Posted 6:08 PM by Melissa
Well, its the last day before the last day of school and our final drafts of our webtexts are due tomorrow. Having completed this text I am very proud of myself for the work that I have done on it. My hypertext is about Online Privacy and Security. The researh I did was very very helpful and I plan on continuing to keep up with break throughs going on in this issue, since I've been doing this paper. Check the group site out or my hypertext directly . I put alot of work into this so I really hope you enjoy. :-)

Posted 12:10 PM by Melissa
Heres my paper for philosphy class, enjoy:-)

Economic Justice
Millions and millions of people are dying from starvation and malnutrition while many in America are going about our daily lives only thinking of our self interest. Economic Justice affects not only its victims but those around them as well. There are two questions that concern us regarding Economic Justice: 1) are we obligated to work towards ending poverty worldwide and 2) if we are in fact obligated, what is the extent of our duty? There are two virtues that of charity and justice. The virtue of charity, which is the view of Singer, says that virtue requires us to seek what is best for others. In other words though we may be in a comfortable state of living and having the best for ourselves, we should also seek that best for others. Van Wyk on the other hand upholds the virtue of justice, which has to do with what people owe each other and respecting other's rights. With Van Wyk's view there is more of a cause and definite reason why we should help one another and end poverty. I will discuss then support Van Wyk's view that we are obligated to helping those in poverty.
Van Wyk believes that we can be obligated to help those that are poverty stricken through positive and negative duties. Negative duties are those duties not to harm others, i.e. leaving someone alone, not doing anything to help someone, yet you are not harming them directly. Positive duties are those to benefit others, i.e. helping someone out. His argument from positive duty says it is morally wrong to not to attempt to provide another with the basic necessities of life when we have the ability to do so. Van Wyk's argument from negative duty fits more specifically to the Eggonian case, which says we have an obligation to aid those in need if past harm has been inflicted. 1) If a person, government, etc., has harmed another then that person is obligated to take corrective action in response to the past harms inflicted. Premise one is basically saying that if you or a country is responsible for the harm of someone or something else, then you are definitely obligated in rectifying the damage that you caused. He uses the Kantian duty not to harm as support for this premise. 2) In the cases of many poor countries, their deprivation is due (to some extent) to the past actions of these countries that are affluent today. Affluent, meaning having wealth or an abundance of a material. Many poor countries are poor just because of other countries’ need for greed and inconsideration in becoming more than stable but extremely wealthy. He gives the example of America’s use of energy at twice the rate of Western Europeans must raise energy prices for the poor. This all leads to the conclusion that 3) Today’s affluent countries are obligated to take corrective action in response to past harms inflicted i.e., relieving poverty in poor nations. Essentially, if a prosperous country has hurt another country to get to their point of prosperity then they are accountable for restoring that country. Van Wyk goes on to say that even individuals who played no role whatsoever in causing poverty in poor nations are obligated to make preparations if they possess wealth that resulted from activities which brought about poverty in other nations. Van Wyk also believes with respect to compensating those who have been harmed, we do not have to be part of the casual chain that causes harm in order to have an obligation to those who still bear the effects of past harm . He draws support from the analogy that if A stole B’s money yesterday and gave it to C today, C obviously has a duty to return it even though C didn’t steal it.
This argument fits specifically to the Eggonian case since the Eggonians discovered that they could capture the frazzles and keep them locked up in factories where they could produce eggs year round. Prior to this discover, Furesia was the home of these frazzles and they would travel to Eggonia to mate and lay their eggs. But since the Eggonians stripped Furesia of having anything to do with the harvesting and selling of the frazzles (their only natural resource), it eventually killed their economy while boosting the Eggonian economy. This is a direct example of Van Wyk’s argument from negative duty. Because the Eggonians became affluent as a direct result of harming Furesia, they are obligated to take the country out of their poverty stricken state, and help them into a stable one. This argument from Negative Duty, fits specifically to the Eggonian case also because allowing the Furesians to go into poverty was a direct action, committed by the Eggonians, of past harm to the Eggonians. For example, if there was some other country that caused Eggonia or Furesia to go into poverty then they too would be required to repair their country. According to Van Wyk, even if Furesia had gone into poverty as a result of their own greed then Eggonia, along with any other affluent countries would still be morally obligated to correct the problem that the country is having.
An objector to Van Wyk might respond by saying in some cases it may be morally justifiable to risk people’s lives. Therefore, we are not necessarily obligated to make reparations for past harms inflicted. For example, a case where a pedestrian was injured because we were speeding to get an ill person to the hospital. In this objection, it is justifiable to harm others for the betterment of someone else, but is that fair?
Van Wyk would respond to this objection by saying a person who is speeding for a good reason is still responsible for anyone that is injured as a result of his speeding. A person who is speeding for a good reason, or who benefits from that speeding, is not by this means relieved of responsibility for someone who is thereby injured, for otherwise the endangered or harmed would be treated only as means to the ends of others. This is consistent with Kant’s view since other wise the injured person would be being used as a means to some other end. Even though someone is committing a good deed it does not prevent them for paying for any damages that were caused as a result of this good deed. Even though the damage done to someone else wasn’t intentional, it’s never justifiable to risk someone’s life.
Van Wyk admits an objection to his argument from negative duty. He admits that in going by the 'Argument from Negative Duty,' it is difficult to tell what the extent of our obligation is. If we are in agreement with this argument, then it is unclear as to where our obligation ends. Therefore, for those of us who contribute something to famine relief through our taxes, etc., we have no idea if we are obligated to give any more than we already do. At least we have come to realize that some sort of improvement should be made in an effort to rebuild a country (as in this case), or repair harm that has been caused on someone. If it isn’t apparent as to what measures should be taken to repair the damage that has been done, it is unknown where one should stop in contributing to relieving poverty. In any case where one has caused direct harm on another, they should be obligated to repair the damages that they made. Objectors to Van Wyk’s negative duty argument, will argue how can they be obligated to do something in which the ends of their contribution will never end, or is just unknown.
I feel that in the case of the Eggonians and Furesians, the country should at least be restored to its previous state. The Eggonians have obviously cause direct damage to the life and overall economy of the country of Furesia. Similar to the example of the speeding driver, those who make or benefit from economic and political decisions are not relieved of responsibility for those who are so harmed or endangered. I agree with Van Wyk’s argument from negative duty especially in this case, because there is a specific victim(Furesia) and offender (Eggonia). Since Eggonia became wealthy at the expense of Furesia, it is only right that they do what it takes to restore the country. I am not saying Eggonia must bring Furesia to the booming economy that it has, but at least restore it to the state it was, economically, before Eggonia decided to bring harm to the country. I do tend to disagree with Van Wyk’s belief that everyone is morally obligated to make up for the damage done to harm others, even if they had nothing to do with it. It would definitely be great for each one to reach one, but if a person had nothing to do with harming another, then they shouldn’t be forced to correct the harmed person’s problem, whatever it may be.

Posted 12:04 PM by Melissa
I am having an extremely bad day. First i miss the bus, as i get to the bus he sees me and drives off. I mean i ws across the street and plus he was a minute early!!! Well i guess ill never learn my lesson because i missed the bus one day last week also, but that was definiltey too early. the bus was supposed to come at 11:28am, and by the time i got out there it was 11:21am. Some one told me that no one was at the stop so he kept driving. I'm used to see buses run late not early. A prime example, is our very own campus bus system. I don't even think they run on a schedule, its a joke how many 'Golds' will pass before you see one 'Garnet'. ok back to the story. I was too lazy to walk all the way to my apartment then have to come righ tback out for the next bus. I live on the far far side of the complex in Jefferson Pointe, and its not a short walk. So, since im moving in the fall(did i tellu that) to Polo Club(right down the street, well if ure driving:-)) I needed to drop off a roommmate matchign form so I went and did that. it took me about 15 minutes to walk, or should i say stroll, cause that is really waht i was doing. then i got to tenessee and was planning to wait on a bus going towards FSU. but i was thirsty so i wen tt o exkerds, whihc is right there. I was like i might as well finish the walk since im already here. so i continued up call street. and finally got on campus, adn got on the tomahawk. boy what a morning.

Well , we're in our final week of classes and its long over due! I am very very ready to get these finals out hte way so i can go home, even though i am going to working and taking classes at elast i wil be home. I have four finals next week. I took my lab final yesterady. I really need to study for my chem exam, thats my hardest class i think. there is just so much u have to knoiw., ok well im off to class. later.