Philosophy

In the essay Zero Tolerance by Gary Bauslaugh, the author argued that the concept of Zero Tolerance has diverged greatly from its beginnings in regards to law enforcement, and school discipline. Bauslaugh presents this argument in terms of Mad Cow Disease He claims that when problems arose with Mad Cow Disease, any cow that presented a threat was eliminated, even if there was no evidence that the cow was diseased.

Bauslaugh argues that much as with Mad Cow Disease, zero tolerance that is not moderated by the lawn, and balanced by the facts, creates an environment in which discrimination and runs rampant. This secondary argument is also applied to Mad Cow disease as Bauslaugh presents the case of a farming family that had their entire herd of dairy water buffalo confiscated by the Canadian government upon it being revealed that a single cow in Denmark (where the water buffalo had been imported from) had died of Mad Cow Disease. The animals belonging to this family were executed and the family was given no recompense for their losses.

Zero Tolerance is argued by Bauslaugh to be a negative thing. Zero Tolerance creates intolerance, most specifically when it is applied to cases that it did not originally apply to such as dairy farming rather than criminal justice. Bauslaughs final argument states that the intent of zero tolerance regulations is not, in fact, to make people feel safer, or to ensure that the laws are enforced, but, to present a positive image for politicians to their public.

Bauslaugh presents a logical, well thought out argument. He uses terms that everyone can understand, and backs up his claims with clearly presented evidence, using a case that many of his readers would have read about. Bauslaugh depicts zero tolerance not only in terms of cause e.g. why zero tolerance policies are put in place (Mad Cow Disease) but effect e.g. what happens when zero  tolerance policies are unjust (having your water buffalo herd confiscated and killed, resulting in a loss of income). This casts Bauslaughs argument in a positive light. Not only does he back up his claims with fact, but, he shows the consequences of zero tolerance policies on the people who come into contact with these policies.

Overall, Bauslaugh presents a good argument. His opinions are supported and he uses evidence that is congruent with what he is arguing about. His argument may seem slightly slanted because of his own beliefs on zero tolerance policies but his evidence is sound, and his arguments are logical. They progress from Zero Tolerance policies have negative effects on society under all circumstances, including those they were originally intended for to zero tolerance policies have a negative effect on farming and agriculture when applied to Mad Cow Disease. Bauslaugh related his arguments to this in order to present an example that everyone could understand.

It can be claimed that Bauslaughs arguments were valid. Not simply because the evidence he presented supported his claims, but, because there is other evidence outside of Bauslaughs argument that supports his claims that zero tolerance regulations are unfair, discriminatory and only help the politicians that put them in place. This makes Bauslaughs arguments even more believable than had there only been that single case in which zero tolerance policies had been applied in an unfair and unjust manner.

Bauslaugh presents strong evidence in this essay. Zero tolerance is wrong because it is unjust. This is supported when he states that case of farmers who have had their dairy herds confiscated because of mad cow disease. He then presents several examples from a specific case in which zero tolerance policies were wrongly applied. This only serves to support his conclusion that zero tolerance policies only serve to support the interests of politicians rather than protecting innocent people as they were designed to do.

The main weakness in Bauslaughs argument is that he leaves his conclusion open. How does zero tolerance benefit politicians rather than helping people, and why do zero tolerance policies fail to do what they were designed to do  These were two questions that could have been answered in the summation of his argument, or supported in the summation of his argument that he failed to answer.

Bauslaugh does meet the three conditions of argument according to Goviers concept of ARG. Arguments are presented in clear easy language so that they are easy to find an analyze. There is evidence that supports that argument that is both applicable and credible and he clearly supports each sub-argument with evidence. The evidence stands up to evaluation as being factual and truthful. Therefore it can be claimed that Bauslaugh presents a powerful argument.

It can be concluded that Bauslaughs argument against zero tolerance policies met the three characteristics of a standardized argument. He presented his case clearly and succinctly and his evidence was presented in a fashion that made the argument both understandable to a lay person, and credible. It can be further stated that Bauslaugh sets his arguments up in the standard method with his main argument presented in the first paragraph and his sub-arguments presented in the preceding paragraphs. The only weakness in an otherwise strong argument was the failure to answer several key questions in the context of his argument. But, this can be somewhat excused by the fact that this information was presented in the context of a short essay.

In this paper I will be presenting a summary of the basic argument for skepticism, then examining both Descartes and Moores presentations of arguments against skepticism.  Finally, I will conclude by defending skepticism and arguing against the presentations placed by Descartes and Moore. 

The basic argument for skepticism is that if you assert to know something, such as knowing that there is a God, you would need to rule out all of the alternatives. 

While you can start ruling out alternatives, the number of alternatives is infinite so you can never rule out all of the alternatives. 

In this case, the premise is that in order to know something, one would need to rule out all of the alternatives.   This statement we could accept because the number of alternatives is impossible to count, as it is infinite.
   
Another way to think about this is by making a statement that there is said to be a gold wrapped candy bar somewhere in the world with a special stamp, but that there are so many candy bars in the world and that there are so many candy bars being made.
   
That if a person tried to count them all and peel open every candy bar they would never reach the end.  Of course this is assuming that candy bars will continue to be made as people will continue to want to consume candy bars.

The conclusion to the premise would then be that it is impossible to know something when all the alternatives could not be ruled out. 

Cartesians approach to skepticism that if one is in a sensory state of even being entirely deceived and able to hold nothing for certain. 

There is still a deep cognizance of the self, that in order to be deceived, in order to think that he is being deceived, he must exist.  It is true because even if the alternative, that he is hallucinating he exists were proposed, it is disproved by the very experience of being deceived. 

In this case, the premise would be   I am and I exist     It is supported by the assertion that as long as he thinks that he exists, he must exist even if he is being deceived.  As much as he may be deceived, he must exist if he is thinking and is then able to be deceived.  In conclusion, something can be substantiated and even instantaneously true.  That this something is true even if the alternative that it was just a delusion is true.  In the case of a man who believes that he has died, the act of thinking that he has died necessarily imposes upon the man that he should be certain that he exists. 

The evidence for the first premise, that a man believes he exists, is that a man is thinking and challenging whether or not he exists which means that he must exist.  As someone who does not exist could not be thinking that or having it pass through their mind. 

The evidence for the second premise, that a statement of thinking about thinking makes existence instantaneous as it is impossible for the property of existence to exist if there are no people who exist. 

Some criticism would be that the  I  cannot be taken for granted, something can be thinking but it cannot hold the property of the  I.   That thinking is and can always be thought without a person, an  I  thinking it.
   
A dog for example, is not capable of saying  I think its raining.   However, a dog, with sensory perceptions, can be looking out the window and not go out the door.  The owner then, can say, the dog must be thinking its raining so that it is not choosing to go outside.

Moores argument for skepticism is as seemingly simple as extending a hand.  There is a hand that is being extended, there is another hand to be extended, therefore, there are at least two external objects in the world. 

The Premises would be that there is a physicality, a hand, that a person possessing two hands can extend the other hand.  That these two hands constitute to external objects in the world. 

If a person extends one hand and knows that they have another, they know that there are two objects in the world. 

With two external objects shown to be external to the mind, there is a world in which these two objects are shown. The conclusion must be that there is a world, an external world which exists.

A criticism would be that there may be a world, but that one could be hallucinating the other hand.  A person who has had one hand amputated, holds out one hand, it is there, but does not have the other hand. 

They may hallucinate the other hand, as its not there, its no longer in the world.  But the man is so accustomed to seeing the other hand and cannot bear life without the other hand so the man hallucinates it. 

Returning back to my assessment of the long-standing debate on skepticism, I would accept the premises of the Basic argument for skepticism and accept that I am a skeptic. 

My issue with Descartes argument is as follows  A person could be thinking things about the world but be deceived about who they are.  If descartes is thinking that he is descartes but really is stuck in the body of a dog, the dog can be thinking but its thinking says nothing about the world apart from being interpreted by people.  If descartes is thinking but he is in the body of a dog, he is not existing anymore.  He is a dog, and therefore, it, the dog, exists but not Descates. 

My issue with Moores argument is as follows.  A man is in the hospital, his hands appear to be gloved.  The doctors, in their apparent kindness, have molded a hand out of wax, and placed a glove on it.  He says, oh, look at my gloved hands, they must have been cut, and now theyre healing.  They exist as an object in the world.  But in fact the man has no hands.  Once he takes off the gloves he finds that there is no hand but wax, he pulls off the wax, there is still no hand, only a hook placed on wood.  The thing is, Moore could know that he has two hands for a long time, if he does no investigating.  The doctors could keep telling him that his hands are still healing, as long as he is alive even.  He may never know.  If he chooses not to investigate there may be hands that he sees but he has no hands, his hands do not exist.

Complex machines are functional devices that help people. Every one of us needs machines or devices in our daily life. Although they are very useful to people altogether, it does not mean that the approach to them when it comes to the moral status is the same that to the people. They have no feelings. For example, destroying a machine does not harm it. No violation will be charged against anybody when heshe disassembles it. This is not similar to the people because human beings have the ethical rights thus when they are violated it can lead to hearing.
It is a clear fact that it is wrong to murder human beings because they have the moral reputation and human rights. But the machine has no life thus when somebody turns it off, there is no rule being violated. No one will be put to jail just because its plug is removed from the outlet.
Machines have no mind to reason out when somebody is overusing it. But if the people are abused whether physically or mentally, they can refuse. This act can never be done by machines unless they are operated by the people.
All the examples that I have mentioned will never affect the complex machines nor will have a negative effect to them. But for the owner of the machines, all the unnecessary things that have been done to his machines will be very painful. If they are overused and handled improperly, it shows that the privacy of the owner is being dishonored. That is why, for the human being, everybody must treat the machines as if it is an individual just for the sake of the person who owns it.
    As a whole, though machine is only a device, it also needs care while handling it not because it has the moral rights and reputation but because the owner of it has. Respect, concern, love and responsibility are necessary if you are using a machine.

Friends have a powerful role in shaping people. As social creatures who know to recognize their needs, people surround themselves with friends. Since human relationship and interaction is complex and very broad to define, philosophers and writers even from the very beginning constantly tried to broaden the circumference of their knowledge and wisdom towards friendship. In Aristotles book Nicomachean Ethics and Augustines book Confessions, both explore and discuss the deeper the meaning of friendship. From their observation and personal experience, they gave and provided the contemporary world their profound insights about friendship. 
    To confess during Augustines time, meant to both give an account of ones past faults or sins to God and to praise God. Augustines confessions narrates his life from sinfulness to faithfulness which he believes a story of Gods greatness and love. Augustine incorporated his philosophical and religious realizations from the story of his sinful life and redemption. He contributes wisdom and ideas about life and spirituality. Saint Augustine also has many valuable things to say about the meaning of true friendship. Apparently people are aware about Augustines relationshipfriendship towards her mother. During his sinful life, Augustines mother never stops praying for his liberation and redemption. His mother Monica is the one who always reminds him  that he should not fall into fornication, and above all that he should not commit adultery with someone elses wife  (Augustine 27). Looking back, Augustine realizes that his mothers warnings against sexual sins and exploitation were actually  God speaking her  (Augustine 28). His mother is used by God as a medium to warn him against sexual impurity. The genuine love and concern of a mother towards her son makes Augustine finally admits that his mother is one of her truest friend.
    However before Augustines redemption, Augustine allows the voice of his peers to become more powerful than the voice of the Almighty in his own life. The negative pressure from his peer group leads him to  pretend I had done things I had not done at all, so that my innocence should not lead my companions to scorn my lack of courage. (Augustine 89) Instead of lifting him up to goodness to be the best person he can be, Augustines friends effectively perverted his conscience. His true nature of goodness is misdirected and misguided due to peer pressure.
    In book II, Augustine narrates what it seems to be the most sinful period of his life. Aside from sexual escapades, Augustine with some of his friends the time when they courageously steal pears from a neighborhood orchard. Augustine deeply regrets this sin and offers his acquired insights from this experience. Augustine considers this conformity towards this teenage prank due to his to do wrong. He becomes a thief at that moment not because of the beauty, taste and nourishment that the pears may give, but he does it out of sheer mischief and his want for belongingness.  My pleasure was not in the pears  but rather   it was in the crime itself, done in association with a sinful group  (Augustine 92). In addition, Augustine also admits that, on his own, he will never have the inclination or the will to steal peers. But for the sake of friendship, he compromised his soul and denied someone elses human right to property. Investigating this point further, Augustine concludes that his action simply represents human perversion, twisting his God given goodness and attributes.  In the end of the book II, Augustine shares that  friendship can be a dangerous enemy, a seduction of the mind lying beyond the reach of imagination  (Augustine). Augustine later in his life, comes to believe that his group of friends at that point of his life is one his greatest downfalls since they are the primary reason for his sinful behavior. Peer pressure through their appealing persuasion led him to sinful thoughts, feelings and actions that Augustine would not do in his own will. In this book,  Augustine urges his followers to use careful scrutiny when choosing friends because unhealthy group of friends may lead to corruption of soul.
    Misdirected love is the primary reason when friendship becomes a dangerous enemy. Throughout the Confessions, Augustine portrays himself and all human beings as lovers. The book is apparently not just about his life but also about humanity. He illustrates that love is an essential part of peoples nature. Friendship like love must be subjected to reason it its truly good and genuine. It is real when the lover wants the best for the beloved. However when friendship destroys ones soul, Augustine says that one must be careful. Meanwhile, Augustine also examines this pointless act of theft and surmises that adolescents or teenagers want to do evil things because they do not understand the nature of beauty or goodness. Sins are committed for love or out of the desire for beautiful or good things. Those teenagers including Augustine that time does not yet understand that the material or tangible things are only part of the beauty and goodness of God. Augustine ends book II affirming that the higher things, the things of God, are what he desires not the sins of his youth.
    Augustine however affirms that there are many kinds and facets of friendship and many of these are not a bad thing. Aside from his friendship with his mom, his friendship with Thagaste is proved beneficial to Augustine. Augustine admires Thagastes courage and backbone to challenge Augustine when the latter went wrong. During Thagastes baptism Augustine,  attempted to joke with him, imagining that he too would laugh with me about the baptism and mocked one of the Churchs sacraments attempting that his friend will do the same, but Thagaste would not conform and tolerate it.
    Aristotle however has a broader scope in terms of defining friendship. If Augustine describes friendship according to his personal experience, Aristotle discusses friendship in a broader and general sense. Friendship for Aristotle consists of mutual feeling of goodwill between two individuals. According to Aristotle, when friendship is based on utility, where both people are together due to benefits, and when friendship is based on pleasure, where both people are drawn to the others pleasant qualities, then those friendship are short lived since needs and pleasures change overtime. But friendship according to Aristotle should be based on goodness, where both persons affirm the others goodness and help one another strive for goodness. Goodness is an enduring quality and is the highest form of obedience, so friendships based on goodness tend to be long lasting. Such kind of friendship however is rare and takes time to develop. Aristotle also goes on to say that the true mark of friendship is consists more of loving than of being loved. Friendship endure when each friend loves the other according to the others benefits and merit.
    Meanwhile, Aristotle also incorporated friendship with community or society. Friendship and community according to him is closely related. Aristotle goes on to say that it is far worse to abuse a family member and a close friend than to abuse a stranger. In addition Aristotle also believes that in political institutions where there is a master-slave relationship, there is no friendship that exists. Apparently friendship is impossible when there is no equal or mutual exchanges of goodness. In political institutions, someone always benefits better. For instance, a tyrant is a king who no longer cares for his subjects and so is no longer virtuous and worthy of his place. When the merit of the leader is greater than what the people receives, then friendship does not exist. Aristotle discusses friendship in a greater length with family relationships and political institutions. In his book  Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle in Book VIII and IX illustrates his conception of happiness and friendship by showing how satisfying are the relationships that a virtuous individual can normally expect to have. Aristotles model of ideal friendship is that which exists between two aristocratic men of great virtue. These men are not bonded together through need, utility, or familial duty, or through  wealth or popularity but rather through mutual respect and virtue. Virtuous friends spend quality time with each other and since they have the same set of virtues or moral standards, they make the same choices.
    Augustine in his definition of friendship is more intimate since his basis of definition is based from his faith and experience. Augustine and Aristotle however both believe that a real friend should be a good influence with each other. Augustine however explores deeper when is friendship becoming dangerous. Misguided desires and lack of obedience often lead to sin which may influence others. Apparently even if his friendship with his mother and Thagaste are not mutual, he still consider them as one of his truest friends even though he initially ignore them. Both his mother and Thagaste only want the best for Augustine in terms of goodness and virtues. Apparently Augustine friendship still exists even though the feelings is not mutual. As long the other wants and prays the best for you, then you in return recognizes it then friendship already exists. Aristotle however believes in mutual friendship, that is both parties should give equal respect and justice. On the whole for Aristotle, friendship should consists of equal exchanges, whether of utility, pleasantness, or goodness. When there great gap and differences between people, according to Aristotle friendship is impossible, and often two friends will grow apart if one becomes far more virtuous than the other. In case Augustine however even if his mother and Thagaste is more virtuous in their relationship, he still considers them as true friends. Meanwhile, Aristotle define friendship in a broader sense  which includes family and community. Friendship for Aristotle should provide happiness while Augustine believes that friendship should make us closer to goodness which is God. Meanwhile Augustine holds on to the Christian idea that one should others as you love yourself. Aristotle however, self-love is more important than friendship, since only individuals who treat themselves with appropriate care and respect can achieve proper virtue and happiness. Apparently Aristotle based his definition on friendship according to reason in terms of how to achieve happiness while Augustine based his definition in terms of Christian standards towards faith and goodness.

John Locke was born and grew up during a historic period in Europe from 1632-1704  in Somerset, England. At the time in Europe, when monarchies had absolute power and yearned to increase it still. Locke in his writings favored representative government and a rule of law. He denounced tyranny. He insisted that when government violates individual rights, people may legitimately rebel (Powell, 1996).
In his political theory, Lockes Two Treatises on Government upheld the doctrine of human liberty and explained the significance of human rights against absolutism (Richard, 1999). He postulated that men in a natural state are born free and equal with inalienable rights (John, n.d). Most of his writings were signed using an assumed name because of the fear of being discovered while in exile. Locke was also responsible for developing an insight into human understanding in his Essay concerning human understanding. Though he wrote other works such as the Letters Concerning Toleration, The Reasonableness of Christianity and Some Thoughts Concerning Education,  his most important and outstanding works are two treatises and the essay and on human understanding. Locke believed that Good and evil, reward and punishment, were the only motives to a rational creature and claimed that mankind could be manipulated and guided using these as tools. He was thus dubbed the freedom philosopher (Stanford encyclopedia, 2001).
John Stuart Mill was born in 1806 to a philosopher and economist James Mill. He was well educated under the tutelage of Jeremy Bentham also a philosopher. As a young man Mill had a serious mental breakdown which made him question the purpose for his life on earth. Because he was born and raised as a utilitarian, he defended it and developed a knack for pestering the British people by trying to persuade them to realize how significant both the scientific approach  and the insights of the liberal arts were in engineering social, political and economic change (Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy).
His main works include the system of logic, Principles of Political Economy, On Liberty, Utilitarianism, The Subjection of Women, and Three Essays, But it is his essay on Liberty which is the most acknowledged masterpiece of his thought.
In his political works Mill comes out as man who believed in the rights of the individual to determine himherself. He was an ardent defender of the secret ballot though in some of his works this was never very evident. He was also defended the liberty of women in Britain and even prepared an amendment bill in the British parliament -the reform Act of 1867- which would give women the same political rights as men. Though the lost very badly when it was put to vote, it very clear that he was already thinking centuries ahead of his contemporaries. He wrote many books on economy and philosophy than Bentham, his father James and even J. Locke who preceded him.
Traces in the modern society today
In the United Nations Human Rights Charter the coinage and the words used to describe the rights of the citizen are similar to what Mill and Locke used and their ideas of natural rights are still retained in the charter.
In New York City where the statue of liberty stands, also stand the capital of the worlds greatest commercial hub, social and cultural icon and also a beacon of the principle of the right to freedom. For many years, The US has been known as the land of freedom where everyone is free to do as they please as long as they keep the laws of the land.
Practices in law and civil rights
The US constitution is primarily based on Liberty. When drafting the constitution, the founding fathers heavily borrowed from Locke the ideas of natural rights and historically Thomas Jefferson was a dear friend of Locke. Other laws that protect minorities such as African American and Hispanics have been introduced as well as pre existing ones such as the right to privately own property, speech and associate among others. These are evident in Mills on liberty essay which defended these rights studiously. Consequently, the law recognizes that the individual is innocent unless proven guilty, and has right to have hisher say even if the majority thinks heshe is wrong.

Affirmative action was established in the mid 1960s in the United States to ensure that minorities were not oppressed and were given opportunities at par with the majority. In the US, this meant that people of African - American descent and women were given special quotas. Policy required that these minorities be given jobs and admissions to college on the basis of their race or gender rather than what their academic credentials demanded. As more minority groups were granted these quotas, the majority had a case that they were losing out on opportunities they felt they deserved more. Thus emerged the term, reverse discrimination defined as, discrimination in hiring, college admissions, etc. directed against members of certain social or racial groups, as white males, thought of as being dominant or having benefited from past discrimination against minority groups who are now favored, often as a result of affirmative action (yourdictionary.com).

The case for oppressed minorities was truly warranted when Affirmative action was first brought into effect in the 1960s (Warburton and Singer). The state was obliged to bring in this doctrine given the less than happy plight of these minority groups. As an Indian politician aptly puts it, Equality of opportunity has two different and distinct concepts. There is a conceptual distinction between a non-discrimination principle and affirmative action under which the state is obliged to provide a level playing-field to the oppressed classes (The Hindu). However, in the present scenario, it is clear that our society has come a long way and affirmative action is no longer needed. A group of 20 white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut sued over a workplace ruling that issued no promotions on the basis that no African American was qualified to be promoted (CNN). The case later moved to the Supreme Court, being asked to decide if there was a continued need to provide special treatment for minorities. The court ruled in favor of the white firefighters. The city rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white, wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority. Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employers reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions. From this ruling, it is clear that reverse discrimination is a process very much in action in the present clime and there is a serious cause for Affirmative action to be lifted completely. The greatest evidence of the advances made by our society is the fact that an African - American heads the most powerful nation on earth currently.