What? No. Not enrolled in any academic programs or writing any papers. Expletives? Not sure what about the soliciting of comments on the subject warrants that, although the wording in the OP can be changed if somehow deemed offensive. Sure thought it was in as neutral and open-ended a fashion as possible. What was objectionable?You're the one getting the grade. Do your own research. INGO isn't here to write your paper for you.
(expletives removed to protect the guilty and the innocent)
What was objectionable?
Very well, then. Give me a few minutes to fix it. If it is still unacceptable, might have to trash it. Wasn't that important anyway.Probably the fact that it pretty much reads exactly like an essay question from a social sciences professor.
Probably the fact that it pretty much reads exactly like an essay question from a social sciences professor.
Philosophy is not a "social science."
Having a minor in Philosophy with my second degree, I never would have known that.
Given the timestamp of your response, I'm guessing you didn't see the original question. The post was about the application of the theory from a sociological perspective. Sociology IS a social science.
Yes, you're quite right. Tried to take a different approach, thinking it more "fair" or neutral to ask others instead of making assertions on topics that were glossed over many years ago and only recently revisited, prompted by current events, threads, and/or various articles, such as (but not limited to) this one.Eh... why don't you provide your thoughts on the subject? It'll likely spark more conversation than asking someone else to just come up with their own take.
Maybe something like that, or a variation of it as it is applied. Heard many of what could be called utilitarian arguments in private conversations.Is "Utilitarian Theory" something like "if your only tool is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail?"
Maybe something like that, or a variation of it as it is applied. Heard many of what could be called utilitarian arguments in private conversations.
One that stands out foremost in memory happened at work during the late '90s, before the media frenzy over the Columbine murders, yet a few days after one of the other highly-publicized, sensationalized multiple homicides in one of the gun-free school zones.
(His comments in red and mine in black)
Walked into the break area for lunch, and noticed only one co-worker sitting quietly reading the local birdcage liner. Barely got seated with my sandwich when he suddenly slammed the paper down on the table and shouted angrily, "Man, that's bull****!"
"What. What's got you so upset?" (I glanced down quickly at the paper and noticed it was the editorial page with a lengthy article/rant by one of the "syndicated columnists" from one of the large urban cesspools.)
"The NRA says guns don't kill people, people kill people. That's bull****! If he hadn't had those guns, he wouldn't have been able to kill all those people! Now, we need to BAN ALL the GUNS!"
(I was taken aback for a few seconds by his almost hysterical tone, his reddened, contorted face, and in disbelief that this individual who had previously mentioned being a former Marine helicopter maintenance chief could allow his emotions and critical thinking skills to be manipulated by a "journalist".)
"Do you understand what you're saying? Have you thought it all the way through? Do you understand that to make something like that work, you'll have to run over the 4th [Amendment] to complete the destruction of the 2nd [Amendment], which has already been crippled by legislative infringements?"
"I don't care! They need to ban all guns!"
"So what you're saying is that if you had your way, you'd have a Swat team kick in my door, and take my stuff. Oh, and kill me if I resist."
(He shrugged slightly with a smug sneer):
"Whatever. Whatever it takes."
Me, I'm thinking I just would have looked at him and said, "When the criminals can be proven to have given theirs up, I might consider it. Until then, you're entitled to your opinion."
If he persisted, I simply would have stood and left, with the comment that we obviously had nothing further to discuss. If his oath before God means nothing to him, his words to you have even less value.
Agree, and yes, the conversation was definitely over. Hypothetical responses may vary, and can be handled as each individual sees fit for the circumstances.
Not to be argumentative, rather to expand on that: I don't use the sample one you offered, because I don't believe our rights are to ever be subject to a cost/benefit "to society" analysis. Whether the "crime rate" be 100% or 0% is irrelevant to our right to keep and bear arms.
My rights, your rights, our rights are not contingent upon the criminal actions of others -- or the latest crime statistics.
And I didn't say that you said that you'd support - oh, nevermind.Completely true. I didn't say I'd support any attempt to change rights. I said I might consider giving them up myself.