Prep101 - Free Writing Sample Feedback

[RaymondPrep101]

The main concern of law is the protection of persons, not the protection of property.

Describe a specific situation in which the main concern of a law might be to protect property rather than persons. Discuss what you think determines when the main concern of law is the protection of persons and when it is the protection of property.

 

Instructions

In 30 minutes, write an essay for the prompt and instructions above and post your essay in this thread.

 

Use the Notepad accessory on your computer so word processing functions are turned off.

 

Note: Do not read other essays replying to this prompt on the forum until after you have written and submitted your own essay.

 

Deadline

11:59pm Monday, April 30.

 

Essays posted after the deadline will not be scored but a new Prompt will be posted on Tuesday, May 1st.

[Enviro_4_Medschool]

Laws are in place as guidelines for how society should conduct itself -- laws establishes the criteria of conduct as well as punishment required for violating the law. They serve a dual purpose of establishing the rules and outlining the punishment if the rules are violated. Since laws are primarily written with the protection of people in mind, some would argue that the protection of people takes precedence over other areas such as properties because ultimately one should feel safe within society and feel the laws provide enough of a deterrent to prevent aggression, especially against those who may not be able to defend themselves. For instance, children are considered vulnerable both physically and psychologically; therefore, laws pertaining to sexual assault of children tend to recommend harsh punishments for the abusers. Furthermore, with the protection of children there are also laws on the age of consent because children are considered more impressionable and incapable of defending themselves. Laws are in place to protect them from those who might harm them both physically and psychologically and the punishments are severe because society values child protection and feels the system and laws should protect children. Since children are the future of society, the main concern of the law is their protection.

 

It could be argued that part of our well-being is not solely within personal protection but also reflected with our properties and the state we wish to have these properties in. This is especially true for business owners whose well being are tied into how successful their business is and dilapidated storefront due to vandalism may deter customers and thus ultimately affect their livelihood. When the Vancouver Canucks made it to the Stanley Cup playoffs in 2011, downtown Vancouver became vandalized in the riots that followed the final game. While there were people hurt, the law also was to be capable of prosecuting the individuals that had damaged the store fronts. In fact it could be argued that bringing in the people who had committed the vandalism was of utmost priority to the police force in order for those people to face charges. This was because people valued the look of downtown, wanted accountability for the damage caused, and because business owners needed some form of compensation for the damage to their property. In general, vandalism is considered illegal and those participating in it can be persecuted under the law even though generally there is no harm to people.

 

Laws help in establishing the appropriate boundaries and rights and punishments for crossing those boundaries and depending on what area is violating will determine the primary area of interest. Sometimes the laws are designed to protect the safety of people, especially vulnerable populations such as children. In the case of sexual assault of children, the law is primarily concerned with protecting the child rather than compensating or persecuting and individual for property damage. Conversely, when a person's well being is affected through their property even though they themselves might not have been harmed, the law also serves to protect property on the premesis that a person's likelihood is connected to the integrity of the property. This is true in acts of vandalism which have been deemed illegal in our society and those that participate in vandalism are persecuted under the law. Whether it is people or property, laws can be considered to be the written rules that will generally keep people safe and their well-being intact and depending on the context can be concerned either directly with the person's safety or with the protection of their property.

 

---

 

Thanks again Raymond!

[nick]

It is widely understood that life, wellbeing, and freedom are the most highly cherished human rights; these are the basic rights most thoroughly enshrined in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and in national constitutions worldwide. Though, in most cultures, people can hold exclusive posession and control over an object, this is typically seen as secondary in importance to their own security and autonomy. This is exemplified in how emergencies are handled: it is considered legally acceptable in Canada to destroy property to save a human life. Memorably, Peter Pocklington, then-owner of the Edmonton Oilers hockey team, sued paramedics for damages after they cut open his jacket and shirt to perform a defibrillation on him when he suffered a heart attack. Canadian law found that it was reasonable and necessisary for the paramedics to protect Pocklington preferentially over his property.

 

Despite a near-universal appreciation for the value of human life, it has been established throughout history, from the ancient Abrahamic law of the Ten Commandments to the vast majority of modern legal traditions, that it is acceptable to punish someone for theft. Punishment for theft has typically been death, corporal punishment, exile, or imprisonment; in any case, it is usually seen as acceptable for the law to reduce the thief's human rights to protect property.

 

We are confronted with a conflict of rights: in some cases, it is acceptable to eliminate the right to property for the more basic human rights; in other cases, the opposite is true. The fundamental difference between these cases is that in the first type, of which Pocklington's heart attack is an example, the law must make a necessary choice between protecting a person or their property. In this case, protecting the person always wins out. In the second type, such as in punishment for theft, the law must make a decision regarding the unnecesary violation of a right. In such a case, where a person is seen as making an immoral choice, the law understands their personal rights as forfeit.

[sharpshooter]

Laws are implemented to discourage citizens from doing certain actions. If laws were never introduced, our society would likely be chaotic as citizens would choose to do whatever they want. Usually, the emphasis of law is to prevent a person from getting harmed. For example, Ontario’s ban on the use of handheld mobile devices while driving was enforced to make the roads safer in Ontario. When one uses a mobile device while driving, he does not give his full attention to driving because he is distracted by his phone. He may just look down to read a text for a few seconds; however, during those few seconds, a kid may happen to run across the road. The driver may not see the kid since he is looking down at his phone and may end up hitting the kid. If he were paying attention to the road, he would have seen the kid ahead of time and may have been able to brake in time or swerve his car to avoid the kid.

 

Nonetheless, law’s main purpose is not always to just protect citizens. Law is sometimes used to prevent property from being destroyed or damaged. For example, a farmer may get a no trespassing sign to be placed on his farm and have the sign approved by they city’s councilors. The purpose of the sign approved by the law is to discourage citizens from trespassing on the farmer’s property and potentially damaging crops by accidentally or intentionally stepping on crops or stealing crops for their own use. In such a case, if some individuals were to trespass on the farm property, doing so would not harm them; thus, the purpose of the no trespassing sign in this case was just to protect the farmer’s property.

 

Thus, the main goal of law is to protect persons when the law is implemented to prevent citizens from being harmed by doing that action; for instance, the ban on handheld mobile devices while driving was introduced to reduce the chances of citizens from getting in car accidents. Drivers cannot give their full attention to driving while operating a handheld mobile device. However, when a law is implemented that does prevent individuals from being harmed physically, such as no trespassing sign on a farm, the main goal of the law is to protect property. The sign discourages individuals from damaging the farmer’s property or stealing crops. Ultimately, laws are instilled to either protect individuals from harm or individuals’ belongings.

 

Thank you Raymond! =)

[RaymondPrep101]

Enviro_4_Medschool

 

Laws are in place as guidelines word choice for how society should conduct itself -- laws establishes grammar the criteria of conduct as well as punishment required for violating the law. They serve a dual purpose of establishing the rules and outlining the punishment if the rules are violated. This is just repeating the same idea. Since laws are primarily written with the protection of people in mind, some would argue that the protection of people takes precedence over other areas such as properties grammar because ultimately one should feel safe within society and feel the laws provide enough of a deterrent to prevent aggression, especially against those who may not be able to defend themselves. Run-on sentence. For instance, children are considered vulnerable both physically and psychologically; therefore, laws pertaining to sexual assault of children tend to recommend harsh punishments for the abusers. Furthermore, with the protection of children there are also laws on the age of consent because children are considered more impressionable and incapable of defending themselves. Laws are in place to protect them from those who might harm them both physically and psychologically and the punishments are severe because society values child protection and feels the system and laws should protect children. Since children are the future of society, the main concern of the law is their protection.

This is okay. The points are very general and therefore lack depth. This discussion also does not address the protection of property aspect of the prompt.

 

It could be argued that part of our well-being is not solely within personal protection but also reflected with our properties and the state we wish to have these properties in. This is especially true for business owners whose well being are tied into how successful their business is and dilapidated storefront due to vandalism may deter customers and thus ultimately affect their livelihood. When the Vancouver Canucks made it to the Stanley Cup playoffs in 2011, downtown Vancouver became vandalized in the riots that followed the final game. While there were people hurt, the law also was to be capable of prosecuting the individuals that had damaged the store fronts. In fact it could be argued that bringing in the people who had committed the vandalism was of utmost priority to the police force in order for those people to face charges. This was because people valued the look of downtown, wanted accountability for the damage caused, and because business owners needed some form of compensation for the damage to their property. In general, vandalism is considered illegal and those participating in it can be persecuted under the law even though generally there is no harm to people.

This is better because it is a specific example and has specific points. It would be better if a greater emphasis was placed on why the law in this case was more concerned with property than people. You touch upon this issue but do not make it a focus of your discussion.

 

Laws help in establishing the appropriate boundaries and rights and punishments for crossing those boundaries and depending on what area is violating will determine the primary area of interest. Awkward phrasing and choice of words lacks clarity. Sometimes the laws are designed to protect the safety of people, especially vulnerable populations such as children. In the case of sexual assault of children, the law is primarily concerned with protecting the child rather than compensating or persecuting and individual for property damage. Conversely, when a person's well being is affected through their property even though they themselves might not have been harmed, the law also serves to protect property on the premesis that a person's likelihood is connected to the integrity of the property. This is true in acts of vandalism which have been deemed illegal in our society and those that participate in vandalism are persecuted under the law. Whether it is people or property, laws can be considered to be the written rules that will generally keep people safe and their well-being intact and depending on the context can be concerned either directly with the person's safety or with the protection of their property.

You have some contrast here but you do not offer a clear resolution principle. You do not offer a rule that can be followed that determines when the main concern of law is the protection of persons and when it is the protection of property. Ideally, you want a rule that applies well to both examples. The resolution principle needs to be clearly laid out at the outset before discussion of the examples.

 

Overall Mark: 3.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately an O )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 3.5 Supporting task is somewhat addressed. Refuting task is adequately addressed. Resolution task is somewhat addressed.

Depth: 3.5

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 3 Numerous grammatical mistakes.

[RaymondPrep101]

nick

 

It is widely understood that life, wellbeing, and freedom are the most highly cherished human rights; these are the basic rights most thoroughly enshrined in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and in national constitutions worldwide. Though, in most cultures, people can hold exclusive posession and control over an object, this is typically seen as secondary in importance to their own security and autonomy. This is different from what the prompt is asking for because it does not have a focus on law. This is exemplified in how emergencies are handled: it is considered legally acceptable in Canada to destroy property to save a human life. Memorably, Peter Pocklington, then-owner of the Edmonton Oilers hockey team, sued paramedics for damages after they cut open his jacket and shirt to perform a defibrillation on him when he suffered a heart attack. Canadian law found that it was reasonable and necessisary for the paramedics to protect Pocklington preferentially over his property.

This is a good example. However, there needs to be more points. The discussion here is too short.

 

Despite a near-universal appreciation for the value of human life, it has been established throughout history, from the ancient Abrahamic law of the Ten Commandments to the vast majority of modern legal traditions, that it is acceptable to punish someone for theft. This is a run-on sentence. It is also different from what the prompt is looking for. Punishment for theft has typically been death, corporal punishment, exile, or imprisonment; in any case, it is usually seen as acceptable for the law to reduce the thief's human rights to protect property.

This is too general. It is also not what the prompt is looking for.

 

We are confronted with a conflict of rights: in some cases, it is acceptable to eliminate the right to property for the more basic human rights; in other cases, the opposite is true. The fundamental difference between these cases is that in the first type, of which Pocklington's heart attack is an example, the law must make a necessary choice between protecting a person or their property. This is a run-on sentence. . In this case, protecting the person always wins out. This undermines your refuting argument. In the second type, such as in punishment for theft, the law must make a decision regarding the unnecesary violation of a right. In such a case, where a person is seen as making an immoral choice, the law understands their personal rights as forfeit. This is an oversimplification.

Overall, there is no clear resolution principle presented that addresses the resolution task.

 

Overall Mark: 2.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a M)

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 2.5 Supporting task is somewhat addressed. Refuting task is weakly addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed.

Depth: 2.5

Focus and coherence: 2.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

sharpshooter

 

]Laws are implemented to discourage citizens from doing word choice certain actions. If laws were never introduced, our society would likely be chaotic as citizens would choose to do whatever they want. Usually, the emphasis of law is to prevent a person from getting harmed. For example, Ontario’s ban on the use of handheld mobile devices while driving was enforced to make the roads safer in Ontario. When one uses a mobile device while driving, he does not give his full attention to driving because he is distracted by his phone. He may just look down to read a text for a few seconds; however, during those few seconds, a kid may happen to run across the road. The driver may not see the kid since he is looking down at his phone and may end up hitting the kid. If he were paying attention to the road, he would have seen the kid ahead of time and may have been able to brake in time or swerve his car to avoid the kid. You need a concluding sentence.

 

This example could work but there are some issues.

1) The example is described in an overly simplistic way. It is not focused on addressing the writing task.

2) The depth is lacking in your hypothetical situation.

3) You do not emphasize that in this case, the law is to protect persons not property.

 

Nonetheless, the law’s main purpose is not always to just protect citizens. Law is sometimes used to prevent property from being destroyed or damaged. For example, a farmer may get a no trespassing sign to be placed on his farm and have the sign approved by they city’s councilors. The purpose of the sign approved by the law is to discourage citizens from trespassing on the farmer’s property and potentially damaging crops by accidentally or intentionally stepping on crops or stealing crops for their own use. In such a case, if some individuals were to trespass on the farm property, doing so would not harm them ??; thus, the purpose of the no trespassing sign in this case was just to protect the farmer’s property. This last point is confusing.

This example should have more specifics. It is general and vague which reduces depth. Your arguments do not come across clearly here.

Thus, the main goal of law is to protect persons when the law is implemented to prevent citizens from being harmed by doing that action this is awkwardly phrased; for instance, the ban on handheld mobile devices while driving was introduced to reduce the chances of citizens from getting in car accidents. Drivers cannot give their full attention to driving while operating a handheld mobile device. However, when a law is implemented that does prevent individuals from being harmed physically, such as no trespassing sign on a farm, the main goal of the law is to protect property. The cellphone law is to prevent citizens from being harmed as well. The sign discourages individuals from damaging the farmer’s property or stealing crops. Ultimately, laws are instilled to either protect individuals from harm or individuals’ belongings.

Issues:

1) Your resolution principle should be presented fully at the beginning of your paragraph before discussion of your examples.

2) You want to ideally have one resolution principle that applies well to both examples. Here you have two and one doesn't even work.

Overall Mark: 2/6 (Corresponds to approximately a L)

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 2 Supporting task is somewhat addressed. Refuting task is weakly addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed.

Depth: 2.5

Focus and coherence: 3

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[jacobk714]

The main concern of law is the protection of persons, not the protection of property.

Describe a specific situation in which the main concern of a law might be to protect property rather than persons. Discuss what you think determines when the main concern of law is the protection of persons and when it is the protection of property.

 

Instructions

In 30 minutes, write an essay for the prompt and instructions above and post your essay in this thread.

 

Use the Notepad accessory on your computer so word processing functions are turned off.

 

Note: Do not read other essays replying to this prompt on the forum until after you have written and submitted your own essay.

 

Deadline

11:59pm Monday, April 30.

 

Essays posted after the deadline will not be scored but a new Prompt will be posted on Tuesday, May 1st.

 

Societies in the world over are diverse and numerous in number. People of varying creeds, colors, and nationalities comprise different world societies. With such aforementioned variety within particular societies, it is important to establish laws by which every individual member of society is held accountable. These laws are not only to concern interactions between persons, but also interaction with the environment at large. At times, the protection of property may, according to law, be more important than the protection of persons. Take for example the recent riots in Vancouver after the hometown team lost the NHL finals. Images and videos were projected world-wide of violent and angry mobs destroying public and private property, with acts such as vandalising and petrol bombing prevalent. In this particular scenario, police officers where by law required to protect property within reasonable limits, which includes the use of physical force to uprehend and contain mobs.

The protection of persons, despite the aforementioned example given, is the main purpose of the law. At times, protecting a person may require the destruction of property. This is clearly evident when a troubled individual threatens harms to others by the use of their property. One particular example is the recent slaughter of exotic wild animals such as lions that occurred in the US after the owner released them from confinement thereafter committing suicide. Even though the wild animals were his legally the property of the deceased owner, his dangerous action necessitated law enforcement to kill the released animals to preserve public safety. In such a scenario, it becomes clear that at times the protection of property is of no concern when human life is at stake.

To determine whether the main concern of the law in a particular scenario is the person or property, it is important to apply reason. If the particular individual in question poses a risk to others by the use of their property, it necessitates law enforcement to destroy their property to prevent harm to others. However, if an individual is causing unnecessary destruction of property, in particular property that they have no ownership claims over, the protection of property in question becomes within reason more important than the protection of the person.

[DaKirbster]

The main concern of law is the protection of persons, not the protection of property.

 

Describe a specific situation in which the main concern of a law might be to protect property rather than persons. Discuss what you think determines when the main concern of law is the protection of persons and when it is the protection of property.

 

 

------

 

 

 

The law is devoted to keeping society structured and in order. It aims to hinder those who act maliciously and to instill a sense of justice to the world. Generally, the main focus of the law is to protect people rather than property, as human life is invaluable. This effect is particularly apparent when dealing with random demands. For example, a criminal named Anthony Juarez kidnapped a child in Halifax, Ontario, and demanded $250,000 as random in exchange for the child's safe return. The government, realizing the value of the child's life over the money and the extremity of the situation, complied with his demands to ensure the safe return of the hostage. The child was returned safely after Juarez was paid, and Juarez was later caught and put into prison. Had Juarez not received the money, the child may have faced a grim situation. In this case, the government paid Juarez because it was more concerned with protecting the child than protecting the money, thus valuing a person over property.

 

However, there are some cases whereby the law is more concerned with protecting property than people. This applies when the protection of that property will ultimately save more human lives. A seemingly extreme case of this would be war. Often, war is declared when one country wants to take another country's property. Each country will then sacrifice the lives of their soldiers to defend their property in hopes of saving the more numerous civilians who would be killed should the opposing country successfully invade. For example, millions of soldiers died for protecting their country in World War II. They did not die in vain; they died in order to save their country, and along with it the many more millions who lived in their country from a gruesome demise. In this case, the protection of the country's property was given priority over the protection of the soldiers' lives, because it resulted in even more lives being saved.

 

What determines whether the law is more concerned with the protection of persons or property is if the protection of that property will result in the protection of more persons. In the first case, the protection of the child was put first because the money has no human value; it is replaceable. In the case of World War II, the protection of the property of the country was put ahead of the protection of the soldiers because ultimately, the valiantness of the soldiers would save more lives. In the end, the main concern of law and society is to minimize human loss. This is why, in the case of war, the ends justify the means.

[blue181]

Laws are established mainly as a means to maintain order within a society. One way in which laws maintain this goal is to ensure the protection of the people who live within that society and as well as their properties. However, it can be argued that laws focus more on the former rather than the latter. For example, there are strict laws prohibiting those who are under the influence of alcohol to operate a vehicle. Drunk drivers are a hazard to both themselves and those on the road with them as alcohol can greatly obstruct a driver’s mental acuity, and make it more likely for a dangerous accident to occur. Although technically the vehicle itself is in danger of being destroyed in the accident, the purpose of the law is not to ensure that the car remains unscathed, but is instead there to protect the driver and anyone else who may be harmed by his actions. So in a case where the life or wellbeing of a person is in question, the law seeks to protect the person, and the safety of their property is secondary.

 

However, there are also instances when a person’s life is not necessarily at stake, and the law focuses on the protection of property. As an example, some couples choose to sign a prenuptial agreement, which serves to protect the monetary and material assets of both sides of the marriage in the event of a divorce. If a prenuptial agreement is signed in a case where one member of the couple earns substantially more than the other, then all those assets are divided between the couple evenly in the event of a divorce. A prenuptial agreement would have protected those assets, and made sure each side of the marriage got a fair share rather than one side being cheated.

 

A human life is more valuable than any property, so whichever is protected depends greatly on what is at stake. The protection of persons takes precedent over the protection of property when a person’s life or wellbeing is at risk. For that reason laws against drinking and driving are established to protect the lives of the driver and others on the road more so than to protect any property that may be damaged as a result of an accident. However, when it comes to laws regarding things like prenuptial agreements where the main argument is over property, and there is no real risk to the lives of the parties involved, then the protection of property is the law’s main purpose. Overall though, both types of laws help to maintain a safe, and fair environment for people to live.

[bored]

The main concern of law is the protection of persons, not the protection of property.

 

Describe a specific situation in which the main concern of a law might be to protect property rather than persons. Discuss what you think determines when the main concern of law is the protection of persons and when it is the protection of property.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Law are, according to many people, man made rules created by a governing body to keep order in the civilization. A famous Law Historian by the name of Joey Triabbiani had in recent years reported that the first laws that were made were made concerning people, not property. These laws created in the ancient civilizations of Mesopotemia, ancient India, ancient China and even the mayan civilization are all similar in nature and all revolve around the protection of people. There are some unwritten laws that even predate these civilizations. Many famous historians note that even the cavemen tribes had unwritten laws which were also concerning the protection of people. The laws were simple, if one man or women does something to harm a person of the tribe then that person will be banished from the tribe. The rest of the tribe would send the criminal into exile and stop helping that person. This unwritten law is based on the assumption that even the cavemen were able to make, which was the fact that if a person commits a crime, then they should be punished or else they will do it again. Similar laws are noted by Dr. Tribbiani in the Mesopotamian civilization. The laws written down on the walls of famous buildings state the panelty for various crimes. These laws were based on the eye for an eye concept, that is if a person cuts the arm of an innocent victim, then the governing body will cut the arm of the criminal. The thinking behind this is that if the governing body takes the arm of the criminal, then the criminal will not be able to commit more crimes, thus inhibiting the criminal from harming other persons. There are panelties for every possible crime that can be commited by a criminal, and the panelties are based on the thinking that the criminal after recieving the crime should be hindered from harming other people.

 

As time passed on, the civilization evolved, and so did the legal system. With time, came the existance of property. People soon became owners of land and marchindise. Thus new laws needed to be written to account for these new products. In later civilization such as those seen in 200 BC, historians have noted many laws concerning the protection of property. For example, if someone steals some product, then the governing body forces the criminal to give the product back as well as some compensation. The thinking behind this law is also a simple one. If the criminal is forced to give back more then he has stolen, then the criminal will think twice before doing it again and thus more products are protected. We can see laws like this in our modern civilization as well.

 

Obviously many would agree to the fact that lives of persons are more valuable than property, so did our ancestors. For this reasons, laws concerning protection of people were developed before the laws concerning protection of property. If a crime involves harm or damage to a person, then the law that protects people should be applied, however if the crime is less damaging and is concerning property, then the law that is applied is applied to protect the property. Thus we determine which law to apply just as our ancestors did. We apply the law that inhibits from a similar crime from occuring again in the future.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

the end,

 

Much thanks Raymond

[donna71]

Laws are crucial for the bringing about of social order and also for the protection of people and/or property. Sometimes the main concern or priorities of the law is to protect people, rather than to protect property. Take for instance the recent case that investigated the murder of young Tori Stafford at the hands of Michael Rafferty and an accomplice. Tori was snatched after school and inhumanely raped and gruesomely murdered. For argument's sake, if Rafferty were to have stolen a car during the process, justice and societal norms would highlight the killing of the innocent child rather than focus their attention on retrieving the stolen car to the rightful owner. The main concern of law sometimes is to protect innocent people, such as Stafford, from the hands of murderers as everyone has the right to life and to not be deprived of it. Furthermore, material property such as a car is replaceable whereas people and their lives are not.

 

On the other hand, sometimes the main concerns of law is the protection of property instead of persons. For material objects such as ancient artifacts that are unique in nature, laws and museums serve to protect and preserve their cultural value and significance. Take for instance the Mona Lisa, which was stolen in 1911 from a museum in France. The thief was charged and jailed for the theft, and in subsequent displayings the painting has been protected in glass and under tighter security. The jailing of the thief helps to highlight the immense cultural and historical value of Michaelangelo's painting. Therefore the law's main concern is to protect property, rather than people in order to preserve objects/property that is one-of-a-kind and culturally important. The protection of property in this case is of greater concern than people since the rights of an individual have not been violated, whereas the property's value and preservation has been threatened.

 

Many aspects of our lives are under the protection of the law, including martial affairs, human rights, and property to name a few. In a given situation, law may be more concerned with people than property but at other times it may be property rather than people that is prioritized. What determines whether people or property is the main concern of the law depends upon whether a person's life is in danger or not. Should it be the case where a person's life is or has been threatened, as in the case of the murder of an innocent child such as Tori Stafford, then the law's main concern is the protection of people. However should it be the case where the crime does not involve endangerment to individual's life, such as the theft of the Mona Lisa painting, then the law's main concern is the protection of property. We should value all of the laws that our society has to offer because they serve to protect ourselves and society as a whole.

[RaymondPrep101]

Scientific advances should be shared with all nations.

 

Describe a specific situation in which scientific advances should not be shared with all nations. Discuss what you think determines whether or not scientific advances should be shared with all nations.

 

Instructions

In 30 minutes, write an essay for the prompt and instructions above and post your essay in this thread.

 

Use the Notepad accessory on your computer so word processing functions are turned off.

 

Note: Do not read other essays replying to this prompt on the forum until after you have written and submitted your own essay.

 

Deadline

11:59pm Saturday, May 5.

 

Essays posted after the deadline will not be scored but a new Prompt will be posted on Sunday, May 6.

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 17: jacobk714

 

Societies in the world over grammar are diverse and numerous in number awkward phrasing. People of varying creeds, colors, and nationalities comprise different world societies. With such aforementioned variety within particular societies, it is important to establish laws by which every individual member of society is held accountable. The introduction is a little bit too far removed from the essence of the prompt. These laws are not only to concern interactions between persons, but also interaction with the environment at large. At times, the protection of property may, according to law, be more important than the protection of persons. Take for example the recent riots in Vancouver after the hometown team lost the NHL finals. Images and videos were projected world-wide of violent and angry mobs destroying public and private property, with acts such as vandalising and petrol bombing prevalent. In this particular scenario, police officers where by law required to protect property within reasonable limits, which includes the use of physical force to uprehend and contain mobs.

This example works. However, the grammar and writing style require improvement. There should be more development of the main idea. Furthermore, you should stick to the standard order of the paragraphs: Supporting, refuting and then resolution paragraph. This is what your marker will be expecting.

 

The protection of persons, despite the aforementioned example given, is the main purpose of the law. This undermines your previous argument. There are times when the main purpose of the law is to protect private property. At times, protecting a person may require the destruction of property. This is clearly evident when a troubled individual threatens harms grammar to others by the use of their property. One particular example is the recent slaughter of exotic wild animals such as lions that occurred in the US after the owner released them from confinement thereafter committing suicide. Even though the wild animals were his legally the grammar property of the deceased owner, his dangerous action necessitated law enforcement to kill the released animals to preserve public safety. In such a scenario, it becomes clear that at times the protection of property is of no concern this is a bit too strong. There is less concern but not no concern. when human life is at stake.

This example is excellent. The discussion is still a bit sparse and needs expansion.

 

 

To determine whether the main concern of the law in a particular scenario is the person or property, it is important to apply reason. This is ambiguous and vague. It does not address the resolution task. If the particular individual in question poses a risk to others by the use of their property, it necessitates law enforcement to destroy their property to prevent harm to others. However, if an individual is causing unnecessary destruction of property, in particular property that they have no ownership claims over, the protection of property in question becomes within reason more important than the protection of the person.

This discussion lacks depth and creativity.

 

The supporting and refuting examples were great. The writing style needs improvement.

The resolution was the weakest part of your essay.

 

Overall Mark: 2.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a M)

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 2.5 Supporting task is somewhat addressed. Refuting task is well addressed. Resolution task is poorly addressed.

Depth: 3

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5

[Guest ST6nq]

Scientific advances should be shared with all nations.

 

Describe a specific situation in which scientific advances should not be shared with all nations. Discuss what you think determines whether or not scientific advances should be shared with all nations

 

 

The ultimate goal of advancing science is to reduce inequities between nations. This goal can only be achieved through the dissemination of the products of scientific endeavors on an international scale, which is necessary because many nations do not have access to infrastructure which would otherwise allow them to generate scientific advances independently. For example, scientists in the United States pioneered effective treatments to increase the longevity of those infected with HIV, and through an effort initiated by President George W. Bush, these anti-HIV medications were made available to large populations of HIV-positive people in Africa and consequently, a significant decrease in the number of people dying as a result of the progression of HIV was seen. Without the generosity of the United States to share with Africa the benefits of their own scientific advances in HIV research, many more Africans would be dying every year from HIV infections, and this highlights the importance of sharing scientific advances in order to reduce inequities among nations.

 

Conversely, it would be detrimental to the national security of certain nations if they were to share scientific advances with nations who have demonstrated their intent to use those scientific advances for military purposes that are not aligned with international war laws mandated by the United Nations. For example, the United States and Israel have achieved a high level of efficiency in the production of nuclear weapons for the purposes of maintaining homeland security. However, nations such as Iran currently lack the scientific infrastructure necessary to produce functional nuclear weapons. In this case, the United States and Israel are completely justified in not sharing with Iran scientific information on how to construct nuclear weapons, since Iran has indicated that it would use nuclear weapons to destroy Israel, a key ally of the United States, which would also be in direct violation of international war laws.

 

Therefore, the sharing of scientific advances between nations is dependent upon the intentions of the receiving nations with respect to how they would utilize the scientific advancements. If the sharing of scientific information would lead to the eradication of HIV in Africa and reduce the drastic health inequities that exist in Africa, then the sharing of scientific information is justified. However, if the sharing of scientific information would lead to the potential nuclear armament of a hostile nation such as Iran which intends to use nuclear weapons against Israel, then the priority of maintaining national security amongst nations trumps all other potential benefits of disseminating scientific advances, and would give nations such as the United States or Israel the moral highground to refuse sharing its scientific advancements in nuclear weaponry with Iran.

[Alai]

Innovation in science and technology is often termed 'discovery'; that is, it is taken to be something which was pre-existing and upon which no one has a particular right of ownership. Historically, scientific knowledge has largely been beneficial and conducive to social progress; however, this is not always the case -- critics of science-fueled progress rightfully argue both the benefits of scientific knowledge and its potential for abuse. As such, they are increasingly justified in their claims that although the sharing of scientific knowledge and discovery can serve as a heuristic policy, reasonable caution should necessary be practiced in every such case.

 

Scientific knowledge, for instance, is not necessarily conducive to progress, and is equally liable to be abused. A particularly relevant case for those alive today is the issue of nuclear proliferation -- the knowledge and means of creating nuclear bombs -- which has resulted in some drastic consequences for global politics. This case also demonstrates the two-fold nature of scientific innovation: for the better and worse; while it may be used as a highly economical solution to the worlds energy problems, it has tremendous potential for harm.

Those presuppose that scientific advances would always bring progress, take for granted the premise that it will be used by those who themselves uphold our current definition of progression. Those who share such knowledge, then, may be held accountable as being a part of the causal factors for any subsequent abuse of the knowledge they dispersed.

 

Sharing of scientific knoweldge, even in cases which are seemingly undebatable, must be done with caution. Often, such as in the case of medical knowledge, it is not only ethical, but often obviously beneficial to the society. To withhold such knowledge from the world would almost inarguably case much more harm than good. Even medical knowledge, however, can potentially be abused: a drug developed in the west, for instance, may be crudely reproduced in low-quality in such a manner as to reduce its potency and leads to more harmful side-effects. Such cases demonstrate that, even when the benefit is obvious, utmost caution should be exercised in sharing the knowledge of scientific advances. Factors such as whether a society is prepared for the advance, whether it may be as beneficial to the novel society as it was in the parent society, and all possibilities of its abuse, must all be seriously considered and taken into account before any decision is reached.

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 17 DaKirbster

 

 

The law is devoted to keeping society structured and in order. It aims to hinder those who act maliciously and to instill a sense of justice to the world. Generally, the main focus of the law is to protect people rather than property, as human life is invaluable. Good start. This effect word choice is particularly apparent when dealing with random demands ??. For example, a criminal named Anthony Juarez kidnapped a child in Halifax, Ontario, and demanded $250,000 as random in exchange for the child's safe return. The government, realizing the value of the child's life over the money and the extremity of the situation, complied with his demands to ensure the safe return of the hostage. The child was returned safely after Juarez was paid, and Juarez was later caught and put into prison. Had Juarez not received the money, the child may have faced a grim situation. In this case, the government paid Juarez because it was more concerned with protecting the child than protecting the money, thus valuing a person over property.

This example is not focused on law.

 

However, there are some cases whereby the law is more concerned with protecting property than people. This applies when the protection of that property will ultimately save more human lives. A seemingly extreme case of this would be war. Often, war is declared when one country wants to take another country's property. Each country will then sacrifice the lives of their soldiers to defend their property in hopes of saving the more numerous civilians who would be killed should the opposing country successfully invade. For example, millions of soldiers died for protecting their country in World War II. They did not die in vain; they died in order to save their country, and along with it the many more millions who lived in their country from a gruesome demise. In this case, the protection of the country's property was given priority over the protection of the soldiers' lives, because it resulted in even more lives being saved.

Again, this example isn't focused on law. If you talked about international law and the protected sovereignty of nations, that would make it more relevant.

 

 

What determines whether the law is more concerned with the protection of persons or property is if the protection of that property will result in the protection of more persons. This is vague and ambiguous. It is not clear cut in a lot of cases. In the first case, the protection of the child was put first because the money has no human value; it is replaceable. How about if the money is used to perpetuate more crimes? A lot of governments do not pay ransom demands for this reason. In the case of World War II, the protection of the property of the country was put ahead of the protection of the soldiers because ultimately, the valiantness of the soldiers would save more lives. In the end, the main concern of law and society is to minimize human loss. There are significant losses for both sides. So no one wins in a war. Some could argue that the war is much more costly in terms of lives than an occupation would be. This is why, in the case of war, the ends justify the means.

Overall, the argument of greater good is never a concrete and clear cut argument. It is always ambiguous because there are two sides to every story so what is the greater good for one side is the greater loss for the other side. It would be convenient to ignore the losses of the other side but this kind of thinking lacks depth.

 

Overall Mark: 1.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a K)

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 1.5 All of the tasks are weakly addressed.

Depth: 2

Focus and coherence: 2

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 17 blue181

 

Laws are established mainly as a means to maintain order within a society. One way in which laws maintain this goal is to ensure the protection of the people who live within that society and as well as their properties. However, it can be argued that laws in some instances, focus more on the former rather than the latter. For example, there are strict laws prohibiting those who are under the influence of alcohol to operate a vehicle. Drunk drivers are a hazard to both themselves and those on the road with them as alcohol can greatly obstruct a driver’s mental acuity, and make it more likely for a dangerous accident to occur. Run-on sentence. Although technically the vehicle itself is in danger of being destroyed in the accident, the purpose of the law is not to ensure that the car remains unscathed, but is instead there to protect the driver and anyone else who may be harmed by his actions. So in a case where the life or wellbeing of a person is in question, the law seeks to protect the person, and the safety of their property is secondary.

This argument although interesting is not convincing. Laws prohibiting driving under the influence in no way seeks to protect the car itself.

 

However, there are also instances when a person’s life is not necessarily at stake, and the law focuses on the protection of property. As an example, some couples choose to sign a prenuptial agreement, which serves to protect the monetary and material assets of both sides of the marriage in the event of a divorce. If a prenuptial agreement is signed in a case where one member of the couple earns substantially more than the other, then all those assets are divided between the couple evenly in the event of a divorce. ?? A prenuptial agreement would have protected those assets, and made sure each side of the marriage got a fair share rather than one side being cheated.

This example could work but there need to be some improvements.

1) A prenuptial is most often signed in marriages where one person makes substantially more than the other. In the event of a divorce, total personal assets are NOT divided evenly. A prenuptial is usually to protect one person's assets in the marriage.

2) Your example is not explained in a way that is focused on addressing the refuting task.

 

A human life is more valuable than any property, so whichever is protected depends greatly on what is at stake. The protection of persons takes precedent over the protection of property when a person’s life or wellbeing is at risk. This is vague and ambiguous. Furthermore, a person's life or well being could be at risk if their property is stolen or destroyed. For that reason laws against drinking and driving are established to protect the lives of the driver and others on the road more so than to protect any property that may be damaged as a result of an accident. However, when it comes to laws regarding things like prenuptial agreements where the main argument is over property, and there is no real risk to the lives of the parties involved, then the protection of property is the law’s main purpose. Overall though, both types of laws help to maintain a safe, and fair environment for people to live.

Overall, both the resolution principle and the arguments need improvement.

 

Overall Mark: 2.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a M )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 2.5 Supporting task is somewhat addressed. Refuting task is somewhat addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed.

Depth: 3

Focus and coherence: 3

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 17 bored

 

Law are, according to many people, man made rules created by a governing body to keep order in the civilization. A famous Law Historian by the name of Joey Triabbiani ??? had in recent years reported that the first laws that were made were made concerning people, not property. These laws created in the ancient civilizations of Mesopotemia, ancient India, ancient China and even the mayan civilization are all similar in nature and all revolve around the protection of people. There are some unwritten laws that even predate these civilizations. Many famous historians like who? note that even the cavemen tribes had unwritten laws which were also concerning the protection of people. The laws were simple, if one man or women does something to harm a person of the tribe then that person will be banished from the tribe. The rest of the tribe would send the criminal into exile and stop helping that person. This unwritten law is based on the assumption that even the cavemen were able to make, which was the fact that if a person commits a crime, then they should be punished or else they will do it again. Similar laws are noted by Dr. Tribbiani in the Mesopotamian civilization. The laws written down on the walls of famous buildings state the panelty for various crimes. These laws were based on the eye for an eye concept, that is if a person cuts the arm of an innocent victim, then the governing body will cut the arm of the criminal. The thinking behind this is that if the governing body takes the arm of the criminal, then the criminal will not be able to commit more crimes, thus inhibiting the criminal from harming other persons. There are panelties for every possible crime that can be commited by a criminal, and the panelties are based on the thinking that the criminal after recieving the crime should be hindered from harming other people.

This example could work very well but there are a number of problems here.

1) The way this is written reads more like a collection of facts rather than a focused argument.

2) The writing style is also very vague and the choice of words needs improvement.

3) There are a number of spelling mistakes.

4) Your central idea needs to be expressed more concisely. A lot is written here but the point is not strongly made.

 

As time passed on, the civilization evolved, and so did the legal system. With time, came the existance of property. ?? People always had property from the beginning. People soon became owners of land and marchindise. Thus new laws needed to be written to account for these new products. In later civilization such as those seen in 200 BC, historians have noted many laws concerning the protection of property. For example, if someone steals some product, then the governing body forces the criminal to give the product back as well as some compensation. The thinking behind this law is also a simple one. If the criminal is forced to give back more then he has stolen, then the criminal will think twice before doing it again and thus more products are protected. We can see laws like this in our modern civilization as well.

The example here is weak. Everything is general and vague which makes it sound made up. The ideas are too simplistic and lack depth. It also does not directly address the writing task.

 

Obviously many would agree to the fact that lives of persons are more valuable than property, so did our ancestors. For this reasons, laws concerning protection of people were developed before the laws concerning protection of property. This is not what the prompt is concerned with. If a crime involves harm or damage to a person, then the law that protects people should be applied, however if the crime is less damaging this is vague and ambiguous and is concerning property, then the law that is applied is applied to protect the property. Thus we determine which law to apply just as our ancestors did. We apply the law that inhibits from a similar crime from occuring again in the future.

There is no strong resolution principle here. Everything is vague and simple. The resolution task is not addressed.

 

Overall, the quality of ideas is lacking and is in need of improvement.

 

Overall Mark: 1.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a K )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 1.5 Supporting task is somewhat addressed. Refuting task is weakly addressed. Resolution task is not addressed.

Depth: 1.5

Focus and coherence: 2

Grammar and vocabulary: 2.5 Grammar was too basic and there were numerous spelling mistakes.

[RaymondPrep101]

Prompt 17 donna71

 

Laws are crucial for the bringing about of social order and also for the protection of people and/or property. Sometimes the main concern or priorities of the law is to protect people, rather than to protect property. Good start. Take for instance the recent case that investigated the murder of young Tori Stafford at the hands of Michael Rafferty and an accomplice. Tori was snatched after school and inhumanely word choice raped and gruesomely murdered. For argument's sake this is still hypothetical, if Rafferty were to have stolen a car during the process, justice and societal norms would highlight the killing of the innocent child rather than focus their attention on retrieving the stolen car to the rightful owner. The main concern of law sometimes is to protect innocent people, such as Stafford, from the hands of murderers as everyone has the right to life and to not be deprived of it. Furthermore, material property such as a car is replaceable whereas people and their lives are not.

Your argument is not very strong because its premise is still a hypothetical situation. Of course, if a car was stolen in this case, people would be less concerned about that compared to the brutal murder of a little girl. This is obvious and the idea is too simplistic.

 

On the other hand, sometimes the main concerns of law is the protection of property instead of persons. For material objects such as ancient artifacts that are unique in nature, laws and museums serve to protect and preserve their cultural value and significance. Take for instance the Mona Lisa, which was stolen in 1911 from a museum in France. The thief was charged and jailed for the theft, and in subsequent displayings the painting has been protected in glass and under tighter security. The jailing of the thief helps to highlight the immense cultural and historical value of Michaelangelo's painting. Therefore the law's main concern is to protect property, rather than people in order to preserve objects/property that is one-of-a-kind and culturally important. The protection of property in this case is of greater concern than people since the rights of an individual have not been violated, whereas the property's value and preservation has been threatened.

This example is not very strong either because it doesn't explain how the protection of property takes precedence over the protection of people.

 

Many aspects of our lives are under the protection of the law, including martial affairs, human rights, and property to name a few. In a given situation, law may be more concerned with people than property but at other times it may be property rather than people that is prioritized. What determines whether people or property is the main concern of the law depends upon whether a person's life is in danger or not. Should it be the case where a person's life is or has been threatened, as in the case of the murder of an innocent child such as Tori Stafford, then the law's main concern is the protection of people. However should it be the case where the crime does not involve endangerment to individual's life, such as the theft of the Mona Lisa painting, then the law's main concern is the protection of property. We should value all of the laws that our society has to offer because they serve to protect ourselves and society as a whole.

The resolution idea here is too simplistic. Basically, it is saying that in a situation that has to do with people, the law should protect people. If it has to do with property, the law should protect property.

 

This is a tough prompt and the ideas were just not up to snuff.

 

Overall Mark: 1.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a K)

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 1.5 All of the tasks are only weakly addressed.

Depth: 2

Focus and coherence: 2.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

[DaKirbster]

A famous Law Historian by the name of Joey Triabbiani had in recent years reported that the first laws that were made were made concerning people, not property.

 

A word to the wise, bored: if you're gonna make up an example, don't use the name of a character from an extremely famous and well-known sitcom

[bored]

A word to the wise, bored: if you're gonna make up an example, don't use the name of a character from an extremely famous and well-known sitcom

 

lmao I couldn't think of a name and I was watching Joey just before writing this

[Dasypus]

Scientific advancement is by its nature an enterprise that cuts across national borders. Experimental results from one part of the world can, if valid, be reproduced anywhere that suitable experimental setups can be created. Thus, great scientific discoveries can, in theory, be made anywhere, irrespective of international borders. Sharing between nations can advance science in great leaps by allowing a cross-fertilization of ideas. One such case that was ultimately of great humanitarian value was the discovery of the first antibiotics, circa 1933. The basic research was done in Germany, the human testing that validated the results in England, and the elucidation of the functional group (a sulfa molecule, not a dye as the Germans had thought) was finally completed in France. It was only because of the sharing of each advance across borders that crucial progress in science and medicine was made.

 

However, it was only a decade after the discovery of sulfa antibiotics that the world saw perhaps the greatest instance in which a scientific advance was not, and must not have, been shared. In the late stages of World War II, the Americans and the Germans were both seeking to create a weapon powered by atomic fission. While the early advances had been shared across that national border -- it was a German who discovered fission -- the American and German scientists worked in great secrecy during the War. Had the American's progress been shared with the Germans -- most crucially, had the Germans been set straight about the feasibility of carbon-rod control of fission -- it is likely that the Allies would not have been the first to get the Bomb. It seems clear that this would have been disasterous; it is ethically questionable whether or not the Allies should have bombed, but beyond doubt that had the Axis been able to do so, they would have, and WWII is the rare case in which the war truly did have 'bad guys'.

 

These two cases are tightly linked in time and location that differ in whether or not a significant scientific advance -- antibiotic therapies and practical nuclear fission -- were and indeed ought to have been shared across national boundaries. There are at least two definitive differences between the two situations; and it seems that either may well have been sufficient on its own. First, while the medical advance had great and uniformly positive humanitarian impact wherever it was shared, the nuclear advances were far more easily bent to killing than to any constructive end (it would be decades after Hiroshima before a useful nuclear generator was created). It seems that there is a moral imperative to share such positive advances, while other advances may in fact come with a moral imperative not to use them or share them so that others might do so. Second, the medical advance was of no clear strategic value, while the invention of the Bomb was of critical military importance during a time of war. In wartime, no strategic advantage ought to be given up -- though this is a pragmatic 'ought', not the moral one of the first point. While these determining factors -- moral and strategic value -- are not exhaustive, they do point to two key differences that separate scientific advances that ought to be shared from those that ought not.

[DaKirbster]

Scientific advances should be shared with all nations.

 

Describe a specific situation in which scientific advances should not be shared with all nations. Discuss what you think determines whether or not scientific advances should be shared with all nations.

 

 

---------------

 

 

Science is the process whereby our world is explained and improved through observation and experimentation. Nations typically conduct scientific research in order to create a better society to live in through advances in technology, medicine, and so on. These scientific advances should be shared with all nations so that every nation can benefit from the improvement. This is a common practice in the field of medicinal research, where discoveries and ideas often show no borders. For example, at the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, recent research about treatment of the fatal HIV virus have allowed for groundbreaking advances. These advances have been shared throughout the world; a research institute in China even presented the Canadian research centre with an award of recognition for such outstanding results. Not only does this sharing of advances allow other nations to gain insight on potentially useful information, but it also allows these nations to improve on these results further with cooperative research. In this case, it is beneficial to all nations when these advances are shared - including the nation that supplied it.

 

However, there are some cases when scientific advances should not be shared with all nations. Typically, this is the case when the advances relate to a destructive technology. For example, the United States of America does not share information about military scientific advances with other nations. There are a few reasons behind this. First and foremost for the USA, they do not reveal their military advancements because it could supply potential enemys of the nation with useful intel about the nation's army, as well as allowing the enemy nation to produce the same technology. Another reason, from a more broad perspective, is that sharing advancements in destructive technology will only further increase the potential for destruction across the nations. It's bad enough if one nation has a nuclear warhead capable of wiping out millions of people; if every nation had one, there would be potential for even more extreme catastrophe.

 

Whether not scientific advances should be shared with all nations depends on whether the advance is constructive or destructive to society and the world at large. Constructive and beneficial advances, such as groundbreaking research on the deadly HIV virus, should be shared for the benefit of people across the world and to hasten the improvements. Destructive advances, such as military weaponry and nuclear bombs, should not be shared with all nations to minimize the potential for the use of said destructive technology. This is part of the reason that the USA does not share its military advancements. Ultimately, science has the potential for great good and great evil, but hopefully will make everyone's lives better.

[bored]

Scientific advances should be shared with all nations.

 

Describe a specific situation in which scientific advances should not be shared with all nations. Discuss what you think determines whether or not scientific advances should be shared with all nations

 

It is often heard that "knowledge should be shared". In ancient India for example, there are people whose sole profession was to share the knowledge that has been passed on to them. They found it to be their duty to pass on knowledge. Similarly, scientific knowledge should also be shared among all. Sharing is the activity by which one gives another the knowledge that they have learnt from the research experiments that were conducted. The sharing allows for a more efficient advancement of civilization because it saves time of the other research. Humanity advances as a whole instead of individual nations advancing. When a research scientist conducts a new discovery, the group of scientists get that research published in a journal so that all other scientists around the world can view it and benefit from it. This means that those scientists in the other nations will not have to waste time doing the same research again and discover the same thing. This allows for maximum efficiency in the advancement of our civilization. When a treatment for a type of cancer was first invented, it was published in a journal by american scientists. Other scientists doing similar research around the world perfected the treatment by making changes. Others conducted more research to verify if it indeed works. This is a prime example of a scenario when scientific discovery sharing can be used to advance our civilization as a whole.

 

The scientific discoveries that are published in public research journals are the sort of discoveries that are useful for all nations and not intended to harm anyone, such as research that allows efficient production of energy, or a new treatment for cancer. There are however other types of research that can be used to harm people. These are the type of research that nations often don't share with others. In the recent years, virologists in an American University found a dangerous strain of the bird flu virus. These virologists did not publish this research in a public journal. Instead, they called a meeting between all the virologists around america to discuss what they should do with this. The fear of this type of research being abused by terrorists was the issue. The scientists thought this research can be used by other enemy nations to make weapons that can seriously harm America. It was decided in the end that this research would not be published in a public journal and instead will be kept in a hidden library only available to prominent virologists in america.

 

The rare bird flu virus that was resistant to many of the current vaccines is a type of research that was hidden and not made available to the world. This is because they thought that the chances of this research being abused to make weapons of mass destruction was very high. However, research conducted on treatment of cancer or HIV has no potential to be abused and is freely shared to all. Therefore it is the ethical decision of the scientists whether to share the knowledge or not to share it. When there is the slightest chance that this sort of research can be used to harm many, then that scientific advancement is not shared. On the other hand, if the research does not have any chance of harming anyone, then this should be shared for the efficient advancement of our civilization.