donna71 Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 We must obey not only the laws of which we approve, but also those of which we may not approve. Sometimes the purpose of laws are to influence the behaviours or habits of citizens in society. We should obey those laws that we approve of, but also of those that one may disapprove of. Take for instance the recent intitiatives of mayor Bloomberg of New York City who called for the banning of large sized soda drinks. Critics pointed out flaws to the ban saying that one can easily circumvent it by buying two smaller sized drinks instead of a large one, however though the ban is imperfect it is one proactive step towards reducing sugar consumption. Vendors that sell beverages and large sodas may not approve for business reasons but should comply in order to help public health intitiatives in reducing the rising rates of diabetes and obesity and consequently help to improve overall health in a relatively unhealthy nation. Furthermore sometimes it requires some personal sacrifice on one's own part, in this case obeying an unapproved law, for the benefit of others in society and the general public. On the other hand, sometimes it is justifable to break a law that one does not approve of. The current state of relative equality and stable social and civil rights would not have been possible without the opposition to Jim Crow laws by leaders in the civil rights movement of the 1950s. In the midst of the social upheaval and civil rights movement, Rosa Parks violated the then requirement of black Americans to sit in designated areas on public buses in Montgomery. Parks' decision to remain where she was and not move for a white American was a pivotal event in changing the landscape of and creating equal civil rights for black Americans. Therefore sometimes it is necessary to oppose the law that we do not approve of in order to instigate change and to challenge the prevailing attitudes of society to change for the better. Laws that discriminate and create inequality create tension between social groups and defiance of and revoking such laws helps society move towards more wide respect for minorities. Though law serves to protect our rights and properties, sometimes law may be flawed and/or we disagree with it. What determines whether one should obey or violate laws that we disapprove of depends upon whether the society is a in a state of relative social peace or relative social conflict. Should the society be in a state of relative peace, then it is important to obey laws in order to create improved conditions for citizens such as reducing sugar consumption for the purpose of improving the health of well-being of Americans, since obesity and diabetes is such a prevalent problem. On the other hand, should the society be in a state of relative social conflict such as during the civil rights movement then disobeying the law may be justified in a movement towards better social conditions for minority citizens, such Black Americans. Laws are a necessary part of a society for social and political order and it is important to recognize when one should obey or disobey such laws. Thanks again Raymond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaKirbster Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 We must obey not only the laws of which we approve, but also those of which we may not approve. Describe a specific situation in which one who does not approve of a law might justifiably break that law. Discuss what you think determines when it is justified to break a law. ------- Laws have been created by the government to keep order within society. They aim to create equality and justice among the citizens in the hopes of maintaining peace. It follows then that it for the sake of peace and justice, it is the citizens' responsibility to abide by each of these laws, whether or not they approve of them. Otherwise, there could be serious consequences on society. For example, there are a number of people throughout North America who do not approve of jaywalking laws that prevent them from crossing the street whenever they want. Many of these people choose to ignore these laws because they do not approve, and often engage in dangerous jaywalking behaviour. While seemingly benign, it is quite common for jaywalkers to cause accidents when they are unexpected by drivers. The jaywalkers may harm themselves, the drivers, or others in the area, and often incur costs on the healtcare system as a result. As such, we should obey jaywalking laws, even if we do not approve, to avoid causing harm to ourself and others. However, there are some cases whereby it is justifiable to break a law that one does not approve of. For example, it many Islamic countries, women are required by law to wear a hijab, a clothing garment that covers their entire head, at all times in public. This is a law based on religion and tradition, and does nothing to prevent any harm to people or society. It is a law that restricts the freedoms of women to wear what they want, and it can be especially uncomfortable to wear a hijab in the hot, humid weather that is common in these countries. Thus, if a woman does not approve of this law, it is justifiable that she breaks the it by not wearing a hijab as it does no harm to society or others, but instead may benefit the woman. It is justifiable to break a law of which one does not approve if such disobeyment does not result in the harm of any person or society. Jaywalking laws are put into place for public safety, and people who do not approve of jaywalking laws should still follow them since disobeying these laws often results in injury and costs to themselves, others, and society. However, women in Islamic countries that require hijabs can justifiably break this law if they do not approve as doing so causes no harm to any person or society, as it is a law based on tradition rather than safety. Ultimately, most laws are in place for the protection and benefit of society as a whole and most should not be broken, but there are exceptions whereby it is justifiable to disobey them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenoa Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 We must obey not only the laws of which we approve, but also those of which we may not approve. Laws are meant to guide the civil structure of a society and foster productivity, cooperativity, and peace among citizens. Canada is a democratic nation with specific founding ideals as laid down in the country’s Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These ideals include equality before the law, freedom of speech, the idea that the government should protect citizens in need, and freedom from discrimination based on gender, race, or sexual orientation. Since democracy implies the idea of “popular government” or government “by the people for the people,” citizens necessarily have a say in how the country is run, but also an obligation to obey those laws that they might not completely approve of. For example, one might not appreciate the relatively high level of taxation the Canadian government levies, but at the same time, one is obligated to obey taxation laws. To disobey would undermine the system and values Canadian society is built on. However, it is conceivable that at times a citizen could be justified in disobeying a law he or she does not approve of. For example, take the Montreal student protests in May 2012 after the passing of Bill 78. Bill 78 placed restrictions on protests concerning the allowed sizes of gatherings, the advance notice that must be given to police, and also banned the usage of face obscuring masks. This somewhat controversial bill has received criticism as being too repressive and even bordering on unconstitutional. Even after the passing of the Bill, many now “illegal” protests continued in Montreal, and many people continued to wear masks. Whether or not a citizen in a democratic society should or should not obey a law that he or she disapproves of depends on if that law goes against the founding ideals of the nation or not. Some Canadians may not approve of stiff taxation laws but taxation does not go against the ideas Canada is built on and somewhat of a “necessary evil” in that it is needed to support the country as it is being currently run. It is in line with the foundational ideals of equality before the law and protecting citizens that are in need, such as through healthcare and welfare. Conversely, Bill 78 goes against Canadian’s right to freedom of speech. Thus in this situation, citizens are justified in disobeying such a law that goes against the founding ideals of the nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpp Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 We must obey not only the laws of which we approve, but also those of which we may not approve. Laws are formed on the basis of a collective agreement about what is moral, at least in a democratic society. Since everyone has their own set of morals and everyone has different reasons and rationalizations for their actions, laws are agreed upon and set out to control for such individual variation in morals and behaviour. For example, during Prohibition in the early part of the 20th century, many people continued to drink alcohol despite the fact that it was illegal to do so. Even though many people did not approve of the laws, many deaths by poisoning through contaminated illegal alcohol occurred, and organized crime flourished, at great social cost. In such a situation it is best for individuals who dissapprove of certain laws to lobby to have the laws changed, than to openly break them. Although the harm derived from Prohibition was mainly a result of the laws themselves, much social harm could have been averted if individuals had obeyed them. However, there are certainly instances where an individual might justifiably break a law they do not approve of. This is most apparrent in cases where laws encourage the violation of universal human rights, or discourages the protection of them. Such an example can be seen in World war 2, when it was illegal for people in Nazi occupied areas of Europe to help Jews hide or escape to freedom. In such a case, defying the law would help protect individuals' fundamental human rights to security and freedom from oppression, and would not only be justifiable, but heroic. Of course in such a society there was no social recourse as there would have been during Prohibition; someone who lobbied for the protection of Jews would have likely met the same fate as those they were trying to protect. Ultimately what determines when it is justified to break the law is the reason behind breaking the law, and the morality of the law itself as it relates to universal human rights. Someone dissapproves of a law because it inconveniences or irritates them is likely not justified to break the law. As was the case with the Prohibition laws, breaking the law for your personal benefit, whether it's speeding to get to work on time, or pirating an album goes, against agreed upon social standards and is not justfied. However, breaking certain laws that encourage the violation of universal human rights is not only usually justifiable, but ususally commendable. Whether it is the person who hides the persecuted minority from the authorities, or the journalist who exposes government abuses, breaking the law is sometimes acceptable to protect human rights if the same result is not possible by other means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue181 Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Thanks Raymond! We must obey not only the laws of which we approve, but also those of which we may not approve. Laws are set by the government to regulate societal behaviour and maintain peace. However, they often are created in the interest of the country as a whole and aim to benefit the majority of citizens, thus there are bound to be some who disagree with the government’s legislation. However, in many cases, the citizens of a country should still obey those laws, even if they do not fully approve. For example, the federal government recently passed a back-to-work legislation as a result of the CP rail strike. The workers went on strike because of pension issues, and as a union they are technically allowed to remain on strike as long as they wish, or until an agreement is made. However, the halting of cross-Canada shipping was badly affecting Canada’s economy. Thus, the federal government was forced to take action, and quickly passed a new law that would order the workers at CP rail back to work. The union announced after the legislation’s passing that they disagreed with its premise, stating that it infringed their rights as labourers. Nonetheless, they obeyed the law and returned to work a few days later. In this case, although the workers at CP rail may not have agreed with the law ordering them back to work, they would not be justified in disobeying it, as the consequences that may result from their breaking of the law would be harmful to the entire country's economy, and that weighs far heavier than their disapproval of it. However, sometimes an instated law is not in the interest of the country as a whole, but is instead focused on the well-being of a particular group, and may be harmful to others in the country. In such a case, a person who disapproves of the law should have the right to fight against, or break the law to obtain rightful equality. For example, in the 1940’s the apartheid in South Africa became a law segregating the “blacks” from the “whites”. With this law, the minority white population was given greater power and rights compared to the blacks, who were reduced to mere labourers. The black population also had notably poorer services available to them, and they were punished much more harshly for the commitment of crimes than white people were. One man, Nelson Mandela, became famous for disapproving of the law, and fought very hard to abolish it in order to obtain equality. He did not obey the apartheid laws which pushed blacks into submission and removed them from any political activity; instead he joined the ANC (African National Council) and rebelled against the white legislation. He did so first with peaceful protests, and when those failed to have any significant effects he planned sabotage campaigns and even a possible guerrilla war against the government. In this case, Nelson Mandela did not agree with the laws stipulating the apartheid, and he was justified in disobeying and fighting against them because they were noticeably unfair and harmful to the majority of the population. Overall, whether or not it is justifiable for someone to break, or disobey a law which they do not approve of depends on if the law seeks to benefit the country as a whole, or if the law only benefits certain people of the country and may harm a large proportion of others. The workers at CP rail obeyed the back-to-work legislation even though they did not approve of it because the law’s purpose was to prevent any further harm to the Canadian economy. Since the law was passed in the best interest of the country, the workers at CP rail would not be justified to break it, because their goals for going on strike are not quite as important as the stability of the whole country. However, in the case of South Africa’s apartheid laws, the laws were only in the best interest of the whites, and were very discriminatory to the blacks who make up a very large portion of the population. Nelson Mandela was thus justified in disobeying and fighting against those laws because the interest of the black population was no less important than the interest of the white population, and equality was deserved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifeisGood Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Prompt #27 (deadline = Thursday June 21) We must obey not only the laws of which we approve, but also those of which we may not approve. In Canada, one is required to follow many laws. A citizen must not steal and in the medical field, doctors are not allowed to perform a medical procedure without consent of the individual. These laws protect many individuals, not just the one in which the law is enforced on. Living as citizens in an orderly society, we agree to follow the rules of that society. Society is always in flux, and this means that the laws and ideals that we strive for are also in flux. Decades ago, an individual was allowed to drive in a car without a seatbelt, but after years of research, it was found to be dangerous, and the laws were changed making seatbelt use mandatory. Many individuals were against this new law, but eventually society as a whole found it to be beneficial. Laws of society are not similar to laws of physics, as they are not constants. Society is always changing, which means our collective idea of what is right and wrong is changing. A law created decades ago may have been perfect for that time and for the ideas of society at that time, but it may considered “outdated” for todays society. It is permissible for an individual to break a law if the law no longer fits into what society at that time thinks is right. Decades ago, Rosa Parks decided to sit in the front of a public transit bus, breaking the law that an African American was to sit only at the back. She broke the law of that time, but she was following a much higher law that all humans are equal. First try...lets see how this goes... thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polarbear89 Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Thank you!! We must obey not only the laws of which we approve, but also those of which we may not approve. Describe a specific situation in which one who does not approve of a law might justifiably break that law. Discuss what you think determines when it is justified to break a law. Without laws, society may descend into anarchy. Laws are decrees, which state and define the rules of the community. Laws provide structure for our society that we use to go about our day-to-day lives peacefully . For instance, even if one does not believe or approve of a law, it is mandatory that citizens obey this law. For instance, the Canadian government legalized gay marriage, and this democratic decision was viewed to be a positive one by the majority of citizens. This law allows homosexuals to get married, and allows for equality between heterosexuals and homosexuals regarding marriage and marriage benefits. However, this law caused an outcry amongst more conservative citizens and lobby groups who felt that this law breached the sanctity of marriage. However, because this law did not infringe on their human rights, those who oppose this law are not allowed to interfere with the rights of homosexuals and circumvent their legal marriages. However, there are instances where people are justified in disobeying laws and these occur when peoples’ human rights are being infringed on. For example, during World War II, in Germany, anti-Semitism grew rampant and Jewish people were forced into concentration camps and many were killed. Further, it was illegal for the rest of the community to hide these innocent people. However, many brave people hid the persecuted Jews in an attempt to save them from the harsh, inhumane treatments that they would otherwise suffer from. These people risked severe punishment if caught, however, their choices to defy this law were considered heroic. Their heroism stems from the fact that they were willing to defy an inhumane law that was placed by an authoritarian government that disregarded the humanity of its Jewish citizens. Essentially, what determines whether or not someone is justified to break a law is whether or not that law infringes on human rights. If the law is placed in a democratic fashion and does not infringe on the rights of any citizens, then that law must be followed in order to maintain a peaceful, fair society. However, if that law is placed undemocratically and infringes on human rights, the law should not be obeyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enviro_4_Medschool Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 We must obey not only the laws of which we approve, but also those of which we may not approve. Describe a specific situation in which one who does not approve of a law might justifiably break that law. Discuss what you think determines when it is justified to break a law. --- Thomas Hobbes observed that the collapse of society leads to a state of nature in which there is war of all against all and life is brutal and short. We let self-interest become our guiding principles and end up turning on each other and hoarding what we can. Even the strongest cannot escape the chaos as they must sleep at some point and thereby risk losing their goods or even their life. In order to escape the state of nature we transfer our individual powers to a state, which Hobbes termed Leviathan. The State in turn would protect us provided that we obey the laws of the state. Since the laws are generally born out of a communal rather than individual mentality there may be laws which we do not approve of but must act in accordance with. This is the social contract that we have signed to a civil authority who in turn provides peace from the state of nature and protects us from the state of nature. The necessity for an overarching civil authority is most evident in periods of civil warfare where people quickly protect their stash and fight against others. So by agreeing to have a state that manages our resources we accept that there may be laws that we do not approve of but must obey anyway. However happily obeying the law implies that all laws are just and do benefit us individually despite some concessions we may make. Sometimes there is a state authority which we did not choose and they impose laws which we do not agree with. Britain had taxation without representation prior to the onset of the American Revolution. You had figures such as John Hancock who did not view the Stamp Act and taxation on tea as fair. So while the British goverment passed the Tea Act which allowed the East India Company to sell tea at a discount over local American merchants, colonies were expected to obey this act because they were under British rule. This naturally led to resentment in America and quickly let to a revolt against British rule. However, in breaking the law and starting the revolution, the Americans feld they were upholding a new set of laws that justified breaking the old ones. This new set was for human dignity and liberty and the Americans felt justified in obeying the laws they created and not the ones created for them. Whether one could justify breaking the law is dependent on whether the law is oppressive and imposed without consultation. We all strive for order in our society but we prefer one that helps benefit us individually. For Hobbes this meant giving individual power to a state with the idea of the state providing peace and protection. While one might not agree with all the laws of the state, one accepts them because the alternative of the state of nature is worse. Laws that are imposed without consent lead to resentment and people may feel justified in breaking the law in order to try and establish an order they feel represents liberty. This was evident in the American revolution when taxation without representation was met with hostility from the colonies. They felt the need to liberate themselves from an oppressive British rule and they felt breaking British laws would help them establish the American society with the correct set of laws. Overall, laws should help establish order by protecting people and their rights. A ruling institution should not seek to write laws that benefit themselves and their powerbase as this leads to resentment in those that the laws do not protect or benefit. --- Thanks Raymond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandlerbing Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 We must obey not only the laws of which we approve, but also those of which we may not approve. The manner in which laws are developed and interpreted heavily relies on the preferences of those developing the laws as well as those of whom are most affected by the laws. It is often the case where one group of people gains from and therefore approves of a law whereas another group loses and disapproves of a law. Regardless of their respective viewpoints, both groups are expected to obey the law. For example, in Canada, the Environmental Tax Laws have been have been employed with rigor due to growing concerns associated with climate change. These laws dictate that companies cannot produce more than a certain amount of waste or else they will be taxed heavily. Naturally, companies heavily opposed this tax due to extra hardship it places on companies, especially smaller businesses attempting to grow who must invest in costlier environmentally friendly equipment. However, smaller and larger corporations have followed this law rigorously resulting in large (45%) drop in waste emissions from the oil sands in Alberta. Additionally, the general public as well as the global community has gained greatly from the reduction in air pollutants. In the 1970s and 1980s, abortion was illegal and many desperate women would have abortions through illicit and likely unsafe means. A large portion of the Christian society believed that abortions were sacrilegious and those who broke this law were condemnable. However, what the society failed to realize was that the majority of women that wanted abortions were financially unstable teenage women who lived in hostile neighborhoods and would not be able to adequately care for their baby. Not only would it be justified to prevent the babies from being brought up in a hazardous environment, it would later be discovered that legalizing abortion led to a precipitous drop in crime rates as most of the children who were not aborted were forced by their surroundings into a life of crime. Therefore, the drop in crime facilitated by breaking the abortion law led to a significant benefit for society. After considering the aforementioned examples, it is possible to gather that laws should be obeyed or disobeyed according to whichever result leads to a net benefit for society. In the case of environmental taxes, although the companies must cover the initial cost of newer technology, the society and global community gains as a whole from a healthier environment and the company will in the long-term be able to recuperate the money lost through investment in newer technology. Hence, the companies do not lose from a long term perspective while the public gains in the long term due to reduce emissions. Furthermore, in the case of abortions, the community as a whole experience a decreased crime rate when the law against abortion is disobeyed in exchange for a smaller moral loss experienced by those opposing abortions. ____ Thanks for the help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixstar Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 Since the beginning of civilization, laws have been enacted with the aim of enabling society to operate in a functional and cohesive manner. A law can be defined as enforced standard in which citizens are expected to obey. In most societies, there can be a wide range of beliefs and values held by citizens, and as such, not all citizens may agree with all the laws in a particular society. However, in order for society to function in that way the lawmakers intended it to, citizens must obey the law, regardless of whether they personally approve of each law. For instance, in many jurisdictions in Canada and the United States, there are laws that state the maximum speed that a car can drive in school zones. Recently, a jurisdiction in Alberta, Canada passed a law that set the speed limit in school zones to 30 km/h (which is almost half of the 50km/h speed limit on non-school zone residential streets), in order to make the areas around schools safer for children and to prevent traffic accidents. Some citizens who lived in and around the school zones did not approve of the new law as they felt that the speed limit was unreasonably low and was too heavily enforced. However, even though some of the citizens driving through the school zones may not have approved the new law, speeding tickets issued to driver's in the school zone decreased over time, indicating that the citizens were compiling with the law. In this case, even though the citizens living in the school zone may not have approved of the lower speeding limits, they were expected to obey the law, as the lower speed limits in school zones made the neighborhood safer for children and prevented traffic accidents. However, there can be instances when a person may justifiably break a law that they disapprove of. Voluntary euthanasia, also known as "assisted suicide," has been a topic of great debate in many jurisdictions around the world. While some countries in Europe have legalized the practice of voluntary Euthanasia, in Canada, voluntary Euthanasia is illegal. In the late 1980's in British Columbia, Canada, a mother diagnosed with the terminal illness ALS, fought the Canadian government's law on voluntary Euthanasia. She felt that she had an inherent "right to die," in that she felt that she should be allowed the right to decide when and how she wants to die. By being denied this "right," she argued to the Supreme Court of Canada (highest judicial body in Canada) that the Canadian government was discriminating against her, as well as other terminally ill patients who do not want to live out the rest of their lives in pain and suffering. The Supreme Court of Canada rejected her appeal and stood by the law making voluntary Euthanasia illegal. A couple of years after this ruling, as the mother's medical condition continued to deteriorate, she had an anonymous healthcare provider illegally assist her in committing suicide. While she did break the law, the public reaction to her assisted suicide was largely supportive, and even a federal politician expressed their support of her very personal decision. In this case, it can be argued that the mother breaking the law was justified, in that she was in great pain as her condition worsened and that she felt that she was solely responsible for her own personal decisions regarding how she wants to live out the rest of her life. It would seem that whether or not it is justified to break a law depends on the effect that breaking the law has on others in society. If, by breaking a particular law, others in society are endangered, it can be argued that it is not acceptable to break that law, regardless of whether or not the individual approves of the law. This was exemplified with the case of the school zone speed limits in Alberta, where the law of the lower speed limits served to protect children and prevent traffic accidents, and thus, an individual who breaks the law could endanger others in society. On the other hand, if others in society are not endangered by breaking a particular law, it can be argued that an individual may justifiably engage in an illegal act. In the case of the mother with ALS, the illegal act of voluntary Euthanasia had little negative effect on society as a whole and by breaking the law, the mother did not endanger others in society. As such, the mother could justifiably break a law that she did not approve of. Therefore, it would seem that in order to determine if breaking the law is justified, laws must be considered within the context of its effect on both an individual and others in a society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
souljaboy Posted June 21, 2012 Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 We must obey not only the laws of which we approve, but also those of which we may not approve. Describe a specific situation in which one who does not approve of a law might justifiably break that law. Discuss what you think determines when it is justified to break a law. Laws are the rules set by a society that all those who choose to live in the society must follow. Some groups may not approve of certain laws due to their own reasons, but to live in the particular society, they must follow the society's laws. Laws are usually made with much deliberation and consideration of all the possible consequences of the results. In the end, the good aspects of a law outweighs the negative consequences associated with it. In the 1990s, many fishermen in Canada's east coast were very much against the law enacted by the federal government which prohibited them from catching cod. The law was put forward after much consideration of the economic impacts of the ban and the environmental and economic impacts in the future if the ban was not put in place. Fishermen of the east coast did not like the law which would reduce their income, but they still obeyed it because the law was created for the important future benefits to the country. Sometimes, the laws of our society are misguided and not necessarily beneficial. In the 1960s, African Americans in the United States were still treated harshly, especially in southern states. By law, in Alabama, african americans were not allowed to sit in the front of a bus. Rosa Parks defied this law and refused to give up her seat to a white person, which eventually led a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court and was a significant step forward in the civil rights movement. The law was inconsiderate and did not improve the society in any significant way, and Rosa Parks justifiably challenged it, which eventually led to the removal of the specific law and many others that limit the rights of African American citizens in the United States. Laws are meant to be rules that help improve a society, not limit it. Therefore, laws that are for the benefit of society should be obeyed even if it is against one's interest and laws that are not beneficial should be challenged. Fishermen in Canada's east coast may have been against the law to limit their catch, but the law itself is justified and must be followed because it improved the future environment in the area so it can be in a healthier state. Rosa Parks opposed a law which was actually damaging the harmony of society, and she justifiably disobeyed the law, which brought the case to court and got the law repealed. Ultimately, laws should justifiably improve society, and should be obeyed if they are. In cases where the law isn't, defiance is then a very justified option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted June 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 Prompt 26 Enviro_4_Medschool When teaching someone there are always values that you wish to impart on the student. This is important because students ultimately become the citizens of society and there needs to be some solidarity in the way people function together. Therefore, when looking at teaching values it is prudent to view good teaching as one promotes grammar conformation of societal grammar accepted values. For instance, Saudi Arabia's educational system has standardized texts on the way Muslims should behave and good teachers are the ones that bring up pious Muslims. While the West views Saudi Arabia as being extreme in the way they teach Islam the Saudis view it as a way of promoting brotherhood amongst their fellow Muslims and upholding the values of their culture and religion. Good teachers are the ones that educate the students to follow the accepted protocol and are the ones that promote conformity. Therefore, good teaching should promote conformity of values amongst its pupils because it helps promote a cultural and societal bond. Strong. However, academic institutions take an entirely different view on education. To academics, good teaching is one that questions, that furthers, that tries to break beyond what is acceptable. This promotes a sense of individualism and non-conformity especially in subject areas like the arts. In Chaim Potok's famous novel, "My name is Asher Lev", Asher is ostracized in the end for painting the "Brooklyn Crucifixion" because it went against the teachings of Orthodox Judaism. However, as an artist and intellect he was considered well taught by his teacher who encouraged him to break beyond conformity to become a great and memorable artist. His art held what was valuable to artists which was to question societal tendencies as well as display technical mastery. Therefore, the art world outside of Orthodox Judaism accepted this non-conformity as masterful art making him a success and therefore validating the teaching methods that promoted him to be non-conformational. This is strong as well. This would be excellent if the example wasn't from a book. Good teachers will provide the tools that students need to succeed in a given area and the type of practitioner the student should be. Conformity is encouraged when teaching religious/societal values because people need to function in a society that has some fundamental tenants. However, good teaching should not promote conformity when there should be intellectual freedom to master a field especially in the arts where a fair amount of questioning is valued. This resolution principle works. However, it should be expressed in a more concise and simple manner. For the resolution principle, the more simple the resolution principle, the more elegant it is. Saudi Arabians prefer their citizens to act in the manner of good Muslims and in their mind good teachers will impart the values of Islam which generates conformity amongst its pupils. The character of Asher Lev is also testament to good teachings but in an entirely separate field because he questioned and tried to paint the world as the way he saw it and became great when he did break conformational molds. Furthermore, the art world valued breaking conformity so good teachers are the ones that encourage branching out and individuality. Overall, to reiterate good teachers should give the students the tools to succeed in a given area and this includes societal and intellectual tools. Strong. Overall Mark: 5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a R ) Breakdown (out of 6): Addresses tasks: 5 All of the tasks are strongly addressed. Depth: 5 Focus and coherence: 5 Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted June 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 Prompt 26 Neuro_07 Besides imparting general knowledge and skills, education should also focus on teaching values Teaching values and teaching conformity are different ideas. , and developing the power of reasoning and judgement to distinguish between the right and the wrong. A good teaching practice promotes conformity to existing laws and social standards. Canada Human Right Act grammar and Ontario Human Rights Code ensure equality between people of different races and ethnic backgrounds in areas of jobs, housing, health care and other services. The purpose of these laws is to prevent discrimination on the basis of color, race, sex, religion, and other grounds. Since Toronto’s population is comprised of people from different countries, the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) strives to create an environment in the schools that ensures that students learn to accept and respect other students from different cultural backgrounds, thereby promoting compliance with the laws of human rights. This practice enhances cohesion between the culturally segregated communities and prevents disputes stemming from racial discrimination. Thus, good teaching plays an important role in ensuring that people adhere to the laws and good social practices. This example could be strong but is not focused enough on conformity. Teaching values is different from teaching conformity. They overlap in some situations, but they are distinct ideas. In other words, it is the execution that requires improvement here. However, it is important to realize that good teaching may not always be in the favour grammar of existing laws or practices. This is somewhat different from the conformity theme of the prompt. There are some social practices that are absolutely incorrect and unjustifiable, and it is important to teach people to abandon such practices. Female foeticide spelling is one such practice that is highly prevalent in India. In the temptation word choice of having a boy born in their family, some narrow-minded communities actively seek identification of the sex of the fetus, and ask the doctor to kill the fetus if it is a female. Such practices arise from the gender inequality that exists even today. There are many educational campaigns in India – mainly in the form of television shows – that teach people that an unborn child has the equal right to live as an adult, and that such discrimination on the basis of gender of the child can lead to a severe imbalance in the gender ratio of the society. In this case, good teaching does not promote adherence to the existing social practices. It promotes termination of practices that violate the human rights. Strong. Thus, whether good teaching promotes conformity or not depends on whether the law or social practice in question is in accordance with the human rights or not. If a law, like the Canada Human Right Act grammar , promotes equality among the different groups in the society, then a good teaching practice, like the one adopted by Toronto’s schools, promotes obedience to this law. On the other hand, if a widely prevalent social practice does not conform to the fundamental human rights, like the practice of killing female fetuses in India, then a good teaching practice is the one that promotes desertion of such practices. In conclusion, good teaching always promotes equality in the society and supports acceptance of laws and practices that are in favour of equality. Strong. Overall Mark: 4.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a Q ) Breakdown (out of 6): Addresses tasks: 4.5 Supporting task is somewhat addressed. Refuting task is strongly addressed. Resolution task is strongly addressed. Depth: 4.5 Focus and coherence: 4 Grammar and vocabulary: 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted June 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Prompt 26 donna71 Various types of teachers exist to educate students in different subjects. Sometimes good teaching promotes conformity, such as conformity to rules and law. Children are taught about basic rules from an early age, such as not hurting another child or paying for items in a store. Special programs also exist and are implemented in the inner city that help to promote positive relations between young children and the police. Police would visit schools and engage in positive activities with children in order to produce a positive association with and cooperation with the police, particularly for inner city youth who are more likely to be exposed to or involved with crime. Good teaching then helps to promote conformity to the rules and law as this is required to promote a more peaceful community and to help minimize the number of crimes. Furthermore it is much easier to establish social order when students are effectively taught to stay within the bounds of the rules. Finally being aware of the adverse consequences to law violation also helps to keep students and citizens away from crime. Strong. On the other hand, good teaching does not always produce conformity. In fact, good teaching may be to promote questioning of authority. Students, particularly at the univeristy level, begin to develop and refine critical thinking skills. An example that illustrates the importance of questioning scientific authority would be the investigative results produced by Brian Deer on the fraudulent but widely accepted research conducted by Andrew Wakefield. Wakefield had made claims about autism being linked to several vaccines that were routinely administered to children such as measles, mumps, and rubella. Deer's investigations revealed that Wakefield's research was blatantly questionable and invalid as Wakefield had falsified medical records of research subjects. Good teaching then is not to promote conformity or mindless acceptance of information, but to enforce the skills necessary to critically analyze information. Critical questioning is necessary to produce quality and sound research to genuinely advance our knowledge. The issue here is that the example does not deal with teaching. You start off with a good introduction and then your example is not about teaching university students. One is taught about the importance to conform to social norms, at other times it is important to question the information being presented to us. The second part of this sentence is not related to teaching. What determines whether good teaching is to promote conformity or not depends on the level of education of the student in question, specifically if she/he they is a young elementary aged student or if she/he they are is at the university level. Strong resolution principle. Should it be the case that the young student is in elementary school, good teaching will likely promote conformity such as to social laws in order to establish within the student the values necessary of a law-abiding citizen. You do not apply your resolution principle to your example of inner city school programs. However should the student be of university level education, good teaching will promote questioning of authority, as exemplified by Deer's investigation of Wakefield's autism-vaccine link, in order to develop the critical thinking skills necessary to challenge ideas and subject them to scrutiny. Good teaching comes in various forms to produce well-rounded students and citizens for the future. The weakness of your refuting example comes back to affect your resolution paragraph. Overall Mark: 3.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately an O ) Breakdown (out of 6): Addresses tasks: 3.5 Supporting task is well addressed. Refuting task is somewhat addressed. Resolution task is somewhat addressed. Depth: 4 Focus and coherence: 3 Refuting example was not focused on teaching and went off on a tangent. Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted June 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Prompt 26 kpm In North America, we value our right to an education. Just what differentiates a good education from one that is subpar is hotly contested. This is different from what the writing prompt is looking for and is therefore not a good opening to your essay. In primary and secondary school, a certain degree of conformity is promoted. For example, we are often taught values and are told what is right and what is wrong. At this age, we are not expected to question these values, but to learn and to apply them in our conduct. Otherwise, we risk detention or suspension. By learning the values and norms of our society at an early age, we are better able to fit in with others. We also learn to work together with our peers, which better prepares us for our future. Additionally, if we did not learn how to conform, there would be no order to society, as everyone would do what they wanted, instead of working together. This discussion works. However, it is a bit too general and therefore lacks depth. However, as a student progresses through the system and becomes more mature with age, a good education may promote the opposite of conformity; that is, it may promote individuality. For example, a university education that encourages a student more and more to question what he is learning and to think critically about the material is highly valued in our society. Without the ability to question current beliefs, values or policies, no improvements would be made in our society. This higher level of thinking leads students to develop their talents and beliefs, thereby promoting their individuality. Historically, social improvements and political movements have been led by individuals who refused to conform and who questioned authority. Therefore, a higher level education needs to promote critical thinking and individuality. Strong. Try saving your resolution principle for the resolution paragraph to improve impact. Thus, whether or not good teaching promotes conformity depends on the level of education in question. At the primary and secondary school level, good teaching promotes conformity because students need to learn how to fit in and work with their peers and their society in order to lead successful lives. Conformity promotes societal order and instills basic values in students at a young age. On the other hand, at the post-secondary school level, such as in a university setting, good teaching promotes individuality by encouraging students to question what they learn. This is essential for effecting affecting social and political change. However, before students can reach this higher level of thinking, they need to know the basics, which is what an education that promotes conformity provides. Strong. Overall Mark: 5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a R ) Breakdown (out of 6): Addresses tasks: 5 Supporting task is adequately addressed. Refuting task is well addressed. Resolution task is well addressed. Depth: 4 Focus and coherence: 5 Grammar and vocabulary: 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted June 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Prompt 26 Dimon Conformity is one possible lesson that learners may take away from a good teacher. This is especially true when the students are learning to operate a nuclear submarine in a military academy, whose teachers are veterans with many years of experience at sea on patrols mainly aimed at strategic deterrence. One of the most important lessons that these teachers can impress upon their students is to think and act in a uniform manner so that when called upon to perform their duties on the nuclear submarine, they can do so without hesitation with the confidence that everyone around them is working with the same goal in mind. This conformity even manifests itself visually since every naval seaman is required to shave their head and to wear the same uniform that everyone else is required to wear. Central to the navy’s mentality is the ethos that conformity is vital for the success of the mission, and consequently if a veteran can teach enlistees and officers the importance of conformity, then as far as the teacher certainly accomplished their mission. Strong. Conversely, when one is learning how to compose music, teachers often make it a priority to explain the importance of developing your own sound and style in order to differentiate yourself from other composers. The promotion of a lack of conformity amongst composers is critical for each individual composer’s success and overall profits. For instance, a contemporary American composer, Frank Ticheli, noted in an interview that when he teaches his composition classes to students at the University of Texas, both he and his students frequently express a mutual and ubiquitous desire to create music that is somehow different than many traditional compositions, and yet still appeals to a wide audience of listeners. Frank Ticheli consoles word choice his students by remarking how the ability to break the barrier of conformity is the most difficult aspect of being a successful composer, and once they have accomplished this, they will be able to formulate new and untried musical ideas that appeal to the masses. Frank Ticheli clearly demonstrates how good teaching does not necessarily require the promotion of conformity. Excellent. Therefore, whether or not good teaching promotes conformity is dependent upon the intentions of the students with respect to the material they are being taught. This is vague and ambiguous. In the instance of students training to be qualified Naval operators of a nuclear submarine, their success in that role is directly dependent upon their ability to act in a concerted and uniform manner which necessitates that they have been taught the importance of this conformity during their military education. The application of your resolution principle here needs improvement. Unlike naval academy students whose success is determined by their ability to conform with their team members and with strict guidelines and regulations, students of the composer Frank Ticheli value the ability to compose music in a non-conformist manner. Rewrite this sentence to make it more concise. This lack of conformity is critical for their ultimate success as a composer since people are more likely to have an affinity towards music that is somehow different and fresh and yet still contains certain fundamental elements of music, compared to listening to the same songs and genre in a continuous mundane cycle. Thus the quality of a teacher can mainly be judged by the relevance of what they are teaching to their students’ ultimate intentions. Overall Mark: 5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a R) Breakdown (out of 6): Addresses tasks: 5 Supporting task is well addressed. Refuting task is completely addressed. Resolution task is adequately addressed. Depth: 4.5 Focus and coherence: 5 Grammar and vocabulary: 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharpshooter Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Prompt 27 Sharpshooter Laws are created to discourage certain behaviours or in an attempt to attain certain goals. Not all laws are agreeable to citizens because everyone has a different perspective. A person who obeys a law abides by the terms that are stated in that law. We should not only follow laws that we agree with, but as well as those which we may not agree with. For example, citizens in Guelph have a legal duty to pick up their dog's waste in public. However, not all dog owner agree with this law since they state that dog waste is biodegradeable and its just fertilizer. Dog owners who fail to clean up after dog's waste can face a fine of up to $5000. There are a number of reasons for this law: health, environmental, and aesthetics. The feces of dogs can expose humans to a host of conditions, including tapeworms and whiporms. Dog feces contribute to the bacterial content of river, thereby polluting parks and waterways. Moreover, sidewalks, parks, and green spaces are much cleaner and therefore much nicer for everyone to enjoy when people dispose of their dog's feces. Despite these reasons, a number of people still choose not to follow this law because they fill they will not be caught and some dog owners still do not follow the law. Nonetheless, people should not only follow the only laws they agree with, but as well as they laws they do not approve of since it will prevent them suffering the consequences of not abiding by the law and there are usually good reasons for implemented laws. However, it is sometimes justified to break a law that one does not approve of. For example, The Holocaust was a period of genocide of six million European Jews. During this time period, various laws were implemented to eliminate Jews from civil society, most prominently the Nuremberg Laws, were introduced in Nazi Germany. Concentration camps were created in which inmates were forced to slave labour to the point of exhaustion causing disease and death. A number of Jews hid or escaped from the Nazis to save their lives, thereby breaking the Nuremberg Laws; however, the law breaking was justified since the laws were irrational and it was based on racism against the Jews. Also, these Jews sparred their own lives by break these laws. Thus, what determines when it is justified to break a law is whether survival is at stake or not. When one’s survival is not at stake, it is not justified to break a law. However, when one’s survival is at stake, it is justified to break a law. For example, the law of cleaning up after your dog's waste is not approved by citzens, but survival is not at stake in such a case. Therefore, people should just follow this law to avoid the reperucussions of breaking the law. However, the Nuremberg laws was a case where one's survival was at stake; it was genocide based on racism against Jews. Thus, it was reasonble for the Jews, who hid or escaped from the Nazis, to break these laws to save their own lives. Thank you Raymond! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted June 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Prompt 26 tms Teaching is seen as a highly regarded profession in our society. It involves sharing one’s knowledge of the workings of the world with others. Good teaching consists of further education that motivates individuals, instills confidence in them and encourages them to believe in themselves. Some believe that good teaching promotes conformity as it may cause one to follow others. For example, Dalton McGuinty is the current premier of Ontario. He is a highly educated individual with a bachelors degree in Biology, followed by a law degree. He later entered the realm of politics through his membership to the liberal party. At present, he can be seen as one who follows in the footsteps of previous liberal provincial leaders as well as current and previous federal leaders. Since he took office, he has worked to maintain the services to the public as they were established previously and modifications have been made over time with consent of other municipal, provincial and federal politicians as well as the citizens. As such, this example illustrates how good teaching in the form of further education allows one to conform to the needs and agendas of others, in a stable political environment. This example is not what the writing prompt is looking for. It is not focused on teaching. Furthermore, just because a politician continues to provide the same services as other politicians does not mean they are conforming. On the other hand, it is not always the case where good teaching promotes conformity. Good teaching can also promote individuality where it allows individuals to become leaders in society and further promote changes in values, beliefs, morals or lead to further innovations in terms of goods and services. For example, Mahatma Gandhi, a well known leader from the early 1900’s was considered to be a well educated man in his time. He obtained further education in Africa and upon returning to India in the 1930’s, he continued to promote the idea of freedom and equality for all citizens. He later led a non-violent revolution in India in the early 1940’s, which later resulted in the independence of the nation in 1947. His contributions are still remembered today and he is believed to be one of the major leaders whose efforts played a crucial role in the Independence of India from the British rule. As such, this example illustrates how good teaching in the form of further education can allow an individual to utilize their knowledge and skills in a way that is different from others, further promoting individuality. Thus, Gandhi’s leadership motivated others to follow in his footsteps and work towards a common goal on a collective manner when dealing with an unstable political environment. The same issue as before. This is not focused on the teaching element and is mostly off-topic. Gandhi could have made an excellent example but not in the way it is described here. The term "further education" is also questionable. In conclusion, good teaching in the form of further education is an important resource for an individual. This is not what the resolution task is concerned with. It allows individuals to acquire the necessary knowledge of the workings of the world as well as skills to apply that knowledge in order to contribute to society. Furthermore, good teaching also promotes creativity and critical thinking. Once an individual obtains further education, it depends on that individual as well as the given socio-political circumstances whether or not they conform to others. Some will decide to follow in the footsteps of others, as seen in the example of the current premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty who is seen as one who follows other political leaders while working in a stable political environment. Alternatively, others will decide to lead by creating new ideas and new ways to solve problems, as seen in the example of Mahatma Gandhi and his non-violent revolution against the British Rule in India in the 1940’s when the nation was facing an unstable political environment. This does not address the resolution task. The problem here is that most of the discussion is off-topic and does not address the writing tasks. If you need help on the basics of the writing sample please refer to this link: http://portal.prep101.com/Forum/yaf_postst58_How-to-write-Writing-Sample-essays.aspx Overall Mark: 1/6 (Corresponds to approximately a ) Breakdown (out of 6): Addresses tasks: 1 Supporting task is poorly addressed. Refuting task is poorly addressed. Resolution task is not addressed. Depth: 1 Focus and coherence: 1 Grammar and vocabulary: 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sulfamethoxazole Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 In an ideal world, each and every law is unanimously supported by those it governs. Unfortunately, this is not the case in the real world. Often, otherwise law-abiding citizens will disagree with particular laws that they see as unfair or contrary to their rights. However, although a citizen might not agree with some laws, in most cases, it is still the citizen's duty to obey them. For instance, most people will find the thought of being strip-searched at an airport unpleasant. However, the law requires passengers to submit to intrusive procedures like pat-downs (and possibly strip searches) if they wish to board an airplane. Although citizens might disagree with a law that puts them at the mercy of airport security personnel, it is easy to see why they must abide by the law regardless of their opinion. The required security searches serve to protect all passengers from threats like terrorism. If every dissenting citizen chose not to abide by the law and board planes without security checks, air travel would soon become very dangerous. Laws help protect all citizens, and if we want to enjoy the safety of a lawful land, we must abide by the law even when we disagree with it. However, sometimes a law is so outrageous that obeying the law would be equal to condoning grave injustices. During WWII, the Nazis passed many laws that were discriminatory and harmful to the Jewish people. In particular, citizens were forbidden from harboring Jewish people in their homes, since the Nazis wanted all Jews to be rounded up at concentration camps where they could be killed. There were many good people who disagreed with these laws, and some who were brave enough to break them. The family of Anne Frank, for example, were able to escape Nazi persecution for several years thanks to their neighbours allowing them to hide in the attic of their house. Unlike the airport security laws mentioned previously, the citizens who broke Nazi laws were justified in following their moral compasses rather than the word of the state. After all, obeying these laws would have lead to the suffering of even more innocent victims at the hands of the Fascist regime. What determines then whether we should have to abide by a law that we disagree with? Obviously, our disagreement alone is not enough. Otherwise, all citizens would follow only the laws that they found convenient, which would defeat the purpose of a legal system. One approach to determining whether a law should be followed or broken is to consider whether the law in question promotes discriminatory treatment of a particular group of people and whether the law can cause lasting harm to citizens. In the case of airport security checks, although being subject to a strip-search is unpleasant, all travellers are subject to the possibility of being searched. In addition, a strip search, although unpleasant, is unlikely to cause long-term psychological or physical damage. Since this law is neither discriminatory or harmful, it should be followed even it we disagree with it. On the other hand, the Nazi laws discussed earlier were both discriminatory against Jewish people and capable of causing significant harm, up to and including death. Citizens are thus justified in questioning and disobeying these laws. ----- Thanks Raymond! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drrd Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Prompt 27 - We must obey not only the laws of which we approve, but also those of which we may not approve. Laws are rules that govern society. They are in place to ensure that there is order. In a democratic society, laws are derived from our moral principles and values; they are explicit rules that dictate what is allowed or not allowed. Furthermore, due to the nature of a democracy, the laws are usually representative of the will of the people. By extension, the people obey laws usually because they approve of them. However, in some cases, the people of society must obey laws that they do not approve of. For example, consider the October Crisis. In the late 1970s, the Front du Liberation de Quebec (FLQ), a terrorist organization, set a series of bombs off in Quebec, Canada. The attacks killed civilians and posed a threat to province of Quebec and the country at large. After their initial set of bombings, the FLQ proceeded to kidnap two government officials and killed one of them. At this point, the Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, enacted the War Measures Act. This act enabled police to arrest citizens without a warrant. At the time, Trudeau was criticized by politicians and the public as this was seen as impinging on the rights and freedoms of Canadians. However, it resulted in a quick resolution of the crisis. In this case, it was clear that although the people did not approve of the law, it had to be obeyed to prevent any further danger to citizen and retain order in society. However, in other cases, laws that are not approved of may be justifiably broken. Consider the example of peer-to peer (P2P) file sharing. Beginning in the mid to late 1990s, file sharing has become a huge phenomenon. It consisted of individuals on the internet sharing media such as music, movies and TV shows with each other. There was no price involved as users were sharing their own files that they had acquried with others. As it became more and more popular in countries such as the United States of America, organizations such as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) began to crack down on certain citizens who were sharing these files illegally. They began prosecuting citizens and serving them lawsuits more than a million dollars. However, the number of people who were adopting file sharing practices on the internet were continuing to increase at an exponential rate. Eventually, the MPAA and RIAA could not track down every single violator of the law. Today, file sharing remains a criminal offence yet millions of people continue to do it. Advocators of file sharing claim that the prices of media are too high and that the distribution networks were quite inconvenient. Clearly, in this case, people did not obey the file sharing laws because they did not approve of them. Therefore, what determines whether or not it is justified to break a law is whether or not a society is facing a crisis. In the example of the FLQ, terrorists were killing civilians, including governmental officials. These acts were threatening to the safety of Canadians and had to be stopped. In this case, a law that most people did not necessarily approve of was passed to quickly diffuse the situation as to prevent any further harm. In this case, people had to obey the law for the common good. However, when society is not facing a crisis, the people should not obey laws when that they do not approve of. As mentioned previously, laws are representative of the certain moral principles and values that the people in a democratic society deem important. In the case of P2P file sharing, the majority of society believed that file sharing was appropriate. Due to such an overwhelming majority of people disobeying the laws, they were not upheld by the authorities. In this example, it was clear that societal values around this issue had changed and thus laws were justifiably broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loopas Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Thank you Raymond! We must obey not only the laws of which we approve, but also those of which we may not approve. Laws are the basis of order in society and without these laws, chaos would ensue. Unfortunately, everyone does not benefit from each law because laws are objectively enforced to benefit society as a whole (not each individual). In order to maintain chaos, people should obey not only the laws of which they approve but also those of which they may not approve. For example, recently, in Bolivia and Ecuador, the Law of Mother Nature was put in place to prioritize environmental concerns over economic gain. This law grants nature the same rights as a person such as the right to clean air and water as well as the right to life. Though, this law was not approved by many becuase both Ecuador and Bolivia heavily rely on domestic oil mining to boost the economy, it was obeyed by everyone. On occasion however, people must obey only the laws of which they approve and challenge the laws which they do not approve of. For example, Rosa Parks was as an African-American civil rights activist, who refused to obey bus driver James Blake's order that she give up her seat to make room for a white passenger. Parks resisted the law which declared that bus passengers should segregate by race. She was arrested for civil disobedience. Eventually, her protest against the law of segregation led the Supreme Court to abandon this law. Rosa Parks legacy still continues and she has become the symbol of civil rights. To maintain order, citizens should obey laws that not only benefit the society now but will also benefit society in the long run. For example, though the economy was slightly affected by the implementation of this law, the Law of Mother Earth was important to ensure long-term survival of the environment. If this law was not obeyed by everyone, the future generations in Bolivia and Ecuador would not have been able to enjoy the diverse nature that their countries offer. Also, without this law, the tourism industries of these countries would collapse as nature is what draws tourists to these countries. The long-term affect to the economy would have been even more detrimental than the short-term effect. In contrast, the law of segregation which was protested by Rosa Parks would not benefit society as a whole in the long run as hostility between the black and white races would increase and even war could rage. By disobeying a law that she did not approve of, Rosa Parks paved the way to a unified nation in which all races are treated equally. Thus, in implementing and obeying laws, the benefit of future generations should be kept in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medhopeful64 Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Sorry I am a little late - hope you can still mark this, thanks a lot! We must obey not only the laws of which we approve, but also those of which we may not approve. Describe a specific situation in which one who does not approve of a law might justifiably break that law. Discuss what you think determines when it is justified to break a law. Although politicians create laws in order to keep peace in society, politicians cannot always please all citizens in terms of the laws that they pass. Sometimes, people may not approve of certain laws, yet we must obey them regardless of our personal opinion. Doing so otherwise would disrupt the general order and peace of society. For example, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford reccently announced his plans to ban the plastic shopping bag in Toronto starting in 2013. Shortly after this announcement, many people expressed disapproval of this new ban on shopping bags, stating that it was not only an inconvenience to shoppers, but also that it will not help Ontario reduce waste. Most plastic shopping bags are biodegradable and do little harm to the environment. Despite public disapproval, the ban is slated to take effect in 2013. Storeowners who offer shopping bags in their stores will be fined starting in 2013, and although many customers and storeowners alike disapprove of the ban, it must be obeyed. Thus, it is clear that we must obey not only the laws of which we approve, but also of those which we may not approve. In extenuating circumstances however, one can justifiably break a law that one does not approve of. This can be done when the law is clearly discriminatory against a certain group of individuals. Take the infamous Rosa Parks example. Rosa Parks, an African-American woman, broke the law when she sat in the front of the bus in the 1950s, refusing to offer her seat to a white passenger. At the time, it was the law for African Americans to sit in the back of the bus, in accordance with the segregation that was currently in place. This law was clearly disapproved by many (including several white, and African Americans), and many decided for themselves that it was unjustifiable. In this case, Rosa Parks (and a few others who followed suit) was justified in breaking the bus law because it was clearly discriminatory against African Americans. Disobeying discriminatory or laws of which one may not approve is thus sometimes justifiable. One may not approve of all the laws that are passed in one's country. Nonetheless, it is important to obey the laws of which we approve and disapprove as long as it does not trample on the rights of anyone or is discriminatory against a certain group of individuals. In such cases, it is justifiable to break a law which one does not approve of. This was seen in the case of Rosa Parks, who broke a clearly discriminatory law that forbade African Americans to sit at the front of a bus. Her refusal to obey led to a social rights movement and helped African Americans obtain the same rights as White Americans. If, however, a law is not discriminatory or does not degrade the dignity of a human being (as it did with the Rosa Parks example), then it is not justifiable to break a law of which one does not approve of. Although the ban on plastic shopping bags in Toronto, Canada was voiced by public disapproval by shoppers and storeowners alike, this particular law does not trample on the rights of any human being, or discrimininatingly target a particular group of individuals. All shoppers and all storeowners must obey the law, regardless of their personal opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted June 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Prompt 26 chris67 For society to function properly, it is crucial that all of its members conform to some common values and morals. The teaching of these values begins at a very young age, and is primarily facilitated by the education system. Elementary school children are taught basic values such as sharing and empathy, and those who act out or fail to follow rules are disciplined by the teacher. This allows the child to learn that the world he or she lives in has certain guidelines which must be followed. A good educator will instill these values in children, and ensure that they conform to basic societal principles. A failure to do so would cause delinquency in the children, which can increase the probability of future misdemeanors as an adult. Teaching a child to conform at a young age goes a long way to prevent adult criminal activity. This discussion works but is a bit too general and lacks depth. However, other academic institutions, such as universities, may not be interested in promoting conformity. Instead, they may be primarily focused on teaching students how to make, in their opinion, the best possible contribution to society. A professor teaching a university political science class may seek to promote action against what he or she believes to be political injustices. Telling students to rebel against governmental policies and actions does not promote conformity, but the students who have taken the class may have a desire to learn about political injustice and act out against it. Therefore, the professor has met their needs, along with the goals of the university, thus making the him or her a "good" teacher, while promoting non-conforming behaviour. Similar to before, this works but lacks depth. One of your goals in the writing sample is to demonstrate complexity of reasoning. The defining principle that decides whether good teaching promotes conformity is the ultimate goal of the educational institution. This is vague. Try to be more clear and specific when you present your resolution principle. Elementary schools seek to prepare students to be successful members of society, and to do so they must teach them how to conform and behave in accordance with societal values. By teaching students these values, an elementary school teacher is acting in accorance with the goal of elementary schools, thus making his or her teaching "good." Universities seek to educate their students on how to contribute to society, and if the university's educators believe that not conforming is the best way to do it then that is what they will teach. The resolution is okay but not strong. Many times the best way to contribute to society involves conforming to societal values. Similar to before, everything is too general. Overall Mark: 4/6 (Corresponds to approximately a P) Breakdown (out of 6): Addresses tasks: 4 Supporting task is adequately addressed. Refuting task is adequately addressed. Resolution task is somewhat addressed. Depth: 3 Focus and coherence: 4 Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted June 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Prompt 26 bpp Standardized testing is the cornerstone of assessing students, and the quality of teaching they receive, on a large scale. This occurs from elementary school up to licensing exams for professionals. Conformity in test scores what does this mean exactly?, as long as they are uniformly acceptable scores, is thought to indicate that students have achieved a certain level of mastery of somesubject. These uniformly good test scores could then be considered the result of good teaching. For example, if a good teacher taught a preparation course for a test of english as a second language, then relatively uniform (and good) test results would be expected among the students. This example could work but is not explained in a convincing manner. It does not address the writing task well. Furthermore, the example is a bit too general and lacks depth. Looking beyond the scope of standardized testing, however, good teaching may not necessarily promote conformity.Each student is different, and has different strengths and weaknesses, and because of this good teaching may not promote conformity. For example, students may receive equally good teaching in a mathematics class, but because some students naturally understand the subject better, they would finish the course with a better understanding of the subject than those who were naturally strong in another subject. This does not address the refuting task in a convincing manner. This is not what the refuting task is getting at. Good teaching promotes conformity knowledge ???, but cannot erase the fundamental differences in strengths and weaknesses of students. This is not what the writing prompt is concerned with. Standardized tests demostrate well the circumstances in which good teaching promotes conformity. They often focus on more basic knowledge and applying fundamental skills. These are things that most people typically have the capacity to learn, and therefore good teaching will promote good, uniform results. In areas which are more specific, or difficult for many people, good teaching can produce quite varied results. In the example of the math class, good teaching would have produced better understanding among those who are naturally strong in math, while still improving the results of those who were not naturally as strong. Your discussion got off-course in the refuting paragraph and here you remain off-topic. This discussion does not address what the writing prompt is looking for. Take the time to understand the core issue of the writing prompt before writing. Once the essay gets off-track, it usually remains off-track and the writing tasks are not addressed. The prompt is not concerned with conformity of scores (similar scores between all students). The prompt is concerned with the issue of conformity in terms of behavior, manner of thinking, etc. 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 poorly addressed. Resolution task is not addressed. Depth: 2 Focus and coherence: 1.5 Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted June 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Prompt 26 sixstar It is often argued that conformity, acting in a manner that adhere's to a set common standard, is encouraged in today's society, especially in the field of education. "Good teaching" can describe a method of teaching that most effectively promotes learning. As such, it can be argued that in the field of education, good teaching promotes conformity. For instance, effective learning arising from being taught to conform is readily apparent in beginner classes, such as early childhood visual art classes. Often, the subject of visual art is formally introduced in the early grades of primary school. In these classes, children are taught how to draw and color using tracing techniques, where the student simply copies a pre-made drawing, and "color-by-number" style tasks, where children are told which colors to fill a drawing in with. In this case, the student's main task is to conform to the teaching methods of the instructor, by explicitly following the tracing pattern or coloring instructions set out for them. Both these methods of teaching visual art are common in the early education of art, as they set a solid foundation from which the student can further develop their art skills later on in their education. As such, it can be argued that both of these methods are examples of good teaching which promotes conformity, as these methods, which rely on the student’s ability to conform to the educator’s instructions, provide an important educational foundation for the beginner student. Strong. However, good teaching does not always promote conformity. As a child advances through the education system and acquires a greater knowledgebase, the educators are expected to promote creativity more so than conformity. For instance, in the province of Alberta, once a student reaches the final grade level of secondary school (Grade 12), they are expected to write a standardized and comprehensive "Diploma Examination," which is worth 50% of their final grade for their corresponding Grade 12 course. In particular, the main focus of the physics Diploma Exam is not on testing a student's ability to use the appropriate equations to solve straight-forward questions, but rather to test how well a student can apply the knowledge learned in their class to new problems presented on the exam. As such, grade 12 physics teachers in Alberta are encouraged to present the course material in a manner that challenges the student to think "outside-of-the-box" and be able to apply previous knowledge to new situations. This style of teaching, which can prove to be very effective in preparing the student for the Diploma exam, does not encourage conformity, but rather creativity. This example is okay. However, it is not established that this is good teaching. It would seem that whether or not good teaching promotes conformity depends on the student's level of education. Strong resolution principle. In the case of early childhood art education, teaching methods that encourage conformity, such as picture tracing and "color-by-number" style tasks, are encouraged in teaching young artists, as the skills learned at this early level will set up a solid foundation from which the student can develop from as they advance through their art education. On the other hand, in the case of Grade 12 physics education in Alberta, good and effective teaching promotes creativity, in that the students are now expected to learn how to use their previously acquired physics knowledge in new and creative ways to solve problems presented on the Diploma Exam. Therefore, as a student advances through their education and acquires a greater knowledgebase of the subject material, good teaching can promote creativity over conformity. Strong. Overall Mark: 5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a R) Breakdown (out of 6): Addresses tasks: 5 Supporting task is well addressed. Refuting task is adequately addressed. Resolution task is well addressed. Depth: 4.5 Focus and coherence: 5 Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.