Topic:hijack
It has been claimed that aircraft hijacking is a contagious phenomenon. The motivation to hijack aircrafts spreads from one individual to another, as a result of media coverage of hijacking incidents. Unlike hijacking of land vehicles or ships, skyjacking is usually not perpetrated in order to rob the cargo. Rather, most aircraft hijackings are committed to use the passengers as hostages in an effort to obtain transportation to a given location, to hold them for ransom. In this case, it is used for the release of comrades being held in prison.
Hijackings for hostages have usually followed a pattern of negotiations between the hijackers and the authorities, followed by some form of settlement, not always meeting the hijacker’s demands. The United States government will not give into terrorist holding official or private U.S. citizen’s hostage. It will not pay ransom, release prisoners, change its policies, or agree to other acts that might encourage additional terrorism. A new law gives authorities the power to order hijacked airliners shot down as a post September 11 measure that underscores growing terrorism concerns. The law allows the defense minister or air force chief to order the downing of civilian or military aircraft whose hijackers refuse to land.
What happens in the event that a passenger aircraft is hijacked? If the plane is already hijacked is there anything the crew can do or is it up to the f-16’s at this point? The top priority is always to bring the plane down safely along with everyone on board. If that can’t be done, then the priority becomes doing no harm to the people on the ground.
When it comes to making a decision that could directly affect if someone lives or dies is and always will be difficult one. In this case the hijackers want their comrade released from prison. The United States will not comply with the releasing of prisoners. If the hijackers still will not comply with landing the plane I would give the order to fire upon the plane. First I would try to disable the plane and hope for a miracle landing. If the plane still poses a threat while being brought down, I would then give the order to destroy the plane.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
who is to decide?
Topic: Right or wrong
When it comes to being right or wrong I think you have to make the decision for yourself. Only you can interpret from your own perception what’s right or wrong. The process of deciding what is right or wrong dealing with certain issues is tough, because not all issues are going to have a right or wrong answer.
I guess you could call me a moral relativist. Relativism is sometimes identified as the thesis that all points of view are equally valid. It implies to saying that all moralities are equally good. They all assert that moral values, beauty, knowledge, and meaning are relative to some particular standpoint. They all deny that any standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.
I am not an absolutism, because they believe that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged. If you are absolutism you believe there is a right and wrong answer to everything. I just can not agree with that, because under certain circumstances or other situations there is no right or wrong answer.
Who is to decide what is right and what is wrong? Everyday you go threw life and people try to tell you what is wrong and what is right. When you listen to other people’s point of view you can make your own perception of what is right or wrong. There are some things in life that you should know are wrong, like stealing or murder. If you do something that’s wrong and know it, does that make it right? It might be your right to do as you please, but it is still wrong. When you do things that are right you know it before you do it, and it applies the same way for being wrong.Take abortion for example, there is so many different opinions about abortion that nobody can put a firm belief that it is right or wrong. There are so many different circumstances that are brought up when it comes to this issue. Essentially abortion is based on one of two beliefs: Human life in the form of an ovum and spermatozoon, becomes a human person at the instant of conception. On the other hand, it states that human life becomes a human person after conception, perhaps when the fetus looks human, or becomes sentient, or is functioning independent of its mother. There are also concerns like weather an abortion is good or bad for the woman in her specific situation. Under what conditions, if any, should the government step in and veto a woman’s decision to have an abortion, and force her to have birth.
When it comes to being right or wrong I think you have to make the decision for yourself. Only you can interpret from your own perception what’s right or wrong. The process of deciding what is right or wrong dealing with certain issues is tough, because not all issues are going to have a right or wrong answer.
I guess you could call me a moral relativist. Relativism is sometimes identified as the thesis that all points of view are equally valid. It implies to saying that all moralities are equally good. They all assert that moral values, beauty, knowledge, and meaning are relative to some particular standpoint. They all deny that any standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.
I am not an absolutism, because they believe that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged. If you are absolutism you believe there is a right and wrong answer to everything. I just can not agree with that, because under certain circumstances or other situations there is no right or wrong answer.
Who is to decide what is right and what is wrong? Everyday you go threw life and people try to tell you what is wrong and what is right. When you listen to other people’s point of view you can make your own perception of what is right or wrong. There are some things in life that you should know are wrong, like stealing or murder. If you do something that’s wrong and know it, does that make it right? It might be your right to do as you please, but it is still wrong. When you do things that are right you know it before you do it, and it applies the same way for being wrong.Take abortion for example, there is so many different opinions about abortion that nobody can put a firm belief that it is right or wrong. There are so many different circumstances that are brought up when it comes to this issue. Essentially abortion is based on one of two beliefs: Human life in the form of an ovum and spermatozoon, becomes a human person at the instant of conception. On the other hand, it states that human life becomes a human person after conception, perhaps when the fetus looks human, or becomes sentient, or is functioning independent of its mother. There are also concerns like weather an abortion is good or bad for the woman in her specific situation. Under what conditions, if any, should the government step in and veto a woman’s decision to have an abortion, and force her to have birth.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
philosophial ideas
topic: perception
Gorgia's main philosophial ideas were nothing exists, If anything does exist it is unknowable, if anything can be known it is incommunicable. He argues that only being exists, and becoming is not at all. Beings must have a beginning either from being or non-being. If itis from being, then there is no beginning. A beginning from non-being is implossible. If something comes from something, then there's no beginning, and something cant come from nothing. Either way, nothing exists of anything in existence being unknowable is "part and parcel". The object can only be percieved, but different perceptions will not agree with one another, and the truth about the object will remain unknown.
Socrates uses of critical reasoning, and through the vivid example of his of his own life, Socrates set the standard for all subsquent western philosopy. Destroying the illusion that we already comprehend the world perfectly and honestly accepting the fact of our own ignorance. Socrates belived that the vital steps toward our own acquistion of genuine knowledge, by discovering universal definitions of the key concepts governing human life. Socrates refuses the superfical notion of piety as doing whatever is pleasing to the gods. Efforts to define moralityby refference to any eternal authority, he argued, inevitably founder in a significant logical dilemma about the orign of the good. Socrates said that knowledge and virtue are so closely related that no human agent ever knowlingly does evil, we are invariably do what we believe to be best. Improper conduct, then, can only be a product of our ignorance rather than a sympton of weakness of will. The same view is also defended in the protagoras, along with the belief that all of the virtues must be cultivated together.
Gorgias has good philosophial ideas, but I would have to agree more with socrates. Gorgias perception is that all people will percive things differently. Socrates agrees with the same issue, but he believed that vital steps toward our genuine knowledge by discovering universal definitions of the key concepts governing human life.
Gorgia's main philosophial ideas were nothing exists, If anything does exist it is unknowable, if anything can be known it is incommunicable. He argues that only being exists, and becoming is not at all. Beings must have a beginning either from being or non-being. If itis from being, then there is no beginning. A beginning from non-being is implossible. If something comes from something, then there's no beginning, and something cant come from nothing. Either way, nothing exists of anything in existence being unknowable is "part and parcel". The object can only be percieved, but different perceptions will not agree with one another, and the truth about the object will remain unknown.
Socrates uses of critical reasoning, and through the vivid example of his of his own life, Socrates set the standard for all subsquent western philosopy. Destroying the illusion that we already comprehend the world perfectly and honestly accepting the fact of our own ignorance. Socrates belived that the vital steps toward our own acquistion of genuine knowledge, by discovering universal definitions of the key concepts governing human life. Socrates refuses the superfical notion of piety as doing whatever is pleasing to the gods. Efforts to define moralityby refference to any eternal authority, he argued, inevitably founder in a significant logical dilemma about the orign of the good. Socrates said that knowledge and virtue are so closely related that no human agent ever knowlingly does evil, we are invariably do what we believe to be best. Improper conduct, then, can only be a product of our ignorance rather than a sympton of weakness of will. The same view is also defended in the protagoras, along with the belief that all of the virtues must be cultivated together.
Gorgias has good philosophial ideas, but I would have to agree more with socrates. Gorgias perception is that all people will percive things differently. Socrates agrees with the same issue, but he believed that vital steps toward our genuine knowledge by discovering universal definitions of the key concepts governing human life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)