Thursday, November 8, 2007
Political Beings that we are.....
Politics are awesome. I say that because you can bring up any political issue at any occasion and you have got yourself a debate. For example you can bring up Iraq and of course everyone has an opinion. Or you can bring up 9/11 and someone has something to say. These days gay marriage and abortion also have people jumping to give you their opinion. That's good. Either way, whether they are right or wrong at least they are talking. Me, being the politics major that I am, I get all sorts of people wanting to voice what they think about everything. I love it!! I love debating people and them thinking about what they said and why they said it. That is what it is all about. We are all different, and while we all have our opinion, I think there is a correct answer. It is not just a value but also a fact. We are all in search of that answer and some are right and some are wrong. Someone once told me (big props to Mom) that opinions are like butt holes, we all have them and unfortunately some stink. I didn't understand it then, but that is right. At least we live in a country where we can voice that opinion. That is what politics is. That is good. The more people think about something the closer they come to the truth. I love reason, that is one thing that humans have other living creatures do not. So use that reason, you lovely rational being and think for once about things that effect us all..... I LOVE IT.
PC Regime
The PC Regime
The regime that has emerged throughout the beginning of the twenty-first century is the "PC regime." While many would think that this is referring to the widespread use and dependability of the general population on personal computers and other technological advances such as cell phones, email and the sort, that is not what I am rendering as an earmark of the time. Rather I am stating that the rise of the idea of universally being politically correct has become one of the major steering devices in each and every citizens daily life and has evolved viewpoints and personal choices along the way.
The term political correctness emerged in the 1980s but has quickly spread and can be seen in every aspect of popular life. Throughout the end of the twentieth century and even more so through out the early years of the twenty-first century, ideas surrounding political correctness have quickly evolved into both written and unwritten laws observed within our national and numerous local communities. This is no longer just expected, but those who choose to transgress from the newly founded norm are often met with punishment and outrage. This new eruption has caused the view that the people and groups who are demanding equality and freedoms such as speech and assembly, are the same ones accused of verbally and sometimes even physically persecuting those who choose to speak in plain language without the safeguards of political correctness. The goal that political correctness hopes to achieve is simple and plainly put, is to prevent anyone from being offended.
The idea of being politically correct has directly corresponded into a number of economic, social and ideological disturbances throughout society which have lead to policy demands and measurable administrative and political changes. In the hopes of not offending anyone people have thoroughly debated the ideas of equality through out the areas of marriage, as well as for those that are mentally and physically challenged. These debates have opened a variety of areas of social regulatory policy that has been very controversial even in this politically correct era. The spread of the belief in the mass epidemic of obesity has sparked dialogue on diet reform policy and other health standards like never before in our history. The mass hysteria revolving around a once scientific but not political stance on human-induced global climate change (warming) has struck numerous initiatives and regulations.
The homosexual population in the United States has quickly been growing with the onset of acceptance by a more diverse population. The growth is also contributed to the beginning of use and belief that there should be equal rights not only for all religions or races, as battles in the past have centered on, but also equality regardless of sexual orientation. One key focus has been on the concept of legal and social acceptance of same-sex marriages and homosexual civil unions. Marriage and civil union regulations have been widely accepted as a states-right issue, meaning that the individual states have the constitutional right to set the various regulations involved in the union issue.
At the dawn of the twenty-first century very few states in this country allowed same-sex unions of any type. States often used terms such as bride and groom in their codes and statutes to prohibit homosexual unions without passing controversial binding legislation that expressly denied the right of marriage to anyone. These terms and the ideas in which they are rooted, have been socially proven to offend certain minority groups and therefore have been ruled politically incorrect. Many states now find that they must either allow same-sex marriages, pass initiatives and referendums that are viewed by many as discriminatory, or allow same-sex unions with limits but not marriage. Several equal rights activists have lobbied for a federal constitutional amendment or court precedent setting the bar for national acceptance of gay marriage and are winning because of the "PC" tide. It is suggested by the year 2030 that all states will have passed some type of legislation which allows legal unions within homosexual couples specifically detailing medical and death rights as well as adoption and insurance statutes. There are several large groups who oppose these types of legislation but they are often viewed as politically incorrect and derogatory.
The same-sex marriage debate has caused an uprising in strict conservatives and a counter rising in some liberals. These two sects from the popular Republican and Democratic parties constantly argue and have began taking similar stances on other issues such as abortion, polygamy, stem-cell research and the such. The root of these debates is the oxymoronic idea that more government equals more freedom.
With obesity surpassing smoking as the leading cause of preventable death, health standards started an uproar to help curve the epidemic through out the nation. The obesity dilemma started as a superficial issue where being fat or overweight was seen as ugly. This was fought with campaigns that make beauty something everyone has. Soon thereafter the negative health effects became the center of debate. The government is fighting this epidemic with incentives to lower morbid obesity rates like medicaid plans that pay for nutritionists, bariatic surgeries, and fitness programs for those who cannot afford to pay on there own as well as educational campaigns that help prevent becoming overweight. Body mass index (BMI) is a graded area that is reported on children’s progress reports in government and private schools through out the country. Insurance companies are beginning to penalize those who are ranked overweight by company health examiners and almost every state in the union has banned the use of trans-fat in public cooking. There has been an experimental drug developed by the leading pharmaceutical companies but has yet to be distributed to the public because of the patent and generic fights.
These types of policies have become a way for the government to regulate each citizen’s diet and therefore make the proper decisions that would otherwise not be made by most. This is yet another step towards the total decision making by the government in order to ensure that we all live happy, healthy, and politically correct lives.
The third policy area during this regime is the debate over man-made global climate change. The dilemma often called global warming started as a scientific study but took root as a political dilemma during the early parts of the twenty-first century. This controversy caused a deep split in ideological groups. The Green party quickly took control and fought for this cause. There has been many initiatives taken to reduce the effects of carbon emissions to the environment and the global climate. On the international level, there have been many efforts including the Tokyo Protocol and the more recent Quebec Incentive. This types of agreements are voluntary documents where each States’ government signs and work to lower emissions and try to promote a more environmental friendly approach to energy. These types of initiatives are showing up everywhere. "Congressional legislation to mandate reductions in CO2 emissions from power plants, autos, factories, farms and office buildings has line-jumped to the congressional agenda" and many people are approving because of the propaganda that is being publicized with every turn of the head.1 Ranging from proposed legislation to mandate the use of fluorescent light bulbs and state car emissions inspections to government regulation of corporations pollutants and the like.
The term political correctness emerged in the 1980s but has quickly spread and can be seen in every aspect of popular life. Throughout the end of the twentieth century and even more so through out the early years of the twenty-first century, ideas surrounding political correctness have quickly evolved into both written and unwritten laws observed within our national and numerous local communities. This is no longer just expected, but those who choose to transgress from the newly founded norm are often met with punishment and outrage. This new eruption has caused the view that the people and groups who are demanding equality and freedoms such as speech and assembly, are the same ones accused of verbally and sometimes even physically persecuting those who choose to speak in plain language without the safeguards of political correctness. The goal that political correctness hopes to achieve is simple and plainly put, is to prevent anyone from being offended.
The idea of being politically correct has directly corresponded into a number of economic, social and ideological disturbances throughout society which have lead to policy demands and measurable administrative and political changes. In the hopes of not offending anyone people have thoroughly debated the ideas of equality through out the areas of marriage, as well as for those that are mentally and physically challenged. These debates have opened a variety of areas of social regulatory policy that has been very controversial even in this politically correct era. The spread of the belief in the mass epidemic of obesity has sparked dialogue on diet reform policy and other health standards like never before in our history. The mass hysteria revolving around a once scientific but not political stance on human-induced global climate change (warming) has struck numerous initiatives and regulations.
The homosexual population in the United States has quickly been growing with the onset of acceptance by a more diverse population. The growth is also contributed to the beginning of use and belief that there should be equal rights not only for all religions or races, as battles in the past have centered on, but also equality regardless of sexual orientation. One key focus has been on the concept of legal and social acceptance of same-sex marriages and homosexual civil unions. Marriage and civil union regulations have been widely accepted as a states-right issue, meaning that the individual states have the constitutional right to set the various regulations involved in the union issue.
At the dawn of the twenty-first century very few states in this country allowed same-sex unions of any type. States often used terms such as bride and groom in their codes and statutes to prohibit homosexual unions without passing controversial binding legislation that expressly denied the right of marriage to anyone. These terms and the ideas in which they are rooted, have been socially proven to offend certain minority groups and therefore have been ruled politically incorrect. Many states now find that they must either allow same-sex marriages, pass initiatives and referendums that are viewed by many as discriminatory, or allow same-sex unions with limits but not marriage. Several equal rights activists have lobbied for a federal constitutional amendment or court precedent setting the bar for national acceptance of gay marriage and are winning because of the "PC" tide. It is suggested by the year 2030 that all states will have passed some type of legislation which allows legal unions within homosexual couples specifically detailing medical and death rights as well as adoption and insurance statutes. There are several large groups who oppose these types of legislation but they are often viewed as politically incorrect and derogatory.
The same-sex marriage debate has caused an uprising in strict conservatives and a counter rising in some liberals. These two sects from the popular Republican and Democratic parties constantly argue and have began taking similar stances on other issues such as abortion, polygamy, stem-cell research and the such. The root of these debates is the oxymoronic idea that more government equals more freedom.
With obesity surpassing smoking as the leading cause of preventable death, health standards started an uproar to help curve the epidemic through out the nation. The obesity dilemma started as a superficial issue where being fat or overweight was seen as ugly. This was fought with campaigns that make beauty something everyone has. Soon thereafter the negative health effects became the center of debate. The government is fighting this epidemic with incentives to lower morbid obesity rates like medicaid plans that pay for nutritionists, bariatic surgeries, and fitness programs for those who cannot afford to pay on there own as well as educational campaigns that help prevent becoming overweight. Body mass index (BMI) is a graded area that is reported on children’s progress reports in government and private schools through out the country. Insurance companies are beginning to penalize those who are ranked overweight by company health examiners and almost every state in the union has banned the use of trans-fat in public cooking. There has been an experimental drug developed by the leading pharmaceutical companies but has yet to be distributed to the public because of the patent and generic fights.
These types of policies have become a way for the government to regulate each citizen’s diet and therefore make the proper decisions that would otherwise not be made by most. This is yet another step towards the total decision making by the government in order to ensure that we all live happy, healthy, and politically correct lives.
The third policy area during this regime is the debate over man-made global climate change. The dilemma often called global warming started as a scientific study but took root as a political dilemma during the early parts of the twenty-first century. This controversy caused a deep split in ideological groups. The Green party quickly took control and fought for this cause. There has been many initiatives taken to reduce the effects of carbon emissions to the environment and the global climate. On the international level, there have been many efforts including the Tokyo Protocol and the more recent Quebec Incentive. This types of agreements are voluntary documents where each States’ government signs and work to lower emissions and try to promote a more environmental friendly approach to energy. These types of initiatives are showing up everywhere. "Congressional legislation to mandate reductions in CO2 emissions from power plants, autos, factories, farms and office buildings has line-jumped to the congressional agenda" and many people are approving because of the propaganda that is being publicized with every turn of the head.1 Ranging from proposed legislation to mandate the use of fluorescent light bulbs and state car emissions inspections to government regulation of corporations pollutants and the like.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Afirmative Action
The following is a work in progress for an assignment for my ethics class dealing with affirmative action programs such a preference programs and the normative questions raised through an utilitarian theory approach, (which I happen to agree with):
A Utilitarianism Critique of Preference Programs for Collegiate Acceptance
Is the use of programs that seek to redress for past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity in collegiate education ethical? The Supreme Court says it is ethical and needed in those cases where there is a compelling governmental interest. Grutter v. Bollinger was a case in 2003 in which the United States Supreme Court heard the issue of the constitutionality of affirmative action programs for collegiate programs. Justice O'Connor found that it was indeed constitutional and was needed for at least twenty-five more years. Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas all dissented from O'Conner's opinion and wrote that not only were such preference programs unconstitutional, but they were also detrimental to the evolution of the American society. However, assuming that because the courts or the law says that using these programs is ethical, it must be ethical would be committing the legalistic fallacy. Also saying that something is this way and therefore should be this way would be committing the is/ought fallacy. Both fallacies are not an appropriate way to logical reasoning. Using other approaches it can be argued that in fact the use of preference programs is unethical.
From a utilitarian approach the use of such affirmative action programs such as preference programs in fact lowers the overall net utility of a society as a whole because it lowers the education level that is being taught in collegiate schools; lowers the output of collegiate programs; and provides an atmosphere that systematically lowers the overall net happiness of a society; therefore making it unethical.
Affirmative Action programs cause a loss of net utility for a society in a long run because we will no longer have our best and brightest students graduating and entering the professional work force. Some of the best qualified candidates for collegiate programs will be declined because their spots will need to be filled with students that are preferred through the programs, even though these students may not have the best qualifications. This will cause the long-run net utility to decline. Yes, we will have a diverse professional workforce, but it will not consist of the best candidates. If the workforce did indeed consist of only the best candidates, whatever their race, gender, or socioeconomic status, there would be a rise in overall net utility for that workforce. The brighter the candidates, the brighter the workforce and therefore the brighter the output of that society will be. For example, if the best candidates for a medical school program happened to all be of the Asian race, all of the students should be accepted regardless of diversity or lack there of. This would in turn cause the best students to graduate from the program and therefore the best doctors to practice causing the most net utility possible for that particular society.
Preference programs will also lower net utility because the classes in colleges and other post-secondary educational facilities will need to be taught at a lower academic level. The main purpose of post-secondary education is to educate the students attended, and for that to be obtained the material needs to be at a level where most students can understand, in order to ensure that the facilities are successfully training graduates from the programs. These educational levels are likely to be lower than current ones. This would seem to be the case because people will be getting admitted to programs based on preference on things other than academic qualifications and may not be properly prepared to compete with other students. For example, if a student is admitted into a college with a lower SAT score and GPA because that student’s ethnicity is under represented at that institution the institution will be inclined to ensure that student can produce in classes. Therefore, more remedial courses and courses covering material that other students are already familiar with, will be need to be required in order to prepare these students. This in turn will cause the society as a whole to become less educated overall and therefore lower the long run utility of that society.
A society is a sophisticated interlinking of relationships that vary depending upon the various components that collectively build them. A diverse society helps everyone understand the various cultures that exist in our own society as well as in others. It is important to learn their values, goals, and practices that characterize them. This is a vital aspect of living in a community that has an overall long run net happiness. However given one race, ethnicity, gender, age-group or any other demographic preference may cause bitterness through out that society, therefore lowering the net happiness. If everyone is unhappy or holds resentment towards another group of people then, the utility of that particular society will also lower. Taking society's utility and subtracting the utility that will be lost without the use of preference programs (even though the society will still show a great amount of diversity) and adding the gained utiltiy from obtaining the most qualified candidates graduating and entering the workforce will yield a net utility that will be greater then one obtained with the use of the preference programs such as affirmative action. Therefore, race, gender, and socioeconomic status should not be considered in the selection of students. The students with the best qualifications, regardless of these demographic preferences should be chosen.
Is the use of programs that seek to redress for past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity in collegiate education ethical? The Supreme Court says it is ethical and needed in those cases where there is a compelling governmental interest. Grutter v. Bollinger was a case in 2003 in which the United States Supreme Court heard the issue of the constitutionality of affirmative action programs for collegiate programs. Justice O'Connor found that it was indeed constitutional and was needed for at least twenty-five more years. Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas all dissented from O'Conner's opinion and wrote that not only were such preference programs unconstitutional, but they were also detrimental to the evolution of the American society. However, assuming that because the courts or the law says that using these programs is ethical, it must be ethical would be committing the legalistic fallacy. Also saying that something is this way and therefore should be this way would be committing the is/ought fallacy. Both fallacies are not an appropriate way to logical reasoning. Using other approaches it can be argued that in fact the use of preference programs is unethical.
From a utilitarian approach the use of such affirmative action programs such as preference programs in fact lowers the overall net utility of a society as a whole because it lowers the education level that is being taught in collegiate schools; lowers the output of collegiate programs; and provides an atmosphere that systematically lowers the overall net happiness of a society; therefore making it unethical.
Affirmative Action programs cause a loss of net utility for a society in a long run because we will no longer have our best and brightest students graduating and entering the professional work force. Some of the best qualified candidates for collegiate programs will be declined because their spots will need to be filled with students that are preferred through the programs, even though these students may not have the best qualifications. This will cause the long-run net utility to decline. Yes, we will have a diverse professional workforce, but it will not consist of the best candidates. If the workforce did indeed consist of only the best candidates, whatever their race, gender, or socioeconomic status, there would be a rise in overall net utility for that workforce. The brighter the candidates, the brighter the workforce and therefore the brighter the output of that society will be. For example, if the best candidates for a medical school program happened to all be of the Asian race, all of the students should be accepted regardless of diversity or lack there of. This would in turn cause the best students to graduate from the program and therefore the best doctors to practice causing the most net utility possible for that particular society.
Preference programs will also lower net utility because the classes in colleges and other post-secondary educational facilities will need to be taught at a lower academic level. The main purpose of post-secondary education is to educate the students attended, and for that to be obtained the material needs to be at a level where most students can understand, in order to ensure that the facilities are successfully training graduates from the programs. These educational levels are likely to be lower than current ones. This would seem to be the case because people will be getting admitted to programs based on preference on things other than academic qualifications and may not be properly prepared to compete with other students. For example, if a student is admitted into a college with a lower SAT score and GPA because that student’s ethnicity is under represented at that institution the institution will be inclined to ensure that student can produce in classes. Therefore, more remedial courses and courses covering material that other students are already familiar with, will be need to be required in order to prepare these students. This in turn will cause the society as a whole to become less educated overall and therefore lower the long run utility of that society.
A society is a sophisticated interlinking of relationships that vary depending upon the various components that collectively build them. A diverse society helps everyone understand the various cultures that exist in our own society as well as in others. It is important to learn their values, goals, and practices that characterize them. This is a vital aspect of living in a community that has an overall long run net happiness. However given one race, ethnicity, gender, age-group or any other demographic preference may cause bitterness through out that society, therefore lowering the net happiness. If everyone is unhappy or holds resentment towards another group of people then, the utility of that particular society will also lower. Taking society's utility and subtracting the utility that will be lost without the use of preference programs (even though the society will still show a great amount of diversity) and adding the gained utiltiy from obtaining the most qualified candidates graduating and entering the workforce will yield a net utility that will be greater then one obtained with the use of the preference programs such as affirmative action. Therefore, race, gender, and socioeconomic status should not be considered in the selection of students. The students with the best qualifications, regardless of these demographic preferences should be chosen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
