The Fair Equality Of Opportunity - 1472 Words

1.) Daniels uses the â€Å"fair equality of opportunity† for his argument on his views on the strong right to healthcare. He states that you can t be considered a normal functioning human if you are diseased or have disabilities that restrict your range of opportunities. Because everyone should be able to obtain the same equal opportunities, if adequate healthcare is what they need to get back to a normal functioning state then that is what they should be able to receive. Buchanan thinks that the notion of a universal right of decent minimum healthcare cannot justify a mandatory decent minimum policy because it fails to demonstration distributive justice along with utilitarianism. His four main arguments that account for a right to a decent†¦show more content†¦His augment for the enforcement of beneficence states that by forcing an individual to contribute to the goal at hand will overcome the temptation to withhold their contribution and to also assure the individual th at everyone is going to contribute and he won’t be the only one donating to the cause. Both arguments contain the assumption that there is a standard when it comes to the moral obligation between society and individuals in need. 2.) In Rachel s Smith-Jones experiment he present a situation where two people have the desire to kill their nephew in order to hopefully receive a large sum of money. In Smiths situation he physically drowns the child while he s in a bath and in Jones’ situation the child slips, hits his head, and drowns himself in the bath water by accident. Jones was prepared to drown the child himself but there was no need because it already happened by accident without his doing, but Jones watches the whole thing and doesn t do anything to prevent it. Rachel s point in this situation is that neither situation, killing as apposed to letting die, aren t seen as having any moral difference. Both people acted upon the same motive and both situations had the same outcome. This case helps Rachel to make his point that, for a physician’s case, there is no difference between active and passive euthanasia.

The Return Shadow Souls Chapter 4 Free Essays

â€Å"You’re shaking. Let me do it alone,† Meredith said, putting a hand on Bonnie’s shoulder as they stood together in front of Caroline Forbes’s house. Bonnie started to lean into the pressure, but made herself stop. We will write a custom essay sample on The Return: Shadow Souls Chapter 4 or any similar topic only for you Order Now It was humiliating to be shaking so obviously on a Virginia morning in late July. It was humiliating to be treated like a child, too. But Meredith, who was only six months older, looked more adult than usual today. Her dark hair was pulled back, so that her eyes looked very large and her olive-skinned face with its high cheekbones was shown to its best advantage. She could practically be my babysitter, Bonnie thought dejectedly. Meredith had high heels on, too, instead of her usual flats. Bonnie felt smaller and younger than ever in comparison. She ran a hand through her strawberry-blond curls, trying to fluff them up a precious half inch higher. â€Å"I’m not scared. I’m c-cold,† Bonnie said with all the dignity she could muster. â€Å"I know. You feel something coming from there, don’t you?† Meredith nodded at the house before them. Bonnie looked sideways at it and then back at Meredith. Suddenly Meredith’s adultness was more comforting than annoying. But before she looked at Caroline’s house again she blurted, â€Å"What’s with the spike heels?† â€Å"Oh,† Meredith said, glancing down. â€Å"Just practical thinking. If anything tries to grab my ankle this time, it gets this.† She stamped and there was a satisfying clack from the sidewalk. Bonnie almost smiled. â€Å"Did you bring your brass knuckles, too?† â€Å"I don’t need them; I’ll knock Caroline out again barehanded if she tries anything. But quit changing the subject. I can do this alone.† Bonnie finally let herself put her own small hand on Meredith’s slim, long-fingered one. She squeezed. â€Å"I know you can. But I’m the one who should. It was me she invited over.† â€Å"Yes,† Meredith said, with a slight, elegant curl of her lip. â€Å"She’s always known where to stick in the knife. Well, whatever happens, Caroline’s brought it on herself. First we try to help her, for her sake and ours. Then we try to make her get help. After that – â€Å" â€Å"After that,† Bonnie said sadly, â€Å"there’s no telling.† She looked at Caroline’s house again. It looked†¦skewed†¦in some way, as if she were seeing it through a distorting mirror. Besides that, it had a bad aura: black slashed across an ugly shade of gray-green. Bonnie had never seen a house with so much energy before. And it was cold, this energy, like the breath out of a meat locker. Bonnie felt as if it would suck out her own life-force and turn it into ice, if it got the chance. She let Meredith ring the doorbell. It had a slight echo to it, and when Mrs. Forbes answered, her voice seemed to echo slightly, as well. The inside of the house still had that funhouse mirror look to it, Bonnie thought, but even stranger was the feel. If she shut her eyes she would imagine herself in a much larger place, where the floor slanted sharply down. â€Å"You came to see Caroline,† Mrs. Forbes said. Her appearance shocked Bonnie. Caroline’s mother looked like an old woman, with gray hair and a pinched white face. â€Å"She’s up in her room. I’ll show you,† Caroline’s mother said. â€Å"But Mrs. Forbes, we know where – † Meredith broke off when Bonnie put a hand on her arm. The faded, shrunken woman was leading the way. She had almost no aura at all, Bonnie realized, and was stricken to the heart. She’d known Caroline and her parents for so long – how could their relationships have come to this? I won’t call Caroline names, no matter what she does, Bonnie vowed silently. No matter what. Even†¦yes, even after what she’s done to Matt. I’ll try to remember something good about her. But it was difficult to think at all in this house, much less to think of anything good. Bonnie knew the staircase was going up; she could see each step above her. But all her other senses told her she was going down. It was a horrifying feeling that made her dizzy: this sharp slant downward as she watched her feet climb. There was also a smell, strange and pungent, of rotten eggs. It was a reeking, rotten odor that you tasted in the air. Caroline’s door was shut, and in front of it, lying on the floor, was a plate of food with a fork and carving knife on it. Mrs. Forbes hurried ahead of Bonnie and Meredith and quickly snatched up the plate, opened the door opposite Caroline’s, and placed it in there, shutting the door behind her. But just before it disappeared, Bonnie thought she saw movement in the heap of food on the fine bone china. â€Å"She’ll barely speak to me,† Mrs. Forbes said in the same empty voice she’d used before. â€Å"But she did say that she was expecting you.† She hurried past them, leaving them alone in the corridor. The smell of rotten eggs – no, of sulfur, Bonnie realized, was very strong. Sulfur – she recognized the smell from last year’s chemistry class. But how did such a horrible smell get into Mrs. Forbes’s elegant house? Bonnie turned to Meredith to ask, but Meredith was already shaking her head. Bonnie knew that expression. Don’t say anything. Bonnie gulped, wiped her watering eyes, and watched Meredith turn the handle of Caroline’s door. The room was dark. Enough light shone from the hallway to show that Caroline’s curtains had been reinforced by opaque bedspreads nailed over them. No one was in or on the bed. â€Å"Come in! And shut that door fast!† It was Caroline’s voice, with Caroline’s typical waspishness. A flood of relief swept over Bonnie. The voice wasn’t a male bass that shook the room, or a howl, it was Caroline-in-a-bad-mood. She stepped into the dimness before her. How to cite The Return: Shadow Souls Chapter 4, Essay examples

PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH HYPTHESIS Essay Example For Students

PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH HYPTHESIS Essay BusinessPRODUCTIVITY GROWTH HYPTHESISIn this assignment, we will attempt to study the effects that differencein Income Ratio (henceforth known as I.R.) between the years 1980 and 1990have on the Productivity Growth (P.G.) during the same period of time. The Income Ratio of one specific year can be found if we take the averageincome of the richest faction of a country (the richest 20% of thepopulation) and divide it by that of the poorest faction (the poorest 20%). In this assignment, the Income Ratios that were used were those of 13different countries. The I.R.s on both 1980 and 1990 were taken for allthese countries and, to find the difference between them, the I.R. for 1990was divided by the I.R. for 1980, for each country. These new numbersillustrate the change of I.R. between the two years so that we can comparehow the P.G. changes in relation to the changes in the I.R.. On this assignment, we use inductive reasoning to examine the data andfind a theory (a hypothesis) that would combine the data given in a waythat would make sense, based solely on our data. How do we know if thetheory that we formulate makes sense? In this case we will plot thepoints (derived from the column I.R. 1990/1980, going on the x-axis, andthe column Productivity Growth 79-90, on the y-axis). According to howthe points are on the graph in relation to the Average Point (0.94,1.45)(point that is an average of all values and which divides the graph intofour Quadrants), if 80% of these points are where they would be expected tobe to conform to the hypothesis, then there is no reason to reject thishypothesis. If, on the other hand, the majority of the points does notconform to our hypothesis (are not where they were predicted to be), thenit is rejected. Another method of reasoning frequently used by Mainstream economists isdeductive knowledge, as opposed to inductive, described ab ove. Theirtheory is formulated and only then it is applied to the data. Their theoryon this subject suggests that productivity within a country grows when thepopulation has incentives to work harder (or to work more). When the gapbetween rich and poor increases (an increase in I.R. form 1980-90,resulting in a larger ratio on the column I.R. 1990/1980), so does thepopulations eagerness to work, therefore increasing the ProductivityGrowth. Since when one variable goes up the other also goes up, there is apositive (or direct) correlation between the two. Mainstream economists usedeductive reasoning to deduce that there exists a positive correlationbetween the two factors. In short, their hypothesis is that when the IncomeRatio increases, the Productivity Growth also increases, since people aremore motivated. For this to be true, we would expect a line going up and tothe right on the graph, passing by Quadrants II and IV. Most points (80% ormore) would have to be on these two Quadrants. This, however, is not thecase (see graph), since only about 30.77% of the points plotted satisfythese conditions. Since the original hypothesis was rejected, we might want to see if thereis a negative correlation between the two variables (that is, as one goesup, the other goes down). Our new hypothesis would then be as the IncomeRatio increases, the Productivity Growth decreases. Then, in the case of ahigh I.R., people in lower classes would rationally start to feel insecureand that their work is not being recognized by society, therefore losingmotivation and producing less. In this case, since theres a negativecorrelation, one would expect the line on the graph to go downwards, fromleft to right, passing on Quadrants I and III. If this hypothesis werevalid, 80%+ of the points would have to be on these Quadrants. This is alsonot the case, for only 69.32% of the points are on the appropriateQuadrants. Like the first, this second hypothesis also has to be rejected. .u0c9cc9634aa321e60c8ddf915b29cf74 , .u0c9cc9634aa321e60c8ddf915b29cf74 .postImageUrl , .u0c9cc9634aa321e60c8ddf915b29cf74 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .u0c9cc9634aa321e60c8ddf915b29cf74 , .u0c9cc9634aa321e60c8ddf915b29cf74:hover , .u0c9cc9634aa321e60c8ddf915b29cf74:visited , .u0c9cc9634aa321e60c8ddf915b29cf74:active { border:0!important; } .u0c9cc9634aa321e60c8ddf915b29cf74 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .u0c9cc9634aa321e60c8ddf915b29cf74 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .u0c9cc9634aa321e60c8ddf915b29cf74:active , .u0c9cc9634aa321e60c8ddf915b29cf74:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .u0c9cc9634aa321e60c8ddf915b29cf74 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .u0c9cc9634aa321e60c8ddf915b29cf74 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .u0c9cc9634aa321e60c8ddf915b29cf74 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .u0c9cc9634aa321e60c8ddf915b29cf74 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .u0c9cc9634aa321e60c8ddf915b29cf74:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .u0c9cc9634aa321e60c8ddf915b29cf74 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .u0c9cc9634aa321e60c8ddf915b29cf74 .u0c9cc9634aa321e60c8ddf915b29cf74-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .u0c9cc9634aa321e60c8ddf915b29cf74:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Knowledge Manegment Systems EssayAfter analyzing these two relationships and seeing that neither is valid,we conclude that there is no direct relationship between the two variablestested. That does not mean that one has no effect on the other (it probablydoes), only that there may be other factors and influences involved thathave not been accounted for in this assignment and that one is not the onlyfactor responsible for the changes in the other. DATA SHEETCountryIncome Ratio1980ProductivityGrowth1979-90Income Ratio1990Income Ratio1990 / 1980 United States9.00.411.01.2Australia 9.60.89.61.0New Zealand8.81.48.81.0Switzerland8.71.08.00.91Canada 7.01.17.01.0Britain 6.82.07.01.03France 6.52.46.00.92Italy6.12.05.80.95Germany 5.81.65.00.87Holland 5.61.55.00.89Belgium 4.72.23.80.81Sweden 4.71.53.80.81Japan4.21.03.60.85Average Income Ratio 1990 / 1980: 0.941Average Productivity Growth 1979-90: 1.45No. of points conforming to first hypothesis: 4/13 = 30.77%No. of points conforming to second hypothesis: 9/13 = 69.23%By: Leonardo Santos