Blog Post #4-- Affirmative Action

My views on Affirmative Action: If there were no reason to place a policy into the United States law systems which guarantees that people of color, females, and other minorities will have equality in the workplace and in higher education, then there will be no affirmative Action. People were being discriminated against and denied rights to essential duties of life. How else should America make up for it’s lost cause? Affirmative action derived from that very place where guilt did, and opened up opportunities to those discriminated against.

On page 225 in Why Affirmative Action is Immoral, by Louis P. Pojman quotes Dr. Martin L. King with the mounting the hoarse phrase. Pojman made an analogy to that saying that we, the US, are mounting the horse for minorities to obtain jobs, but we are falling off of the other side because white males aren’t able to get any jobs. America mounted the hoarse in their hopes of keeping African American’s and females (in civil movement times) oppressed when they created the quarter of a person law, Jim Crow laws, anti-women voting rights, and all kinds of other madness. Thus, they fell off on the other side when they started realizing that people needed aid to survive (such as welfare, housing assistance, WIC, and all other programs the nation complain about having to pay), that they couldn’t obtain without a job. They also realized they fell off on the other side when they realized that its citizens aren’t all voting due to deprivation of even wanting certain people to know about politics and therefore keeping them uneducated about making changes in society.

As stated in her article, Judith Jarvis Thomson touched upon three debts that she explains should be paid back: debts of gratitude, debts of creditors, and debts to someone you have wronged.

So what is preferential hiring? According to Judith Jarvis Thomson, it is the feeling of wanting to give a person a chance because he or she has been deprived in a sense that the giver feels he/she must help put back (377). But isn’t the definition of preference the choosing of one’s liking? Affirmative Action does not create preferential hiring, but probably guilt hiring. Prejudice people will prefer to hire who they want to. People who understands the law will hire someone because they feel that that person should have a chance at doing something he/she wants to.

Gun Rights

Kathleen Abouzeide

Mike Tully

William Meza-Vasquez

Brandon Wood

Gun Rights

            Americans are taught from a very early age what their rights as American citizens are. The public, or most specifically conservatives argue against gun control policies simply because these policies slightly modify this amendment. Secondly, we have the idea that one must protect one's family and property. Some rather be safe than sorry. Another self interest are gun enthusiasts, people that collect weapons and feel as if they shouldn't be restricted to what kind of weapons they are capable of acquiring.

Sadly we have gone through many gun related tragedies recently (i.e. Sandy Hook massacre, Aurora Theater massacre) and these events have led to the uprising of a series of gun control policies and massive popular acclaimed protests. Citizens are becoming more aware of the present issue due to social media. Should this second amendment really be a right for any born American? Or should it be a privilege to those who are capable of handling harmful arms.

Our group feels that there should not be a complete restriction on guns.  Rather there should be a process in which one must take in order to own a gun to set up limits on who can own a gun and what type of gun they can own.  The process should include how to use a gun, teach the dangers on guns, and a background check on the individual who is acquiring the gun.  This will set a restriction and lower the number of gun holders.  Persons caught violating this should have to pay a fine and or lose their permits.  This process will not fully restrict access to guns but will allow for requirements to be met in order to obtain one, making sure that the guns are in safe hands and not just with anybody.

The individual interests of gun ownership may be one or more of many things. A person who wants or owns a firearm may want it as a collector's item, or maybe they want it for sport, or hunting. Perhaps they live in a dangerous area or work a dangerous job and need it in order to ensure their own safety. Or rather, maybe they want one just for the closure of knowing they have a means of personal protection. And, less commonly talked about, another big reason for private gun ownership is the prevention and/or defense against tyranny.

One reason we believe that people should be able to own guns is because people feel safe with owning a gun so they can use it in self defense.  Take for example if someone’s house was broken into and there was a person robbing it.  If the homeowner had access to a gun it could be used in self-defense in a situations like this.  It wouldn’t necessarily have to be fired it could be used as an intimidation tool to rid their home of the intruder.

It would also be unsafe to take away guns from owners. Many guns that are owned are not registered, they are owned illegally.  Guns can be taken away, but will still be out there.  This will leave non-gun owners as easy prey to be attacked. 

We also believe that people should have to take a class on gun ownership in order to own a gun.  Education on guns would lead to less violence and less accidents.  Also if people knew how dangerous guns can be it would make them think about how to be more safe with their gun.

For some people guns are used for recreation in hunting and shooting.  In some areas hunting is a major part of their culture.  To take guns away would be taking away from their way of life. 

Gun Rights

Cooper Dubuque

Alexa True 

Thounsa Kerse

Damon

Gun Rights

  Guns are a significant part of traditional American hobbies.  The American people use guns for sporting purposes that range from hunting, to gun ranges and skeet shooting.  It is also clear that some Americans do not want to possess guns solely for the purpose of sport, many feel it is necessary to obtain guns for protection and it’s their constitutional right to do so. Guns also provide a check against government tyranny as an armed citizenry. Unfortunately guns are also used unlawfully every day which has put these traditions at risk of termination. 

    Too take guns away entirely would be unconstitutional and unethical, however there are some precautions that can be taken to attempt to protect the American people while still allowing them rights to their guns.  For example, background checks before gun registration would make it more difficult for criminals and the mentally ill to get ahold of guns and potentially use them for violence.  Those who use guns for sport or protection would not be affected negatively by this.  Also, limiting magazine capacity is an effective but nonintrusive contribution to the fight against mass shootings. When someone is set on doing harm they will find ways to do it, restricting gun laws only harms those citizens who acquire guns through legal channels for justified purposes. according to FBI crime statistics more people die from clubbing deaths then actual causaulities from rifles (http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-rights/2013/01/03/fbi-more-people-killed-hammers-clubs-each-year-rifles). 

    With that said, our group believes that people should be allowed to bear arms, but would be limited magazines and limited to handguns and certain shotguns. We feel that while it's hard to limit people to only a limited amount of guns and magazines, it also wouldn't make sense if people were allowed to get as many magazines or any type of gun they would like. If the intention was truly to be for protection, a person wouldn't need access to medium to long ranged weapons. As mentioned before, government tyranny is a possible motive for bearing arms. If the population is stripped of its defenses, then it would mean we are totally susceptible to the government if something or someone became corrupt. We feel that while the opposition to allowing people to have guns is that the crime rate may increase, we think that criminals will find a way to get guns regardless if they are legal are not, and even if it’s not guns, if someone wants to kill someone bad enough they will find a way. People often talk about the dangers of gun violence when there are many other more frequent types of violence.

GUN CONTROL!

Gun Control
Luis Gallego
Julia Bruneau
Micheal Grava
Kyle Broderick

Gun Control

The individual interest in gun ownership varies greatly amongst our society.  Individuals are interested in owning guns for self-defense, recreation, and hunting.  In the case of self-defense, individuals want to be able to protect not only their own life, but their property as well.  This has been in the American culture since the birth of the nation.  For recreation, individuals buy guns to compete in shooting events which test an individual’s ability with a gun.  Hunting is more of a tradition, especially in rural areas. 

In our group we feel that we must do more to control the access to guns to individuals who are not fit to operate one.  One of the main controls that we must enforce is the psychological fortitude of an individual.   We should not allow people that have serious mental health problems to purchase weapons.  The problem is, what do we classify as mental health problem?  Is someone who suffers from depression really a danger to society or a danger to themselves?   It seems like in today’s age we have this social stigma that depressed people are dangerous. So the question is how far do we go?  How about those people that go on with their lives, and then one day just happen to snap?  A person like this would surely go unnoticed until it is too late.  So is testing for psychological disorders a proven science that we can rely on to weed out the good from the bad?  I think it would help the overall cause, but not eliminate it completely.

Some other controls that we can implement would be to improve the technology in weapons.  One idea would be to have some sort of identification system in the actual weapon that will render the weapon useless unless it is the actual owner of the weapon who is using it.  For example, have some sort of technology that requires something tailored to you, like a finger print, in order to use the weapon.  Mandatory training should also be enforced for anyone to own a weapon.  There are a lot of deaths in the  US due to negligence in the handling of weapons.  Having more training would help curb some of the accidental deaths caused by firearms. 

The last control is the fact of limiting the size of magazines.  We believe that magazines should be limited to about 12 rounds.  There is no logical explanation that I can think of, on why an individual would need so many rounds at one time.  In hunting you are not going to shoot the animal 30 plus times; one well aimed shot is all it takes.  Luis, served in the military, and because of his training he claims that anyone could change magazine in less than two seconds with enough practice.  However, most people that go on shooting rampages might not have this skill, and those two seconds while they reload is enough time for someone to stop an individual.

The fact that the US is a stable country allows our society to discuss such issues.  I agree with the fact that we cannot pass one piece of legislature that will get rid of all gun violence.  The problem I believe lies within our society.  Our kids are being exposed to violence everywhere they go.  One of the biggest causes has to be video games.  How many video games are out there that are all about shooting guns?  All those video games have a mature rating, which means you must be over 18 years old to purchase them.  However parents still buy them for their kids.  So the real issue I think is that we as a society are losing our moral, and must make an extra effort to educate our children and instill in them that guns are dangerous, and they are not to be thought of simply as an object used for “fun.”

Based on the definition, “the state and taxation should be as small as possible since the only purpose of the govern is protecting our lives and property” our argument leans more towards a libertarianism tendencies in that we do not feel that the government should be able to restrict access to gun. Liberationists do not believe that drugs should be regulated by the government therefore they would feel the same way about gun control.

When it comes down to it, an individual’s right to own a firearm is important for more than say, protecting yourself from a home intruder, for more than sport shooting or hunting a free meal for your family.  It is this amendment which allows every single person, with exception to those mentally ill or drawn to crime, to be given just as much power over another’s life as those which may choose to do them harm. Having this sort of power and choosing not to use it is what needs to be taught to each and every gun owner, in order for gun laws to be respected and used as they were intended.

Alexandra Spencer

Sarah Fay

Jeff Latimer

Eric Urena

Gun Rights

            Gun rights are a very controversial issue in our country especially now that more regulations are being put in place. Our group agreed that there should be some gun restrictions allowing for more safety for the people owning the gun and for the non-owners.  First there should be more education on guns. Potential gun owners should have to go through intensive courses to be able to obtain permits and to be able to have a concealed weapon on you. Having these precautions will also help increase safety by guns accidentally going off and will also increase the respect and knowledge for the dangerous weapon. A person should also be 18 or older to be able to buy and/or carry a gun. A person under 18 needs to have a parent or guardian with a valid license with them when hunting or shooting targets, etc. These rules are good for smaller guns like hand held pistols or hunting rifles. Everyday citizens should not be able to have access to large or military grade weapons only people who are in active duty or retired military personnel with the proper credentials. In order to obtain any weapon along with the classes, people should go through intensive physiological screenings with references so that guns to not end up in the wrong hands.

            Many people argue that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. While this is true, this belief severely downplays the fact that guns are incredibly dangerous and can end a life in a split second. Guns should be treated with a healthy balance of fear and respect. One might argue that if guns are banned that a criminal would just find other means to their ends. This ignores the fact that guns were created for the sole purpose of killing a living thing, whether it is in defense or sport. While we do support the 2^nd amendment, we believe that there needs to be a solid education and medical evaluations before handling such a potentially dangerous weapon. Lastly, every human being has the right to defend themselves. Many of the steps taken in gun control so far have only affected law abiding citizens. Whether it’s legal or not, if someone wants to get their hands on a gun they will find a way. If making things illegal actually stopped everyone, we wouldn’t be fighting a war on drugs today. 

Gun Control, Group Blog Post #2

Luis Gallego
Julia Bruneau
Micheal Grava
Kyle Broderick

Gun Control

The individual interest in gun ownership varies greatly among our society. Individuals are interested in owning guns for self-defense, recreation, and hunting. In the case of self-defense, individuals want to be able to protect individual life and property. This has been in the American culture since the birth of the nation. For recreation, individuals buy guns to compete in shooting events that test an individuals ability with a gun. Hunting is more of a tradition, specially in rural areas.

In our group we feel, that we must do more to control the access to guns to individuals who are not fit to operate one. One of the main controls that we must enforce, is the psychological fortitude of an individual. We should not allow people that have serious metal health problems to purchase weapons. The problem is what do we classify as mental health problem? Is someone who suffers from depression really a danger to society or a danger to themselves? It seems like in today's age we have this social stigma that depressed people are dangerous. So the question is how far do we go? How about those people that go on with their lives, and then one event causes them to snap? A person like this would surely go unnoticed until it is too late. So is testing for psychological disorders a proven science that we can rely on to weed out the good from the bad? I think it would help the overall cause, but not eliminate it completely.

Some other controls that we can implement would be to improve the technology in weapons. One idea would be to have some sort of identification system in the actual weapon that will render the weapon useless unless it is the actual owner of the weapon who is using it. For example, have some sort of technology that requires something tailored to you, like a finger print, in order to use the weapon. Mandatory training should also be enforced for anyone to own a weapon. There is a lot of deaths in the US due to negligence in the handling of weapons. Having more training would help curb some of the accidental deaths caused by firearms.

The last control is the fact of limiting the size of magazines. We believe that magazines should be limited to about 12 rounds. There is no logical explanation that I can think of, on why an individual would need so many rounds at one time. In hunting you are not going to shoot the animal 30 plus times; one well aimed shot is all it takes. Luis, served in the military, and because of his training he claims that anyone could change magazine in under two seconds with enough practice. However most people that go on shooting rampages might not have this skill, and those two seconds while they reload is enough time for someone to stop an individual.

The fact that the US is a stable country allows our society to discuss such issues. I agree with the fact that we cannot pass one piece of legislature that will get rid of all gun violence. The problem I believe lies within our society. Our kids are being exposed to violence everywhere they go. One of the biggest causes has to be video games. How many video games are out there that are all about shooting guns? All those video games have a mature rating, which means you must be over 18 years old to purchase them. However parents still buy them for their kids. So the real issue I think is that we as a society are loosing our moral, and must make an extra effort to educate our children and instill in them that guns are dangerous, and they are not to be thought of simply as an object used for “fun.”

Based on the definition, “the state and taxation should be as small as possible since the only purpose of the government is protecting our lives and property.” Our argument leans more towards  liberal tendencies, in that we do not feel that the government should be able to restrict access to gun. Liberticians do not believe that drugs should be regulated by the government therefore they would feel the same way about gun control.

Gun rights

 Group: Tori Murphy,Aaron ,Mads Larsen,Iesha Stroud      

               I personally grew up with a father who was a hunter and used his right to bear arms for a sport. Also he would take his game home and we would use the resources and eat the meat, whether it be deer or a pheasant. I think we should be able to have guns but with restrictions. We live in a nation where guns are already distributed in the wrong hands, not having protection is dangerous. We need to make tougher restrtictions to make sure these guns aren't going in the hands of malicious citizens with the wrong intent. 

               Our group believes that guns should be restricted because of the recent events stemming from school shootings, drugs wars, and gang activity. We do think entirely that gun screenings should be continued before a man or woman purchases a gun permit. Also with restrictions, guns in homes should be thoroughly locked up and hidden from family members especially children. Many violent crimes or by mistake killings are from children finding the guns of their parents and with no knowledge of how to use the weapon by mistake shooting it and hurting a loved one. Mads who is from Norway grew up in a society where guns weren’t as dominate in his culture as is in our American culture. America has been this society based off our 2ndamendment stating that we do have the right to bear arms. ”A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. So undoubtedly we are more comfortable around the idea of having guns for protection and sport. Also with so many recent school shootings, school systems need to step up their protection with metal detectors and armed police officers on campus. We discussed gun rights in context of size and capability. We came to the conclusion that guns should be no bigger than a hand gun and no over abundance of gun power. Bullets should be minimized in purchases and bullets that explode when entered into a body should have no reason to be distributed. A man buying a gun for protection should not be allowed to purchase military power guns, or any type of sniper rifle or a silencer for guns. Guns should only be used and obeyed by our 2ndamendment and for protection.

Gun Control Laws

Jackie Faugno

Tonishia Signore

Michael Flanagan

Michael Mauriello

 

Group Blog Post #2

 

Our group thinks that the individual interests in gun ownership could be for safety, to protect yourself as well as your family and other personal property. Some people shoot for sport and hunting, your job may require you to hold one if you are a security guard or a police officer. Other gun owners simply have guns because they like to collect old and rare weapons. One of the social costs of guns could be deaths of innocent people. There is also the chance of someone who is mentally unstable gaining access to a weapon that was not stored properly, and using it to harm others. Someone who was raised in a negative environment that included a lot of violence and guns would become desensitized to violence and would be more likely to use a gun and resort to violence. Our groups view about gun control is that there should definitely be more restrictions as to who can and cannot buy guns. Background checks should be required for everyone who purchases a gun whether it is at a gun show, at a store, or online. Any signs of mental instability should raise red flags, as well as any prior convictions. Employment status should also be a deciding factor as to whether an individual can purchase a gun or not. It should be required that an individual should be at least 18 years old and a complete citizen of the United States. They should then have to go through proper gun training every few years, and they should have to also renew their gun license every few years. There should also be limits as to how many guns a single person can own, as well as what type of gun it is, and how many rounds of ammunition they can buy throughout the year. Our group believes that there needs to be a longer waiting period from when you apply to get your gun license to when you actually receive it; at least 2-3 months. Our arguments for stricter gun laws would include national tragedies. Since the tragic incidents at Columbine in 1999, there have been 31 U.S. school shootings alone (thinkprogress.org). This excludes other public locations such as, malls and movie theatres. Accidental deaths are also an argument for gun control, which goes without saying, as well as the deaths of innocent people. On a positive note, gun control would be an easy way to lower crime rates. People argue that there would be no other way to protect their families and property, but there are Tasers available and pepper spray and mace are easily available and easy to conceal. These are just as effective at subduing an assailant as a gun. Our final argument for gun control is that the 2^nd Amendment, which gives us the right to bear arms, was written in 1791. At this time the guns that were available were single shot weapons, they were not automatic. You would have to physically load each individual bullet into the gun. It was also a time when self-protection was in your own hands, and your life depended on it. There was no way for you to call for help if you were in trouble. With today’s advancements in technology and weaponry, our laws need to be modified and changed accordingly.           

Social Identity and Moral Responsibility

The societies in which we live in play an indirect role in determining our personalities and who we become as individuals. This is because our societies can throw us into situations that force us to make decisions that clearly end up shaping our personalities. For example, a person who spends all of his life in a wealthy society is less likely to have to decide between selling drugs in order to pay rent and being homeless while a person who is not as privileged and lives in the projects may have to face this dilemma. This is not to say that if a person grows up in a poor society he will automatically grow into a man with poor morals and bad personality. It just means that this person who has been dealt difficult circumstances will be exposed to things that will be detrimental to his beliefs if he makes poor decisions.

Although our society plays a role in determining who we become as individuals, it is always in the hands of the person to decide what type of man he wants to become. Regardless of your circumstances, you will always be faced with a choice to either compromise or persevere. Your society does not force you to become what it wants you to be. As human beings, we make decisions that either improve or damage our ideologies. Two people from completely opposite societies can end up having identical morals, even if they don’t go through similar experiences, simply by knowing where to draw their line of what is permissible and what is not. For example, one person has friends who like to go to parties and drink while the other has friends who would rather play videogames and smoke. Both can easily decide, “I enjoy the company of my friends, so I’ll hang out with them, but I won’t drink/smoke”. As long as they draw their lines at the appropriate spot, they will grow up to have identical morals.

In a literal sense, it isn’t possible for society to determine who we become because we have to choose to let society to do so. If everyone in your town went out and bought a dog, although it may be the cultural norm to have a dog, you would still have a choice as to whether or not you will get a dog. There is no physical law that says, “If you don’t conform to society you will stop existing”. As rational and autonomous beings, we choose what affects us and what doesn’t affect us. We allow certain thoughts to manifest and become ideologies. This world can be defined as a chain reaction of choices. Society itself stems from choices made by our ancestors.

            There is nothing about my social environment that, in itself, shaped me as a person. Rather it forced me to make a decision about what type of person I wanted to become. For example, in 7^th grade, on the first day of being at a new school, I decided that I would say hi to whoever sat next to me in all of my classes. This was the first time that I would have different teachers for different subjects in different classes; prior to that I had one teacher who would teach every subject in one class. In one of my classes I met a kid who is now one of my best friends. Because of the decision I was forced to make given my social environment, this person is responsible for convincing me to play football for Hamden (we played pop warner and high school football together), introducing me to the friends I have now, and was also the first person to put a golf club in my hands. My social environment presented me choices; it did not force me to move in a certain direction.

Social identity does not affect moral responsibility. If you are able to help someone who is in need, you will always be morally obligated to help them. Going out of our way to look for someone in need so that you might help them is not a moral obligation. But when you are called upon to help and it is within your power, you become morally obligated to act. Whether you are poor, wealthy, tall, short, dark skinned, light skinned, etc. does not affect your obligation. You might be the poorest person in the world, destitute of proper clothing. But if you see someone drowning and there’s a rope right next to you that can reach them, and you have the strength to pull them to safety, you are morally obligated to help them. The key argument is that you must be called upon, able, and it must be within your power to help (ability and power are separate because, for example, a deaf person who isn’t looking in the direction of the person who is drowning has the power to help, but doesn’t have the ability to hear the person in need). Whether it is your family, friend, or stranger does not change your obligation. You are responsible to all people.

If you have two sweaters, knowing you can survive with one sweater, and someone asks you if you have a spare sweater, you are morally obligated to give them that sweater. You may be colder and less comfortable, but imagine that you didn’t give that sweater to the person in need, and that person never finds a sweater and freezes to death. Which would you prefer: to be less comfortable, or that a person dies because of your negligence? Many who oppose this view are the same people who refuse to give generously because they are afraid that they won’t be able to provide for themselves. That is why I am saying you must be qualified to help before helping. You must be able, and it must be within your power.

In addition to being qualified to help, your assistance must be called upon before you can become morally obligated to help. If you have one million dollars, but no one asks you for a cent, you are not morally obligated to assist anyone. It would be a good thing to go out of your way to look for someone to help, but your obligation is only initiated when someone in need calls upon you for assistance.

Clearly, social identity does not affect moral responsibility. Social identity can be characterized as wealth, political connections, economic opportunities, etc., but in many cases this does not affect our ability to help others and therefore does not affect our moral responsibility to others.

Gun Rights

Amanda Vergara, Marissa Ortiz, Taylor Chaturvedi, Jahmari Erkerd

Individuals benefit from owning a gun to protect themselves, for hobbies such as target shooting, and sports such as hunting. By owning a gun if an intruder came into your home you would be able to protect yourself without getting close to the intruder. A social cost would be a child finding a gun in the home and accidently shoot himself or someone around. The responsibility of owning a gun is making sure that others do not have access to the weapon and that the gun stored properly.  

                There should be more restrictions when it comes to gun ownership across the U.S. Some restrictions that should be put into place could be a longer permit process including a psychological evaluation. This will make sure that the people in possession of the gun are capable of making the right decisions when using a gun. There should be restrictions on the types of bullets that are accessible and also on the types weapons sold.

                Making a psychological evaluation mandatory would reduce the amount of permits given. When renewing a permit one should have to undergo another psych evaluation to make sure that the person is still in the right state of mind to own a gun. A person could have gone through a traumatic experience that can now make them a danger to themselves or others. This restriction should be enforced nationally to make sure that everyone has the same restrictions. People that sell guns should only sell guns in person and only to people with a valid permit. Selling guns to only permit holders should reduce the amount of guns owned by non-permit holders. People that do not have permits might not be qualified to possess a weapon. The sale of bullets should be restricted so that people do not have access to law enforcement or military grade weapons and ammunition. In order to purchase ammunition it should be done in person so that the gun permit will be checked.  Ultimately we are trying to reduce the amount of illegal weapon ownership and ammunition. It is impossible to prevent the ownership of illegal weapons and ammunition, but this could be a step in the right direction.

Social Identity

              Our social identities are shaped by many factors. The foundation is who or what influences us during our childhood. This is mostly family and school. When I was young, I was surrounded by very strong women. My mother and father both worked to support a comfortable lifestyle. Eventually, my mother was able to stay home with me and my older brother, but she was always very independent. I never got the sense that any job was specifically done by my mother or father. My dad liked to cook and my mom was handy enough to keep the house from falling apart. My grandmother was the same way. She never hesitates when the grass needs to be cut or if the roof needed to be re-shingled. Not only did they teach me good work ethic, but I never really felt that there were gender roles at all. The men and women in my family were equal. As I’ve grown, I’ve built on these values they’ve taught me. Although their lessons were valuable, some of their values are somewhat “old fashioned”. I do consider myself a feminist, and I believe that every human being has equal rights. I was introduced to new ideas through my peers but I agree with them very easily. I’ve grown to reject the idea that tradition is a valid argument in any situation.

               How far does social responsibility extend? I believe it should go quite far. We may not start from the same place, but if we support each other we could greatly help our society. For example, if a woman advances far in a legistative or other prestigious job where it is harder for women to advance as opposed to men, I believe it is her responsibility to support other women so they may achieve what she has. It would be wrong to deny your success to others who have struggled the same.

Aaron Edwards

Does society really shape us?

Society in much ways does shape individuals into the people they are today. But at the same time I do believe that we as people can also divine our-self without relying on society to define us. From an early age some ideas are placed in kids mind to be some type of character in today society. I remember as kid having certain career figures come in and try plot little seeds in are head on who to be in life. From teacher, parents, and older figures would say stay in school and school is your key to success. Also with the discipline in parents and teacher telling you in what way your suppose to act. So at that age growing up I wasn't all way my own individual. So my identity is still question but as older I got begun able to define my own identity. 

Realizing that I am my own person and can’t always allow society to say what kind of person I will become. But also being able to use both sides of using society and your individual view make your identity. But being that I live in america I can use America as a example because here I have freedom speech and that way makes me be able to make my own identity but also be able to see what society may portray my identity as a person to be. I’m the person in somewhat way today because of society says but have my own identity I made over the years of growing u

p.

Society shapes us.

Society starts giving each individual a role at a very early age, and up to this day of age. We have kindergarten teachers, teaching little boys about a fireman’s job. A role that is very aggressive, manly. In contrast, little girls tend to have a more nurturing role. They are giving roles as nurses, they’re even provided with dolls that highly resemble babies. As a matter of fact, the toy industry tries to make these baby dolls as “real” as possible. Some burp, some cry, some blink. All in all, society engraves a role onto you.

Personally, I consider myself to be shaped by society. However, it’s a little more complex. Being born in another country has impacted my ideology. Born and raised in a catholic state, in conflicted government, with peers from African decent has shaped me very differently. For once, I am atheist. Something very uncommon within the Hispanic community. I tend to sympathize more for a liberal – socialist system. I’ve lived in poverty, and the amount of aid the government once provided helped many people in what we call social mobility. Moving to America has made me a very tolerable person regarding controversial social issues.  Something many Hispanic males aren’t. Although, I was raised old fashioned by my grandparents, in a way I am “machista”. Which brings tons of problems interpersonally. But it’s not to the extreme where I automatically think less of the opposite gender. I practice chivalry daily.  At a young age I was introduced to the Peruvian society, which makes the old fashion me. Later on in life, I assimilated the tolerance and freedom from the American society. Society shaped my beliefs, my ideology, and my life.

I early stated that I practice chivalry on a daily basis. If I can help someone, and this aid does not have a greater disadvantage on me. I will willingly help even a stranger. I don’t believe in coercive responsibilities, no such thing as a moral responsibility. Whatever kind of effort to overview an individual’s welfare should come out of one’s will.

Moral Responsibility

I think human identity is majorly influenced by society and minorly on self. When born we are closely knitted to a society chose by our parents. Traditions, language, and culture is grasped and the child grows up in a society that is surrounded by a media of capitalism. The self part is ones brain interpreted through knowledge and personal opinions.  My society growing up was big on sports. All my friends were playing town sports and all my parents friends were signing their kids up for the towns leagues for softball and basketball. Without my dad and my friends I probably wouldn't have played sports for the next 12 years and on and off into my 20's. if I had lived in a city or a low poverty neighborhood maybe I wouldn't have ever played either sports. 

My personal  persuasion was of me was choosing my major in college and also in the long run choosing my career. I went to college and took electives chosen by myself to find out a interest for school. I read the curriculum and was fancied by sociology. I later made it my major and what I want to do for perhaps the rest of my life. During this choice of career I did not ask nor tell any of my friends or family on my choice and educated myselfon the topics sociology depicts.

Inconclusion, to an extent both society and self influence ones moral responsibility. Parents should be given gratitude, respect, and security for their children as a thank you for helping create who you are. Unless they have affected who you are in negative ways that are of substantial abuse. In other cases whoever raised you and sculpted you should also be thanked and looked after which could be distant family or close friends.