Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Prep101 - Free Writing Sample Feedback **Thread #3**


RaymondPrep101

Recommended Posts

Prompt 28 Sharpshooter

 

Freedom of speech has influenced humanity in many ways. Freedom of speech allows one to say whatever they please to voice to others. Usually, the freedom to speak freely is an absolute right that should not be be limited. If humankind was not allowed to speak freely, many countries would still suffer from unreasonable political regimes. Gandhi lead India to independence and inspired movements in non-volence, civil rights, and freedom across many countries. In 1942, he delivered his "Quit India" speech in which he voiced a historical appeal for a massive civil disobedience movement in support of one of his greatest causes of his life: the struggle of India's freedom from the oppressive rule of the British. If he was not allowed to deliver this speech, India would possibbly still be under the imperial rule of the British and lack the independence it has today. Also, the freedom that exists in numerous countries today would possibly not exist if his inspirational speeches were not heard. Therefore, the freedom to speak freely should not be limited.

 

However, freedom of speech might justifiably be limited in some cases. For example, after Hilter lost world war I (WWI), he voiced his hatred toward the Jews and blamed the Jews for losing the war in a number of charismatic speeches. As a result, he encouraged Nazis to kill Jews to seek revenge for Germany's loss of WWI. He motivated Nazis to create concentration camps in which Jews were forced to slave labour until the point of exhaustion that led to disease and death. His racist speeches against the Jews contributed to the genocide of six million european Jews. If Hitler was not allowed to freely speak as he chose post WWI, the lives of many Jews possibly would have been saved.

 

Therefore, freedom of speech should not be limited when the content of the speech does not promote racism. When the content of the a speech promotes racism, freedom of speech should be limited. For example, Gandhi's "Quit India" speech was not racist and it actually helped India to gain independence from the opressive rule of the British Empire. His other speeches also influenced many other movements across the world that have benefited many individuals. However, Hitler's speech after WWI was racist against the Jews since he blamed the Jews for the loss of WWI and motivated Nazi's to kill numerous Jews. Therefore, if his racist speech was not voiced, the live of millions of Jews would have been sparred.

 

Thanks Raymond!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 232
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Freedom of speech is an absolute right that must never be limited.

 

Freedom is the ability an individual has to act and behave as they wish, therefore freedom of speech is allowing one to speak and say what they wish to say. The right to do so is a key characteristic of humanity and should not be restricted. One should be able to express themselves vocally in words without fear of suffering repercussions. Only with this fundamental right is mankind able to move forward in civilization. Take Martin Luther King for example, if he were not given the freedom of speech, he would not have been able to fight for African-American rights. Martin Luther King made many notable speeches in his time to fight for equality and it could not have been possible without his right to speech. If this fundamental right were limited, humanity would lose an attribute that uniquely makes us human and has enhanced our society.

 

However, there are also instances were limitations on freedom of speech would be of benefit. Certain thoughts and emotions may hinder society if expressed vocally to the public. One specific example where limited freedom of speech is justifiable is during World War II. Hitler's regime was successful because his freedom of speech led to the brainwashing of other Germans. Freedom of speech in this case led to hatred and violence, and ultimately resulted in one of the most devastating wars in history. If freedom of speech was limited in Hitler's case, it may have prevented World War II and all the bloodshed that resulted.

 

Freedom of speech is a right humans' should have, but there also exists certain instances where it should be limited. Whether of not freedom of speech should be limited is contingent on whether or not violence results from what is being said. Martin Luther King used his freedom of speech in order to make a positive contribution to society by fighting for equal rights. His voice ultimately resulted in a great leap forward for the African- American community, and greater equality for all of America. His speeches did not promote violence or hatred, and was trying to fight those very things hindering society. Hitler on the other hand used his freedom of speech to promote hatred and violence, which led other German citizens to engage in war. The large scale and physically harmful behavior that resulted could very well have been prevented if his ability to speak was limited. It is evident that freedom of speech is a valuable part of our society, but it can also be used as a destructive weapon. As with any weapon,there are times where it can be used freely and other when it should be limited.

 

Thanks Raymond!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom of speech is an absolute right that must never be limited.

 

Describe a specific situation in which freedom of speech might justifiably be limited. Discuss what you think determines when freedom of speech should be limited.

 

Freedom of speech is one of the most basic right that should be given in a democracy. Freedom of speech entails that every member of the society is allowed to speak their mind no matter how damaging the words are. In a democratic society, even the most radical members of the society have this freedom of speech. At the time of the writing of the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers of America had given this matter a great deal of thought and came to the conclusion that freedom of speech should never be compromised. This is because they believed that by suppressing even the most intolarent and radical members of society, we risk suppressing some very smart ideas and people that can bring a good change for a Democracy. Suppression of this speech that can bring a necessary change would seriously harm a democracy, and therefore, from this point on, many democracies have also allowed the freedom of speech to be retained in all circumstances.

 

The founding fathers argued that a democracy with suppression of speech from radicals or opposition risks suppressing important ideas that can bring a necessary and important change to the society. This, however, was not always the case. Many dictatorships and communist government of the past have used the suppression of speech as a tool to stay in power, legally. Joseph Stalin for example used this to stay in power of USSR as well the new countries that we formed in eastern Europe due to World War 2. Stalin has been given the higher honour that exists in Russia because of what he did. Dispite all the bad things that Stalin had conducted, he was given credit for turning the USSR into a world Superpower. Adolf Hitler, a dictator of Germany from 1930s to the late 1940s also used suppression of speech to bring Germany out of the turmoil resulting from the first World War. Hitler's propaganda began much before the second world war had actually started. As a chanceller, Hitler used his influence and friends to promote filming of movies that would raise the moral of German citizens. This propaganda of Hitler is given the credit of bringing the German people's moral up and for bringing Germany out of the turmoil that it was in because of world war one. This propaganda was also given the credit for turning Germany into a super power in a matter of 10 years. This suppression of speech used by Stalin and Hitler, will look unethical and even not justified from the point of view of a democracy. However, Hitler's Germany and Stalins USSR were not a democracy. One was a communist state and the other was a dictatorship. These two leaders suppressed the freedom of speech to make their nations into a superpower in a matter of 10-13 years. This was much necessary for both these countries. Russia, which was just coming out of losing wars with finland and Japan and Germany which had been subject to many loses as a result of the treaty of versaile during the first world war. It can be argued that these two leaders justifiably used the suppression of speech to stay in power which allowed them to turn their respective nations into super powers of the time.

 

The world of Stalin and that of Hitler will look unethical from the point of view of democracy, however, the laws of Hitler and Stalin was what Germany and USSR needed to get out of the turmoil and it was needed to turn their countries into superpowers of the time. To suppres speech or not to depends on the type of government. Democratic countries such as the USA and India must abide by the laws of democracy and allow for complete freedom of speech. A leader of a democracy is only given 4 years to stay in power and a new leader is elected every 4 years. This Democretic leader has 4 years to bring change to the country and make the country a better place. Suppression of speech in America therefore would result in suppression of ideas worthwhile from the opposion who could be elected 4 years later. The leader of a dictatorship on the other hand is simply given a longer term than that of a democracy. This Dictator is given more than 4 years to bring about a change in the countries coundition. Stalin stayed in power for approximately 30 years and Hitler for 15 years. These dictators used their suppression of speech to allow their ideas to come into play without any opposition which allowed their respective countries to become superpowers of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom of speech is an absolute right that must never be limited.

 

Describe a specific situation in which freedom of speech might justifiably be limited. Discuss what you think determines when freedom of speech should be limited.

 

In democratic countries, freedom of speech is considered to be an integral right for the people. However, freedom of speech is often limited to many parts of the world, especially in countries ruled by a non-democratic government. These governments censor peoples’ actions through removing access to areas of the internet, monitoring peoples’ actions and controlling the press to prevent unsavory information or opinions from reaching the public. These governments are limit freedom of speech by censoring. Many people feel that this is unjust because freedom of speech is a fundamental human right that must always be respected and maintained.

 

The importance of freedom of speech to the citizens of America is illustrated through the events of Banned Books Week. Banned Book Week is an event that This week occurs every year at the end of September and this month focuses on celebrating and drawing attention to banned books and promotes intellectual freedom. Banning books limits the fundamental right of freedom of speech. This banning can occur, for example, in an educational institution where books are banned because people feel they are too “anti-family.” In fact, many books that are censored contain material that are an integral part of current issues such as homosexuality, sexuality, child and drug abuse. These books give readers awareness about these situations which, unfortunately, are pervasive within our society. Further, censorship of books can also reach entire countries when governments believe a text is too controversial to be allowed to the public. For instance, Animal Farm, a classic by George Orwell, was considered too risky to print during the world war because it appeared to be too critical of the USSR. If this book had been permanently censored, we would be lacking this important novel in the literature canon and literature classes across the world would be much different. Banned Books Week tries to highlight the effects of this censorship and highlights that freedom of speech is an integral right and thus material should not be censored. Instead, people should be allowed to voice their opinions and others should consider this information and make decisions accordingly. This is a widespread movement that is praised by Amnesty International. Awareness has spread throughout the world on the ill effects of censorship through this movement and its strength reveals that people firmly believe in freedom of speech and a lack of censorship. Because of this movement, banning books has become less frequent, especially in schools. Banned book week, by highlighting the challenges of censorship, illustrates how important freedom of speech is in learning about and changing our society.

 

On the other hand, freedom of speech, though considered a right, comes with a responsibility. When Danish cartoonists published the controversial cartoons depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad, the international community was affected by the aftermath of this publication. Due to recent events, the Muslim community was already facing scrutiny from the international community and many felt persecuted due to an inaccurate depiction of them due to the actions of extremist groups. The publication of these cartoons resulted in an international controversy and also spurred violent reactions. Further, the publishing of these cartoons deeply hurt the international Muslim Community. The Danish newspaper maintained their right to print the cartoons, and other countries’ media reprinted these cartoons for their own news. Canada’s media outlets also printed these cartoons, however, they soon pulled their cartoons. The prime minister voiced that the citizens of Canada have a right to freedom of speech; however, he also acknowledged that people should be respectful of other peoples’ beliefs and should be sensitive to those beliefs. Many other countries also expressed their regret at the publication of these cartoons because they found them to be geared to provoke the Danish Muslim minority. These countries also wished that they had not offended the Muslim community. The Danish newspaper, in 2010, apologized for printing the cartoons. This situation indicates that, if the opinions are not directed towards a positive social change and are geared to inflame a significant portion of the community, it is wise to moderate ones’ public speech in order to maintain stability in the country. By not following this guideline, the publication resulted in hundreds of people dying and of an international incident.

 

It can be seen that the question of whether or not freedom of speech should be limited depends on the intent of the speech. If the speech is intended to promote the growth of a nation and to educate its citizens then freedom of speech should not be limited. However, if the speech may inflame or provoke a community, especially without the clear desire to promote social change, it should be limited in order to maintain the stability of the society. In a situation where books containing relevant issues are banned from schools, the censorship is inappropriate because these issues are relevant in society and the books provide a way to educate students about these issues. However, as in the case of the Prophet Muhammad cartoons, it may have been wiser to limit the publications due to its aftermath. Freedom of speech has a great effect on society; it can either benefit or harm society depending on its use and purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom of speech is an important right that is guaranteed in most democratic nations. By allowing citizens to voice their opinions, no matter how unpopular, this freedom protects the majority from oppressing the voices of the minority. However, some speech is not only unpopular but also potentially harmful to others. To what extent then should the freedom of speech be respected? Some people believe freedom of speech must never be limited. One notable example of this belief is the Westboro Baptist Church in the United States. The Phelps family, who comprise this organization, are known for their vocal racist, discriminatory opinions. In fact, the church members often rally at funerals of their critics as well as army veterans, carrying inflammatory signs that demean the deceased. However, when the father of one dead veteran whose funeral was rallied at sued the Westboro Baptist Church, the Supreme court ruled that the organization was protected by the First Amendment which guaranteed freedom of speech. The judges agreed that the ideas expressed by the Phelps were distasteful and even harmful to the family of the dead. However, they also believed that upholding the right to free speech was more important than the emotional distress of the family.

 

However, in some exceptional circumstances, freedom of speech does not take precedent over the well-being of those affected by harmful speech. For example, sexual harassment in the workplace is illegal in many countries. Although people are entitled to many types of speech in the workplace, verbal communication that is derogatory or sexually threatening is strictly prohibited. While this could be seen as undermining the freedom of speech, the necessity of this law is very clear. If we allowed this kind of speech in the workplace, the potential victims would suffer repeated, inescapble harassment which could lead to severe emotional problems like anxiety and depression. Although freedom of speech is important, in this case, the right to work in a healthy workplace takes precedent.

 

The danger of limiting the freedom of speech is that it gives the state the power to squash legitimate, minority opinions. However, having absolutely no restrictions on freedom of speech is not a good idea either. How do we gauge whether freedom of speech should be limited or not? One important factor to consider is whether or not people can avoid listening to the speech being given. Although the Phelps family have very negative and inflammatory opinions, citizens who disagree with them can very easily tune them out. Even at a funeral, the family of the deceased can take measures to reduce what they see and hear of the Phelps. Since the harmful speech given by the Phelps family can be avoided, the speech should be protected no matter the contents. On the other hand, workplace sexual harassment is unavoidable. Unless they are willing to quit their jobs, victims of sexual harassment at work are not able to avoid listening to their tormenters. In this case, the suppression of freedom of speech is justified, since it is the only way to protect potential victims of harmful speech.

 

----

 

Thanks Raymond!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom of speech is an absolute right that must never be limited.

 

The right to free speech has constantly been subject to debate between politicians and philosophers in almost every democratic nation. Philosophers often question whether the general public is able to handle the responsibility that comes with free speech, that is, whether individuals are ready to tolerate views that are exactly opposite to those they hold. In many cases, the right to free speech has made a positive impact on the whole society. For example, in Canada, the Health Minister currently wants to pass a new law that will severely reduce the aid received by incoming refugees. This entails that thousands of refugees who have fled war-torn regions such as Syria (currently undergoing a Civil War) and were injured by cross-fire or mothers who are about to give birth, will not be able to receive significant aid. In opposition to this law, several doctors from the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) are rallying against the Health Minister’s by constantly interrupting the Minister during a press-conference and stating several fundamental flaws with the newly proposed laws. The public gained awareness of this new law thanks to the CMA members’ actions and is now actively trying to prevent the law from being passed. Therefore, the right of free speech in Canada allowed doctors to speak against the government in an attempt to prevent an unjust law from coming into effect.

 

However, there are cases where the free speech has not been used appropriately. During the French Revolution in the late 1700s, Jean Paul Marat, an activist and founder of the rebel front’s newspaper, was also known as a professional malcontent that constantly wrote one-sided articles that criticized any political group that opposed his own views. When the French rebels were deciding whether to legalize the use of a guillotine, the Jacobins led by Robespierre refused to support capital punishment, especially through means as barbaric as the guillotine. Marat, in revolt, inappropriately used the right to free speech (by writing in his newspaper) in order to unfairly labeled all those against capital punishment as enemies of the Revolution; Marat went as far as propagating lies about his opponents. Therefore, Marat and his newspaper effectively abused their right to free speech in order to unjustly denounce oppositional viewpoints.

 

The debate surrounding freedom of speech has been ubiquitous throughout the past as events ranging from the 1700s to our current modern society force us to question its premises. From the aforementioned examples, it can be proposed that freedom of speech should be limited only when people are abusing the power in order to propagate unjust statements about oppositional viewpoints. When the doctors rallied against the Health Minister’s new laws, they did not denounce the minister as an enemy of the state but rather stated their own viewpoint by highlighting flaws associated with the minister’s new refugee-health care law. On the other hand, Marat did exactly the opposite as he unfairly attempted to denounce all those who opposed him as enemies rather than providing a rational argument against his opposition. Overall, the biggest concern surrounding free speech is how it is used against opposing views. If free speech is used in a manner that respects or at least, tolerates the oppositions viewpoints yet tries support one’s own viewpoints, then free speech should not be limited.

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

Thanks a lot Raymond! You da man!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom of speech is an absolute right that must never be limited.

 

Describe a specific situation in which freedom of speech might justifiably be limited. Discuss what you think determines when freedom of speech should be limited.

 

Rights and freedoms play an important role in most modern societies. They are embedded in the notion of equality and liberty where all citizens of a given nation are to be treated equally in terms of their entitlement to such rights and freedoms. Freedom of speech is one such form of freedom that allows citizens to verbally express themselves in public settings. It allows them to articulate their thoughts and opinions as well as present them to other fellow citizens. As such, it is commonly beleived that the freedom of speech is an absolute right that must never be limited, regardless of the thoughts and opinions being presented. For example, in 1947, shortly after India gained independence from the British rule, Mahatma Gandhi gave a speech to fellow citizens where he expressed his opnions and outlook on the state of the country at the given time as well as his hopes for the future. He expressed his own morals and ethical beliefs and also encouraged other citizens to continue on the path of non-violence. In this case, the freedom of speech exercised by Gandhi did not pose a potential threat to other fellow citizens and can be seen as an absolute right under such circumstances.

 

However, it is not always necessary for one to treat the freedom of speech as an absolute right. Under certain circumstances, it is justifiable to limit such freedom. For example, Jack Layton, the former leader of the National Democratic Party in Canada passed away in 2011. He lost his fight against a form of cancer. Shortly before his death, he wrote a letter to follow Canadians and also appeared on national television where he decided not to disclose the details regarding his illness. He did not declare the type of cancer or the exact details regarding his illness in order to help maintain hope for others suffering with the same form cancer. Thus, in this case, Jack Layton justifiably decided to limit his freedom of speech in order to prevent potential harm in the form of loss of hope for other fellow citizens.

 

Ultimately, freedom of speech plays a major role in our modern societies and allows individuals to express themselves to their fellow citizens. It is also embedded in the core principles of liberties and equality where all citizens of a given nation have the same set of rights and freedoms. However, it also important to note that the use of such rights and freedoms may need to be limited under certain circumstances. The freedom of speech can be treated as a absolute right without limits if it were to be exercised in a way that does not pose harm to fellow citizens. This was illustrated in the case of the speech by Mahatma Gandhi shortly after India gained independence in 1947. The purpose of his speech was to inspire citizens to continue on the path of non-violence that had led to their victory against the British rule. However, if one’s exercise of the freedom of speech may pose a potential for harm to other fellow citizens, it’s use must be limited. This was illustrated in the case of Jack Layton who chose not to exercise his freedom of speech and decided not to declare the exact cause of his illness in order to help maintain hope for others sufferring with the same disease. The underlying principle of all rights and freedoms is based on the notion of individuality. These are rights and freedoms of individual citizens that must not compromise the safety, well being and the rights and freedoms of another citizen. As such, if the use of a right or freedom by an individual has the potential of compromising the rights and freedoms (including safety and well-being) of another citizen, limits need to be imposed on such use. Therefore, the use of rights and freedoms is a complex matter and whether their use should be restricted or absolute depends on its consequences for the rights and freedoms of other fellow citizens.

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Raymond, sorry that I am a few minutes late.

 

Each day, millions of Americans rely on their right to freedom of speech to voice their opinions and ideas and to bring change to society. Everyone should be entitled to this right and freedom of speech must should not be limited because it may lead to results that enhance the quality of life for all citizens. For example, Mahatma Gandhi used his freedom of speech to free India from British rule. He believed in the policy of Satyagraha, a non-violent approach to resist British rule and hasten political reform. Gandhi was successful in his mission as India gained his independence. Through the entire process, Gandhi did not use any harsh words, he used his right to freedom of speech but did not hurt anyone while doing so. Without the right to freedomof speech, Gandhi may have not been ableto free India from Britain and the state of India would have been very different that what it is today.

 

In contrast, in some situations, freedom of speech should be limited to prevent harmful consequences. For example, during the trial of Casey Anthony, a woman accused of killing her young daughter Caylee, the usage of freedom of speech by the media created an uproar after the verdict was announced. The jury decided that Casey Anthony was not guilty. Immediately after,the world was thrust in a state of anger and surprise, they wondered how could she be acquited when the evidence against her would so large in magnitude and strength. A prominent lawyer explained that the reason for this outburst by the public was the way that the media portrayed the case. The way that news reporters spoke about Casey Anthony and the words they chose left little doubt in the public's mind that she was guilty. The media only focused on evidence that pointed to Casey Anthony's guilt and even before the legal proceedings began both the media and the public had deemed Casey Anthony guilt. Had the jurors not have been careful in assessing the evidence in an objective manner, they could have fallen in the trap laid out by the media and Casey Anthony's life could have changed forever. The freedom of speech of the media should have been limited before and during the trial so as not to influence the verdict.

 

Though freedom of speech is an important right, it does come with responsibilities. Freedom of speech should be limited when it is subjective and favours only one side of the story. The media was subjective and portrayed Casey Anthony as guilty and this could have resulted in a wrongful conviction. Mahatma Gandhi on the other hand, objectively used his freedom of speech and explained how the independence of India would benefit the Indians and the British. Had Gandhi subjectively favoured Indians and denounced the British, a war may have broken out. When the right to freedom of speech is used, the responsibility of considering both sides of a story must also be kept in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom of speech is an absolute right that must never be limited.

 

 

--------

 

 

North America is a democratic continent where justice and human rights are given to all. The whole idea of a democracy is that everyone has an equal say in the government's actions. This concept would be compromised if free speech was limited; therefore, freedom of speech is a fundamental right to all people in a democratic society, and must not be limited. For example, an organization named Youth Protecting Youth (YPY) is strongly opposed to abortion, and often tries to persuade others to see their point of view. Recently at the University of Victoria, YPY set up stands that displayed disturbing facts and pictures about abortion. Many people were offended by the display, and argued that YPY should be banned from campus for their offensive content. However, the University did not ban YPY. This is because YPY, much like any other person or organization, has freedom of speech, an absolute right that allows them to express their opinion. For them to be banned from campus because their opinion offended some people would be a breach to this right, and thus the University was right in not banning YPY.

 

However, there are some cases whereby freedom of speech might be limited. This is the case when such freedom threatens the well-being of other people. For example, in the same year of the YPY controversy, a group of male engineering students at the University of Victoria shouted 'rape chants' to a group of female students while on a pub crawl. While the male students may have been fooling around, the female students were nonetheless threatened (rightfully so) by these chants. The male students were disciplined by the University for their severely inappropriate and verbally violent behaviour. This is a situation that constitutes an exception to the otherwise absolute right to the freedom of speech. While everyone has the right to say what they want, an even more important right is the right to security which was breached for the female students.

 

Overall, freedom of speech is an absolute right that must not be limited unless it conflicts with a human right of another individual. In the first scenario, YPY used their free speech to express and present graphic anti-abortion arguments to students. While many found it to be offensive, no other persons' rights were compromised as simply offending people is not illegal, and thus the University was indeed right not to limit their freedom of speech. In the second scenario, the males students used free speech to chant obscene and violent words to a group of female students. The female students' right to safety was clearly compromised and therefore the University was indeed right to discipline the male students and limit their freedom of speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prompt 27 blue181

 

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. This last sentence is a bit odd. 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 grammar 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.

Excellent.

 

However, sometimes an instated law is not in the interest of the country as a whole This is vague and ambiguous. , 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. Excellent.

 

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 This is vague and ambiguous., or if the law only benefits certain people of the country and may harm a large proportion of others. This is basically two resolution principles not one. Ideally, you want one resolution principle that applies to both. This principle is also written in a convoluted manner. Try using "depends on whether the laws infringe upon basic human rights." 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.

Strong.

Overall Mark: 5.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a S )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 5.5 Supporting task is completely addressed. Refuting task is completely addressed. Resolution task is well addressed.

Depth: 5.5

Focus and coherence: 6

Grammar and vocabulary: 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A person's first priority in life should be financial security.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a person's first priority in life might not be financial security. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a person's first priority in life should be financial security.

 

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 Sunday, July 1.

 

Essays posted after the deadline will not be scored but a new Prompt will be posted on Monday, July 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A person's first priority in life should be financial security.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a person's first priority in life might not be financial security. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a person's first priority in life should be financial security.

 

In our modern societies, individuals tend to be tremedously busy where they must juggle various different tasks and responsinilities such as school, work, family, relationships and others. As such, in a busy lifestyle, one is required to set priorities which helps an individual to put greater emphasis on certain aspects and devote a greater amount of time and energy to such aspects as opposed to other aspects of ones life. For instance, a new mother may wish to place greater emphasis on her newborn child who will then take priority over her professional career for a given period of time. In terms of financial security which refers to having enough savings for a rainy day, many believe that such an aspect should be a person’s first priority as it will ensure that the needs of an individual and his/her family are met for a given period of time. This is especially true for adults over the age of 18 who are legally eligible to work and earn a living. Adults are beleived to have sufficiently developed cognitive skills and abilities in order to make their own informed decisions. Furthermore, most individuals start to have their own families once they reach the adult stage. In most modern socities, adults are legally allowed to choose their life partner, get married and perhaps have children. These decisions made by adults lead to added responsibilities of caring for others. As such, it is crucial for an adult to view financial security as his/her first priority.

 

However, it is not always necessary that financial security must be the first priority in an individual’s life. For example, children under the age of 18 are not legally eligible to work in a formal work environment. They are believed to be naive and thus, dependent on their parents or care-givers to ensure that their needs and wants are fulfilled. As such, children under the age of 18 do not have sufficiently developed cognitive skills and abilities to be able to make informed decisions for themselves. They are still in the process of learning the workings of the world and their first priority should be education. Education will allow for the development of various skills including basic reading and writing, critical thinking and team interactions. Such skills will serve an individual later in life (at the adult stage) to be able to make decisions for themselves.

 

Ultimately, we all need to set priorities in our busy lifestyles. Financial security is one such aspect that must be a person’s first priority if that individual is an adult, over the age of 18. Adults are beleived to have sufficient cognitive skills and abilities to make informed decisions for themselves, they are legally eligible to work and earn a living and most adults also have various responsibilities such as caring for their families (spouse, children, elderly parents and others). As such, it is important for an adult to view financial security as his/her first priority. However, for children under the age of 18, financial security should not be the first priority. They do not have the fully developed cognitive skills and abilities to be able to make informed decisions for themselves. They are also not legally eligible to work and earn money for themselves. As such, education should be the first priority for a child since it will enhance the development of their skills that they can later use when they reach the adult stage. Finally, priorities are a complex matter that are set by each individual based on the aspect of their life that they wish to devote a greater amount of their time and energy to compared to other aspects. Priorities may vary from individual to individual and they may also change as an individual progresses through their course of development.

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In modern society, almost everyone has goals that they would like to achieve. Most tend to prioritize these goals, usually according to how much happiness achieving that goal would bring them. One of the most commonly pursued goals today is the aquisition of wealth, mostly because people believe that earning more money and being financially stable will bring them happiness. A 2006 study conducted by the University of Oregon found that virtually all young, single professionals believed that they would be happier if they were more financially stable. The study also proved their beliefs to be true: there was a positive relationship discovered between overall life satisfaction and financial stability. The study found that financial stability was a better predictor of overall happiness than any other factor, so it is reasonable to conclude that any person who wishes to be happy should strive to be financially stable.

 

However, the aforementioned study did not include married couples in their research. It is reasonable to assume that once one gets married and starts a family, they may have new priorities in life. Such new priorities usually center around one's spouse and children, and a person may sacrifice financial stability in order to ensure the well-being of his or her family, which would bring him or her more happiness than money. A couple in New York spends upwards of fifteen thousand dollars a year on medical treatments for their daughter, who was born with a rare lung condition and requires the treatment to survive. The mother does not work in order to be able to care for her daughter, and the father makes around seventy thousand dollars a year, so paying for their daughter's treatment takes away a large portion of their yearly income. However, they decided that having a daughter would bring them more happiness than the extra money, and chose to sacrifice financial stability for money.

 

What ultimately decides whether a person's first priority in life should be financial stability is whether or not that person is married. It is generally everyone's goal to be happy, and marriage changes a person's main source of happiness. A single person primarily worries only about themselves, and being financially stable would bring him or her more happiness than anything else. Once someone gets married, however, that person begins to receive the most joy from the well being of his or her family. Thus, it follows that in order to maximize happiness one should sacrifice financial security in order to ensure the well being of his or her family.

 

 

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A person's first priority in life should be financial security.

 

In life one will set different goals to achieve and priorities to balance and amongst a person's top priorities in life should be that of financial security. This is particularly so for parents who must support their children and dependents. It is unrealistic in this modern day for a parent to be able to support children without a job or source of income, as the laws governing children's rights are much more improved than even a century ago. One of the important factors that social services will consider in whether to deem a parent capable of supporting children is if they have a source of income. As an example, the economic crisis in Greece has left many parents unemployed and unable to support their children who are being sent to live with individuals that can better provide for them. Therefore a parent's top priorities in life is that of financial security in order to ensure the emotional and physical wellbeing for their children. Furthermore, it is unrealistic to expect children to have the capability of supporting or providing for themselves which places the responsibility on the more mature and experienced parent to do so.

 

On the other hand, sometimes financial security should not be a person's top priority in life. Bernard Madoff was a fraudulent investment banker who created artificial gains from investments based on a ponzi scheme. His desire for financial security turned into selfish greed for quick and readily available access to cash resources. The scheme unravelled and left many bankrupt without any life or retirement savings and consequently destroyed many lives. Madoff was narrowly blinded by his greed and failed to consider the dire and astronomical consequences of his actions. His sons, not even aware of the crime, were left with lawsuits that would ruin them and drove one son to commit suicide due to the irreparable damage. Therefore a person's top priority should not be financial security if such pursuits are illegal in nature and have the potential to harm many people.

 

As they say, "money is what makes the world go round" as it is is an invaluable resource. What determines whether one's top priorities should be of financial security or not depends on one's motivations and whether they are solely of self-interest or for the interests of others. Should it be the case that one's motivations are for the interests of others, such as parents providing for their children in order to maintain the cohesive family unit, then one's top priorities should be financial security as parents need to be able to care for their young and unexperienced children. On the other hand, should it be the case where the motivations are of self-interest, such as Madoff's ponzi scheme, then financial security should not be a top priority as deceptive financial practices can destroy the lives of those affected. Being able to identify and prioritize one's goals is an important skill to master to achieve success and satisfaction.

 

Thanks Raymond!! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prompt 27 LifeisGood

 

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. This does not address the tasks required by the writing prompt.

 

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. This is vague and ambiguous. 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.

 

Most of the essay is off-topic and do not address the writing tasks.

 

I would recommend starting with the basics. 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 J)

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 1 Supporting task is not addressed. Refuting task is not addressed. Resolution task is poorly addressed.

Depth: 1

Focus and coherence: 1

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prompt 27 polarbear89

 

Without laws, society may descend into anarchy. Laws are decrees word choice, 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. This should not be its own paragraph and should be grouped together with your supporting paragraph.

 

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. This is okay but not great because the law doesn't apply to the party that is opposed to it.

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. Try including a concluding sentence to wrap up your argument. Overall, this discussion is strong.

 

Essentially, what determines whether or not someone is justified to break a law is whether or not that law infringes on human rights. Excellent principle. 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.

You do not apply your resolution principle to your previously discussed examples which is a requirement for the resolution paragraph.

 

Overall Mark: 4/6 (Corresponds to approximately a P )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 4 Supporting task is adequately addressed. Refuting task is well addressed. Resolution paragraph is somewhat addressed.

Depth: 4

Focus and coherence: 4

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

prompt 29

 

A person's first priority in life should be financial security.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a person's first priority in life might not be financial security.

Discuss what you think determines whether or not a person's first priority in life should be financial security.

 

A person's first priority in life should be financial security. This means that every person should strive to achieve financial security in their lives before giving in to any other pleasures. In today's world, money is an important commodity. No matter how ethical and spiritual a person is, he or she can not survive without money. Money allows us to obtain the basic necessities of life such as food, clothing and shelter. Once the basic needs our fulfilled, we go ahead to buy the things we want for our convenience such as phones, cars, houses, and so on. To say that financial security should be a person's number one priority means that the person should be financially stable to take care of his family and personal health.

 

There can be times when a person's first priority in life is not financial security. For instance, if a person's family or friend has met with an unfortunate accident then it is worthwhile to spend money on the person's treatment rather than saving it for future. This is a medical emergency and the money provided can save somebody's life. A person should not worry about future plans such as savings for retirement or his next trip because without his health he won't be able to accomplish those anyways.

 

What determines whether or not a person's first priority in life should be financial security or not depend on the situation. If there is a medical emergency or a situation where money can help somebody live a healthy and safe life, then money should not be the first priority. Life pleasures like big house or two cars or fancy dresses can wait until other basic necessities and wants have been fulfilled. Of course, the decision can be very subjective. A person can worry about his family and friends but he or she is not obligated to worry about a stranger who has been diagnosed with a life-threatening disease. In other situations, where a person is planning on buying a bigger house or expensive dresses, a person should first consider his or her financial stability before making a decision.

 

 

Thank you very much RayMond!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Raymond,

 

I think you forgot to mark my essay for prompt #27: "We must obey not only the laws of which we approve, but also those of which we may not approve."

 

I was the first one to respond to that prompt and my essay is just below your post of prompt #27. You may have accidentally skipped it. It will be great if you can read it and give the feedback asap.

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prompt 27 Enviro_4_Medschool

 

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.

Although creative, this discussion doesn't address the writing task. It is good to be unique, but you took it a bit too far out there on this one.

 

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.

Excellent.

Whether one could justify breaking the law is dependent on whether the law is oppressive and imposed without consultation. You should choose one resolution principle. Here you have two. 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.

The reason why you choose one resolution principle is because it is too difficult to apply two to each example. Here, you only applied one. The weakness of your supporting example also comes back to affect the strength of your resolution paragraph.

 

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

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 3.5 Supporting task is not addressed. Refuting task is completely addressed. Resolution task is adequately addressed.

Depth: 4

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A person's first priority in life should be financial security.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a person's first priority in life might not be financial security. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a person's first priority in life should be financial security.

 

In our modern world, financial security is an important priority for individuals to make, unless they wish to have future difficulties. Thus, people should place great emphasis on having financial security and it should be prioritized above other aspects of life. For instance, a young working professional should be prioritizing financial security. Young professionals will not have built up their credit rating, will generally not own assets and some may be in debt due to their education. Further, these young professionals may be looking to eventually get married and start a family, and these can be done a lot more comfortably with a sufficient amount of money. If these professionals place other things before financial security, they may not be able to pay off their debt quick enough which may result in high interest payments that detract from their standard of life. Further, raising a child often costs a parent approximately $100, 000 dollars and a person who does not have financial stability will not be able to afford to give the child the necessities and comforts of life that is expected for children. These necessities are the parents’ responsibility and if the parents cannot afford it, they will not be able to build a future for their family and themselves. Thus, it is in the young professional’s best interests to prioritize financial security because with financial security, the professional will be able to enjoy the comforts of life as well as to be able to provide for a future family, if they so wish to do so.

 

On the other hand, a student coming out of high school may not wish to prioritize financial security as the main aspect of life they wish to focus on. For instance, it may be said that a student, with no money to his or her name, may want to delve directly into the workforce in order to build up savings. However, in the long term, this approach will not be the most fiscally smart for the student. Instead, the capabale student should be prioritizing education. A person with a bachelor’s degree makes thousands of more dollars across a lifetime than someone who only has a high school diploma. However, if the student is unable to get help from their parents, or even if they are able to do so, many students will go into debt for their education, and if not in debt, they will not be profiting financially directly during their education. Still, the students should be focusing mainly on achieving the best education possible in order to maximize their financial future. The prioritizing of financial security too early in ones’ life can actually be detrimental to one’s financial security long term.

 

Thus, it can be said that financial security should be prioritized when an individual is working professionally and is making plans for the future such as plans for a family. However, if the individual has the opportunity to go prioritize their education, they should prioritize that because, by placing financial security on the side, they will actually be stabilizing their future financial security. A working professional should not be neglecting financial security because they are often in a place where future familial expenses are imminent and they often have achieved a level of education that has allowed for salary growth. However, a student prioritizing financial stability over their education will actually limit their future financial stability because their lack of education will detract from their salary growth and thus it will detract from their ability to build up assets. Financial stability should only be prioritized when one has acquired a suitable education and when one is a working professional.

 

 

Thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prompt 27 chandlerbing

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 grammar employed word choice 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 grammar 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. Strong.

 

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. This is okay, but I'm not sure if the crime argument is really convincing. Since abortion is a sensitive issue, it might be best to steer away from it because you do run the risk of offending your marker.

 

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. This is vague and ambiguous. In general, arguments of this nature lack depth. You are essentially saying laws should be obeyed or disobeyed if it brings about good. 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. On the other hand, tight environmental regulations could stifle a company's growth or force it out of business because it cannot afford the new green technology. Hence, the companies do not lose from a long term perspective They lose profits in the long run. Assuming they will recuperate lost money is a flawed assumption. 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. You mentioned that when abortion was illegal, the procedures women were getting were risky. So how is them breaking that law a good idea when it puts their life at risk?

 

I made these counterarguments to illustrate the point that doing what is for the "greater good" is not always clear cut and depends on the party that you ask. That is why those types of arguments are weak.

 

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 adequately addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed.

Depth: 3

Focus and coherence: 3.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prompt 27 Neuro_07

 

Sorry for the late reply. I did accidentally miss your essay.

 

In a democracy, the supreme power is vested in the hands of the people and exercised by the officials elected by the voters. The elected representatives presumably advocate the ideas and values of the people, and design laws that conform to the views of majority of the citizens. Such consensus-based decision making provides a fair and unbiased system for jurisdiction. Hence, whether we approve a law or not, we must abide by it. This conclusion cannot be drawn from the points preceding it. Just because a law is approved of by the majority, isn't a strong enough reason to obey a law we disagree with. For instance, if a federal or a provincial law in the United States does not authorize same-sex marriages, it is important that the American citizens obey the law regardless of their personal approval or disapproval of the law. One should realize that the law upholds the views of the majority of the voters, and thus, despite of the law’s infringement of the human rights, one should obey the law. This example is okay but not great because again, just because the majority approves of the law isn't a good enough reason to follow it if one disapproves of it. For example, before the civil rights movement, the majority of the population agreed with laws that were discriminatory against African Americans. Just because the majority of the population agreed with it, doesn't mean the African Americans should just go along with it.

 

However, it is important to note that people should not always comply with a law that they do not approve of. In an authoritarian rule, the decisions of the state are not based on the wishes of the people. In this case, the laws may not reflect the opinions of the majority of the people. For instance, most of the laws that were subject to the native Indians during the British rule were clearly not based on the consensus of people or their representatives. The laws were designed by the non-elected officials to purposely deprive the people of their freedom. Since these laws were not in favour of or did not reflect opinions of the people of the country, the Indians were justified in breaking these laws. This is strong. It would be better if you gave an actual example of such a law.

 

Thus, whether the people are justified in breaking a law or not depends on whether they live in a democratic state or an authoritarian state. This is an excellent resolution principle. In a democracy, since the decisions of the government accommodate to the values of majority of the people, each and every citizen must obey them. Similar objections to before. Hence, although some Americans may not approve of the federal law that invalidates same-sex marriages, they should abide by it because it supports the views of other citizens of the country. On the other hand, people under an authoritarian rule, which does implement laws that conform to the wishes of the people ?? This undermines your previous arguments. , can justifiably break an unjust law. So, during the pre-independence period, it was appropriate for the Indians to break the irrational laws of the British government that curbed their freedom and prosperity. In conclusion, a law’s legitimacy depends on whether it is approved by majority of the people or not.

The principle is strong. The application to your refuting example didn't make sense. I assume you meant does "not" conform to the majority of the people. You need to be careful and catch these critical errors during your proofreading.

 

Overall Mark: 4/6 (Corresponds to approximately a P)

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 4 Supporting task is somewhat addressed. Refuting task is well addressed. Resolution task is adequately addressed.

Depth: 3.5

Focus and coherence: 4

Grammar and vocabulary: 4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A person's first priority in life should be financial security.

 

Describe a specific situation in which a person's first priority in life might not be financial security. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a person's first priority in life should be financial security.

 

In todays market economy, many would agree that having money and being financially secure is an important factor in determining one's success and happiness in life. Indeed, many of life's milestones, such as going to college, purchasing a new house, and retiring all require the individual to be financially secure. Being financially secure means that one has sufficient money to accomplish their desired goals. Considering the important role that being financially secure plays in one's life, it can be argued that being financially secure should be a person's first priority in life. Many people would agree with this statement, including the Government of Canada and their Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, as exemplified by the new mortgage laws introduced by the Finance Minister this past month. These laws were introduced in response to the global economic crisis beginning in 2008 that was due, in part, to increased consumer debt, especially debt due to new home purchases. The new mortage laws stipulate that the first-time home buyer must contribute a greater down payment on a new home purchase and must payoff their mortage in a shorter period of time (25 years vs. the previous 30 years). Both of these requirements makes it harder for a first-time home buyer to purchase a home unless they have enough money (and significantly more money than was previously required to purchase a home), and thus, more financially secure. As a first home purchase is a significant life milestone for most people, the Government of Canada's new mortgage laws highlight how being financially secure should be a top priority in one's life, especially during the stage of life when they purchase a house. If financial security is not one's first priority in life, they may not be able to accomplish things, such as purchasing a new house.

 

However, financial security might not always be a person's first priority in life. When a person first has children, it can be argued that the individual's life priorities change. After having child, many people focus more on the health and well being of the child, rather than their own financial security. For instance, several reports have shown that parents spend a significant amount of money on their children, for things such as schooling, sports, toys, and other extracurricular activities. However, rather than making more money to compensate for the increased spending on their children, many families actually earn less income than before they had children. This fact is largely attributed to the parents, spending, on average, more time with their children, and less time working, resulting in less income being earned. As such, this case exemplifies how raising children can be a person's first priority in life, and how this priority can even undermine an individual's financial security.

 

It would seem that whether or not a person's first priority in life should be financial security depends on the individual's life stage. When a person is nearing the life stage or life milestone when they are required to spend a significant amount of money, such as purchasing a house or retiring, financial security should be their first priority. Canada's new mortgage laws support this idea in that the government now requires first-time home buyers to be more financially secure before purchasing a new house. However, during the children rearing stage in some people's lives, it can be argued that a person's first priority is no longer financial security, but rather raising children. This idea was clearly supported by the studies showing that parents often forgo financial security, by working less, for focusing on the successful raising of their children. As such, while being financially secure is an important proirity in most people's lives, a person's first priority may change depending on the particular stage of life that they are in.

 

_____________________________________

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prompt 27 sixstar

 

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 grammar 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 grammar 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 grammar 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.

This is okay. But there needs to be more emphasis on why the drivers should obey this law. The writing should also be more concise in order to improve the impact of the argument.

 

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. This is strong. Again, the writing style needs to be more concise. More text is not always better.

 

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. This is vague and ambiguous. You want a resolution principle that is clear and easy to apply. 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 Things are not that simple in this case. One could argue that it sets a bad precedent for the terminally ill. There is also the possibility of abuse of this procedure. 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. The other problem with this kind of principle is that it lacks depth. The application to your examples was fine, it is just the principle itself that is okay but not strong.

Overall Mark: 4.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a Q)

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 4.5 Supporting task is adequately addressed. Refuting task is well addressed. Resolution task is adequately addressed.

Depth: 4

Focus and coherence: 4.5

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prompt 27 souljaboy

 

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 This point cannot really be made as it is written. If you said, most of the time, that would have been more appropriate. 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. Strong.

 

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 grammar 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 word choice 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. This is a great example, however the explanation needs improvement. The argument needs more impact.

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. This is vague and ambiguous. This is not a good resolution principle. What is good and not good is subjective and depends on the view point. This idea also lacks depth. You are basically saying, people should obey a law if it is good and not obey a law if it is not good. If individuals followed this, society would be thrown into chaos. 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.

The application is okay but try to stay away from "greater good" type resolution principles because they don't mean a whole lot.

 

Overall Mark: 4/6 (Corresponds to approximately a P )

Breakdown (out of 6):

Addresses tasks: 4 Supporting task is well addressed. Refuting task is adequately addressed. Resolution paragraph is somewhat addressed.

Depth: 4

Focus and coherence: 4

Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...