand. The issue of drive-by shooting, for example, is not an applied ethical issue, since everyone agrees that this practice is grossly immoral. By contrast, the issue of gun control would be an applied ethical issue since there are significant groups of people both for and against gun control. The second requirement for an issue to be an applied ethical issue is that it must be a distinctly moral issue. On any given day, the media presents us with an array of sensitive issues such as affirmative action policies, gays in the military, involuntary commitment of the mentally impaired, capitalistic versus socialistic business practices, public versus private health care systems, or energy conservation. Although all of these issues are controversial and have an important impact on society, they are not all moral issues. Some are only issues of social policy. The aim of social policy is to help make a given society run efficiently by devising conventions, such as traffic laws, tax laws, and zoning codes. Moral issues, by contrast, concern more universally obligatory practices, such as our duty to avoid lying, and are not confined to individual societies. Frequently, issues of social policy and morality overlap, as with murder which is both socially prohibited and immoral. However, the two groups of issues are often distinct. For example, many people would argue that sexual promiscuity is mmoral, but may not feel that there should be social policies regulating sexual conduct, or laws punishing us for promiscuity. Similarly, some social policies forbid residents in certain neighborhoods from having yard sales. But, so long as the neighbors are not offended, there is nothing immoral in itself about a resident having a yard sale in one of these neighborhoods. Thus, to qualify as an applied ethical issue, the issue must be more than one of mer e social policy: it must be morally relevant as well. In theory, resolving particular applied ethical issues should be easy. With the issue of abortion, for example, we would simply determine its morality by consulting our normative principle of choice, such as act-utilitarianism. If a given abortion produces greater benefit than disbenefit, then, according to act-utilitarianism, it would be morally acceptable to have the abortion. Unfortunately, there are perhaps hundreds of rival normative principles from which to choose, many of which yield opposite conclusions. Thus, the stalemate in normative ethics between conflicting theories prevents us from using a single decisive procedure for determining the morality of a specific issue. The usual solution today to this stalemate is to consult several representative normative principles on a given issue and see where the weight of the evidence lies. a. Normative Principles in Applied Ethics Arriving at a short list of representative normative principles is itself a challenging task. The principles selected must not be too narrowly focused, such as a version of act-egoism that might focus only on an action’s short-term benefit. The principles must also be seen as having merit by people on both sides of an applied ethical issue. For this reason, principles that appeal to duty to God are not usually cited since this would have no impact on a nonbeliever engaged in the debate. The following principles are the ones most commonly appealed to in applied ethical discussions:  ·Personal benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial consequences for the individual in question.  ·Social benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial consequences for society.  ·Principle of benevolence: help those in need. Principle of paternalism: assist others in pursuing their best interests when they cannot do so themselves.  ·Principle of harm: do not harm others.  ·Principle of honesty: do not deceive others.  ·Principle of lawfulness: do not violate the law.  ·Principle of autonomy: acknowledge a person’s freedom over his/her actions or physical body.  ·Principle of justice: acknowledge a person’s right to due process, fair compensation for harm done , and fair distribution of benefits.  ·Rights: acknowledge a person’s rights to life, information, privacy, free expression, and safety. The above principles represent a spectrum of traditional normative principles and are derived from both consequentialist and duty-based approaches. The first two principles, personal benefit and social benefit, are consequentialist since they appeal to the consequences of an action as it affects the individual or society. The remaining principles are duty-based. The principles of benevolence, paternalism, harm, honesty, and lawfulness are based on duties we have toward others. The principles of autonomy, justice, and the various rights are based on moral rights. An example will help illustrate the function of these principles in an applied ethical discussion. In 1982, a couple from Bloomington, Indiana gave birth to a baby with severe mental and physical disabilities. Among other complications, the infant, known as Baby Doe, had its stomach disconnected from its throat and was thus unable to receive nourishment. Although this stomach deformity was correctable through surgery, the couple did not want to raise a severely disabled child and therefore chose to deny surgery, food, and water for the infant. Local courts supported the parents’ decision, and six days later Baby Doe died. Should corrective surgery have been performed for Baby Doe? Arguments in favor of corrective surgery derive from the infant’s right to life and the principle of paternalism which stipulates that we should pursue the best interests of others when they are incapable of doing so themselves. Arguments against corrective surgery derive from the personal and social disbenefit which would result from such surgery. If Baby Doe survived, its quality of life would have been poor and in any case it probably would have died at an early age. Also, from the parent’s perspective, Baby Doe’s survival would have been a significant emotional and financial burden. When examining both sides of the issue, the parents and the courts concluded that the arguments against surgery were stronger than the arguments for surgery. First, foregoing surgery appeared to be in the best interests of the infant, given the poor quality of life it would endure. Second, the status of Baby Doe’s right to life was not clear given the severity of the infant’s mental impairment. For, to possess moral rights, it takes more than merely having a human body: certain cognitive functions must also be present. The issue here involves what is often referred to as moral personhood, and is central to many applied ethical discussions. b. Issues in Applied Ethics As noted, there are many controversial issues discussed by ethicists today, some of which will be briefly mentioned here. Biomedical ethics focuses on a range of issues which arise in clinical settings. Health care workers are in an unusual position of continually dealing with life and death situations. It is not surprising, then, that medical ethics issues are more extreme and diverse than other areas of applied ethics. Prenatal issues arise about the morality of surrogate mothering, genetic manipulation of fetuses, the status of unused frozen embryos, and abortion. Other issues arise about patient rights and physician’s responsibilities, such as the confidentiality of the patient’s records and the physician’s responsibility to tell the truth to dying patients. The AIDS crisis has raised the specific issues of the mandatory screening of all patients for AIDS, and whether physicians can refuse to treat AIDS patients. Additional issues concern medical experimentation on humans, the morality of involuntary commitment, and the rights of the mentally disabled. Finally, end of life issues arise about the morality of suicide, the justifiability of suicide intervention, physician assisted suicide, and euthanasia. The field of business ethics examines moral controversies relating to the social responsibilities of capitalist business practices, the moral status of corporate entities, deceptive advertising, insider trading, basic employee rights, job discrimination, affirmative action, drug testing, and whistle blowing. Issues in environmental ethics often overlaps with business and medical issues. These include the rights of animals, the morality of animal experimentation, preserving endangered species, pollution control, management of environmental resources, whether eco-systems are entitled to direct moral consideration, and our obligation to future generations. Controversial issues of sexual morality include monogamy versus polygamy, sexual relations without love, homosexual relations, and extramarital affairs. Finally, there are issues of social morality which examine capital punishment, nuclear war, gun control, the recreational use of drugs, welfare rights, and racism.