medhopeful64 Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 I apologize for posting a bit late, thank you for marking. _______________ The "good" of a society, or in other words, a state of peace, depends upon a few factors. One of the most important factors is the defense of individual rights, such as the right to live without fear for one's life, or the right to free speech. A society in which individual rights are respected and maintained results in a peaceful society, one free from corruption and political chaos. An example of a situation in which individual rights were not respected is the Mubarak regime of Egypt. Prior to January 2011, when Egyptian protestors overthrew the corrupt Mubarak government from power, Hosni Mubarak ruled in an authoritarian manner, censoring and punishing any individuals who dared to oppose the government. Lack of free speech, and cases of police brutality involving torture of prisoners and other inhumane treatment by police were cited as some of the main factors leading up to the 2011 Egyptian Revolution. Fed up with the corruption and disregard for individual rights that characterized Mubarak's regime, Egyptian citizens took the matter into their own hands and successfully led a non-violent protest in an attempt to overthrow the government. Thus, it is clear from the state of Egypt's society that the good of a society depends upon the defense of individual rights. Had the government held a higher regard for individual rights, the state of Egypt's society would not have been one full of political unrest. The good of a society does not always depend upon the defense of individual rights. In certain cases, individuals in a society may enjoy full rights, yet still lack a state of personal peace. For example, currently the United States is suffering from economic turmoil and high rates of unemployment. Many workers, especially young college graduates, are having extreme difficulty in finding and keeping a job today. Not having a reliable source of income or low income has contributed to a state of unrest amongst many Americans, leaving them unable to afford even their basic neccessities. Thus, in this case, it is evident that the good of a society does not necessarily depend on the defense of individual rights per se, but rather on the economic state of the country. The good of a society (ie. time of peace) depends on a couple things, one of the most important being the defense of individual rights. The factor that determines when the good of a society depends upon the defense of individual rights and when it does not depends on the state of the government. If the government is, for the most part, free of corruption and is a democracy that respects basic individual rights, then the good of a society depends on the economic state of the country. America, for example, is a country characterized by relative political peace but is currently experiencing economic turmoil. As a result, many Americans are unhappy and feeling destitute despite having all their individual rights. In this case, the good of American society depends on the state of the economy. If however, the government is characterized by corruption and political chaos, and disregards individual rights, then the good of a society indeed depends upon the defense of individual rights. If, and only when, basic individual rights are granted to the citizens, can the society prosper and be free from a state of unrest. This was the case in Egypt, during Mubarak's regime. Lack of freedom of speech and violations of other basic individual rights led to political and personal unrest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted August 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 A government is obligated to see that the basic needs of its citizens are met. Describe a specific situation in which a government might not be obligated to see that the basic needs of its citizens are met. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a government is obligated to see that its citizens' basic needs are met. Instructions In 30 minutes, write an essay for the prompt and instructions above and post your essay in this thread. Use the Notepad accessory on your computer so word processing functions are turned off. Note: Do not read other essays replying to this prompt on the forum until after you have written and submitted your own essay. Deadline 11:59pm Saturday, August 25. Note: This will be the last prompt posted. I hope the users here at Premed 101 have benefited from this service. This service was paid for and brought to you by Prep 101. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raiya Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 Thanks for all the help Raymond. The role of the government is to protect and respect the interests of the citizens. The relation between the citizens and the government is often unilinear--the government must seek to satisfy the basic needs of its citizens. This includes providing adequate food, shelter, and water, all aspects essential for survival. When a government refuses to provide basic needs for the citizens, disasterous consequences can occur. For example, in Chairman Mao's era back in the 1950s in China, the basic needs of the millions of citizens were prohibited in an attempt to modernize the country. During the period called the Great Leap Forward, death and suicide rates of the population dramatically sky-rocketed, eventually harming the social and economic status of China. In this case, Mao did not take the responsibility of protecting and offering the basic needs of its citizens and instead stripped them away. Party leaders took farmers' land in order to build infrastructure, leading to famine and lack of shelter. Because this led to one of the most devestating times in China history, the government should have been obligated to seek the protection of basic needs for its citizens. On the other hand, in some cases, the government is not obligated to see that the basic needs are satisfied. In a country like Canada, the government is not directly responsible to ensure everyone has adequate food and water supply and appropriate shelters. The government does supply these services but is not obligated to directly enforce these needs onto its citizens. Essentially, the citizens living in the country are responsible for acquiring their own basic needs such as buying the appropriate groceries, and finding houses for shelter. Such services that can supply these basic needs are examples such as food retailers or real estate firms are all private companies, independent of government control. Since the citizens are able to live a satisfied life with the necessary basic needs and able to contribute well to the progress of the society, the government is not obligated to see if citizens' needs are met. Thus the question remains: what determines whether or not a government is obligated to see that its citizens' basic needs are met? This will depend on whether the society is stable or unstable. China, in the 1950s, was in a politically corrupt stage where the single-party People's Republic of China was in full control of all aspects in society. The nation was quite unstable due to political oppositions and poor economic status. Thus, Mao took a huge leap and sacrificed the basic needs of its citizens in order to modernize the economy. However, because the government took away all the basic needs of the citizens, the people suffered tremendously and was not able to help society progress. In this stance, the government should have protected and respected the basic needs of its citizens because ultimately, they are the people who will be building the society. On the other hand, when a society is stable and less prone to political fluctuations, the government is not obligated to seek the protection of basic needs. In Canada, where it is socially and economically stable, citizens generally can provide basic needs for themselves through private companies, independent of the government. Since citizens have been living quite well for the past decade, it is not necessary for the government to interfere with such matter. Thus, whether or not a government is obligated to see that its citizens' basic needs are met depends on the status-quo of the society, whether it is stable or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted August 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 Prompt 39 Economist Country is grammar an example of a society built by individuals who share common similarities in political geography and ancestry. Therefore the living qualities of each individuals and the economic wealth of the society as a whole contributes to the good of the society. North Korea is known to be one of the few remaining extreme communist countries in modern societies grammar . In North Korea, individual rights of its citizens are heavily violated by the means of censorship and dictatorship. Citizens in North Korea are forced to pursue professions the government chooses and are restricted in their ways of communication with neighboring countries. These restrictions heavily hinder the good of the North Korean society as globalization is essential for the economic success of a country in modern time. Countries prosper by the means of specializing in particular field and grow their economy through the means of import and export. Without the individual citizen's right to specialize and trade with foreign countries limit the grammar living quality and the economic growth of North Korea. In this example, the North Korea's grammar failure to maintain its citizen's individual rights has resulted in economic downfall and the living qualities of the society grammar as a whole. Strong. There are a number of grammar mistakes. However sometimes a good of a society might not depend upon the defense of individual rights. For example Park Chung Hee, a former president of South Korea that shaped the rapid economic growth and industrialization during the 1960's was notoriously known for his control of the media and censorship. During 1960's grammar President Park attempted to form economic relationships with Japan despite the opposition from the majority of the citizens. Due to the recent colonization of Japan just few grammar decades ago, many citizens in South Korea still maintained hatred for Japan and refused to work together with a country that has dominated Korea for decades. Individual rights of South Korean citizens were violated as any individuals that opposed the proposal were put in jail or tortured. However the economic relationship with Japan proved to be contributing to the good grammar of the South Korea's grammar economy as Japan provided Korea with technologies and financial loans that played a critical role in building Korea's economy. The technologies from Japan helped shape some of the biggest conglomerates in Korea such as Hyundai automobiles and Samsung electronics. If the individual rights of South Korean citizens were fully defended upon President Park's proposal, the relationship with Japan would have been severely hindered. As we can see in this example, disregard for individual rights can sometimes contribute to the good of a society. Excellent. Whether or not the good of a society depends upon the defense of individual rights is determined by the values that those individual rights would oppose. This is vague and ambiguous. You want your resolution principle to be clear and easy to apply. This is just another way of saying "it depends." In cases with North Korea grammar , the defending the grammar individual rights of its citizens would oppose the censorship and the dictatorship displayed by the North Korean government. In fact the proper defense of individual rights would only help North Korea as a society by providing its citizens with better quality of life and economic growth. However in example with South Korea, the restricted individual rights oppose only emotional values and would have hindered the good of a society in terms of economic growth and quality of life. I'm not sure why your essay is chopped up like this because it shouldn't be. The application to North Korea is poorly expressed. I kind of get the idea you are getting at but it is weakly explained. Overall, the resolution paragraph is the weakest part of your essay. Overall Mark: 4/6 (Corresponds to approximately a P) Breakdown (out of 6): Addresses tasks: 4 Supporting task is well addressed. Refuting task is completely addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed. Depth: 3.5 Focus and coherence: 3 Grammar and vocabulary: 3 Numerous grammatical mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted August 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 Prompt 39 Raiya Maintaining a society requires the cooperation from grammar the public and the government. A good word choice society should grant and protect individual rights to the public such as the freedom of speech, thoughts and ideas. It should also highlight and necessiate the government's role in addressing public concerns. For example, Rob Ford, the mayor of Toronto recently decided to cut numerous public services in order to increase city budget. Because of his actions, opposition from community parks, public library staffs, families and students started to defend for their services and opinions. This sentence is poorly phrased. Ford, seeing such strong complaints and rioting, immediately removed this proposition in respect of the public's individual rights. The public has rights to those services because they pay taxes to support those institutions. Ford realized and quickly defended for their grammar rights and thus, was able to maintain his reputation and a good society. This is okay but not great. Those services are not fundamental rights so it is confusing why you spoke about fundamental rights in your introduction. Furthermore, not making these cuts may not be what is good for the society. On the other hand, sometimes, the good of a society does not depend on respecting individual rights. Take for example, in the mid-20th century, when China was under Chairman Mao's control, corruption and poverty was rampant in the society. In an attempt to this fix grammar problem, Mao took full control over every political, economic and social facet of the society. He banished and silenced anybody or any party that opposed his political views. One of the most infamous case was the martyr Zhang Zhi Xin, who was tortured to death for fighting for democracy. Despite such a damaged past, today, China has one of the fastest growing economies in the world. The country leads in job availabilities, and a widely accessible healthcare system. I think you should check your facts. However, none of this would have been possible without Mao's strict and stringent control of the country. Thus, despite the violation of public liberties, the good of the society was still carried through and maintained even till today. This is strong. However, there are a few points that are questionable at best. China still has rampant government corruption. Thus, the question remains: Does the good of a society depend on the defense of individual rights? This will depend on the status-quo of the society. This is unclear. Why do you not just say depends on whether the society is developed or developing? You have a good resolution principle, you just need to simply present it. In a developed community, such as Toronto, political and economic statuses are quite stable and have been stable for the past decades. Thus, violating individual liberties is an unnecessary practice in order to maintain the good of the society. However, in developing countries such as China in the 1950s, sometimes abolishing individual rights is necessary for the benefit of the whole population. In a poverty-strickened society, resources are inadequate and thus people are in desperate need of guidance and direction. Consequently, Mao's total control and support over grammar China during that period was an overall benefit, despite the violation of individual liberties. Thus, Whether or not respect should be given to individual rights should depend on the status of the society. Excellent. 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 completely addressed. Depth: 4.5 Focus and coherence: 5 Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted August 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 Prompt 39 meniscus Most people want society to be well served. The good of a society means that the society is viable and people are at least somewhat happy. Individual rights are rights the are entitled to an invidual. For example, freedom from discrimination during hiring is an individual right. Usually, the society is well served based on the defense of individual rights. This sentence needs to be revised. For example, back in the 1980s, the Windsor Raceway did not hire asians. Asians needs to be capitalized. Employers of the Raceway were discriminating against asians because they felt that that they could not serve customers as well as non-asians; the employers falsely believed that asians could not adapt to the Western culture. Thus, one asian appplicant brought a lawsuit against the Raceway for discrimination based on nationality, and the Raceway thereafter hired asians. This issue caught the attention of other employers who also discriminated during hiring based on nationality. From that point forward, most employers in Windsor were non-discriminatory during hiring. It was that one asian applicant's defense of his individual right to not be discriminated that contributed to the good of society (the city of Windsor). This is okay. However, you need to elaborate more on how this contributed to the good of the society. However, the good of society might not depend on the defense of indivdual rights in some cases. For example, in Vietnam, society is well served by citizens simply following the laws and not rebelling with the government. When some rebels against grammar the communist government, the rebel can be incarcerated and even be slain immediately. When citizens abide by the law, the police and government officials respect the citizens and let citizens do as they choose. This contradicts what you just said. Citizens are able to enjoy their life by just following the rules of society in this case. In this country, people do have individual rights, but the laws of government have a precedence over their individual rights. So, if a white Vietnam Caucasian is the politically correct term not white. tries to defend that he should be hired for a government position even though the government requires applicants to be asian, the applicant can be incarcerated since he is not abiding by the rules and is causing the government trouble. This in turn actually makes society worst since people complaining about the commmunist government makes the government more strict up on society. The arguments here are weak. How is the government oppression good for society? By your arguments, just because the government gets tougher in response to rebellion means that people should just live with injustices? What determines when the good of society is based on the defense of individual rights is on type grammar of government. If one lives in a democratic society, then the defense of rights serves society well. For example, the defense of not being discriminated in hiring process in Windsor brought a positive result to Windsorites as that brought a near end to discriminating in the hiring process in Windsor. However, in a communist government, the good of society does not depend on the defense of rights. One just needs to follow the laws and not rebel against hte government in Vietnam to live a fairly good life. The resolution principle of democracy vs. communist government is a good one. However, it is poorly applied here. You don't explain why your resolution principle works. Overall Mark: 2/6 (Corresponds to approximately a L ) Breakdown (out of 6): Addresses tasks: 2 Supporting task is adequately addressed. Refuting task is poorly addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed. Depth: 2 Focus and coherence: 2.5 Grammar and vocabulary: 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted August 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 Prompt 39 ann2012 Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people. In a democracy country grammar , protection of individual rights is the foundation of the good of a society. In this case the good of a society can be defined as the equality of the people within the society. Equality of a society cannot be achieved when people do not have equal individual rights. For example, the Freedom movement It is called the civil rights movement. of African Americans led by Martine Luther King was achieved not only because Dr. King's great leadership grammar , but also because it was a movement towards equality of the American society. Dr. King gained supports grammar because he was trying to protect the individual right of the African Americans and to achieve racial equality. His act and leadership in the freedom movement was admired by a lot of people because he made the American society grammar at the time a better and more equal society without any violence or damage to the society. Thus, it is only when individual right of everyone in a society is protected, can equality of a society be achieved. Strong. On the other hand, defense of individual rights may not always be a primary factor in determining the equality of a society. This is somewhat different from what the refuting task is asking for. Defining good of the society as equality hurts you here. For example, prisoners’ right to movement is limited and their actions in jail are restricted by certain rules. If prisoners were granted the same rights as the free citizens of the society, which means to not limit their movement or restrict their actions. Then the prisoners who were once criminals of a society would cause serious issues within the society and would be a threat to other free citizens within that society. Thus, to protect the individual rights of the majority of society, the wrongdoers of the society can only be granted with limited rights. This is okay. There needs to be more depth and complexity to the argument. Therefore, whether protection of individual rights is the foundation of equality of a society Again, do not change the wording unnecessarily because you run the risk of the essay getting off track. depends on whether the people being protected become a threat to social security. When protection of individual rights is used to achieve a better overall social equality and does not threat social grammar security, such as the freedom movement led by Dr. King, then the defense of individual rights would promote equality of a society. However, when protection of individual rights would lead to threat to grammar social security and would harm others' individual rights, such as granting prisoners the right to movement, then defense of individual rights would not be the primary concern. Equality of a society depends upon the defense of individual rights, but in extreme cases individual rights may be limited to ensure social security. Strong. Your resolution principle should have been "depends on whether the individual is a criminal." Grammar remains an issue. 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: 4.5 Grammar and vocabulary: 3.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted August 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 Prompt 39 souljaboy The defense of fundamental human rights in the North American society is one of the most important functions of our society. These rights are the most basic of our society, and their defense is essential in maintaining the good of our society. Each individual in America is protected by the individual rights stated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These rights are designed to maintain the freedom that the founders envisioned for the citizens of the country. These rights are defended for almost everyone, even those accused but not convicted of committing crimes. The importance of this protection cannot be understated; as long as an individual is still deemed a normal member of the society, he will have access to the freedom afforded by the individual rights of the country. Freedom is by far one of the important parts of a good society, and by protecting the personal freedom afforded by the Constitution, the good of the society is maintained. This could be strong. However, you don't address the other element in the writing prompt. You need to explain why rights are important, you cannot just state that it is important without elaboration. Make sure you address all of the elements within a prompt. In some cases, the individual rights of certain people cannot be fully defended due to their actions that violate the rights of others. Everyone has the right to life and freedom, which are among the most important individual rights. An individual who deliberately harms another of the society completely violates that person's right to life. In order for the society to still be good awkward phrasing , the person who violated another's individual rights need to be punished. This punishment is most often a limitation on their individual rights, as is the case when a criminal's rights to freedom is limited when he is put into prison. The society is certainly not defending certain parts of the criminal's individual rights, but good of the society is undiminished. This is okay but is too general. There are numerous well publicized criminals that you could have discussed here so it is odd that you neglected to. The good of our society must depend on the protection of individual rights unless the person in question acted to violate the rights of other members of society. American citizens who are not convicted of any crimes have their individual rights as stated in the Constitution protected by the government itself. The protection of personal freedom makes the society good. Again, you make this statement without supporting points. When an individual acted willingly to violate the fundamental rights of others, he is no longer a normal member of society, and his individual rights often must be limited in order to benefit the society as a whole. The society is definitely not fully defending a criminal's individual rights, but the good of a society is not affected by this special case because it is acting to protect every other member of the society. Strong. The resolution principle was excellent but the general and vague nature of your examples hurt your resolution. 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 adequately addressed. Resolution task is well addressed. Depth: 3.5 Focus and coherence: 4 Grammar and vocabulary: 4.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted August 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 Prompt 39 nm2quasi A common conception of a good society is one that defends the rights of all (or at least most) individuals. Rights are inherent powers given to society members in order to protect them from discrimination and other immoral acts from the government as well as other groups. Canada (an arguably good society) is well known for protecting the rights of individuals. For instance, Canada is widely acclaimed for protecting the rights of homosexual individuals to marry. It might seem like such acts are not for the improvement or worsening of society, however it is clear that a greater society is created because it constructs a moralistic society in which individuals are allowed to practice their beliefs and not be ridiculed for doing so. This is okay. However, your discussion is a bit too short and lacks depth. One of your goals in the writing sample is to demonstrate complexity of reasoning. On the other hand, society can not always protect the rights of individual if it seems like the individual is using his/ her right to infringe on the rights of others. Reports about polygamist communities in Canada have claimed children were barred from schools, and girls were forced into incestual marriages. As a result, polygamist leaders are banned from preaching their religion and spreading their beliefs on polygamy because of harming the human right to education and freedom to marry whomever you please. This in turn is a better society, because it looks to protect the individuals who are in dire need of help and care. Similar to before, this could be excellent. However, the discussion is too sparse and bare bones. Elaborate upon your ideas. As a result, a good society will always look to defend the rights of individuals as long as it serves to not infringe on the rights of others. Canada, a nation that strives to spread equality, continues to promote the homosexual rights grammar , education rights, and in turn looks to create a better and tolerable society. Simultaneously, Canada looks to deprive individuals of rights who take advantage of societies freedoms and willfully violate the rights of other humans, such as the polygamist leaders previously described. We all know as members of society that we have our naturally given human rights, but it is also our duty to create a good society by protecting our rights and additionally protecting the rights of others. 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 adequately addressed. Resolution task is well addressed. Depth: 4 Focus and coherence: 4 Grammar and vocabulary: 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economist Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 A government is obligated to see that the basic needs of its citizens are met. A government is a governing body of a nation formed by the state's representatives to provide the basic needs of its citizens, such as food, shelter, and education. Therefore it is the government's obligation to ensure that all of its citizens acquire the basic necessities. For example, the Canadian government has the obligation to provide the minimum necessities to its citizens if the individuals can not provide for themselves. The Canadian government provides welfare to individuals who earn less than the minimum required to buy the necessities. This allows these individuals to support themselves with basic needs such as food and shelter. Furthermore the government also provides free education through elementary school to secondary school for all its citizens. Finally Canadian government provides universal healthcare for its citizens so no individual will be unable to receive treatments due to financial reasons. Although the healthcare does not cover every aspect of medical treatment, if the citizen genuinely can not afford some of the treatments, there are considerable amount of social assistance program to support these low-income individuals. In this example, the Canadian government works to ensure that the basic needs of its citizens are met. However sometimes a government is not obligated to provide these necessities to its citizens. When a nation is under extreme circumstances the basic needs of its citizens are no longer a priority to the government. For example, during the second civil war in Sudan, the ensuing war costed lives of two million citizens and the economy of Sudan deteriorated uncontrollably. During the 1980's the government was no longer able to provide the basic needs such as food, shelter, and education to its citizens. Instead the government's first line of priority was the safety of its citizens from the Southern rebels and to ensure that the military needs were met to fight off the rebel army. In this example, the Sudanese government was not obligated to provide the basic needs of its citizens during the civil war. What determines whether a government is obligated to provide these basic needs to its citizens? It depends on whether the government has a stable political and economical status. If the government has a strong political and economical stability, like Canada, the government has an obligation to see that the basic needs of its citizens are met. However if a government, like the Sudanese government during the second civil war, is under a national crisis, its political and economic status are highly unstable. In this case, the Sudanese government is not in position to adequately provide the basic services to its citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ann2012 Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people. In a democracy country, it is the government's obligation to see that the basic needs of its citizens are met. In this case, the basic needs of citizens can be defined as the basic requirement of living such as, health care. For example, the Canadian health care system ensures that all Canadian citizens, no matter employed or unemployed, can meet the need of basics health care, because the government covers the visiting fee to a physician in the form of insurance. This policy was supported by the majority of Canadians because the government has brought much benefit to its people through this policy. If the current government suggests a policy that limits the benefits of its people, then the current government is not likely going to gain much vote in the next election. Since the success of the government depends on its people, and the people's well-being depends on the policy of the government. It is the government's responsibility to see that the basic needs of its citizens are met, not only for the benefits of the public, but also for the benefits of the government itself. On the other hand, a government is not obligated to see that the basic needs of its citizens are met in some extreme cases. For example, during World War Two the Chinese government rallied its citizens to provide essential resources such as, food and medicines for its army, because of the shortage of resources and the limited number of men who could join the army at the time. During the war, the government's primary concern and responsibility is to ensure the security of the country, because if the country is in danger its people's security would also face threats. Thus regardless of the number of people who died from hunger, the Chinese government still used most of the resources for tis army. Thus, during the time of war a government's first priority is to ensure the country is secure. Therefore, whether a government is responsible to see that the basic needs of its citizens are met depends on whether the country's security is in threat. During peace time, the government should ensure that the basic needs of its citizens are met, such as the Canadian health care system, because the government's primary purpose is to protect and promote benefits of its people. Also, a government that does not promote benefits of its people is not likely to be elected again. However, during war time, such as the Chinese government during WW2, the government's primary concern is the nation's security. When a nation's safety is in danger, its citizen's security is not likely to be protected as well. Thus, although a government should promote and protect benefits of its citizens, extreme time needs extreme actions; during war time a country's first priority would be the nation's security, not the basic needs of its citizens. THANK YOU SO MUCH!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted August 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 Prompt 39 #Cevapi In order for a society to be considered "good", it should, on the most part, respect the rights of an individual and defend those rights. A good society should promote freedom and protect the rights that its citizens are entitled to. The majority of states in America have put an end to their laws against same-sex marriage. The governmental bodies in these states have realized that all American citizens have the right to be in a relationship with anyone they wish, which constitutes a good society because it promotes freedom. Though it used to be permissible to treat homosexual men and women harshly (millions suffered abuse and punishment as a result of their sexual orientation), the majority of societies now defend and accept same-sex marriage. Still today, there are certain states in the South which continue to enforce laws that disallow same-sex marriage and have no laws in place to protect the sexual orientation of citizens. These particular societies would not be considered good because of the lack of freedom on the part of the individuals. This could be strong. However, the concern here is not whether societies are "good", the issue is whether defense of individual rights is good for the society. These are two different things. You cannot just say that the states that do not defend same-sex marriage are not good. In certain situations, it would be feasible to consider a society as being good even Again, you have this idea mixed up. if it does not defend individual rights. In 2008, elementary school students in Detroit were frequently coming to school wearing shirts which promoted negative messages of sex, money, and drugs, which concerned the teachers. The parents of these children were fully aware of the issue but did not see a problem because they felt that their children had the right to wear whatever they wanted. The issue eventually reached the Detroit School Board, ultimately resulting in a set of restrictions that were put in place to prevent this type of provocative clothing from being worn in any public schools. This situation illustrates that the School Board made the right decision to restrict provocative clothing even though it went against the rights of the parents and students. Why? The society in this case is shown to be good without dependence on defending individual rights. Again, this discussion could be strong but the execution requires improvement. You don't explain why this was for the good of the society. In determing when the good of a society depends on the defense of individual rights Finally, you have the wording correct here. , it is important to analyze whether the situation has the potential of producing a negative outcome in the society or harming the society in any way. This is vague and ambiguous. You want your resolution principle to be clear and easy to apply. In the case of the same-sex marriage laws, in order for the societies to be termed good Same problem. , it is necessary for the societies to defend the individual rights because there are no reasonable negative effects that may arise in the society with same-sex marriage. Again, this is ambiguous. Although most people may agree with this, there are those that would not. In the Detroit School Board example, the societies do not need to defend the rights of the individuals, who claim that they have the right to wear whatever clothes they desire, because this would result in further pollution of elementary schools with provocative clothing which would promote negative messages. This idea is awkwardly expressed. It is necessary to understand the context in which the individual rights are being fought for. The issue with your resolution principle is that it is not clear. It essentially says "it depends" and doesn't definitively address the resolution task. Overall Mark: 3/6 (Corresponds to approximately an N ) Breakdown (out of 6): Addresses tasks: 3 All of the tasks are only some what addressed. Depth: 3 Focus and coherence: 2.5 Grammar and vocabulary: 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted August 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 Prompt 39 sam07 Many arugments have been put forward on how to measure the well-being of a society. Measures such as the gross domestic product, a purely econonic concept, or the index of happiness have been strongly argued for. However, the good of a society, can equally be determined in terms of efficient use of resources as well. What is key from this interpretation of the societal good is then the indvidual rights - more specifically the individual's property rights. The main argument is that individuals who own resoures are most efficient in managing a resrouce when they personally own it and care for it. Thus, the overall good of a society depends on protecting the indidual rights, because the individuals ensure the proper management and efficient use of resources that are collectively owned by the socieity. You have an above average number of spelling mistakes. Spelling counts on the MCAT. The twist of focusing on property rights is interesting. However, your argument is undeveloped. You also do not have an example to illustrate your argument. On the other hand, it is not universally correct to argue that the indvidual rights, or protecting the property rights is the only way to ensure the good of a society. From a sociocultural perspective, societies that tackle the question of the good of the society based on a socialism approach have shown that abolishing absolute property rights have positive effect for the society. This is undermining what you have argued previously. You are shooting yourself in the foot so to speak. Latin American countries, which after the collapse of Soviet Union, were forced to look into their politcal systems, and whether the continuation of the socialism grammar still benifited them, have shown that by nationalizing public resources, such as oil, the goverment can better manage rather than the individuals the collective resources of the society. So in this case, the good of the society, as measured by the protection of public resources, does not depend on the defense of individuals right. This is somewhat better. However, it is still too short. The bigger problem is that you just undermined your own argument from the supporting paragraph. What, then, determines when the good of a society depends upon the defense of individuals rights? The answer seems to lay on whether a society approches the questin itself from an individualism's perspective or a socialism's. This is vague and ambiguous. There is no right answer if the right answer simply shifts depending on the view point. In the former case, the defense of individual rights seems inevitable; while in the later case, the defense of the individuals rights does not gaurantee societal good. This is confusing. An indivdualism approach in the society gives autonomy to individuals to care for themselves, and thus forces them to be good gaurdians of the society's resources. However, a socialistic approach would be concerned about the resources in a collective way, and thus the society collectively would try to manage the good of the society. In either case, the society tries to ensure the resources are managed properly for the good of its members. Overall, the argument is poorly expressed. You do not address the resolution task which is to create contrast between your two previously discussed example. I would recommend following the standard template for the writing sample essay. This template is most effective as it allows you to efficiently address all of the writing tasks. http://portal.prep101.com/Forum/yaf_postst58_How-to-write-Writing-Sample-essays.aspx Overall Mark: 1.5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a K ) Breakdown (out of 6): Addresses tasks: 1.5 Supporting task is weakly addressed. Refuting task is somewhat addressed. Resolution task is not addressed. Depth: 2.5 Focus and coherence: 1.5 Grammar and vocabulary: 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted August 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 Prompt 39 medhopeful64 The "good" of a society, or in other words, a state of peace, depends upon a few factors. It is good that you defined this vague term. It helps give you an operational definition which increases the clarity of your argument. One of the most important factors is the defense of individual rights, such as the right to live without fear for one's life, or the right to free speech. A society in which individual rights are respected and maintained results in a peaceful society, one free from corruption and political chaos. An example of a situation in which individual rights were not respected is the Mubarak regime of Egypt. Prior to January 2011, when Egyptian protestors overthrew the corrupt Mubarak government from power, Hosni Mubarak ruled in an authoritarian manner, censoring and punishing any individuals who dared to oppose the government. Lack of free speech, and cases of police brutality involving torture of prisoners and other inhumane treatment by police were cited as some of the main factors leading up to the 2011 Egyptian Revolution. Fed up with the corruption and disregard for individual rights that characterized Mubarak's regime, Egyptian citizens took the matter into their own hands and successfully led a non-violent protest in an attempt to overthrow the government. Thus, it is clear from the state of Egypt's society that the good of a society depends upon the defense of individual rights. Had the government held a higher regard for individual rights, the state of Egypt's society would not have been one full of political unrest. Strong. It would be excellent, if you had focused more on the good that came from the revolution. However, The good of a society does not always depend upon the defense of individual rights. In certain cases, individuals in a society may enjoy full rights, yet still lack a state of personal peace. For example, currently the United States is suffering from economic turmoil and high rates of unemployment. Many workers, especially young college graduates, are having extreme difficulty in finding and keeping a job today. Not having a reliable source of income or low income has contributed to a state of unrest amongst many Americans, leaving them unable to afford even their basic neccessities. Thus, in this case, it is evident that the good of a society does not necessarily depend on the defense of individual rights per se, but rather on the economic state of the country. The point of the writing sample is to argue two opposite sides of an issue and then reconcile the arguments. In this case, a better example would be one where individual rights were not defended but that was for the good of the society. This discussion is also too general and lacks depth. The good of a society (ie. time of peace) depends on a couple things, one of the most important being the defense of individual rights. The factor that determines when the good of a society depends upon the defense of individual rights and when it does not depends on the state of the government. If the government is, for the most part, free of corruption and is a democracy that respects basic individual rights, then the good of a society depends on the economic state of the country. America, for example, is a country characterized by relative political peace but is currently experiencing economic turmoil. As a result, many Americans are unhappy and feeling destitute despite having all their individual rights. In this case, the good of American society depends on the state of the economy. If however, the government is characterized by corruption and political chaos, and disregards individual rights, then the good of a society indeed depends upon the defense of individual rights. If, and only when, basic individual rights are granted to the citizens, can the society prosper and be free from a state of unrest. This was the case in Egypt, during Mubarak's regime. Lack of freedom of speech and violations of other basic individual rights led to political and personal unrest. Issues: 1) You don't have one clear resolution principle that you apply to both examples. 2) You kind of have a jumble of ideas that do not form one cohesive argument. This is in part because you did not argue the opposite sides of the argument. Your refuting discussion was a bit off-track and that also affected the strength of your resolution discussion. Overall Mark: 3/6 (Corresponds to approximately a N) Breakdown (out of 6): Addresses tasks: 3 Supporting task is well addressed. Refuting task is somewhat addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed. Depth: 3 Focus and coherence: 3 Grammar and vocabulary: 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnsmith321 Posted August 25, 2012 Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 Any government, whether elected or self-appointed, has the duty of protecting its citizens. An important part of the government's obligation to its people is to ensure that their basic needs i.e. clean water, food, shelter and adequate health, are met. If those who are called to represent the public cannot accomplish this, then they have failed their most vital task. Canada is a country with a strong history of supporting the fundamental needs of its citizens. The national single-payer health care system, for instance, enables all Canadians to have access to a doctor and preventative services in addition to covering all medically necessary surgeries at no cost to the patient. This is done out of the belief that healthcare, being a need of all people, should be provided by the government. However, there are times when fulfilling the most basic needs of its citizens might not be an obligation of the government. When Germany invaded the USSR during WWII, the Russians were initially quite militarily unprepared. In order to protect the country, huge resources were spent on producing tanks, weapons and simply maintaining the growing Red Army. This occured while millions of Russian civilians were suffering from hunger and dying due to starvation. The need to protect the sovereignty of the nation and to protect the civilians from the German army was more important than the need to see that all Soviet citizens were fed and had their other basic needs met. In conclusion, a fundamental role of the government is to ensure that its people are protected. This can include protection from disease and sickness, or protection from the violence of war. When in times of peace, the government can devote, in theory, all of its resources into seeing that the basic needs of its people are met. But when a nation and its people are faced with an existential threat, it can be justified that national self defense might take precedence over maintaining the needs of the public. This can be so that the government can stay in power to take care of its people, as a foreign military may not see it as their obligation to met the basic needs of the conquered people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted August 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 Prompt 40 Raiya The role of the government is to protect and respect the interests of the citizens. The relation between the citizens and the government is often unilinear Word choice--the government must seek to satisfy the basic needs of its citizens. This includes providing adequate food, shelter, and water, all aspects essential for survival. When a government refuses to provide basic needs for the citizens, disasterous consequences can occur. For example, in Chairman Mao's era back in the 1950s in China, the basic needs of the millions of citizens were prohibited Word choice in an attempt to modernize the country. During the period called the Great Leap Forward, death and suicide rates of the population dramatically sky-rocketed, eventually harming the social and economic status of China. In this case, Mao did not take the responsibility of protecting and offering the basic needs of its citizens and instead stripped them away. Party leaders took farmers' land in order to build infrastructure, leading to famine and lack of shelter. Because this led to one of the most devestating times in China history, the government should have been obligated to seek the protection of basic needs for its citizens. This is okay. However, it is not strong because it is a negative example that indirectly supports the writing prompt rather than an example that directly supports the example. On the other hand, in some cases, the government is not obligated to see that the basic needs are satisfied. In a country like Canada, the government is not directly responsible to ensure everyone has adequate food and water supply and appropriate shelters. This is not true. Canada has welfare and funds many initiatives to meet the basic needs of citizens. The government does supply these services but is not obligated to directly enforce these needs onto its citizens. This is confusing. Essentially, the citizens living in the country are responsible for acquiring their own basic needs such as buying the appropriate groceries, and finding houses for shelter. Such services that can supply these basic needs are examples such as food retailers or real estate firms are all private companies, independent of government control. Since the citizens are able to live a satisfied life with the necessary basic needs and able to contribute well to the progress of the society, the government is not obligated to see if citizens' needs are met. This is a poor example because Canada does try to see that the basic needs of citizens are met. Thus the question remains: what determines whether or not a government is obligated to see that its citizens' basic needs are met? This will depend on whether the society is stable or unstable. China, in the 1950s, was in a politically corrupt stage where the single-party People's Republic of China was in full control of all aspects in society. The nation was quite unstable due to political oppositions and poor economic status. Thus, Mao took a huge leap and sacrificed the basic needs of its citizens in order to modernize the economy. However, because the government took away all the basic needs of the citizens This doesn't make sense. , the people suffered tremendously and was not able to help society progress. In this stance, the government should have protected and respected the basic needs of its citizens because ultimately, they are the people who will be building the society. The application of the resolution principle was weak. On the other hand, when a society is stable and less prone to political fluctuations, the government is not obligated to seek the protection of basic needs. Poor phrasing and word choices. In Canada, where it is socially and economically stable, citizens generally can provide basic needs for themselves through private companies, independent of the government. Since citizens have been living quite well for the past decade, it is not necessary for the government to interfere with such matter. Thus, whether or not a government is obligated to see that its citizens' basic needs are met depends on the status-quo of the society, whether it is stable or not. The argument doesn't really make sense. If a country is stable and prosperous, it has more resources to make sure that the basic needs of citizens are met. Overall, the quality of ideas especially in relation to Canada are poor. Overall Mark: 2/6 (Corresponds to approximately a L ) Breakdown (out of 6): Addresses tasks: 2 Supporting task is adequately addressed. Refuting task is not addressed. Resolution task is weakly addressed. Depth: 2 Focus and coherence: 2.5 Grammar and vocabulary: 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted August 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2012 Prompt 40 Economist A government is a governing body of a nation formed by the state's representatives to provide the basic needs of its citizens, such as food, shelter, and education. This is not a good definition of government because if you use this definition, it will undermine your arguments in the refuting paragraph. Therefore it is the government's obligation to ensure that all of its citizens acquire the basic necessities. For example, the Canadian government has the obligation to provide the minimum necessities to its citizens if the individuals can not provide for themselves. The Canadian government provides welfare to individuals who earn less than the minimum required to buy the necessities. This allows these individuals to support themselves with basic needs such as food and shelter. Furthermore the government also provides free education through elementary school to secondary school for all its citizens. Finally Canadian government provides universal healthcare for its citizens so no individual will be unable to receive treatments due to financial reasons. Although the healthcare does not cover every aspect of medical treatment, if the citizen genuinely can not afford some of the treatments, there are considerable amount of social assistance program to support these low-income individuals. In this example, the Canadian government works to ensure that the basic needs of its citizens are met. Excellent. However sometimes a government is not obligated to provide these necessities to its citizens. When a nation is under extreme circumstances the basic needs of its citizens are no longer a priority to the government. For example, during the second civil war in Sudan, the ensuing war costed grammar lives of two million citizens and the economy of Sudan deteriorated uncontrollably. During the 1980's the government was no longer able to provide the basic needs such as food, shelter, and education to its citizens. Instead the government's first line of priority was the safety of its citizens from the Southern rebels and to ensure that the military needs were met to fight off the rebel army. In this example, the Sudanese government was not obligated to provide the basic needs of its citizens during the civil war. Excellent. What determines whether a government is obligated to provide these basic needs to its citizens? It depends on whether the government has a stable political and economical status. If the government has a strong political and economical stability grammar , like Canada, the government has an obligation to see that the basic needs of its citizens are met. However if a government, like the Sudanese government during the second civil war, is under a national crisis, its political and economic status are highly unstable. In this case, the Sudanese government is not in position to adequately provide the basic services to its citizens. The resolution principle is strong. The application to your example needs improvement through elaboration. You need to explain why your resolution principle works. 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 adequately addressed. Depth: 5 Focus and coherence: 4.5 Grammar and vocabulary: 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted August 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 Prompt 40 ann2012 Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people. In a democracy country grammar , it is the government's obligation to see that the basic needs of its citizens are met. In this case, the basic needs of citizens can be defined as the basic requirement of living such grammar as, health care. For example, the Canadian health care system ensures that all Canadian citizens, no matter employed or unemployed, can meet the need of basics health care grammar , because the government covers the visiting fee to a physician in the form of insurance. This policy was supported by the majority of Canadians because the government has brought much benefit to its people through this policy. If the current government suggests a policy that limits the benefits of its people, then the current government is not likely going to gain much vote in the next election. Since the success of the government depends on its people, and the people's well-being depends on the policy of the government. This is an incomplete sentence. It is the government's responsibility to see that the basic needs of its citizens are met, not only for the benefits of the public, but also for the benefits of the government itself. Repetitive. This could be strong. However, the writing style needs to be improved. On the other hand, a government is not obligated to see that the basic needs of its citizens are met in some extreme cases. For example, during World War Two the Chinese government rallied its citizens to provide essential resources such as, food and medicines for its army, because of the shortage of resources and the limited number of men who could join the army at the time. During the war, the government's primary concern and responsibility is to ensure the security of the country, because if the country is in danger its people's security would also face threats. Thus regardless of the number of people who died from hunger, the Chinese government still used most of the resources for tis army. Thus, during the time of war a government's first priority is to ensure the country is secure. Excellent. Therefore, whether a government is responsible to see that the basic needs of its citizens are met depends on whether the country's security is in threat grammar . During peace time, the government should ensure that the basic needs of its citizens are met, such as the Canadian health care system, because the government's primary purpose is to protect and promote benefits of its people. Also, a government that does not promote benefits of its people is not likely to be elected again. However, during war time, such as the Chinese government during WW2, the government's primary concern is the nation's security. When a nation's safety is in danger, its citizen's security is not likely to be protected as well. Confusing. Thus, although a government should promote and protect benefits of its citizens, extreme time needs extreme actions; during war time a country's first priority would be the nation's security, not the basic needs of its citizens. 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 completely addressed. Resolution task is well addressed. Depth: 4.5 Focus and coherence: 4.5 Grammar and vocabulary: 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaymondPrep101 Posted August 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 Prompt 40 johnsmith321 Any government, whether elected or self-appointed, has the duty of protecting its citizens. An important part of the government's obligation to its people is to ensure that their basic needs i.e. clean water, food, shelter and adequate health, are met. If those who are called to represent the public cannot accomplish this, then they have failed their most vital task. Canada is a country with a strong history of supporting the fundamental needs of its citizens. The national single-payer health care system, for instance, enables all Canadians to have access to a doctor and preventative services in addition to covering all medically necessary surgeries at no cost to the patient. This is done out of the belief that healthcare, being a need of all people, should be provided by the government. This is okay. However, your argument is too short. Elaborate on your ideas and expand your discussion. There are too few relevant points. However, there are times when fulfilling the most basic needs of its citizens might not be an obligation of the government. When Germany invaded the USSR during WWII, the Russians were initially quite militarily unprepared. In order to protect the country, huge resources were spent on producing tanks, weapons and simply maintaining the growing Red Army. This occured while millions of Russian civilians were suffering from hunger and dying due to starvation. The need to protect the sovereignty of the nation and to protect the civilians from the German army was more important than the need to see that all Soviet citizens were fed and had their other basic needs met. Excellent. In conclusion, a fundamental role of the government is to ensure that its people are protected. This can include protection from disease and sickness, or protection from the violence of war. When in times of peace, the government can devote, in theory, all of its resources into seeing that the basic needs of its people are met. But when a nation and its people are faced with an existential threat, it can be justified that national self defense might take precedence over maintaining the needs of the public. This can be so that the government can stay in power to take care of its people, as a foreign military may not see it as their obligation to met the basic needs of the conquered people. Strong. It would be excellent if you had simply expressed your resolution principle (peace vs. war) at the outset before applying it to your examples. Overall Mark: 5/6 (Corresponds to approximately a R ) Breakdown (out of 6): Addresses tasks: 5 Supporting task is adequately addressed. Refuting task is completely addressed. Resolution task is well addressed. Depth: 4.5 Focus and coherence: 4.5 Grammar and vocabulary: 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loopas Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 Thank you Raymond! The success of a country is often measured by its ability to meet the basic needs of its citizens. A government is obligated to see that basic needs such as, adequate food, clean water and shelter are provided to the citizens of its nation. For example, Canada is a growing country which often ranks high in the United Nations' list of quality of life. The Canadian government is obligated to meet the basic needs of its citizens because it has resources to do so. For example, Canada is bordered by the most fresh water in the world which ensures that all citizens have access to it. In addition, Canada provides provides free healthcare to all of its citizens and free elementary and secondary education. The government is obligated to see that these needs of its citizens are met because they it must answer to Canadian citizens who pay high taxes for these services. If the Canadian government did not provide these services to its citizens, there may bepolitical unstability as the citizens would be unhappy and may question the government. In some cases however, a government is not obligated to see that the basic needs of its citizens are met. For example, during the Kargil War of 1999 between India and Pakistan, the Indian government decided that it was more important to strengthen its military than meet the basic needs of some of its citizens. Pakistan threatened to use its nuclear weapons in order to gain control of the disputed land, known as the city of Kashmir. To prevent this, India focused on strengthening its military control of the Kashmir border and was unable to to provide water tankers to those living in small villages around Kashmir. Under normal circumstances, these water tankers are regularly supplied to villages because villagers have no other way to access safe drinking water. The Indian government defended their decision by arguing that had they not prevented the nuclear attack, the harmful effects of the nuclear radiation would have affected most of India whereas their decision to stop supplying water tankers only affected a fraction of the Indian population. Though the governments of the nations with the highest quality of life feel obligated to see that the basic needs of its citizens are met, in some cases this is not possible due to national turmoil in which a nation's resources must be used for another purpose. What determines whether a government is obligated to see that the basic needs of its citizens are met is whether the country is at peace or at war. Because Canada is at peace, it should theoretically use all of the taxes paid by its citizens to provide free services to the citizens. During war, however, a government is not obligated to meet the basic needs of its citizens if doing so would compromise the safety of its citizens as was the case during the Kargil War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sulfamethoxazole Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 A government of a country is responsible for the welfare of its citizens. By enacting laws and policies, a government regulates the way the country is run, which in turn affects the living conditions of its citizens. Many people believe a responsible government is obligated to meet the basic needs of its citizens. Food, shelter, access to healthcare and protection, for example, are some of the needs considered to be within a government's obligation. In Canada, the national social assistance program and universal healthcare program help even the poorest segment of the population achieve a basic level of quality of life. By spending tax money to help those who would otherwise live in destitution, the Candian government fulfills its duty to meet its citizens' neds admirably. However, governments are not always able to put the basic needs of its citizens first. During World War II, when the Japanese military invaded China, the Chinese government chose to fight the Japanese rather than peacefully surrender their country. Fighting the Japanese made sense from the perspective of national interests. No country wants to be invaded by another and there were no guarantees that the Japanese would have treated Chinese citizens well had they colonized the country. However, by going to war instead of surrendering right away, the Chinese government certainly sacrificed the immediate safety of some of its citizens, particulary those living in areas where battles took place. In this case, the Chinese government, in order to defend its nation as a whole, could not meet the basic needs (i.e. protection) of all its citizens. What then, determines whether a government must meet the basic needs of its citizens? One criteria that should be considred is whether it is in time of war or peace. In times of peace, governments should, to the best of their abilities, meet the basic needs of its citizens. The Canadian government is able to focus much of its tax spendings on the welfare of its citizens precisely because in times of war, no other issues take precedence. On the other hand, during times of war, governments may be forced to sacrifice the basic needs of its citizens for "the greater good". In the case of China during World War II, the Chinese government arguably sacrificed the immediate safety of its citizens by not surrendering to the Japanese. A peaceful surrender would have meant less civilian and military casualties for the Chinese. However, putting an entire country in the hands of an enemy nation whose long-term intentions could still pose great danger to its citizens is foolhardy. Although engaging in warfare meant the Chinese government could not meet the basic needs to all of its citizens, during war time, the obligation to protect national and long-term interests take precedence. ---- I feel like I haven't improved at all, which is sort of frustrating. Sigh. Must keep at it I suppose. Thanks so much Raymond for all your help this summer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meniscus Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 Thank you Raymond and Prep101 for providing this fantastic service!! The government of a nation can affect its citizens in many ways. To be obligated to do something means that one is required to do the task. Basic needs are things that humans must have to survive. These basic needs include food and shelter, which one requires money to be purchased. Usually, the government must ensure the basic needs of its citizens are met. For example, in Vietnam, when one does not have a job because no will hire them, he can collect welfare. This is a small amount of money that allows one to purchase food and shelter in order to survive. In addition, if one is physically unable to work, one call collect employment insurance, short term disability, or long term disability so that one can still receive income to purchase the basics needs to survive. If the government does not ensure these basics needs are met, citizens may likely suffer from malnutrition and likely even die in the long term. Thus, usually the government must ensure the basics needs of citizens are met. However, sometimes a government might not be required to ensure the basics needs of citizens are fulfilled. For example, when the Vietnam War occurred, the government of South Vietnam no longer provided social assistance, such as welfare and employment insurance, to make sure people would get their basic needs. The government no longer funded the social assistance during the war because the nation was in a state of chaos and it was more important for the government to spend funds to fight the war and ensure its citizens were safe in the cities. More police and soliders were hired to protect the citizens in the city and to battle the soldiers from North Vietnam. Also, a portion of funds was spent on citizens who wanted to flee their country on refugees boats to seek life in a new country. Thus, what determines whether the government must ensure it citizens' basic needs are met depends on if the nation is in a state of war or peace. When a nation is in a state of peace, the government should enusre basic needs are met. For example, when there was no war in South Vietnam, the government provided social assistance to give citizens the funds to pay for food and shelter. There was no other major issues the government had to take care of; so the government was required to meet the basic needs of its citizens. However, when a nation is at war, the government should not be required to ensure basics needs are met. For example, when the Vietnam War erupted, the government of South Vietnam stopped running its social assistance programs to allocate funds for the military, safety personnel in the cities, and refugee boats to allow people to escape the country. During the war, it was more important for the government to ensure the safety of the nation and its citizens as opposed basic needs of it citizens since survival was at stake; safety was more of an immediate issues than basic needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medhopeful64 Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 Thanks so much Raymond and Prep 101 for providing this free service, I have greatly appreciated your feedback! ____________________________ PROMPT 39: A government is obligated to see that the basic needs of its citizens are met. One of the responsibilities of a government is to ensure that its citizens are properly cared for, both physically and mentally. Essentially, the government has a moral obligation to ensure that the basic needs of these citizens are met, such as having adequate food, shelter, clean drinking water, etc. The government has this obligation because its citizens pay tax to the government, and most would argue that in this way the government has a moral duty to use its ciitizens' money in a responsible manner. For example, the governments of many countries use a relatively large portion of taxpayer money to fund social services such as welfare. Such social services are set in place in order to ensure that the basic needs of the people are being met when they cannot provide for themselves. In their time of need, the government is obligated to ensure that all citizens have enough to eat and a safe place to live in. In extenuating circumstances, however, a government might not be obligated to see that the basic needs of its citizens are met. For example, during times of war, a country may have other, higher priorities that it needs to take care of before ensuring the basic needs of its citizens are being met. During WWII for example, the Canadian Government set up a ration policy because the majority of its finances were being used to cover military expenses. Because resources were scarce, and the War was an urgent and necessary endeavor, food had to be rationed among the citizens. The citizens had to make do with the little food they had, and in some cases, it may not have been adequate. However, during WWII the government's first priority was no longer ensuring that the basic needs of the citizens were being met; there were other more pressing matters to deal with first. Thus, in this case, it is clear that sometimes the government is not obligated to see that the basic needs of its citizens are met. Ensuring that the citizens have enough food and shelter is one of the responsibilities of the government. Whether or not a government is obligated to see that its citizens' basic needs are met depends on if the country is in a state of war or a state of peace. During times of war, the government has other, higher priorities that take precedence over the basic needs of the citizens (such as ensuring that the military forces are well equipped). During times of peace, however, the government has a moral duty to ensure that the basic needs of its citizens are met because it has the finances to do so (ie, using taxpayer money to fund social service programs like welfare to ensure all citizens have adequate food/rent). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
souljaboy Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 The basic needs of a country's citizens are considered essential for their daily life. Basic needs such as food, shelter, and sanitation are necessary for life and a government must make taking care of those needs its most important obligation. Because it is the government's duty to take care of its citizens, they must essure the citizens' basic needs are met. In Canada, the government has ensured that there are programs providing these basic needs to every one of its citizens, no matter the circumstance. Programs such as welfare provide the necessities for citizens' who are not financially capable of supporting themselves. Further social programs such as retirement homes funded by the government help meet the basic needs of those who are no longer capable of taking care of themselves. The government is obligated to have these programs in place because their first priority must be the welfare of every citizen. However, a government might need to prioritize the nation's security over meeting the needs of every one of its citizens if aa significant threat occurs. In wartime, such as during the civil war of Congo, there might exist a priority more important than ensuring the citizen's needs are met. The government had to focus all of their limited resources on taking care of the more significant threat that the rebel army poses. The rebel army would conduct mass killing of civilians of different ethnic background. The government had to ensure that these killings are prevented by dedicating their entire resource towards fighting the rebel army. Meeting the citizens' basic needs is no longer the highest priority because there is a clear and more significant danger to the citizens' safety. The government must be obligated to protect the citizens from the more immediate threat and must use all their resources towards doing so. Therefore, they are no longer obligated to try and meet all the citizens' basic needs if the resources cannot allow for it. Whether a government is obligated to meet its citizens' basic needs depends on whether there is a more immediate threat to the citizens safety. In Canada, where there is currently no higher priority for the government than taking care of the needs of its citizens, the government is obligated to take care of the basic needs via various social programs. In special circumstances where there are there are greater threats to the lives of citizens, the government is no longer obligated to take care of the basic needs because they need to deal with the greater threat. During the civil wars of Congo, the government is obligated to protect its citizens from the immediate threat to their safety caused by the rebel army, which required taking away from the resources that cater to their basic needs. The government is obligated to ensure its citizens' safety, which usually prioritizes taking care of its citizens' basic needs but can change depending on the circumstance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monachima505 Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 A government is obligated to see that the basic needs of its citizens are met. In times of need, citizens often rely on their government for support. While some citizens have access to family and friends for support, others may not have a similar support network. In order to ensure the equality of all citizens, governments have an obligation to ensure that the basic needs of its citizens are met. For example, the Canadian government provides a variety of social services, such as unemployment, to Canadian citizens in need. These social services often include allowances to provide those in need with a home, food, and other necessities for an adequate quality of life. The government also provides laws to ensure the protection its citizens’ lives and health. Many Canadians feel a sense of security living and working in a nation which will support them in times of need. When a government ensures that the basic needs of its citizens are met, it maximizes the number of citizens living at or above a certain “minimum standard” for quality living. Thus, every government should have the obligation to do so. However, there may be certain situations in which a government might not have this obligation. For example, consider a nation that is in a state of turmoil due to warfare, and this nation is also severely lacking in military resources. The nation may be forced to implement conscription, effectively putting a gun in the hands of any able-bodied man and requiring them to serve in the military on the front lines. By putting the lives of non-consenting citizens at risk, the government essentially denies these citizens the basic right to life. In the eyes of the government, it is acceptable to lose a few men in military service in order to ensure the continued prosperity of the nation as a whole. The critical factor that determines a government’s obligation to provide for its citizens is the present state of the nation. A nation with plentiful resources or one in peacetime has a far greater responsibility to support its citizens than a nation in dire straits. Although the primary focus of nation’s resources should be to provide for its citizens, a justifiable exception to this occurs when a nation is severely lacking in the resources to the point that the nation is threatened, such as during wartime. In this case, the government is temporarily relieved of its obligation to meet the basic needs of its citizens, in order to more fully focus its efforts on improving the state of the nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.