Internet Assignment Four Part A 1. What are the questions

Essay by EssaySwap ContributorCollege, Undergraduate February 2008

download word file, 3 pages 0.0

Downloaded 634 times

Internet Assignment Four Part A 1. What are the questions about war and ethics? 2. The article is about the presidents wanting to give a preemptive attack on Iraq. If Iraq hasn't fired upon us how come we are going to attack them, and also without the consent of other nations in the UN. Many questions are raised in this piece, about our judgment towards Saddam Hussein. It also focuses on the consequences of an attack to Iraq. Such as India could take out Pakistan, Greece could invade Turkey and all the Arabs could fire missiles into Israel - and vice versa. In close it asks the question And, five years from now, will the common good - in this case, world peace - be served by what we do? 3. As far as the president wanting to give Iraq a preemptive attack is based upon the fear of a lot of Americans today after WWII.

Japan attacked us first and we knew about their planned attack before it happened. I agree with the president wanting to strike first. It's hard to say whether other countries will go to war because of an attack. I do agree that the US should get other countries support before an attack. It doesn't look good that we are the only country that wants to attack.

1. Russian Hostage Rescue Shows the Danger of "non-lethal" Weapons 2. This article focuses on the use of non-lethal weapons in warfare or domestic problems; such as riots, hostage situations, etc. It talks about an incident in Moscow, Russia in which there was a hostage situation in a movie theater and the authorities released a gas in the theater to put everyone to sleep. Turned out that many of the hostages were dying from an overdose of the supposed "non-lethal" gas. There was an antidote to the toxin but only if it is administered after exposure and there were also no instructions on how much of the antidote is to be given. It asks the question of what will happen if it is used here in America. Will our government be as careless as others? 3. I personally feel that the use of non-lethal gas is ok for certain situations. It's a hard thing to understand but I should hope that the American government would not be so careless in the process of administering antidote. Hostage situations can go on for days and if putting everyone to sleep will solve the problem than that's is what should be done.

Part B 1. The Case of Nutritional Foods 2. In this case a company is stuck with distributing poisoned food to the public. Reports came in that evening about food poisoning associated with Nutritional Foods. Distributing unpasturized food leaves room for a lot of contamination in the process of picking, transporting and processing of the products. That night about 50 cases have come in and most are associated with Nutritional Foods. It raises the question of whether they should ask the public to give up the food to the local retailer and pull it off the shelves? It also asks if they are doing enough to warn the public of the contaminated food.

3. I think the company is doing the right thing to pull the food off the shelves and notify the public before more incidents occur. It's not right to leave a product out that is making people sick and putting two in critical condition. They should spread it through local television news and papers. They should do anything in their power to notify the public.

1. The Case of the Sole Remaining Supplier 2. This case talks about a company that refuses to sell pacemakers to another company which forces a problem of both the company going out of business and also no pacemakers for the public. It talks about recent strings of incidents involving pacemakers and asks whether pacemakers are really safe or not. It asks if it is right for the company to refuse selling the product even though they are the only ones who distribute it. Basically asking if business is more important than life.

3. I think that the government should fund the company. If this is the only company that is selling pacemakers in the US than there is a problem. Something like that should be regulated. It also seems absurd to refuse to treat someone because business is bad. A human life is more than a business' needs.