Moral and Ethical Implications of Gun Ownership

Moral and Ethical Implications of Gun Ownership Have Gun, Will Travel . . . to Work Do you have a moral, not only a legal, right to own a gun? Assume that either the Second Amendment or state law gives you a legal right to keep a gun in your car when you drive. Do you also have a moral right to do this? Do you have either a moral or a legal right to park a car with a loaded gun in a privately owned public parking lot regard-less of what the lot’s owner wants? I as a citizen am of the opinion that I do have a moral right to own a gun. I earn a right to protect myself from any danger or threat, legally. Therefore It is morally acceptable too if somebody wants to own a gun without hurting the innocent. When the state law allows a person legally to keep the gun, it is morally correct to have the gun in the car or anywhere else until and unless the owner of the place does not have any problem with it. But in conditions where the owner of the parking-lot doesn’t support the decision, it is legally and morally incorrect to practice your own will in somebody else’s property. . In your view, do employees have either a moral or a legal right to park cars with guns in them in the company parking lot? If so, what about the property rights and safety concerns of employers? If employees don’t have this right, would it be good policy for companies to allow them to stow guns in their cars anyway? Do companies have good grounds for being concerned about weapons in their parking lots? In my opinion, employees have the moral and legal right to park cars with guns in the company parking lot if the company allows. If the company I concerned about the property rights and safety issues of the employers and stops the employees to stow the guns in the cars, it is legally incorrect and the employees would be charged of practicing illegal acts without the consent of the owner. Companies have grounds for being concerned about the issues as any kind of mishap can take place in the parking area if the place would be loaded with guns and therefore the company would be held responsible for the issue. In order to avoid that, companies have all the right to stop the employees from stowing guns without their permission. 3. Do you agree with the NRA that if companies ban guns from their parking lots, this restriction would take â€Å"a wrecking ball to the Second Amendment† or nullify the right of people to have weapons for self- defense? Explain why or why not. In your view, have gun advocates been guilty of politicizing this issue? Do you think state legislatures are right to get involved, or should the matter be left to companies and employees to settle? I agree with NRA that if the companies ban guns from their parking lots, this would nullify the right of the people to have weapons for self-defense, because even though the second Amendment allows the use of guns foe the self-defense, it does not allow to practice something without permission of the owner on a private property. Therefore In my view, the gun advocates should have been guilty because there is no second thought about it. If the owner does not allow the guns, they cannot be forced. Rules are defined by the owner of the property. State legislatures should not get involved in the matter as the legislature allows the keeping of guns and also to abide the rules of the owner. Therefore it is a matter of the employee and the companies to handle the issue. Because the workplace is the company’s private property, the company could choose, if it wished, to allow employ-ees to bring guns not only into the parking lot but also into the workplace itself. Are there ever circumstances in which doing so might be reasonable? Or would the presence of guns automatically violate the rights of other employees to be guaranteed a safe working environment? If the company does not allow the employees to bring guns into the parking lot, there is no condition that it might be reasonable to bring in the guns until and unless the company allows the particular employee or all the employees to stow in their guns on a given day. Otherwise it will be against the law and would be illegal. It would violate the laws and the rights of the other employees. Rule defined by the companies is that do not put guns in the cars, then keeping them would be considered a violation of the rule. What would a libertarian say about this issue? What considerations would a utilitarian have to take into account? What conclusion might he or she draw? The libertarian would be against the ban on having guns in the cars of the parking lots of the companies as their basic concern would be the employee’s right to keep whatever the state has allowed him to. He will be of the opinion that the employees can keep anything they want to keep themselves safe from any sort of danger on their way from home and office. They have a right to protect themselves on their own. He would conclude that the companies are irrational in putting such demands and they are being self-centered by not giving a thought to the employee’s security. The state should be involved in the matter as if the state allows the legal right to keep the guns, the companies should not prohibit it. If you were on a company’s board of directors, what policy would you recommend regarding handguns, rifles, or other weapons in employees’ cars? In making your recommendation, what factors would you take into account? Would it make a difference how large the company was, the nature of its workforce, or where it was located? If you support banning firearms from the parking lot, what steps, if any, do you think the company should take to enforce that policy? If I were on the company’s board of directors, I would make a policy to partially ban the stowing of guns and rifles in the cars. I would suggest to make a safe place where every day my employees who wish to keep their guns with them can deposit them and can claim those on their way back to home. Keeping the guns in the parking lot is not safe, therefore they can be kept in a well-guarded place. This would please the employees that their issues are taken care of and thus wont effect the company’s policies as well. The nature of workforce and the location would not make a difference as the policies are same everywhere. Explain whether (and why) you agree or disagree with the following argument: â€Å" If employees have a right to keep guns in the parking lot, then they also have a right to bring them into workplace. After all, we’re only talking about licensed, responsible owners, and the same rationale applies: An employee might need a weapon for self- protection. What if a lunatic starts shooting up the company?† No I do not agree with the argument mentioned above as that is totally based on the owners will that what does he/she permits its employee’s and to what extent. If the company allows the employee’s to bring in the guns in the parking lot and does not allow the guns in the company, the employees cannot practice that. No body earns a right to practice something on other’s property without the permission of the owner. The safety concerns of the company are justified and I support the decision of the company. It is the responsibility of the company to take care of its employees. Union Discrimination: Assuming the Foundation’s description of the case is accurate, was Paul Robertson treated unfairly? Was this a case of discrimination? If Robertson was an â€Å"at- will† employee, does he have any legitimate grounds for complaint? Considering the given issue and assuming that the description is accurate, I am of the opinion that yes Paul Robertson was treated unfairly. No state rules that if the employee does not join a union or pay union dues, he or she cannot work. It is the basic human right that he can work without any external policies. It is up to the employee if he/she wants to get associated with a union or not. Companies cannot force or make a deal with the union that they will hire only employees that will deal with union. It was a strong case of discrimination as Paul Robertson was deprived of his basic rights without any legal reason. If Robertson was an â€Å"at-will† employees he might not have any legitimate grounds for the complaint as he won’t be treated differently and unjustly and would to be able to complain. Does it make a difference to your assessment of the case whether someone like Robertson knows, when he accepts a job, that he must join the union or that non- union employees will be the first to be laid off? No, this might not make any difference to my assessment as any company cannot put such allegations on the employees. It is on the free will of the employees that they could join or do not join the union. The employees are hired on the basis of their skills and aptitude regardless of the fact that they will join the union or not. This an extreme case of discrimination as the future employees are judged on the basis of their willingness to join the union or not despite of their skills and hard work. My assessment that this is a case of discrimination would remain intact even in the given scenario. If union employees negotiate a contract with management, part of which specifies that management will not hire non- union employees, does this violate anyone’s rights? Would a libertarian agree that the resulting union shop was perfectly acceptable? Libertarian would never agree on this company and union setup. Every person should be hired for a job he is eligible of and fills in the criteria. Keeping such restrictions would be a biased decision and the violation of human rights. Every person has the freedom to choose what they want. This is not an acceptable scenario. A person should be rejected from a job if he doesn’t have the skills to fulfill the job not on the basis of tagging them as union or non-union employees. Presumably Paul Robertson could have joined the union, but he chose not to. What principle, if any, do you think he was fighting for? Assess the union charge that people like Paul Robertson are â€Å"free riders† who want the benefits and wages that unionization has brought but try to avoid paying the dues that make those benefits and wages possible. Paul Robertson could have joined the union but he did not because he was fighting against the discrimination policy that the company had utilized. His basic fight was for the rights that he possess even if he does not join the union. The Union’s charge of Paul Robertson as a â€Å"free rider† is inacceptable ad vague. The wages and the benefits that employees like Paul Robertson enjoy are the benefits they get because of their hard work and their job. They do not need to be associated with any union to get tat. Those are the benefits they earn it through hard work. What do you see as the likely motivations of Bechtel Power and the union? How would they justify their conduct? The Bechtel Power and the union wished to hire the employees that would join the union and pay the union in order to earn money and increase the union employees. They would justify their conduct that they offered Paul Robertson to join the union if the employee cannot meet the demands of the organization, the company bears the right to fire him/her. The company would justify by implying that meeting the criteria of the company is the basic need of the company and Paul or employees who do not join the union are not meeting the criteria so it is not a discrimination case if they do not hire such individuals. Why did the Foundation run this ad? Is the ad anti- union propaganda? Do you think the Foundation is sincerely interested in the rights of individual workers? Or is it simply interested in weakening unions vis- à  - vis management? In my opinion, the foundation run this ad to help the people and to aware those individuals that actions are taken against the discrimination. It is not an anti- union propaganda but an effort to help the individual workers who are deprived of their basic rights. The foundation is boosting the people to speak up for their rights and building a trust that they are there to help them in such circumstances and they should fight for their basic rights. The aim of the ad is not to target the union or to propagate against the union. It was to highlight the issues of the individuals. Assess union shops from the moral point of view. What  ­conflicting rights, interests, and ideals are at stake? What are the positive and negative consequences of permitting union shops? Morally, the union shops are incorrect. The rights of individuals are at stake. The right to work without any restriction is sacrifices. Even form the company’s point of view it might lose hardworking individuals because they might not be willing to join the unions. The company could be at stake too with such restrictions. The positives of permitting union shops is that the company could bloom with the employees paying the union charges but keeping in account the negatives, it might lose skilled employees and only those will be hired that would be willing to accept the union and pay charges.

Every Person Is an Architect of His Own Future

Every person is an architect of his future. Discuss. First draft Batyrkhan Saniya, ID 20122886 Academic Reading and Writing Course GEN 1120 Turgan Zhanadilov 12 February 2013 Outline I. Introduction. Thesis statement: Although some people believe that it is quite hard to manage the future because of inevitable fate, there seem to be no doubt that the person and only person is a creator of the future. II. Body. A. First, the future depends on person’s attitude to life. 1. Inspiring yourself 2. Doing everything with love B.Second, person and only person can create favorable conditions in his or her life. 1. Experience of successful people D. However, some people argue that no one can manage the future. 1. The destiny 2. Life circumstances III. Conclusion. Meaning of the â€Å"Every man is an architect of his future† make the public understand the phrase in different ways. Some people become rich and successful by a chance, while others reach their goals after a long strug gle. According to Dahl & Ransom (1999), wealthy people may help to poor people, but they will not make poor people become as rich as they are.Why they will not make them rich? Someone may say that wealthy man cannot make poor man rich because being poor and being wealthy is the fate. Others may say that living in wealth depends on person: if poor person do not want to be rich, he will not be rich; but he can be wealthy if he really want it. Some people believe in nature’s laws that everything in this world is related and nothing can happen just like you want; while others know that everything in their hands, that they are masters of their life, they are making their destiny by themselves.Although some people believe that it is quite hard to manage the future because of inevitable fate, there seem to be no doubt that the person and only person is a creator of the future. One of the main reasons for saying that everyone is an architect of his future is the person’s attit ude to life. Our future is what we are thinking and doing now. We creating next day by thoughts, wishes, behavior, etc. That is true! There is not only one possible course of events in your life. Every person has several variants of a destiny, and everyone choose the way which he or she wants to follow.The problem is how people feel about a situation that forces them to make this choice. Almost everyone meet with some obstacles on their life road, and many people see them as something irresistible, irreparable. Others see these obstacles as a challenge. They see them as not a dead end, but the opportunity. In all the events that happen around us, for someone there are opportunities and for others may be â€Å"dead end†. For example, Steil (2007) in his article mentioned about a girl, who almost lost the ability to see and move because of accident, weird accident.Doctors said that the situation is very bad, and many people may give up in her place. However, this girl believed herself and in her strength, she was positively-oriented to everything. It was reflected in her attitude to herself and other people. No matter how the situation was bad, she could struggle with this obstacle and move straight to her goals. Another reason is that the person and only person can create favorable conditions in his or her life. The one of good examples for that are the successful people.Not getting that promotion can make person feel like the end of the world, but people who are the idols for whole world show that devastating failures are just another stop on the road to success. For example, Marilyn Monroe's first contract with Columbia Pictures expired because they told her she wasn't pretty or talented enough to be an actress. Monroe  kept plugging away and now she is one of the most iconic actresses and sex symbols of all time (http://marilynmonroe. com/history/).Oprah Winfrey was fired from her television reporting job because they told her she wasn't fit to be o n screen. But  Winfrey rebounded  and became the undisputed queen of television talk shows. She's also a billionaire (http://www. oprah. com/index. html). These are the one of the world's greatest success stories of people, who just happen to have experience of massive failure that could have easily made them give-up. But they didn't and now they're the monuments of success that they are remembered for, a good source of encouragement when it feels like you will never make it to the top.However, some people argue that no one can manage the future because of the destiny and life circumstances. As Conchalovsky says (2005), â€Å"For every person, there is a destiny. Nothing happens accidentally, everything happens because of some law or other things. † There is a nature’s law that everything comes from something, all subjects and objects are related to each other. Another example is inevitable life situations occurring frequently nowadays that can ruin plans of human at anytime. But, as it was written, the attitude to life helps to fight with these situations.To conclude, our life is complex and unpredictable. Often people think that no one can hide from the fate, that we were born and live on a particular scenario, and that everything what destined above will happen. But few of us have thought about the fact that person creates the future, person’s actions, thoughts, desires and feelings. Always remember that people are the creators of the future, so they must create it with enthusiasm, reveal the creative potential. Reference list: Ransom, M. R. , ; Dahl, G. B. (1999).Does Where You Stand Depend on Where You Sit? Tithing Donations and Self-Serving Beliefs. American Economic Review  (pp. 703–727). American Economic Association. Retrieved February 9, 2013 from www. jstor. org Steil, M. (2007). Chto takoe pozitivnoe otnoshenie k zhizni? Retrieved February 8, 2013 from www. shkolazhizni. ru Baraban, E. (2007). â€Å"The Fate of a Man† by Sergei Bondarchuk and the Soviet Cinema of Trauma. The Slavic and East European Journal,  51(3), 514–534. Retrieved February 10, 2013 from: http://www. jstor. org/stable/20459525 .

Washington and Jefferson College SAT, Acceptance Rate

Smoking Hazards Tobacco Cultivation In Colonial America...

Tobacco was a main crop in colonial America that helped stabilize the economy (Cotton 1). Despite the fact that tobacco took the place of the other crops in Virginia, as well as replacing the hunt for gold with tobacco cultivation. It proved to be a major cash crop, especially in Virginia and Maryland (Weeks 3). Tobacco left many people financially troubled because other occupations were disregarded or not as profitable as tobacco farmers (Randel 128). The unemployment that tobacco brought about made many colonists poor and homeless (128). After the tobacco boom started, many men signed themselves to indentured servitude hoping to be freed and given land along with other promised goods (Tunis 79). Three hundred and fifty thousand†¦show more content†¦The people of England then traded with the Dutch, increasing demand for tobacco (Pecquet 471). Sir Walter Raleigh also contributed to the introduction of smoking tobacco in America and to the English queen, Elizabeth I (C otton 2-3). The settlers of Roanoke Island smoked tobacco and soon presented the idea of smoking tobacco in court which became a new trend (3). Later on, as the demand for tobacco rose, more labor was needed to supply enough to satisfy the tobacco requirement (The Growth of the TobaccoÂ… 3). Tobacco farming required much labor, and colonial America could not supply that labor with just the settlers already living there. This need for labor was satisfied by indentured servants and African slaves (3). Indentured servants raised the population by bringing in people who could not afford their way over to America (Weeks 1). The indentured servants were promised freedom and land after serving for a set amount of years (Pecquet 469). Soon after, as the indentured servants were getting less and less land than promised, if any at all, Bacons Rebellion broke out in Virginia (Lorenz 14). This forced the colonists to find a different servitude option. They turned to African slavery t o quench their desire for a cheap, reliable labor source (Weeks 1). At least 350,000 Africans were needed to produce the amount of tobacco to supply for the demands of the people (1). African slavery started racial tensions and