Equality Essays (489 words) - Medical Ethics, Criminal Law, Autonomy

Equality The Case for Equality/John Rawls and his argument about not signing a social contract and the only ones who have actually agree to abide the law are immigrants like me. Yes I have agree to abide the law of the United States and that holds me accountable to obey the Laws of the United States. Americans havent sign nor agree to obey the law like us immigrants do, because this should be part of being an American. I was born in Dominican Republic and its my duty to obey the laws of my country despite the fact that I didnt sign for it or agreed on it. Just being a native of a country is the norm to understand and to obey the law. Being an immigrant doesnt make a difference when a person wants to commit a crime. John argues that the way to obey the laws is by identifying the principles of justice. I dont necessarily agree because a person can know the laws and still decides to disobey them. Than what can we say when this situation happens , can we try to look for another theory to compensate a person criminals actions by trying to understand or dissect what a person rational is from or what where their motives. We have the bad habits of assuming things. As the author mentions when too people make a deal, the terms of their agreement must be fair and a lot of the times fair is far from reality. The truth is that making a deal is not enough to make it fair, a person who doesnt have standards nor morals might try to scam the other person who is more nave about the situation. How can we recognize this features? In all honestly Im the wrong person to respond to that because I can be the most gullible person and I might be the one who gets scam all the time. Like the authors says to those who believe that morality begins and ends with consent, this may seem a jarring claim. And he says that is not at all controversial but I think it is. I really dont understand why is not all controversial? Consent its a word that individuals often forget and accompanied by morality. People arent fair in terms of agreements. Back in the days people didnt need a paper sign; just the word of a man was more val uable than anything, now days if there isnt a person things arent clear and arent valuable or valid. A word is not a valuable, only in a form of a treat to harm others. In order for consent to be valid it has to be signed by a few individuals just to avoid fraud. And consent is always beneficial whether the case is from a hospital stand point or a police arrest. Consent my not be always essential but it is beneficial.