Government Rights in Homes Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Government Rights in Homes - Essay Example Yet, what goes on behind closed doors does affect everyone. Today's world of globalization, mass media, communications, and transportation has bound the public more tightly as a social unit. The private lives of citizens have such a great affect on society as a whole that the government has a right to know what goes on in peoples' homes. It is the obligation of society to prevent children from being exploited, abused, or exposed to drugs, pornography, and firearms in peoples' private homes. These children will grow into adults and become a part of mainstream society. In addition to the duty that society has to the children to protect them, it is also self-serves society and protects it against future aberrations. A recent case at the Yearning for Zion Ranch in San Angelo Texas has sparked a controversy over excessive government intrusion when authorities took over 400 children into state custody due to suspected child abuse. Judge Walther, who presided over the case made it clear that, "her decision was preliminary and that "a safe environment" for the children was paramount, now and in the future" (Johnson & Dougherty, 2008). The government was taking responsible action to assure that the children were being shielded from harm. The government was simply exercising its obligation to the children. A judicial system that works protects people from an over invasive government's right to know what goes on in private homes. The government's right has not eliminated our nation's treasured individual liberty. In fact, that liberty and freedom only extends to the point we do no harm to others or society. When it is judged that the person is obeying the law, or at least doing no harm, the case runs its course through our deliberate system of law. Recently the 460 children were returned to the Yearning for Zion Ranch but, "The judge in the case also imposed a lengthy list of caveats pending the conclusion of the investigation, including surprise home visits by caseworkers, possible psychiatric evaluations of the children and a ban on travel outside Texas" (Johnson & Kovach, 2008). This is not the rule of a government gone astray. This is a judicial system that is cautiously protecting the rights of the children and society's best interests. For decades and centuries critics have been warning the public that we are vulnerable to too much control by the intrusion of the government into our private homes. George Orwell's book 1984 is the archetypical fear that people have of the government's right to examine our private lives. Orwell describes life in 1984 and says, "There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork" (p.3). The book was written over 50 years ago, the year 1984 has come and gone, and we still do not have the Thought Police. We have a conscientious society that is dedicated to protecting the lives of children and serving the functional needs of society. The fears that Americans will over-react, or the government will over-respond, are baseless and have not proved to be the case. In conclusion, the government not only has a right to know what goes on in peoples' homes, they have an obligation to find out. The lives of children are at stake and it is in the beat interest of society to protect this vulnerable segment of our society. After all, these

Ethics Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 10

Ethics - Essay Example Aristotle’s Human Function Argument: Based on the human function argument, Aristotle had argued that a clear concept of happiness can be realized if the human function could be studied and understood. It reflects that every function or activity of human beings contains the goodness or happiness in it based on rationality of the function. Thus with the rational part of the human soul performing an activity or a particular function, the goodness or happiness takes place. Aristotle had considered happiness to be the best good that could have happened to a human being. Thus in order to determine the goodness in man, Aristotle’s function argument states that the function of the human needs to be ascertained. Also, according to him, human life has been stated to be common to plants, as well as to animals thereby having an active life element with rationality (Korsgaard 129-132). The arguments presented by Aristotle as part of the function argument includes: â€Å"(1) Humans must have a function, or else they would be idle, which is absurd; (2) Each human body part has a function, so the whole human must likewise have a function; (3) The human function is unique to only humans themselves; (4)Human function is not growth and nutrition because these aspects of life are shared with plant; (5)Human function is not sense perception because this aspect of life is shared with animal; (6)The part of the human soul with reason is unique to human; (7) The bare capacity of reason is insufficient to constitute a life function; and (8) Therefore, the human function is activity of the part of the soul that expresses or requires reason† (Pritchett). Failure of the Function Argument: Although Aristotle tried his best to determine the human function reflecting the happiness and goodness factors in human, his beliefs could not stand alone against the questions and criticisms that were raised. Aristotle could not place his arguments successfully as he lacked support ive arguments over the premises he focused on. He could not explain the reason for human function to be considered as unique. When he said that human function is common to plants, it raised questions on the fact as to how two things can be similar only because they share some activities in common. Also, when he stated about animals, it is not clear whether he meant to say that humans only have functions and animals do not have any function. Different functions can be associated with different features or a same function can be presented in different ways by different individuals or animals. Hence Aristotle’s arguments could not present clearly the meanings of the premises (Pritchett). Critics also could not realize how the goodness of a human being can be associated with the good performance or activity of the individual even if there is a function present in human beings. Questions could be raised on several thoughts. For example, even if it is believed to be true that goodn ess of a human is based on the good activity of the human, question arises whether it is good to be a good human or whether every the goodness of every single human can be determined the same, and so on (Korsgaard 131). Thus