You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Religion and Theology
Pages 6 (1506 words)
Name: Tutor: Task: Date: Humanities Ethics Question 1: Hospers asserts that if everybody owned everything, no one would be responsible for anything. What does he mean by this? How does this fit with his larger arguments about the rights that all persons have?
This statement fits with Hospers larger arguments on the rights that all persons have including the right to life, liberty, and property. He suggests that even the government cannot infringe on these rights but rather should protect them. In particular, Hospers suggests that governments are prone to violating citizens’ property rights. Question 2: Discuss the legal and moral implications of outlawing the use of drugs that seem not to harm others. Compare this to other laws, e.g., requiring even a lone driver to wear a seatbelt. Excessive drug use in society remains one of the most challenging issues to governments. In addition, prohibiting drug use particularly of those that do not harm others presents legal implications. It is notable that the less a drug is harmless the fewer the legal legislations designed to tame their use. However, outlawing the use of harmless drugs presents legal scenarios such as inability to enforce such legal frameworks. Furthermore, the prohibition of such drugs presents moral implications in that the society will eventually use the medication under cover. Central to the efforts to tame drug use is the notion of society and pubic protection from harm. The laws requiring lone drivers also emerged because of the need to protect the public. ...
Not exactly what you need?