Ethics – Gp Lah!

While adopting desperate measures can be justified in extreme situations to ensure public safety and stability, it risks undermining democratic principles, human rights, and long-term societal trust. Ethics can be the guiding light.

I. Introduction

Hook: The end justifies the means. In times of crisis, government actions be justified.
Background: Overview of government responses to emergencies.
Thesis Statement: Desperate measures can be justified in extreme situations but risk undermining democratic principles, human rights, and long-term trust.

II. Supporting View 1: Ensuring Public Safety

Topic Sentence: Adopting desperate measures at times is justified to ensure public safety in extreme crises.
Example 1: New Zealand’s strict COVID-19 lockdown (2020-2021). Strict lockdown measures curbed virus spread effectively (source: BBC, 2020).
Example 2: Australia’s bushfire emergency response (2019-2020). Government enforced evacuations and firebreaks to protect lives (source: The Guardian, 2020). https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/06/australian-bushfires-what-did-the-government-do
Example 3: Italy’s stringent earthquake measures (2016-2021).
Analysis: In extreme situations, urgent measures are necessary to protect public safety.

III. Supporting View 2: Stabilising the Economy

Topic Sentence: Adopting desperate measures can be justified to stabilise the economy during severe downturns.
Example 1: Greece’s austerity measures (2015-2020) during the debt crisis. Drastic spending cuts and tax hikes aimed at economic recovery (source: Euronews, 2019). https://www.euronews.com/2019/08/20/greek-austerity-measures-2019
Example 2: India’s demonetisation policy (2016). Sudden currency ban aimed at combating black money and corruption (source: Al Jazeera, 2021). https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/27/indias-demonetisation-five-years-on
Example 3: Argentina’s currency controls (2019-2021) to stabilise the peso. Government imposed currency restrictions to curb inflation and capital flight (source: BBC, 2019). https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49548592
Analysis: Extreme economic measures can be crucial for preventing economic collapse.

IV. Supporting View 3: Addressing National Security Threats

Topic Sentence: Adopting desperate measures can be justified in addressing national security threats.
Example 1: France’s state of emergency after Paris attacks (2015-2017). Government imposed curfews and increased surveillance (source: France24, 2017). https://www.france24.com/en/20171101-france-lifts-state-emergency-replaced-anti-terror-law
Example 2: Philippines’ martial law in Mindanao (2017-2019). Declared to combat terrorism and insurgency (source: Reuters, 2019). https://www.reuters.com/article/us-philippines-martiallaw-idUSKCN1U30BY
Example 3: UK’s anti-terrorism measures post-2017 Manchester bombing. Increased security and surveillance to prevent further attacks (source: The Telegraph, 2018). https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/22/manchester-attack-terrorist-threat/
Analysis: Extreme measures are sometimes necessary to address immediate national security threats.

V. Opposing View 1: Undermining Democratic Principles

Topic Sentence: Desperate measures can undermine democratic principles and processes.
Example 1: Hungary’s emergency powers law (2020-2021) during COVID-19. Government granted itself sweeping powers, raising concerns of authoritarianism (source: DW, 2020). https://www.dw.com/en/hungary-passes-controversial-coronavirus-law/a-52982458
Example 2: Poland’s judicial reforms (2017-2021) challenged by the EU. Reforms seen as undermining judicial independence (source: Euronews, 2020). https://www.euronews.com/2020/01/15/poland-s-ruling-party-defends-judicial-reforms-against-eu-scrutiny
Example 3: Turkey’s post-coup emergency rule (2016-2018).Widespread purges and restrictions on freedoms (source: The Independent, 2018). https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/turkey-lifts-state-of-emergency-two-years-coup-attempt-erdogan-a8451511.html
Analysis: Excessive emergency measures risk eroding democratic institutions and checks and balances.

VI. Opposing View 2: Violating Human Rights

Topic Sentence: Desperate measures can lead to human rights violations.
Example 1: Myanmar’s military crackdown (2021). Military imposed curfews and detained protestors, violating human rights (source: Al Jazeera, 2021). https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/3/4/myanmar-coup-crackdown-deaths-detention-timeline
Example 2: China’s Xinjiang policies (2017-2021) against Uighurs.Mass detentions and surveillance condemned internationally (source: The Guardian, 2019). https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/24/leak-reveals-china-s-detention-camps-xinjiang-uighur
Example 3: Venezuela’s suppression of dissent (2016-2021).Government’s harsh measures against protestors and opposition (source: Human Rights Watch, 2021). https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2021/country-chapters/venezuela
Analysis: Extreme measures often result in significant human rights abuses.

VII. Opposing View 3: Eroding Public Trust

Topic Sentence: Desperate measures can erode public trust in government.
Example 1: Spain’s handling of Catalonia independence movement (2017-2021). Harsh measures against activists led to widespread distrust (source: El País, 2019). https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2019/10/14/inenglish/1571053213_769769.html
Example 2: Brazil’s COVID-19 response (2020-2021) and public scepticism. Conflicting policies and misinformation eroded trust (source: The Lancet, 2020). https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32073-7/fulltext
Example 3: South Africa’s corruption scandals during lockdown (2020-2021).Corruption in emergency procurement diminished public trust (source: News24, 2021). https://www.news24.com/news24/southafrica/news/covid-19-corruption-in-south-africa-how-do-we-root-out-this-scourge-20210811
Analysis: When governments take extreme actions, it can damage public trust and legitimacy.

VIII. Conclusion

Restate Thesis: Desperate measures can be justified in extreme situations to ensure public safety and stability, but they risk undermining democratic principles, human rights, and long-term societal trust.
Summary of Key Points: Public safety, economic stability, national security versus democratic principles, human rights, public trust.
Final Thought: Balancing immediate needs with long-term values is crucial for justifying extreme measures.

It is increasingly difficult to tell right from wrong due to the complexity of modern issues, misinformation, and cultural relativism. However, ethical frameworks, education, and critical thinking still provide guidance.

I. Introduction

Hook: Humans are not blind. They can clearly discern right from wrong.
Background: Overview of moral ambiguity in modern society.
Thesis Statement: It is increasingly difficult to tell right from wrong due to social complexity, misinformation, and cultural relativism, but ethical frameworks and education can offer guidance.

II. Supporting View 1: Complexity of Modern Issues

Topic Sentence: It is increasingly difficult to tell right from wrong as the complexity of modern issues makes it hard to determine right from wrong.
Example 1: Brexit debates in the UK (2016-2021) showcase moral complexity. Conflicting views on sovereignty, economy, and immigration create ethical confusion (source: The Independent, 2020). https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-debate-public-opinion-divide-boris-johnson-b1905350.html
Analysis: Modern issues are often multifaceted, making moral decisions complex and challenging.
Topic Sentence: It is increasingly difficult to tell right from wrong as the spread of misinformation makes it difficult to discern truth from falsehood.
Example 1: Misinformation about vaccines in France (2018-2021) affects public health. False information leads to vaccine hesitancy and ethical confusion (source: France24, 2021). https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210126-france-to-step-up-vaccine-rollout-amid-rising-distrust
Example 2: Fake news in Indian elections (2019) obscures political truths. Misinformation campaigns undermine democratic processes (source: Al Jazeera, 2019).https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/4/11/india-elections-fake-news-is-rooted-in-what-people-want-to-hear
Example 3: Disinformation on social media in the UK (2017-2021) complicates ethical judgements. Social media platforms spread falsehoods, making moral clarity difficult (source: The Telegraph, 2021). https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2021/02/03/fake-news-spread-social-media-harming-democracy-report-warns/
Analysis: Misinformation blurs the lines between right and wrong, complicating ethical decision-making.

III. Supporting View 3: Cultural Relativism

Topic Sentence: Cultural relativism challenges universal moral standards.
Example 1: Honour killings in South Asia (2017-2021) reflect cultural moral differences. Practices deemed acceptable in some cultures are viewed as immoral in others (source: The Hindu, 2021). https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/honour-killings-reflect-deep-rooted-cultural-issues/article33904939.ece
Example 2: Gender equality in the Middle East (2018-2021) showcases differing ethical norms. Cultural norms influence perceptions of right and wrong regarding gender roles (source: Al-Monitor, 2020). https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2020/10/middle-east-women-rights-gender-equality.html
Example 3: Attitudes towards LGBTQ+ rights in Eastern Europe (2017-2021) demonstrate moral relativism. Varied cultural attitudes lead to differing ethical standards (source: Euractiv, 2021). https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/lgbtq-rights-in-eastern-europe-still-face-huge-obstacles/
Analysis: Cultural relativism challenges the notion of universal morals, complicating ethical clarity.

IV. Opposing View 1: Ethical Frameworks Provide Guidance

Topic Sentence: Established ethical frameworks help maintain moral clarity.
Example 1: Human rights laws in the EU (2017-2021) uphold moral standards. Human rights frameworks guide ethical decision-making (source: European Commission, 2020). https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights_en
Analysis: Ethical frameworks provide a foundation for determining right from wrong.

V. Opposing View 2: Education and Critical Thinking

Topic Sentence: Education and critical thinking skills enable ethical discernment.
Example 1: Ethical education in Finland (2017-2021) promotes moral reasoning. Finnish schools teach critical thinking and ethics (source: YLE, 2020). https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/ethics_courses/11134405
Example 2: Media literacy programs in Sweden (2018-2021) combat misinformation. Programs teach students to discern credible information (source: The Local, 2019). https://www.thelocal.se/20190212/swedish-media-literacy-programmes-a-success
Example 3: Philosophy courses in Italy (2019-2021) enhance critical thinking. Courses encourage students to question and analyse ethical issues (source: La Repubblica, 2021). https://www.repubblica.it/scuola/2021/04/12/news/philosophy_courses_in_italy-295187104/
Analysis: Education in ethics and critical thinking helps individuals navigate moral complexities.

VI. Opposing View 3: Role of Community and Dialogue

Topic Sentence: Community values and open dialogue support moral clarity.
Example 1: Community forums in Germany (2017-2021) foster ethical discussions. Forums encourage dialogue on moral issues (source: Deutsche Welle, 2019). https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-community-forums/a-51157813
Analysis: Community involvement and dialogue help reinforce shared moral values.

VII. Conclusion

Restate Thesis: Distinguishing right from wrong is becoming more difficult due to complexity, misinformation, and cultural relativism, but ethical frameworks and education offer guidance.
Summary of Key Points: Complexity of modern issues, spread of misinformation, cultural relativism versus ethical frameworks, education, and community dialogue.
Final Thought: Navigating moral ambiguity requires a combination of ethical frameworks, critical thinking, and community engagement.