(7) The key question here is, if internal wars cause unacceptable human suffering, should the international community develop collective mechanisms for preventing or alleviating it? (5) This essay will attempt to address such a question, by outlining the arguments for and against humanitarian intervention in the context of the Bosnian crisis of 1991. In light of the evidence, it will be proven that although humanitarian intervention does have flaws, it is a vital tool in alleviating the human suffering that so plagues contemporary society. The complex issue of humanitarian intervention is widely argued and inherently controversial. Humanitarian intervention involves the coercive action of states intervening in areas for the sole purpose of preventing or halting the killing or suffering of the people there.
Additionally, there are many implications of legitimizing torture in the wider context that must be considered, as these implications of permitting torture can have a larger negative effect than not saving the innocent. The long-term results of torture heavily outweigh the immediate results. However, I understand the intentions of torture if the five conditions previously stated are present. Torture is unjustifiable, however it is important to recognize the justifiable circumstances when it appears. Therefore, after having analyzed the situation, any suspect involved in an act of mass violence has a right and therefore deserves not to be tortured.
Web. 27 June 2013. Mason, Marcia L. Atrocities Against Women: Female Genital Mutilation. Sept. 1995. Xiaorong Li, “Tolerating the Intolerable: The Case of Female Genital Mutilation,” Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly 21.
Although abortion is legal in the United States, many people continue to voice their opinions on how it is a human rights violation and should be illegal everywhere. The practice of abortion should be banned in society because it terminates the life of an innocent unborn child, causes long-term emotional effects, as well as major health risks for women who opt for abortion. The debate of abortion continues to be a controversial problem in society and has been around for many decades. According to Jone Lewis, “In the United States, abortion laws began to appear in the 1820’s, forbidding abortion after the fourth month of pregnancy” (1). This indicates that the abortion controversy has been debated far back into American history.
It is a theory that stems from the fact of vast variation in ethical views that are found across humanity (Wong 1993: 443), which proponents of the theory have seen this fact as a source of strength for relativism. Furthermore, it has been claimed that from this, because different groups hold different moral claims, they should do so, because such divergence shows that there are no universal standards that regulate what is correct (Furrow 2005: 35). For the relativist, moral judgement is to be relegated to within one's own culture. Judgements outside of t... ... middle of paper ... ...nt to those of the prevailing order. In a global world we should strive to develop greater social and ethical cohesion.
Then, this is a negative approach to global justice, as it stipulates that there really is no single moral code of ethics in world politics. In the following I will discuss the values that divide the cosmopolitan and communitarian perspectives of global justice. I then argue that the division between communitarianism and cosmopolitanism are essentially localised/cultural versus globalised/universal concepts of global justice. I will critically analyse both the communitarian and cosmopolitan perspectives of global justice. In conclusion, I suggest that although both arguments are flawed – that the cosmopolitan perspective offers a constructive perspective on global justice that doesn’t have to be in contrast to communitarianism.
Nagel is not interested in justifying absolute rights, but in articulating actions that are prohibited. His belief is that the world is an imperfect place; that fear and human cruelty will always present difficult moral situations, and that therefore, establishing criteria to deal with these less than ideal situations is essential. He also argues, unlike Gewirth, that one can be confronted with two choices, both of whose outcomes are bad, and for both of which one bears responsibility. Thus, he asks, when both respecting and violating an absolute right are wrong, what is the morally right thing to do?
These are merely a few of the myriad examples of human rights violations occurring on a widespread basis across the world with varying degrees of severity and frequency. Ostensibly, human rights are inalienable, universal, irrevocable, and to be staunchly defended. While this platitude is agreeable in theory, in practice a far less lofty reality is the norm. Certain incursions by certain actors warrant one set of responses, or lack thereof, whereas othe... ... middle of paper ... ... International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, December 2001. Human Rights Watch.
Even if the person being profiled is in fact doing something wrong, their rights are being violated and in the cases where they are not, it causes mental and emotional damage on top of that. However, even if one out of a hundred times this ra... ... middle of paper ... ...d. However, in this situation the only thing that matters is the greater good and protecting this great country that we live in. Without taking proactive and precautionary measures like this, we might not have a society that affords us the rights and freedoms that we get so upset over being violated. In this situation, the needs of the many outweigh the complaints of the few, and because of it, our world is a safer place. References: Siggins, P. Racial Profiling in the Age of Terrorism Retreived from: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/profiling.html Johnson, K. (Spring 2004) Racial Profiling after September 11: the Department of Justice's 2003 Guidelines, 50 Loyola Law Review 67-87, 77-87 Retreived from: http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/waronterrorism/racial06.htm http://www.pennumbra.com/debates/debate.php?did=5
The idea is that justice is a complex concept, and it could differ according to individual circumstance. Rawls contended that all of us are ignorant about ourselves and about others and, hence, we are not in a place - in such condition - to determine or apply the principles of justice. These positions allowed Rawls to address two contemporary issues that are equally important, but also tend oppose each other’s views: freedom and equality. The Rawlsian theory of justice is influenced by Hume’s philosophy with its critique of justice that which prioritizes conventions and universal meaning (Forbes, 1985, 68). Hume talked about artificial justice and Rawls coined the so-called artificial device or the “original position”, which is used to determine justice.