Ethics Midterm Question: Gun Control

Final Exam
Name:
Institutional Affiliation:
Course:
Instructor:
Date:
Final Exam
Question One (Gun Control)
Aristotle focused on solving the problems that existed in society. One of them was the universal differences in defining what is ethical or not. He opted to establish what the community termed as good. He came up with the idea of having a society aiming at producing the best from its people. It would improve the functions of every individual. This meant people did the best thing to make them, and others stay in peace and coherence. When the issue of gun ownership and licenses are raised, people quickly shift their thoughts to crime. After an unimaginable predisposition to crime, the government saw it wise to adopt the Second Amendment. It allowed people to take civil responsibility to protect themselves. This was later called a well-regulated militia. Reflecting on the definition of ethics by Aristotle, it would mean the aim was to ensure everybody did well or suffered the consequences of gun protection (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n.d). The solution was short term before the misuse of guns became rampant across the country. This beats the logic in Aristotle’s theory of having a society where people undertook such stringent actions to improve their wellbeing. Committing a crime and misusing licensed guns were all on the wrong scale, according to Kant.
Justice Stevens wished that the government could repeal the Second Amendment to prohibit civilians’ use of guns. He argued that it was leading to several misuses of firearms and increasing the rates of crime. He added that the law would only bar the sellers of arms to people if repealed as it would only bar the sellers of arms to people, but allow those who owned to continue having them. The bottleneck would be reprocessing the arms possessed by the citizens. However, the law would still be structured. A database developed to repossess all the weapons people had; after that, they set ultimatums that any remaining weapons are returned or taken by force. Secondly, civil rights are advanced to make the co-existence of people better. The use of firearms was causing a scare to the people. Third, was constructing the society to look like a well-regulated militia. Groups having unlicensed guns are considered militia, but when everybody has permission to acquire one, it only becomes a regulated militia. Every individual has the privilege to use them as they wish, without proper assessment. The RFA was making this worse by not considering its effects on the country’s overall security. They did not find any good to have them in the long run. Individuals arguing that having the guns were a civil right would first consider fundamental human rights to life frequently abused by gun users. The right to life is more observed in every country. People can be protected by the government when this is violated (Sullivan, 2018). The aspect of having several guns made the civil obligation a nuisance. This only calls for the repeal of the laws allowing the same rights. In all these itemized issues, Aristotle would argue that they were not making society better. The community should have regulated standards that every individual can follow. If some people are uncomfortable with them, it begs whether actions portrayed are baseless and do not unify in terms of goodness.
Question Four (Refugee Resettlement)
According to Kant, the basic principles of morals include ‘goodwill’ and ‘duty.’ The first consideration of the several resettlement organizations like UNHCR was on goodwill. This later became a duty by every state. According to BBC News (2018), the responsibility is according to international standards and treaties, which America was part of. With that, they had both the goodwill and moral obligation to resettle the refugees. The charity resulted from the available opportunities in their country, which could comfortably suit the refugees. America was, therefore, obligated to host refugees from other countries. Kant’s theory advises that we have to do what society defines for us. The United States is not the world’s sole inhabitants, meaning they have to conform to all the biding global treaties. It pushes them to perform all the duties defined by these treaties. However, the numbers have reduced in recent years (Geraldi, 2018)
Considering the same laws, the United States should also be at liberty to choose whether to resettle the refugees or not. The country felt stretched by the consequences of having more refugees. Some include increased crime and overwhelming demand for their available resources. Incidences of violence and terrorism were on the rise; their education resources stretched to the extent of not satisfying their native citizens. As a result, the Trump administration wanted to bring in more sanity to their co-existence with refugees. The first was to end their entry in the United States. They would then find better ways of managing to stay with those already in t...