Would an ethics of duty or an ethics of rights work better for the Starbucks store that wants to lobby against Mayor Blo
Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2022 10:05 am
Would an ethics of duty or an ethics of rights work better forthe Starbucks store that wants to lobby against Mayor Bloomberg'ssugary drink proposal? Why? What might the argument look like?
Discussion Post (open answer required)
EXAMPLE of answer from different student
Ethics of duty is more about how someone acts not caring aboutthe bad and good consequences that may be built. Ethics of rightsis about the freedom of choice to do so. In this case, I believethat the ethics of rights would be a better fit for the Starbucksstore wanting to lobby against Mayor Bloomberg's sugary drinkproposal. It comes down to the idea that people can eat or drinkanything that they choose to do so. It is more of a right to haveindividuals make that decision. If he is trying to say that sugarydrinks are the problem for gaining weight, it still would not makea difference because people are allowed to drink whatever theywould like including myself. I love drinking those types of drinks,even though I am very active and healthy. It is a right to whatpeople choose to eat/drink. It is not a duty.
The headline from a local Oakland newspaper reported that a gun shop is closing due to unfair taxes 13]. The gun shop's name was Siegle's Guns, and closing was inevitable, according to owner Mara Siegle, after Oakland residents passed Measure D, which levied a huge tax on gun dealers. They now had to pay $24 for every $1,000 earned, in comparison to the $1.20 per $1,000 that all the other retailers in Oakland fork over. "No one can stay in business paying that kind of tax," Siegle said while preparing her going-out-of-business sale. "And that's exactly what Oakland wanted." No one disputes the point. The disputes are about whether Oakland should want that, and whether it's fair for the city to use taxes as a weapon. Tracy Salkowitz says yes to both. "Except for hunting rifles, the sole purpose of weapons is to kill people." Getting rid of gun shops, the logic follows, is a public welfare concern. And about the taxes that brought the store down? She's "delighted" by them." Mara Siegle's opinion is that people who don't hunt and shoot for recreation don't understand that guns are a legitimate pastime. "They don't see this side," she says, "because they don't try to." Further, she asserts, over the years gun owners have told her that they own guns to defend themselves. - Outside the store, mingling customers agreed with Siegle. They said closing gun stores was the wrong way to fight crime and then cursed the city for the unjust taxes. Amid the winners and losers, Mara Siegle, certainly got the rottenest part of the deal. She has two sons, fifteen and seventeen, and she doesn't know what she'll do for income. "I need a job," she said. Across the country and in New York City-where handguns are directly illegal Mayor Michael Bloomberg's aspirations to protect the citizenry extend to the waistline. Affirming that obesity is a serious health risk, the Mayor proposed banning supersized sugary drinks. Anything over 16 ounces and high in sugar-that includes Big Gulps and Venti Erappuccinos, from Starbucks- would no longer be sold in restaurants, movie theaters and similar spots. M
Discussion Post (open answer required)
EXAMPLE of answer from different student
Ethics of duty is more about how someone acts not caring aboutthe bad and good consequences that may be built. Ethics of rightsis about the freedom of choice to do so. In this case, I believethat the ethics of rights would be a better fit for the Starbucksstore wanting to lobby against Mayor Bloomberg's sugary drinkproposal. It comes down to the idea that people can eat or drinkanything that they choose to do so. It is more of a right to haveindividuals make that decision. If he is trying to say that sugarydrinks are the problem for gaining weight, it still would not makea difference because people are allowed to drink whatever theywould like including myself. I love drinking those types of drinks,even though I am very active and healthy. It is a right to whatpeople choose to eat/drink. It is not a duty.
The headline from a local Oakland newspaper reported that a gun shop is closing due to unfair taxes 13]. The gun shop's name was Siegle's Guns, and closing was inevitable, according to owner Mara Siegle, after Oakland residents passed Measure D, which levied a huge tax on gun dealers. They now had to pay $24 for every $1,000 earned, in comparison to the $1.20 per $1,000 that all the other retailers in Oakland fork over. "No one can stay in business paying that kind of tax," Siegle said while preparing her going-out-of-business sale. "And that's exactly what Oakland wanted." No one disputes the point. The disputes are about whether Oakland should want that, and whether it's fair for the city to use taxes as a weapon. Tracy Salkowitz says yes to both. "Except for hunting rifles, the sole purpose of weapons is to kill people." Getting rid of gun shops, the logic follows, is a public welfare concern. And about the taxes that brought the store down? She's "delighted" by them." Mara Siegle's opinion is that people who don't hunt and shoot for recreation don't understand that guns are a legitimate pastime. "They don't see this side," she says, "because they don't try to." Further, she asserts, over the years gun owners have told her that they own guns to defend themselves. - Outside the store, mingling customers agreed with Siegle. They said closing gun stores was the wrong way to fight crime and then cursed the city for the unjust taxes. Amid the winners and losers, Mara Siegle, certainly got the rottenest part of the deal. She has two sons, fifteen and seventeen, and she doesn't know what she'll do for income. "I need a job," she said. Across the country and in New York City-where handguns are directly illegal Mayor Michael Bloomberg's aspirations to protect the citizenry extend to the waistline. Affirming that obesity is a serious health risk, the Mayor proposed banning supersized sugary drinks. Anything over 16 ounces and high in sugar-that includes Big Gulps and Venti Erappuccinos, from Starbucks- would no longer be sold in restaurants, movie theaters and similar spots. M