Group items tagged

The idea of legalization of drugs, marijuana or changing the drink age has always been a possibility in my mind. I've heard the argument many of times. To think that people would abuse drugs less is a interesting thought. Portugal seems to have proven the theory. It may be a way to combat drug problems in other countries as well. However, I'm still a floater on this subject. I think it's something that policy makers are scared to actually commit to. I would be shocked if policy was ever actually implemented even if it would eventually work.

It says in this article that conservatism is a partially heritable personal trait, but I was told in highs school that people learn their political preferences mostly through what they were taught by their families (political socialization). This idea goes very well with the nature/nurture debate. I used to wonder about what made something sacred; was holy water holy just because someone blessed it? Mr Haidt's idea that "Sacredness is really about society and its collective concerns" makes a lot more sense. By the way, holy cheese comes from holy cows. Holy cows come from India!

It is fascinating to try to understand why people vote one way and other people vote another way. Republicans seem to offer simple solutions of "moral clarity" which are easy to understand and like. It is easy to like their positions-who wouldn't! The article talks about morality and the author discusses his research. He gives some very dramatic examples of situations (people eating their dog, using the American flag to clean their toilet) to provoke us into thinking about how we feel. These are all really good questions-and they do not have easy answers. He mentions that when people have "gut feelings" they do not use their heads to think about things clearly. This is true and I am like this, too! Morality also depends on culture. In some cultures it might be acceptable to eat dog! He talks about his trip to India and how he gradually came to like people who were very different from him. This is how he lost his "righteous passion" and how he, in my opinion, became more human. This is the most important point of the article to me: you can respect someone else's opinion even if you do not agree. The author calls the Republican party a "sacred" one and the Democratic a "profane" one. I think this is a good way of putting it because Republicans talk about big issues like God and religion and the Democrats talk about society and its problems. I also reflected on the national motto of the American flag: "e pluribus unum (from many, one) and think that both parties should promote this.

Freedom of speech and the freedom to practice your beliefs is what seperates the USA from France. However you cannot impose religion it is the bases of why church and state must remain seperate. If the church slips into the state that is over riding our constitutional rights.

This lack of care available to Nigerians makes me wonder if they do not value human lives as more developed countries do. The men do not even believe that the women are worth the money to go to even a run-down hospital, and when babies die, it is such a common circumstance that it is not a big deal. Perhaps money is really hard to make in Nigeria, but life is priceless, isn't it?

Global equity is an impossibility. This idea that Nigerian infants "deserve" the same degree of pre/post-natal care is unrealistic. Proficient medical care is essentially a luxury not a basic human right. The situation in Niger is horrific but unfortunately it's a grim fact that life simply isn't fair. Their are numerous problems in Niger and other third world countries that contribute to the poor quality of life and we (The U.S and/or philanthropic individuals) can not rectify all these problems nor is it our responsibility. I realize this sounds cold and unfeeling but I do not mean it that way.

It is interesting knowing how different cultures and religions are comparing to ours. I was shocked reading that in Niger woman while having a baby don't make any noises. They suffer in pain and go through with it. Now a days in the hospitals besides getting pain killers and medicine the woman is free to complain and yell and do everything just o have a baby. America is a liberal country. In the poor countries woman usually get pregnant at a young age (15 or 16) and most of the people are not ready to be a parent for more then one child, but even for only one. It is a great responsibility and time consuming. I understand that there is only a 4% that people use contraception but the risk is high and it is not a joke to bring another human being to life. it must be difficult for Dahara seeing that her kids that she had before died and that the one that she has might or might not die. It must be a worse feeling loosing "your" human being or also aborting. I also found interesting the tradition that men don't play role in the in their child's life, they keep their distances. I would never want my husband to do that and my child to grow up without a male figure that will teach him/her new things, experiences. Another interesting fact that you can only get blood from relatives in the hospital if someone is dying or is sick and needs new blood. A good aspect that they have put in Niger is "Save the Children" which is where they take away health fees and therefore more poor people have a better chance of surviving. I agree on that the countries needs more trained midwives, well-equipped antenatal clinics to improve lives in these countries. Niger just needs help from richer countries because it is not a safe place and it is not a place to grow up a child. At the end of the article there is written "Ces't le vie", (it's life), like if it was normal that new born babies have to die from these mal treatments and diseases that in other countries could

I feel that in many ways America has accomplished the goal the author discusses, but in many ways this goal needs work. It is almost impossible for this to have any level of success without a separation of church and state, but beyond that, many citizens tend to base their political standpoints on religious beliefs, which creates a complication.

If policy was easy to figure out, there would neither be so many theories on it, nor debate. I believe that it was smart of Rawls to make his ideas abstract because in society, scenarios are constantly changing with the advent of new technologies and ways of living. Different people believe that life has different meanings, and the pursuit of all of them by all people may cause some to get in the way of others. A world in which everyone is able to pursue what their lives' meanings require of them can only exist in theory because it is impossible to satisfy everyone, especially since paradigms are so changeable.

In America there always has to be conflicting beliefs in politics, morals, and justice. Rawls has a biased one sided belief in his own views of how America should be run. But that is what makes America so great, Rawls and Nussbaum are certainly permitted to voice their one sided opinion that there is only one way to run the country correctly. Thus, bringing on the far left of the Democratic Party. However, the far right of the Republican Party does the same thing with its own beliefs. Just like anything in life and in politics, there should be a happy medium. There should be a government and system in place that protects the core foundations of America, but brings forth new ideas involving modern times and the diversity of America.