This week we debated three ethical questions in relationship to their historical context as well as modern current events:
a) Should nuclear weapons be proliferated (destroyed)? Is the use of weapons of mass destruction ever justified?
b) Should the US boycott Olympic games held in nations associated with human rights abuses?
c) Is the detention/ internment of cultural minorities in the interest of national security constitutional?
Your blog assignment OR creative assessment is to respond to one of these questions but NOT the topic you were assigned in class. Be sure to explain how this topic relates to WWII and modern society. Your assessment must be at least 200 words and include specific historical details and modern-day examples. Cite any outside research you conduct in MLA format OR provide hyperlinks.
You must respond to at least one other post if you blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Loretta Au
Block F (the blog has not been posted for Block F)
May 23, 2008
I have responded to all three ethical questions, including the topic I was assigned in class, for extra credit.
A) Should nuclear weapons be proliferated (destroyed)? Is the use of weapons of mass destruction ever justified?
Nuclear weapons are explosive devices all of history, nuclear weapons have been used twice, both by the United States during World War II. The bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 leading to the victory of the United States. Also, the threat of nuclear destruction dominated the Cold War. The tension between the United States and the Soviet Union led the ace to produce a greater arsenal than each other, leading to the point where they had the ability to destroy the world. I support the proliferation of nuclear weapons. In the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, over 300,000 civilians were injured and wounded. To this day, civilians suffer from the aftermath of the bombing. The bombs residue in the air caused people to have leukemia. Leukemia is often genetic so many of today’s Japanese civilians suffer from it today. It is unfair to them because they did not take part in the war and have to suffer the consequences. Also, during the Cold War, peace was maintained by balance of power. Both sides were equal in their advantage and confidence. Each nation had the ability and weaponry to defeat the other, and potentially the whole world. With nuclear weapons, unlike the Cold War, there is no balance of power. Nuclear weapons will lessen dictators and terrorist groups. Nations would not feel the need to protect themselves as anxiously without nuclear weapons. It is also possible that the weapons can be owned by the wrong nation. Nuclear weapons are unnecessary destroyers of world peace. Without them, the world would be a safer and more peaceful environment.
B) Should the US boycott Olympic Games held in nations associated with human rights abuses?
In the 1939 Olympic Games, the Olympics were hosted by Germany. In 1936 Hitler was the leader and he forbids Jews to enter Germany. Therefore, all American Jews who were to compete in the Games were excluded from the Olympic Competition. Despite Germany’s human rights abuses at the time, the US disregarded it and abided by their rules in order to compete in the Games. A similar issue occurs this year in the Beijing Olympics. The People’s Republic of China was awarded the 2008 Summer Olympic Games by the International Olympics Committee (IOC) in July 2001. This is a controversial topic because Beijing follows a dictatorial government with terrible human rights record and a bad history. However, the others see it as an international recognition of China’s growing economic, sporting and political strength. The US should boycott Olympic Games held in nations associated with human rights abuses. The host country should have equal human rights. If the US refuses to attend the Olympic Games, attention will be drawn to China and their human rights. Thousand of political prisoners suffer in Chinese jails and labor camps for believing in their private beliefs in religion. Figures such as journalists are imprisoned without a trial. The US should not attend the Olympics because of China’s association with human rights abuses.
C) Is the detention/ internment of cultural minorities in the interest of national security constitutional?
There have been several incidents when the government sent cultural minorities to detention or internment camps in the interest of national security. Cultural minorities were seen as a threat to the nation after specific events. During World War II, those of German backgrounds, including refugees from Hitler’s genocide, and those with fascist sympathies were detained. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, the United States was in a state of panic. In attempt to keep the nation as safe as possible, over 110,000 Japanese Americans were interned. They were denied basic rights like the right to a public trial and the right to appeal to a higher judicial authority. Today, Guantanamo Bay is the main topic of controversy. After experiencing a terrorist attack, the US detained non-citizens without trial and secretly arrested and held over 750 foreign nationals. The detaining and interning of cultural minorities in the interest of national security is unconstitutional. In the situation of the internment of Japanese Americans, they were nonetheless Americans and had the right to American rights. It is understandable that the government wants to protect the nation; however, it should still be kept in mind the rights of the innocent who are accused. It is one situation to intern or detain the guilty, however far unconstitutional to intern or detain the accused because they’re a minority. All people who are accused of a threat to the nation should have the right to a trial. Indefinite detention and lack of a normal public trial undermine the key values of habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence.
Christopher Morawed
A- Block
Nuclear weapons, in my opinion, should be banned. Although it makes a nation seem stronger and look more intimidating, it has much worse effects. Nuclear weapons cause radioactive substances to form upon exploding and cause cancer and other disease to effects the recipients. Along with this, nuclear weapons make it seem as though every nation must now obtain a nuclear weapon to stay safe. Making weapons a necessity is only calling for war. Violence cannot make peace. Fighting for war is only causing more war to occur. World war two was the first appearance of little man and fat boy that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The impacts of those two atomic bombs were devastating. The bomb’s radiation carried for many years after making disease inevitable for all living there. Disease killed thousands. Weapons have done nothing but take innocent lives. What will come next if in world war two many were killed? Living in two thousand eight, with better technology and stronger weapons, will cause bigger casualties and more destructive bombs created.
Ann Morin Youssef
Block A
Is the detention/internment of cultural minorities in the interest of national security constitutional?
Over the course of history we have witnessed, read, and learned about many unconstitutional actions against minorities, including immigrants from Ellis Island being discriminated against. In agreement with Loretta Au, there have been many occasions where the government sent edifying minorities to camps in the interest of national security. Cultural minorities were and sometimes still remain viewed as a threat to civilians and governmental security. The mass relocation of about 110,000 Japanese- Americans from the West Coast to camps inland in 1942 after the attack on Pearl Harbor, an effort driven more by rampant racism than by national security concerns, has overshadowed German-American internment in the national consciousness because of the fear from Nazi Germany. In the camps, internees were seen more as prisoners of war than as civilians. They, too, were denied basic rights in light of the governments’ requirements. Again, in agreement with Ms. Au, it is reasonable that the government wants to protect the nation and its citizens but it’s also unwarranted that the nation declares to bestow opportunity and equal rights to all but doesn’t hesitate to accuse innocent inhabitants. Anyone who is thought to be a negative impact to national security should be tried legally and given the rights to a just form of audition.
Should nuclear weapons be proliferated (destroyed)? Is the use of weapons of mass destruction ever justified?
Nuclear weapons in my opinion should be destroyed. Many lives have been taken because of these weapons being used. The weapon does not benefit a country at all, as Chris said it only makes them look strong and is only used to scare others, but really the effects of them can be dreaded. Bombs like these can wipe out a entire population. It poses many threats. These types of weapons does not make a country any more powerful than it is, if they feel they could do this and feel as if they were doin the right thing, they are wrong. Weapons as these should be banned not only can this cause a harm to an entire population but also as Chris mentioned could cause all of these diseases from the explosion. Trying to resolve a problem this way is not right. There are other ways to solve a problem without taking innocent ones down with the others. Weapons like these prove fatal as we have learned from the history of nuclear weapons being used during wars.
T-Rez
A block
Should the US boycott Olympic games held in nations associated with human rights abuses?
The US should boycott the Olympic games, because every human being is born with natural and unailiable rights. This means that nobody can have their rights violated or taken away from them. The Olympics have to do with competing against one another in a fair and orderly manner but if the Olympics has to do with fairness, what is so fair about having human rights taken away. In places that don’t support human rights like Beijing, china should not have the right to have games held there that are based on being fair.
“Basically we could not have peace, or an atmosphere in which peace could grow, unless we recognized the rights of individual human beings... their importance, their dignity... and agreed that was the basic thing that had to be accepted throughout the world.” Eleanor Roosevelt, USA
Mike Orr
A-Block
Should the US boycott Olympic games held in nations associated with human rights abuses?
The US should boycott the Olympic games, because every human being is born with natural and unailiable rights. This means that nobody can have their rights violated or taken away from them. The Olympics have to do with competing against one another in a fair and orderly manner but if the Olympics has to do with fairness, what is so fair about having human rights taken away. In places that don’t support human rights like Beijing, china should not have the right to have games held there that are based on being fair.
“Basically we could not have peace, or an atmosphere in which peace could grow, unless we recognized the rights of individual human beings... their importance, their dignity... and agreed that was the basic thing that had to be accepted throughout the world.” Eleanor Roosevelt, USA
The Olympics and politics are two totally different things. Yes, humans rights are abused in Bejing, but the olympics are not beign abused. I can understadn what Mike Orr is saying about the olympics beign about competition and fariness, and how can a country hold a competetion bases on fairness when they are not treating their citiznes properly. If it is such a problem that the United States takes part in the olympics, why are major companies, such as Coca Cola advertsing them. Coca Cola has branches that include minute maid and dasani water, both which advertise the olmypics as well. Also as Loretta is saying that the 1936 olympics were held in Germany during the time of Hitler, when he was trying to rid Germany of all Jews. It is the same concept, Hitler was treating one group of people negaitively and unfair, just as China is doing to their entire population, but the United States still took park in the olympics. She also states that American Jews did not participate in the games to abide by the rules of Germany, the United States can do the saem today, and not allow Chinese Americans to compete, but face the harsh world of the people living in the United States today, becuase the minds of the people are very different and more outspoken than those of the 1930's.
Hello!
B) Should the US boycott Olympic Games held in nations associated with human rights abuses?
NO NOT AT ALL! in case we havent figured out already, the world olympics have no political value or meaning when it comes to the subject of countries with human rights issues. We have the olympics for one thing, to join every country together to show that we all have strenghts and values to contribute through the form of modern day and old style sporting events. WE should NOT have to rid ourselves of these events because the location we are having the olympics at have issues with human rights. When i was hearing the debate that we performed in school ( i debated proliferation of WMD). The group discussing this topic were making major key points that sports and events such as the olympics have no meaning what-so-ever when it comes to politics, there sporting events that everyone around the world wait for, watch and/or perform in!
The debates in school were very cool indeed! i wish a whole class debate with maybe a structured debate like maybe a bit MUNish. lol =D
< V ! V Z >
Conrad Mallien
A block
5/26/08
c.)I feel nuclear weapons and any thing of that much power should be destroyed. They are worse then WMD's, because they not only kill millions, they also permanently affect millions more, destroy everything, and are uncontrollably powerful. We could never justify the use of these weapons, for never should innocents be placed in such danger ever in their life. To kill innocent life like this would be like committing genocide.
Conrad Mallien
A block
5/26/08
c.)I feel nuclear weapons and any thing of that much power should be destroyed. They are worse then WMD's, because they not only kill millions, they also permanently affect millions more, destroy everything, and are uncontrollably powerful. We could never justify the use of these weapons, for never should innocents be placed in such danger ever in their life. To kill innocent life like this would be like committing genocide.
Conrad Mallien
A block
5/26/08
c.)I feel nuclear weapons and any thing of that much power should be destroyed. They are worse then WMD's, because they not only kill millions, they also permanently affect millions more, destroy everything, and are uncontrollably powerful. We could never justify the use of these weapons, for never should innocents be placed in such danger ever in their life. To kill innocent life like this would be like committing genocide.
In my opinion, all weapons of mass destruction should be proliferated in all countries. Nuclear weapons in WWII changed how we fought in wars forever. Because of the introduction of the nuclear bomb , the US had an advantage over the Japanese. They used the bombs to attack both Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Because of the nuclear bomb over 300,000 civilians were injured. Some of which still suffer from the aftermath of the bombing. I don't think that the use of weapons of mass destruction should be justified because when they do drop these bombs, not only do we kill or hurt "enemy" we kill and injure many innocent people. One modern day example of this is the accusation that the Middle East have weapons of mass destruction. Although may countries have WMD we are currently at war which makes us more susceptible to be targeted if they were to ever use these weapons. No matter how many treaties we try to sign or how many alliances we form, as long as there a nuclear bombs in the world we are all in danger. Because if one country drops a bomb in some way or another we are all in danger.
In my opinion, all weapons of mass destruction should be proliferated in all countries. Nuclear weapons in WWII changed how we fought in wars forever. Because of the introduction of the nuclear bomb , the US had an advantage over the Japanese. They used the bombs to attack both Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Because of the nuclear bomb over 300,000 civilians were injured. Some of which still suffer from the aftermath of the bombing. I don't think that the use of weapons of mass destruction should be justified because when they do drop these bombs, not only do we kill or hurt "enemy" we kill and injure many innocent people. One modern day example of this is the accusation that the Middle East have weapons of mass destruction. Although may countries have WMD we are currently at war which makes us more susceptible to be targeted if they were to ever use these weapons. No matter how many treaties we try to sign or how many alliances we form, as long as there a nuclear bombs in the world we are all in danger. Because if one country drops a bomb in some way or another we are all in danger.
Post a Comment