The Prayer Issue at American Schools - Essay Example

?Running Head: PSYCHOLOGY Psychology 3-John wants prayer in school, and Mary does not. Describe a compromise position you think John and Mary might agree on, and identify any problems that position might encounter. Having analyzed the historical and current context of the prayer issue at American school, I can say that the compromise position on John and Mary should take into account legal and, in particular, constitutional aspects of practicing religion at school in the United States. Specifically, it is a well-known fact that American public school are not allowed to practice prayers on the basis of the First Amendment to the Constitution that says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” (Perry, 1998, p.10). Despite this fact, many schools have made efforts to maintain prayer as a school-sponsored practice. These have been driven by understanding that the cited place from the First Amendment is controversial (Vile, 2003, p. 194). Based on this controversy, school prayer cannot be banned unless it disrupts the order. Plus, it can be practiced but should not be supported officially. This means that John may pray at school on his own or with his friends, but as a private practice. Prayer cannot be made a part of curriculum so that all students attend it, so Mary should be satisfied. While John is praying, Mary could do her own things – repeat the material she is going to present at class, for example. 4-You work hard in your office; overtime, weekends, and early mornings. You get paid well, but you realize your coworkers get paid the same as you do, though they do not put in the effort you do. Some have even been promoted ahead of you. Identify which of the responses below is the best one to adopt, and explain your answer in approximately 100 words or more. • Continue to work hard and hope it is recognized • Begin slacking off • Roll your eyes at the other employees and make them feel guilty • Look for another job I think a combination of some of the approaches should be adopted. Besides, life circumstances need to be considered. First of all, if this is a small town with little job opportunity, a person will be more likely to stick to the current job. If he/she works in a city, more job opportunities will allow act more freely in this situation. To specify, in the first case I will go on working hard and hope it is recognized, because I still believe in fair judgment. I will also be promoted but need to wait. However, if I begin to spot I no – longer can work so hard since it is harmful for my health, I will then take less responsibility and fewer tasks. Of course, if I find myself working in a city, I will start looking for another position if I see no changes in the given period. Under no circumstances, will I roll my eyes at other people and make them feel guilty since no one made me put effort into my job the way I did. References Vile, J. (2003) Encyclopedia of Constitutional Amendments, Proposed Amendments, and Amending Issues, 1789-2002. ABC-CLIO. Perry, M. (1998) Religion in Politics: Constitutional and Moral Perspectives. Oxford University Press. 5-Advocates of the death penalty recognize that no system is perfect and that applying the death penalty runs a small risk of executing someone who is innocent. Is this a price society should be willing to pay? According to the “Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Encyclopedia”, the United States remains the only industrialized nation among the Western states that allows capital punishment. Despite the fact, death penalty is barred in 12 states and the District of Columbia, all other states recognize it legal (Merriam-Webster, 2000, p. 282). There are many advocates of death penalty in the States who claim that the risk of innocent people execution is small but that life imprisonment is not effective. Others seem furious at the fact they have to pay taxes to provide for the needs of imprisoned criminals. From the perspective of ethics and morality, these claims seem to be invalid. First of all, human life is seen as the biggest value and cannot be measured by money, taxes, etc. Next, the effectiveness of capital punishment has long been questioned. The cessation of capital punishment would mean that only 13 people a year on average will be added to the population of the imprisoned (Barry, 1984, p. 264). At the same time, there have been cases when innocence has been proved after 20 or more years of person’s staying in prison. For example, with the help of DNA technology one man was released recently who had been proved innocent of a murder. In no way should the death penalty be permitted in the United States since evil leads only to evil. 6. How can underdeveloped societies grow economically and develop technologically without causing environmental harm to their own country as well as to other countries? This question seems to have no answer. There is no way for the developing countries to grow economically and advance technologically without doing harm to the local and global environments. Economic growth always means increase in production. The latter, in its turn, suggests the use of the natural resources: raw materials, oil, water, etc. The same about technological progress. Endless new technologies require endless manufacturing of new models of mobile phones, laptops, washing machines, cars, etc. However, the Earth’s resources are not endless. It seems if everyone in developing counties decides to live by American standards, which are characterized by overconsumption, the world will soon be ruined. The example of fast-growing China with 10.3 G.D.P. growth back in 2009, which is accompanied by a looming crisis of environment, is illustrative of impossibility of such ecologically harm-free progress (Arnold, 2010, online). Uncontrolled carbon dioxide emissions, increasing number of oil spills, water and air pollution – these are just few things that are associated with the rapid economic advancement in developing countries. At the same time, of course, it is clear that people do not want to live in poverty, like in China with its 1.3 billion population. The way out, it seems, is in working out a new approach to consumption based on established cultural values. The emphasis on harmony with the world of nature and with the inner self should be maintained rather than orienting people at earning more and more money. It is hard to disagree with Bhanoji Rao, a professor of economics at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy located in Singapore, who says: ““Is there any commandment from the heavens that one must have one’s own swimming pool? That one must have 10 bedrooms?” (Arnold, 2010, online) References: Arnold, W. (2010) “Rethinking the Measure of Growth”. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/business/energy-environment/19green.html?ref=science. Barry, V. (1984) Applying Ethics: A Text with Readings. Wadsworth. 7- In discussions about personal privacy and government surveillance, one sometimes hears "If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about." What is your reaction to this claim? Give two examples of some things that may not be "wrong" but you do not necessarily want to be public knowledge. Respond in approximately 100 words. There may be found lots of things which are legally right, but, due to their privacy, are not wanted to be made public knowledge. They are often related to the privacy of our bodies’ functioning. For example, if one has a diarrhea or some other medical condition, which is really embarrassing, he/she will be unlikely to want it made public. Another example is washing your body. There is nothing wrong about this of course, but not many people can say they won’t mind this process made public. Some people may have weird habits which they do not want other people to know about. I think they have a right for this. Probably, these people struggle to overcome these habits. In this case, displaying them to public will forever stigmatize these people. This stigma won’t be removed even after they manage to get rid of such things as talking to oneself, masturbating, etc. 8-Imagine your boss has decided that all phone calls, e-mails, and other communications will be recorded and monitored. What assumptions is the boss making about the employees? Is such monitoring justified morally? Is it a good idea as a management tool? Answer these questions in approximately 100 words or more. While in the United States it is legal to monitor employees through listening to, reading or watching their communications, this question raises lots of debates. Statistically, two thirds of American employers monitor their employees’ visits to web sites and 28% employers are known to have sacked their workers due to e-mail misuse (Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, 2012, online). If to understand morality as the set of rules and customs generated by the society, in the capitalistic American society this is likely to be morally justified as a way to keep the business going. However, from the perspective of Christian morality secret recording and monitoring of employees’ behavior undoubtedly cannot be justified. This is explained by the fact that it contradicts the Christian principle of truth. Given the fact most American companies use this management tool, one of the solutions may be to warn the employees they are being monitored, as for example in California where the law requires that employers use a beep sound or some recording which warns the employer that he/she will be monitored (Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, 2010, online). Reference: Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (2010) “Fact Sheet 7: Workplace Privacy and Employee Monitoring.” Retrieved from http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs7-work.htm. 9-Can the government require you to a wear seat belt while driving? What is the argument that it can, and what is the argument that it cannot? How would such seat belt laws differ from the requirement that infants in cars be in car seats? Respond in approximately 100 words or more. The government can require people to wear seat belts on the road. There may be found lots of arguments in favor of this statement. First of all, wearing a seat belt increases the chances of saving the life of a person wearing a seatbelt as well as of the person sitting next. Preventing fatalities and injuries, wearing the seatbelt also saves money for the government that pays for ambulance, the police arrival, costs of traffic control, etc. There are also arguments that are used to claim that the government has no right to require wearing the seatbelt. One of them is no one can decide for a person if she/he chooses not care about his/her life. However, this argument may be disputed by recognizing the fact that personal liberty should not restrict the liberty of other people. If a person who refuses to wear a seat belt may decide for himself not to wear it, he cannot decide for his neighbor who presumably values his life. The difference from the requirements that infants are placed in car seats is car seats do not come with cars as the seat belts do, so using a car seat requires purchasing the latter, which is rather costly. 10-The outlawing of slavery and extending voting rights to women seem to indicate that ethics can have beneficial results. Give an example from the past that indicates a similar result or a current social policy that might be regarded as wrong, which therefore needs to be changed. Give your reasons and indicate which ethical theory you believe provides the best support for your view. Respond in approximately 100 words or more. A good example of positive influence of ethics in the society, which changed the social policy for good, was the end of segregation. While the slavery was officially abolished as a result of the Civil War, the end of the 19th century saw the explosion of hatred towards African American people based on racial prejudice. Black people were segregated through a range of laws – so-called Jim Crow laws. They banned them from attending the same public facilities as white people, using same transport, going to the same schools. The ethical view on this problem is all people were created equal no matter what the color of skin is. Realization of this truth helped African American people win in the actions of civil disobedience which were successfully led by Martin Luther King. By 1968, segregation had been declared against law and against Constitution (Finkelman, 2007, p. 311). This allowed African Americans to take part in all aspects of the life of the American society. Black people started attending same schools, theaters; they got political rights and the right to run for office. The election of Barack Obama of African American origin as the U.S. President is an example of how segregation was successfully fought. The Rawlsian ethical theory based on recognition of justice and fairness as principal criteria best justifies the desegregation policy. It takes justice as an ethical standard. One of the principles of this theory is that each person should be provided equal opportunity regarding job positions, education, and training (“Major Ethical Theory”, n.d., online). So racial discrimination, as well as other forms of discrimination are unacceptable on the grounds of the Rawlsian ethical theory. References Finkelman, P. (2007) Encyclopedia of African American History, 1896 to the Present: From the Age of Segregation to the Twenty-First Century, Vol. 1. Oxford University Press. Give an example of something that one culture might regard as a virtue that another culture might not. Explain why this could lead to relativism. N.a. (n.d.) “Major Ethical Theories”. Retrieved from http://www.eiacademic.org/uploadedFiles/_Common/pdf/Products/Books/Ethics-Major-Ethical-Theories.pdf. When people are is talking about virtues or virtuous behavior , they certainly mean acting according to some moral principles and leading a moral life. However, the understanding of what is a virtue may vary across societies, as well as what is virtuous behavior. While honesty is surely a virtue in many societies, in some of them it is thought to be a virtue not to say truth in certain circumstances (Hursthouse, 2012, online). Specifically, in the States & Canada, as far as I am concerned, it is virtuous to say you like a dish even if you do not like, or like the way someone is dressed even you find it is not likeable. In other cultures, for example, among Germans, it is all right to tell the truth. How could this lead to relativism? Regarding truth as relative criteria for virtue may lead to cultural relativism, when cultural experience is thought virtuous based on norms which are accepted in a society. This may be quite dangerous, since it places some allegedly virtuous ideals above human life. For example, in radical Islam killing Christians is a virtue or in ancient Maya societies human sacrifices were a virtuous practice. Psychological egoism claims that whatever we do, we do out of self-interest. Give an example of an act you think is not done out of self-interest, and explain how the psychological egoist might try to interpret that act as selfish. While psychological egoism asserts that people typically do things in order to increase their benefits, this theory seems to be flawed in certain cases. For example, if someone rescues another person while putting his/her own life at risk is clearly not an example of psychological egoism. I will explain why. Egoism suggests being focused on person’s self. However, if a person risks his/her life to save another person, in this critical moment, when each second counts, this person obviously does not think about self-interest. This person has the only thought on his/her mind: how to help the person in need. In other words, how to act in the interest of the afflicted person. That is why, many people lose their lives while saving other people. It would by cynical to say they have lost their lives out of psychological egoism, wouldn’t it? References Hurtshouse, R. (2012) “Virtue Ethics”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Summer 2012 Edition, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Retrieved from Read More