President Obama s State Of The Union Address - 944 Words

One of the most highly debated proposals from President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address is a new government program that would cover the cost of community college. The â€Å"American College Promise† would provide free tuition to students who enroll in a community college for at least half-time, maintain a 2.5 Grade Point Average (GPA), make steady progress towards completing an associate’s degree and cannot have an adjusted gross income of above two hundred thousand dollars. Obama has stated that the new proposal will benefit roughly nine million students each year by earning them an associate’s degree at no cost. Although the new proposal can be seen as a panacea for all incoming college students, the opposition is true due to the fact that community college is affordable, exclusive, and will hurt the economy by causing the current United States debt to increase. Many critiques against community college being tuition free state that our economy will improve. This is being proven by Wyner who states that it is necessary to close the percentage gap of jobs that will require a college education. Yes, it is true that a college education will be required for 60% of jobs, it doesn’t mean that community college should be free. If anything, making college free, will affect the economy . The White House stated that the cost of implementing a tuition free community college program will be over sixty billion dollars over ten years. The money will come from taxpayer dollars.Show MoreRelatedPresident Obama s Last State Of The Union Address912 Words   |  4 Pages President Obama gave his last State of the Union address on January 12th of this year. Like so many of his previous speeches, it was filled with soaring rhetoric and stressed values all Americans hold dear, not just Democrats, while also focusing on values that Democrats hold more de ar than Republicans. Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina gave the Republican response and that speech, although critical of the President’s approach, echoed many of his values, while still emphasizing values thatRead MoreBarack Obama s President Obama935 Words   |  4 PagesAs stated in the Constitution of the United States, the President shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient. Since 1947, this constitutionally mandated address has become known as the State of the Union Address. President Barack Obama continued this tradition in his final State of the Union Address to Congress and the American citizens on January 12, 2016. In hisRead MorePresident Obama s Final State Of The Union Speech1013 Words   |  5 PagesTravon Felton In January 12, 2016, President Obama has given his final State of the Union Speech. In his speech, Mr. Obama addressed one of the major concerns that is happening in America today. One of the key terms that he addressed is the Changing Economy and how it is growing and he talks about the concerning terrorist threats from the Islamic States by mentioning about the United States effort to prevent global terrorism with this powerful speech: â€Å"When you come after Americans, we go afterRead MoreThe State Of Obama s Rhetoric1537 Words   |  7 PagesAbby Silsby APLANG Period 2 Wells February 3, 2015 The State of Obama’s Rhetoric It is his second to last State of the Union speech, but his first with both houses of Congress in Republican control: On Tuesday night, January 20th, President Barack Obama itemized the achievements of his presidency and his devotion to raising the economic outlook for the middle class.  In his address, he effectively outlined his legislative agenda for the up-and-coming year. He accomplishes this by employing a confidentRead MoreIdeals of Liberalism Expressed in President Obamas Speeches 1470 Words   |  6 PagesIn President Obama’s speech at the U.S. and China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, he outlines the â€Å"essential steps in advancing a positive, constructive, and comprehensive relationship between the two countries.† In the President’s 2011 State of the Union Address, he provides four critical steps to achieve economic recovery in addition to several pressing domestic and international policies. What both these speeches hold in common, is the lo gic behind the liberalism tradition of internationalRead MoreMLK vs. Obama1461 Words   |  6 Pages Martin Luther King Jr. vs. President Obama Martin Luther King Jr. and President Barack Obama have both written and performed their fair share of speeches throughout their respective lives. The two speeches that are being compared are President Obama’s â€Å"A More Perfect Union† speech and Martin Luther King Jr.’s â€Å"Letter from Birmingham City Jail† letter. President Obama spoke this speech while his was campaigning for the presidency in February of 2007, while his was running against Senator HillaryRead MoreConflicts And Fusions Of The United States1189 Words   |  5 Pagesthe year 1865 was an essential year for people in the United States. It was also a beginning for American people to unify their countries and also a beginning for slaves’ freedom. However, it was also the year 1865 when American people lost a great leader, Abraham Lincoln. In Lincoln’ s 200th birthday, Obama said, â€Å"It s a humbling task, marking the bicentennial of our 16th President s birth-humbling fo r me in particular, because it s fair to say that we presidency of this singular figure who weRead MorePresident Obamas Final State Of The Union1320 Words   |  6 PagesCHANGE IN THE STATE OF THE UNION There are 7.3 billion people on Earth (United States Census Bureau, 2016). More specifically, there are 7.3 billion people who depend on Earth for food, water, and shelter. If there is one thing that every living organism has in common, it’s our dependence on the planet to survive. Unfortunately, since the Industrial Revolution, humans have been systematically degrading the Earth and its resources. President Obama’s final State of the Union address was structuredRead MoreBarack Obama s State Of The Union Speech1207 Words   |  5 Pagesare a lot of significant Economic issues that were addressed in President Obama’s State of the Union Speech. Obama had many successes in the past year, including: the strongest production of jobs in fifteen years, drivers saving an expected hundred dollars because gasoline prices were extremely low, and the unemployment rate plummeting to a miniscule 5.6%. However, the wages of middle-class Americans remain unchanging. President Obama plans to fix this issue, using what he referred to as â€Å"Middle-ClassRead MoreTheodore Roosevelt New Nationalism1280 Words   |  6 PagesOn August 31, 1910, former President Theodore Roosevelt visited Osawatomie, Kansas to give a speech and participate in a memorial dedication. (Hennessy, 1910). Roosevelt had declined to run for re-election to the presidency in 1908, deciding to exit politics and go on a yearlong African safari (Ellis, 2001, p. 284). Frustrated with President Taft’s actions, Roosevelt reentered political life in 1910 (Mowry, 1939). In the Osawatomie address, Roosevelt introduced his idea for a New Nationalism. Many

Kant s View On Morality - 921 Words

Another topic that Kant contributed to is morality. According to Kant, moral laws cannot be derived from human nature. To put it in other terms, it is not human nature that should be used as a model to how we should behave morally. Kant believed that humans do not always make the right moral decisions because human nature can be flawed at times, often times choosing an animalistic desire over doing something that is morally permissible. In addition, Kant believed that the outcome of human nature is not the central issue when it comes to knowing what is right or what is wrong. Instead, Kant believes that it each of the individual actions that should be analyzed to see if it is morally wrong or if it is morally right. Kant’s point of view about morality is different from previous philosophers, because most of them looked to human nature in order to find the morally right things to do. To look more closely at human nature, Kant pointed out that there are categories in which each action takes place. Kant believed that there are differences between physical laws and ethical laws. Kant separated natural laws into two main parts: pure natural laws, and laws of inclination. Pure natural laws are laws that everything must obey including humans, animals, and non- living objects. An example of a pure natural laws are the laws of physics, such as gravity and the law of inertia. Laws of inclination can be described in different terms as laws of desire. Kant points out thatShow MoreRelatedKant And Hobbes s View On Morality1761 Words   |  8 PagesKant and Hobbes have completely different interpretations of morality. The vast differences between them is due to their opposing schools of thought. Kant’s view on morality is very analytical and strict. Whereas, Hobbes’ view is both provisional and tentative, depending on the outcomes. Although these differen ces between their philosophies were present, they both took a subjective stance in their reasoning meaning, they believed moral philosophy should be centered on the person. This essay willRead MoreKant s Theory Of Morality982 Words   |  4 PagesImmanuel Kant is said by many to be one of the most influential â€Å"thinkers† in the history of Western philosophy (McCormick, n.d.), this being said, most of his theories continue to be taught and are highly respected by society. Kant was a firm believer that the morality of any action can be assessed by the motivation behind it (McCormick, n.d.). In other words, if an action is good but the intention behind the action is not good, the action itself would be considered immoral. Those who follow theRead More Ethical and Philosophical Questions about Value and Obligation977 Words   |  4 Pageshow can we view the philosophical ethics of Mill, Kant, Aristotle, Nietzsche, and the ethics of care? III For Mill, the question is what is the relation between his (metaethical) empirical naturalism and his (normative) qualitatively hedonist value theory and his utilitarian moral theory? One place we can see Mill?s empiricism is his treatment, in Chapter III, of the question of why the principle of utility is ?binding?, how it can generate a moral obligation. Compare Mill?s treatmentRead MoreKant And Kant s Categorical Imperative1241 Words   |  5 PagesImmanuel Kant, an 18th-century moral philosopher, had contended that the fundamental principle of morality is the Categorical Imperative, from here will be additionally labeled as (CI) or otherwise mentioned. He supported his view by suggesting a pure moral philosophy; a metaphysics of morals that is not solely for rational beings to explore different ¬ sources of basic moral principles that are found through their own observational experience a priori, but additionally for the sake of morality as itRead MoreImmanuel Kant And Friedrich Nietzsche Essay1504 Words   |  7 PagesImmanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche are two widely acclaimed philosophers due to the groundwork they made towards the philosophical principles of morality. However, even though they both have openly discussed their views, they have ended up contradicting each other. Kant implied that morality is not learned, but rather predestined, whereas Nietzsche alluded to a experience based morality, or one that is learned through actions and memories. Although these two men have accepted views of morality, theRead MoreThe Ethical Concepts Of Kantian Ethics Essay1043 Words   |  5 PagesMorality in Reasons, not Consequences Introduction The philosophy of Kant has become a turning point in the development of the Western thinking and worldview. His innovative and progressive ideas have strongly contributed to the formation of a new paradigm of the universe and role of humans in it. A great role in Kant’s studies belongs to the analysis of ethics, morality and law as the main regulators of the human behavior in the society Kant is known as the founder of the deontological ethics (Kantianism)Read MoreKant s Categorical Imperative Of The Modern Era826 Words   |  4 PagesEmmanuel Kant was an influential philosopher and strong proponent of the modern era. Besides his large contribution to epistemology and metaphysics, his work in ethics was just as substantial. Kant’s ethics came to propose an objective morality, where moral judgments is not only true according to a person s subjective view. He believed the moral worth of an action is not determined by its consequence but the motive behind it. Through Kan t’s ethics, he demonstrates this duty through his unconditionalRead MoreImmanuel Kant And Kant On Morality1097 Words   |  5 Pagesdefinition of morality is the rules for right action and prohibitions against wrong acts. Sometimes morality is the single set of absolute rules and prohibitions that are valid for all men at all times and all societies. More loosely, a morality can be any set of ultimate principles, and there may be any number of moralities in different societies. Examples would be don’t cheat, don’t steal, and treat others as you would want to be treated. When dealing with the philosophers take on morality, there areRead MoreThe Role Of Happiness On Kant s And Mill s Ethics1712 Words   |  7 PagesThe Role of Happiness in Kant s and Mill s Ethics Corey Guitard (0241740) Introduction to Ethics November 18th, 2015 Philosophy 2701 Dr. Rupen Majithia Words: Immanuel Kant refers to happiness as contentment (Kant, ) whereas John Stuart Mill refers to it as the pursuit of pleasure and the absence of pain (Mill, p.7). Kant does not base his ethics on happiness. Instead, he argues that morality is based on our duty as a human (Kant, ). To do what is right for Kant is to do what is instinctuallyRead MoreThe Appraisal Of Moral Worth : Kant Versus Nagel1253 Words   |  6 PagesThe Appraisal of Moral Worth: Kant Versus Nagel Since the moment we were born, our minds have been absorbing information and relaying that information into choices that subsequently dictate our life. Out of these choices, we face the dilemma of personal gain versus morality. It is in the best interests of all humanity that each individual shares similar values, such as trust, compassion, loyalty, and a desire for communal progress. When individuals share such values, it allows a society to build

What Makes a Good Society Discuss What Makes a Good Society free essay sample

Without our effort for this group project become reality and this project would never exist. The person who is really we want to give a billion thank you is our lecturer and also can best we describe as our guidance are Associate Professor Quah Chun Hoo. Prof also gives us his support and makes our way clear while we are in the process of making our project. Without his guide, we never can achieve the good project like we have now. Moreover, participation from our friends also gives us more knowledge to collect more information as we can and also encourage us for produce the best job. On the other hand, we have learned many things about the higher education and the steps how to write a business ethics term paper. And lastly but not least is our really thanks to all people that involved whether as direct or indirect in the process of making this project. Thank you. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY There are numerous marks of a good society: justice, equity, rule of law, economic opportunity,  reciprocity, prosperity, critical thinking, ethical standards, concern for good citizenship, right to defense, right to private property and so on. But where does the value of Goodness for Goodness sake ome in? In this paper, our group has made a research regarding on â€Å"What makes a good society? † Based on our research we explores some of the elements of what makes for a good society or community from a communitarian viewpoint, with consideration from a combination of social facts as seen by a sociologist. Additionally, ethical considerations with special attention paid to exclusivity and to equality, are addressed. There is some moral dilemma that occurs in doing this research. Where there are some questions bear in mind; what exactly is a â€Å"good society†, or a â€Å"good community†? And why has it come to have such a critical place in current discussions of problems in our society? In our research, we have made some argument that says that the good society does not just happen; it has to be made and continuously sustained. In this process, more people must be helped to share in the good society. Establishing and maintaining the good society require the cooperative efforts of some, often of many, people. It might seem that since all citizens benefit from the good society, we would all willingly respond that we each cooperate to establish and maintain the good society. But numerous observers have identified a number of obstacles that hinder us, as a society, from successfully doing so. From our research, we found that in order to understand how and why people make decision to act for the good society we have to explore the way people make choices about what they value, what they want to be a part of and how they want to behave. Based on the research that we have done, we also have to explore how people can be empowered to play as effective a role as possible in making the good society. INTRODUCTION As Malaysian watch the political stalemate in Malaysia, we can’t help but notice the conflicting views on what makes a society good. We might agree that it takes good people to make a good society, people reaching out to people. We might say that it takes good leaders to design a good society. Lyndon B. Johnson spoke of the Great Society which for him meant social reforms designed to eliminate poverty and racial injustice. Johnsons vision was formed by the radical changes of the 1960s and the Civil Rights Movement. He saw the nations greatness in terms of economic prosperity and opportunity. Plato was right that one cant live the good life unless one knows the Good. The hard part is defining â€Å"good† apart from self-interest. For many, good is what we perceive to serve us best. Society is good if it features personal comforts and benefits and generates a standard of living that we feel entitled to enjoy. But the reality and the dream are very far apart. We are a nation of overworked and underpaid wage slaves whose debt dampens our passion for the Good. Many are just trying to survive. Our standard of living never will be high enough to satisfy us. There always will be another convenience or technology toy just beyond our reach. We are no longer free. We are ruled by schedules, technology, taxes and our own discontent. And we tend to think our discontent is someone elses fault. Aristotle believed that free men are responsible for their voluntary and involuntary actions and behaviours. He did not include slaves in this scheme because to him the society of ruling men was the basis upon which to build a good society. For Aristotle, a society or state is held together by friendship more than justice. He regarded men with many friendships as good men. That friendship, or natural affinity, is the basis of a good society is evident to children who determine who is included and who is excluded from their group. No matter how often their mothers tell them to be nice and let everyone play together, children form groups according to their own rules. (And their parents dont play with everyone either. ) Yet children are more egalitarian than Aristotles society. Children slip in and out of different groups quite often. This is how they discover where they fit best. But in Aristotles society a person could never escape from his caste. Slaves were at the bottom of the caste system and they had no rights except those granted to them by their masters. Some slaves were highly skilled in medicine, arts, reading and writing. These were generally treated well by their masters because they had valuable skills, but they were not regarded as the equal of free men like Aristotle. So all the things we like about Aristotle the attitudes which seem fair and democratic really apply only to men of his Athenian social class. There is little application to our country, Malaysia, a society of myriad communities straining in diverse directions to achieve a good society. Sociologist Amitai Etzioni has written, The quest for a good society points to one that allows communities to maintain some limitations on new membership while at the same time greatly restrict the criteria that communities may use informing such exclusivity. The criteria for exclusion cannot be race, thnic origin, religion, sexual orientation, or a host of other criteria based on ascribed statuses. Rather, the bonds of good communities, it follows, should be based on affinities whose nature remains to be defined. Contrary to political correctness, the good society limits membership by law. It is predicated on affinity, not on grand schemes or social engineering. Societies are organic. They develop according to their social DNA, and cant be designed. (Socialists neglect this truth. ) Unless natural communities can be connected in friendly ways, nation building is impossible. The good society works as a confederation of tribes, each honouring the others right to exist and all responsible for the most vulnerable and the poorest. MORAL DILEMMA In this topic, the moral dilemma occurs when the questions click in mind, what exactly is a â€Å"good society†, or a â€Å"good community†? And why has it come to have such a critical place in current discussions of problems in our society? A good society is a notion that originated over two thousand years ago in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. Sociologist Amitai Etzioni has written in The New Golden Rule come out with some of dilemma questions; How can a society balance its members’ needs for both order and autonomy? , Where do the core values of a community come from, and how can these values be developed and maintained? And what is a â€Å"moral voice†? How does a community develop and maintain a distinctive moral voice? The debate regarding what constitutes a good society has been championed primarily by individualists (who treat individuality as the most important social good) and social conservatives (who treat social order as the most important social good). Etzioni suggests communitarianism (which strikes a balance between order and autonomy) as an alternative social philosophy that would better support the elements of a good society . ARGUMENTS The contemporary ethicist, John Rawls, define a good society as the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfilment. Good society, then, consists primarily of having the ocial systems, institutions, and environments on which we all depend work in a manner that benefits all people. Examples of particular good society or parts of the good society include an accessible and affordable public health care system, and effective system of public safety and security, peace among the nations of the world, a just legal and political system, and unpolluted natural environment, and a flourishing economic system. Because such systems, institutions, and environments have such a powerful impact on the well-being of members of a society, it is no surprise that virtually every social problem in one way or another is linked to how well these systems and institutions are functioning. As these examples suggest, a good society does not just happen. Establishing and maintaining good society require the cooperative efforts of some, often of many, people as a common good only to the extent that it is a good to which all have access. First, according to some philosophers, the very idea of a good society is inconsistent with a pluralistic society like ours. Different people have different ideas about what is worthwhile or what constitutes the good life for human beings, differences that have increased during the last few decades as the voices of more and more previously silenced groups, such as women and minorities, have been heard. Given these differences, some people urge, it will be impossible for us to agree on what particular kind of social systems, institutions, and environments we will all pitch in to support. And even if we agreed upon what we all valued, we would certainly disagree about the relative values things have for us. While all may agree, for example, that an affordable health system, a healthy educational system, and a clean environment are all parts of the common good in good society, some will say that more should be invested in health than in education, while others will favour directing resources to the environment over both health and education. Such disagreements are bound to undercut our ability to evoke a sustained and widespread commitment to the good society. In the face of such pluralism, efforts to bring about the good society can only lead to adopting or promoting the views of some, while excluding others, violating the principle of treating people equally. Moreover, such efforts would force everyone to support some specific notion of the good society, violating the freedom of those who do not share in that goal, and inevitably leading to paternalism (imposing one groups preference on others), tyranny, and oppression. A second problem encountered by proponents of the good society is what is sometimes called the free-rider problem. The benefits that a common good in good society provides are, as we noted, available to everyone, including those who choose not to do their part to maintain the good society. Individuals can become free riders by taking the benefits the common good provides while refusing to do their part to support the good society. An adequate water supply, for example, is a common good from which all people benefit. But to maintain an adequate supply of water during a drought, people must conserve water, which entails sacrifices. Some individuals may be reluctant to do their share, however, since they know that so long as enough other people conserve, they can enjoy the benefits without reducing their own consumption. If enough people become free riders in this way, the good society which depends on their support will be destroyed. Many observers believe that this is exactly what has happened to many of our good society, such as the environment or education, where the reluctance of all person to support efforts to maintain the health of these systems has led to their virtual collapse. The third problem encountered by attempts to promote the good society is that of individualism. Our historical traditions place a high value on individual freedom, on personal rights, and on allowing each person to do her own thing. Our culture views society as comprised of separate independent individuals who are free to pursue their own individual goals and interests without interference from others. In this individualistic culture it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to convince people that they should sacrifice some of their freedom, some of their personal goals, and some of their self-interest, for the sake of the good society. Our cultural traditions, in fact, reinforce the individual who thinks that she should not have to contribute to the communitys , but should be left free to pursue her own personal ends. Finally, appeals to the good society are confronted by the problem of an unequal sharing of burdens. Maintaining a good society often requires that particular individuals or particular groups bear costs that are much greater than those borne by others. Maintaining an unpolluted environment, for example, may require that particular firms that pollute install costly pollution control devices, undercutting profits. Making employment opportunities more equal may require that some groups, such as white males, sacrifice their own employment chances. Making the health system affordable and accessible to all may require that insurers accept lower premiums, that physicians accept lower salaries, or that those with particularly costly diseases or conditions forego the medical treatment on which their live depend. Forcing particular groups or individuals to carry such unequal burdens for the sake of the good society, is, at least arguably, unjust. Moreover, the prospect of having to carry such heavy and unequal burdens leads such groups and individuals to resist any attempts to secure common goods. All of these problems pose considerable obstacles to those who call for an ethic of the good society. Still, appeals to the good society ought not to be dismissed. For they urge us to reflect on broad questions concerning the kind of society we want to become and how we are to achieve that society. They also challenge us to view ourselves as members of the same community and, while respecting and valuing the freedom of individuals to pursue their own goals, to recognize and further those goals we share in common. CONCLUSION Based on arguments in thesis statement, we conclude that a good society is one in which certain minimal conditions exist that permit people to flourish. These conditions include physical well-being, safety from violence, the ability to make thoughtful choices about one’s life, and political and civil rights. The ability of societies to meet these conditions is heavily conditioned by their institutional arrangements such as individualists which treat individuality as the most important social good, social conservatives which treat social order as the most important social good and communitarianism which strikes a balance between order and autonomy. Institutions influence our behavior and expectations by exerting power. Their exercise of power constrains us at the same time that it creates predictability, reducing insecurity and anxiety in social life. Institutions limit freedom and simultaneously make its enjoyment possible. Therefore how to establishing and maintaining good society or what the moral dilemma occurs frequently in our institutions remain to be solved. Those challenges consist of inconsistent with a pluralistic society inconsistent with a pluralistic society which is even if we agreed upon what we all valued, we would certainly disagree about the relative values things have for us may lead to paternalism, tyranny, and oppression. The second problem is what is sometimes called the free-rider problem. This may produce the social parasites If enough people become free riders in this way, the good society which depends on their support will be destroyed. The third problem is that of individualism. In this individualistic culture it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to convince people that they should sacrifice some of their freedom, some of their personal goals, and some of their self-interest, for the sake of the good society. Finally, appeals to the good society are confronted by the problem of an unequal sharing of burdens. All of those problem we face are badly in need of will arranged. SIGNIFICANCE RESEARCH There are few studies that have been done upon the topic â€Å"What a makes a good society? † Commenting on the many economic and social problems that society now confronts, Newsweek columnist Robert J. Samuelson recently wrote: We face a choice between a societies where people accept modest sacrifices for a good society or a more contentious society where group selfishly protect their own benefits. Newsweek is not the only voice calling for a recognition of and commitment to the good society. Daniel Callahan, an expert on bioethics, argues that solving the current crisis in our health care systemrapidly rising costs and dwindling accessrequires replacing the current ethic of individual rights with an ethic of the good society. Sociologist Amitai Etzioni suggests in a good society a social order exists that is in line with the moral commitment of its members. Moreover, the maintenance of social order relies primarily on normative means such as education, leadership, moral dialogue, and moral voices. Etzioni also suggest that members of the society share a commitment to a set of core values, and abide by those values most of the time. Individualism is not favored over the social good (and vice versa); these two social virtues are maintained in a careful equilibrium. BIBLIOGRAPHY Amitai Etzioni, ‘The Good Society’’ Journal of Political Philosophy, 7 (1999), 88-103 Amitai Etzioni, The New Golden Rule: Community and Morality in a Democratic Society (New York: Basic Books, 1996). C. f. H. L. A. Hart, Law, Liberty and Morality (Oxford: University Press, 1963);Patrick Devlin, The Enforcement of Morals (Oxford University Press, 1965) Etzioni, The New Golden Rule, 85-118 Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S. J. , and Michael J. Meyer, Issues in Ethics  V5, N1 (Spring 1992) Robert Bellah, Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton, The Good Society (New York: Vintage, 1991); and Walter Lippman, An Inquiry Into the Principles of the Good Society (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1943) The New Golden Rule: Community and Morality in a Democratic Society (New York: BasicBooks, 1996), 160-188 http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Lyndon_B. _Johnson http://plato. stanford. edu/entries/african-ethics/ http://angeloallen. com/? p=810 http://www. scu. edu/ethics/practicing/decision/framework. html MARKING GRID Academic Content| | 60| Moral Dilemma| | 10| Originality and Reference| | 10| Bibliography| | 10| Significance of Research| | 5| Overall Presentation| | 5| Total Marks| | 100|