Philo 110 2nd midterm - Essay Example

Most motorists believe that the majority of speed limits set by the Congress are usually below the average speed of traffic. The Congress usually set recommendable speed limits, on the federal highways, in order to protect innocent people from perishing in road accidents since every highway death is a regrettable death. Therefore, the key purpose of setting higher speed limits of 55 miles per hour is not to kill innocent citizens, but to provide a reasonable balance between convenience and safety.

However, even with the set speed limits, people usually fall victims of highway accidents on a daily basis. Therefore, if Congress is aware that its set speed limits still leads to increased highway accidents and death, then it should be considered as a murder. Likewise, there is no need, for the Congress, to set speed limit at 45 miles per hour since it will not reduce road accidents with any significant amount, but it will only increase a driver’s violation of speed limit. I, therefore, agree with Lackey that such an action should be perceived as murder, and Congress should adopt more comprehensive actions to address this problem effectively.

In defending and understanding of Preferential Treatment Programs, Wasserstrom bases his arguments on a statement “We are still living in a society in which a person’s race, his or her blackness rather than whiteness, is a socially significant and important category” (Shaw 350). Wasserstrom argues that preferential treatment programs are necessities in any society because they help in making the social condition of life less racially oppressive and unjust, and it also help in the equal distribution of national resources and opportunities.

Additionally, such programs help people to realize their desirable aims and objectives without violating an individual’s rights, taking an impermissible character into account, denying other people what they deserve, and treating other people fairly. I agree with Wasserstrom’s perception because racism is one form of social discriminations that most societies are currently fighting to abolish. Preferential treatments are presumptively acceptable in any society because they work to fight the system of racial oppression, which is still in place, but it should not be, and their significance can only be relevant once they are fully adopted and integrated, in the society.

I, therefore, agree with Wasserstrom that the preferential treatment programs should only be perceived as unjust if the constitute part of the larger system of racial oppression. John Isbister is determined to establish the meaning of justice in relation to economic and social fairness, in the context of boundaries of capitalism. He takes a practical approach about some significant questions about social and economic justice. For example, he argues “The greatest injustice of unregulated, free-market capitalism is that it provides for only some of the people and excludes others” (Shaw 386).

I agree with Isbister that free-market capitalism is a means of benefiting the developed countries and exploiting the developing countries. Free-market capitalism has accumulated global wealth into one market, which has sent different nations to fight for their share. This implies that in order to obtain a significant share, a country has to have a significant amount of resources and