Change in Pressure and Different Depths in a Static Fluid Lab Essay Example for Free

Change in Pressure and Different Depths in a Static Fluid Lab Essay Purpose: The purpose of this lab is to devise a correlation between that of the data we have collected from our experiment and compare it to that of theory. In this experiment 3 different tests were done in order to test this theory. The first test was to tie a balloon on the end of a manometer and measure the pressure at different depths in a large beaker filled with water. The next test was the same thing, but without the balloon on the end of the manometer. For the final test a pressure gauge was used to measure the pressure at different depths in the water. The data collected from each experiment was the depth of the object and its deflection. To find out the theoretical pressure for the experiment this equation will be used: ∆P=ÃŽ ³H2Oà ·Depth The theoretical results will then be compared to the measured results, determining the correlation between both sets of data in order to prove whether or not this experiment is capable of proving the theory. Procedure: 1) Fill the cylinder with water and adjust the manometer to read zero. 2) For first test tie a balloon to the end of the tube that gives the manometer reading, and fill it with air. 3)Immerse the balloon in the water and measure the deflection at each specific depth (Try to get as close as you can to: 11, 9, 7, 5, 3, and 0 inches). 4)When finished with the first test remove the balloon and proceed to second test. 5) For the second test immerse the (balloon free) manometer tube in water, also measuring each specific depth and deflection. 6) For the third test instead of measuring with the manometer use a pressure gauge to measure your deflection (make sure you set the gauge to zero before testing). Calculations: Test #1 Example Depth: 3.5 inches Deflection: 1.7 inches P. Theory: ÃŽ ³H2OÃâ€"3.512=18.2lbft2 P. Measured: 1.712Ãâ€"ÃŽ ³ManometerÃâ€"ÃŽ ³H2O=16.9lbft2 Test #2 Example Depth: 5 inches Deflection: 2.1 inches P. Theory: ÃŽ ³H2OÃâ€"512=26lbft2 P. Measured: 2.112Ãâ€"ÃŽ ³ManometerÃâ€"ÃŽ ³H2O=20.8lbft2 Test #3 Example Depth: 3 inches Deflection: 1.8 ozin2 P. Theory: ÃŽ ³H2OÃâ€"312=15.6lbft2 P. Measured: 1.812Ãâ€"ÃŽ ³Pressure GaugeÃâ€"ÃŽ ³H2O=17.9lbft2 ÃŽ ³H2O=62.4 lbft3 ÃŽ ³Manometer ÃŽ ³Pressure Gauge=1.91 lbft3 Analysis and Conclusion: Overall I think results of this experiment turned out fairly well. From looking at the graph I noticed that as we moved on to the second and third tests there seemed to be less and less error. In general I think that human error had a huge impact on this lab. If we could have done a few trials for each test I think that the outcome of our measured results would be a lot closer to those of the theoretical results. What we were attempting to do with this lab was take the theoretical results of our experiment and get them as close as we could to the measured results with little percent error in order to determine if this test was reliable. By comparing some of the results I can safely say that this test is valid. Some of the data comparisons are far off, but others are within 2 percent error and I know for a fact that better results can be acquired.

Review of Portrait of America :: essays research papers

Review of Portrait of America During the process of reading this compilation of works, Portrait of America, many different point of views were aired. The opinion or attitude on the subject was too tainted. The authors were very biased to their perception of the "story". This book could have been much more beneficial if the facts would have stayed to the straight and narrow. Only the detrimental facts needed to be applied to these chapters. For a history class, as broad as this, this book opened too many doors that could not be explained in as much detail as would be liked. Many of the authors enjoyed mentioning the most scandalous moments of the people's lives then dropped the fact without much support or follow through as to what happened to cause or end these events. Brief summaries only tease the mind, and with the course load of most students, there is hardly extra time to investigate the matter further in detail. For a class such as History 152, biographies and/or documentary style books are m ore worth the while of the student. For instance make a list of a selection of novels that could be read for the class, so that every student can then explore in depth what that student thinks is interesting. Although the book was teasing in nature the chapters did flow well and were easy to read. The procession of the chapters had wonderful transition as to not loose the student. While proceeding through this book there were several different reoccurring topics that appeared. This paper will discuss these two reoccurring topics: the civil rights movement and former presidents. The civil rights movement, by many people, is though to have happened during the 1950's and 1960's. The truth of the matter is that civil right has and always will be an ongoing issue for anyone who is not of color. The civil rights movement started when the black slave started arriving in America centuries ago. The civil rights movement is one of the most known about issues in American history. Everyone at some point in their life has studied this movement. This movement is particularly interesting due to the massive amounts of different stories and occurrences through the course of the movement. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a vital figurehead to this movement. He inspired many people who had lived their whole lives in the shadow of fear of change.

Legalizing Marijuana Marc Dalcin

Legalizing Marijuana Marc Dalcin Dr. Marie Carroll Ashford Intro To Ethics And Social Responsibility 08/10/12 Marijuana has been at the center of a heated debate regarding its legalization. It has received both criticism and praise in equal measure. Critics refer to marijuana as a â€Å"devil weed† while supporters have often referred it to a â€Å"miracle drug. † Despite the different references to marijuana, there has been a prolonged debate on whether it should be legalized for personal use or not.There are two approaches to the use of marijuana with one involving medicinal purposes while the other involves purposes of pleasure. Medical health is an important aspect of human life and the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes has the importance of improving human health. In the case of using marijuana for pleasure, there is the issue of abuse of drugs, which often results in lawlessness among users. Legalizing marijuana presents an ethical dilemma in the se nse that it is difficult to ascertain the intentions of the users hence the drug may end up being used for the wrong reasons (Burnham, 2011).This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the ethical dilemma arising from the debate on legalizing marijuana and presents the use of deontological reasoning theory in solving the dilemma. The paper also includes a comparison between deontological reasoning and relativism with the eventual identification of the theory that best relates to the personal opinion with regards to the debate on legalizing marijuana. The question of legalizing marijuana Should the use personal use of marijuana be legalized? There are numerous uses associated with marijuana.AIDS and cancer patients find marijuana useful as a drug that restores appetite and fights nausea. Marijuana also has nutritional value because its seeds contain vitamins and can be used in preparing cooking oil (Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart, 2003). Research studies also indicate that the mariju ana can be used in the manufacturing of clothes. The plant has been used in the manufacturing of paper and clothing material for a very long time and is considered produce higher amount of fibre compared to trees. Environmentalists have found the marijuana plant important in addressing the problem of deforestation and soil erosion.Marijuana is beneficial in the restoration of lost soil nutrients. To law enforcement agencies, marijuana is considered to play a major role in increasing the number of crime rates. A significant number of incarcerated criminals have at least used marijuana prior to their arrest. The above analysis on the use of marijuana and its impact clearly points out to the fact that one group will support the legalization of marijuana while the other will oppose such a move. However, the debate can be solved using two theories of deontological reasoning and relativism.Deontological Reasoning The theory of deontological reasoning proposes that actions are either corre ct or wrong in themselves without taking into account their consequences. The theory of deontological reasoning can be best explained with the use of an example of a murder case. In such a situation, a deontologist considers the act of murder as wrong based on the fact that it involves taking the life of another person. It is assumed that humans have the duty of preserving life hence one should never kill no matter the circumstances (Mizzoni, 2009).In a nutshell, this implies that the end does not justify the means. Generally, deontologists believe that human beings have the duty of upholding morality. People have the moral duty to do the right things and avoid doing things that are wrong. The consequences of an action are never considered in determining whether the action is right or wrong. An individual has to consider his or her moral duty in order to make moral decisions. In this case, the personal use of marijuana is considered right or wrong based on the moral duty of users ra ther than the consequence of the plant on its user.The theory of deontological reasoning is connected to three concepts including rights, duties and principles (Burnham, 2011). However, our discussion only focuses on duties in analyzing the debate on legalizing the personal use of marijuana. There is a brief discussion of the concept of rights with regards to the theory of deontological reasoning. If an individual has the right to life, other people have the duty of making sure that such a right is respected. This relates with the issue of legalizing the use of marijuana. From a doctor’s perspective, medical marijuana has medicinal value and can be used in preserving life through healing.In such a case, the government and law enforcement agencies have the duty of respecting the right to life by legalizing the use of marijuana in providing treatment (Gerber, 2004). Marijuana may also be used for a different purpose such as pleasure, which may eventually result in users going i nsane. In order to preserve the life of users, there is an urgent need to make it illegal for users to abuse marijuana. This is because it will reduce the number of cases related to drug abuse hence saving a significant number of the human population from getting insane or engaging in criminal activities.Insanity and criminal actions have may result in the loss of life. The theory of deontological behavior proposes two classes of duties. First, there are general duties, which are commonly identified as prohibitions. Examples of prohibitions include do not kill, do not steal, and assist the needy among other general duties. The second class of duties relate to duties arising from the fact that there exists specific social relationships. For instance, if an individual has made a promise, then he or she has the duty of keeping the promise.Additionally, if one is a parent, then he or she has the duty to provide for the children. In this case, legalizing the personal use of marijuana is considered under the class of general duties (Jebreal & Lukes, 2011). One argument is that marijuana should be prohibited because it involves abuse of substances. On the other hand, doctors with patients have the duty to provide them with treatment even if it involves the use of marijuana as a medicine. Aquinas notes that each person has duties related to personal actions. An individual has a duty to keep promises, but does not have the duty to ensure that promises are kept.According to the theory of deontology, people should be more concerned with fulfilling personal duties but never make attempts of bringing out the most good. This is because it may result in the violation of the concept of a duty. In this case, we only have the duty of meeting the needs of other people rather than maximize the good (Mizzoni, 2009). There are a number of actions that people may choose from but they are free to act as they please. Basically, this means that people have the option of using marijuana for whatever reasons regardless of its consequences. There are instances when duties conflict with each other.W. D. Ross notes that in such cases, one does not require rules in solving such a conflict. One is only required to use their judgment in arriving at a solution. However, there are cases whereby one lacks the criteria that can be used in making decisions (Mizzoni, 2009). Deontologists argue that identifying the intentions of actions can provide a solution. Ross argues that actions are determined to be wrong or right based on the intentions of the agent. Therefore, deontological reasoning justifies the legalization of marijuana on the basis that it is used to improve human health.The use of marijuana can only be considered illegal if users intend to harm others. Relativism According to the theory of relativism, an action is considered moral or immoral relative to the cultural norms of the agent. This means that an action is considered right or wrong based on the moral norms of the culture within which it is practiced. A particular action may be considered moral in one culture while immoral in another culture. Relativists are opposed to the use of universal moral standards in determining whether an action is right or wrong (Jebreal & Lukes, 2011).The United Kingdom may consider the use marijuana as morally wrong while Amsterdam considers it morally right. According to relativists, there is no standard framework to be used in resolving moral disputes such as the legalization of marijuana across different members of society. Relativism is different from deontological reasoning in the sense that upholds societal norms as the determining factor on moral issues. According to relativism, marijuana should be legalized or not based on what society considers being moral or immoral (Jebreal & Lukes, 2011).However, in the case of deontological reasoning, actions are considered to be right or wrong based on the moral duties of an individual. Whereas relativism plac es emphasis on society in solving ethical dilemmas, deontological reasoning places emphasis on the moral duty of an individual. In this case, a relativist may support the legalization of marijuana because it is commonly used among members of his or her society. The same person may oppose legalizing marijuana because it is uncommon to use marijuana or use of marijuana is considered immoral within his society.The theory of relativism raises a number of important issues related to legalizing marijuana. First, different societies have conflicting moral beliefs and that believes of people within a society are deeply determined by their culture. It is therefore important that we incorporate the relativism when arguing for or against legalizing marijuana. Second, the theory provides for the exploration of reasons that influence the differences in beliefs of different individuals. This ensures that we also challenge the beliefs we hold for or against the legalization of marijuana (Burnham, 2011). Marijuana should be legalizedMy personal opinion is that there should be the legalization of marijuana. After making comparisons between the theory of relativism and deontological reasoning, I have discovered that relativism contains views that are closer to my own views. The issue of legalizing or prohibiting marijuana should be determine on the basis of what society views to be right or wrong rather than the moral duties of an individual. The theory of deontological reasoning argues that individuals have the moral duty to do what is right and at the same time avoid what is wrong but such actions are never aimed at aximizing most good (Gerber, 2004). However, relativism argues that an action is morally good or bad based on the cultural norms of a society. In such a case, actions are either considered to be good or bad for the collective benefit of society. This means that marijuana should be legalized because it helps the society or it should be made illegal because it harms the society. There are two perspectives that can be used in supporting the use of marijuana. They include marijuana as a medicine and marijuana as an illicit drug. Medical MarijuanaSince 1972, medical marijuana has been considered an illegal substance in the United States and across a number of countries in the world. In the United States, the congress banned the use of medical marijuana on the basis that it was harmful to the health of consumers and even placed it in the first schedule of the Controlled Substances Act. Generally, the congress considered that the drug did not have any healthy gains for the human body. However, recent research studies on the effects of marijuana provided different results to the claims presented by the US congress.Theses research studies have led to the discovery that medical marijuana can be used as medicine and has the potential to heal a number of diseases (Burnham, 2011). Marijuana contains a chemical THC, which has been proven to be harmless to human body. The new discoveries provide enough reasons for the legalization of marijuana. Failure to legalize marijuana implies that a significant number of people will be denied access to proper medication. Marijuana as an illicit drug Illicit drug use is a major problem and many countries led by the US have found it very difficult to address the problem.Various governments have established a number of programs aimed at solving the problem including treatment and prevention programs, international narcotics control, and drug education programs (Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart, 2003). Despite the efforts of government agencies to solve the problem of illicit drugs use, there is still an increase in the number of drug users. Research studies indicate that marijuana is the most commonly abused illicit drug. A perfect example is that in 1990, the US recorded approximately 6 million people using marijuana on a weekly basis or more.The increasing usage of marijuana as an illicit drug has bee n closely associated with crime rates all over the world. In 2002, the US reported that approximately 40 percent of jailed adults have at least tried using marijuana. This has the implication that the legalization of marijuana presents a big threat to law and order. Despite the fact that the use of marijuana has become a major problem, the war against its use has proven to be very costly compared to the benefits accrued from legalizing marijuana.For instance, the United States of America spends approximately 12 billion dollars in fighting the problem of marijuana. Legalizing the use of the same drug has the benefit of earning revenues for the government from taxation of marijuana. Instead of the government banning the use marijuana, it should legalize it but ensure that its cultivation, sale and purchase are regulated in order to control criminal activities associated with marijuana (Gerber, 2004). Legalizing marijuana is indeed an ethical dilemma given the fact that it can be used as medicine as well as an illicit drug.However, deontological reasoning proposes that an action is good or bad based on the moral duty of an individual rather than its consequence. The theory therefore proposes that the morality of legalizing the use of marijuana is a personal choice. On the contrary, the theory of relativism proposes that an action is morally ethical relative to the culture within such an action is practiced (Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart, 2003). It is on the basis of the theory of relativism that I propose the legalization of the use of marijuana.The benefits of legalizing marijuana such as healing and economic value far outweigh the cost of prohibiting its use. References Burnham, A. (2011). Benefits of Legalizing Marijuana. New York: GRIN Verlag. Gerber, J. R. (2004). Legalizing Marijuana: Drug Policy Reform and Prohibition Politics. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group. Jebreal, R. & Lukes, S. (2011). Moral Relativism. New York: Profile Books. Mizzoni, J. (2009). Ethics: The Basics. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Rosenthal, E. , Kubby, S. & Newhart, S. (2003). Why Marijuana Should Be Legal. Chicago: Running Press. Legalizing Marijuana Marc Dalcin Legalizing Marijuana Marc Dalcin Dr. Marie Carroll Ashford Intro To Ethics And Social Responsibility 08/10/12 Marijuana has been at the center of a heated debate regarding its legalization. It has received both criticism and praise in equal measure. Critics refer to marijuana as a â€Å"devil weed† while supporters have often referred it to a â€Å"miracle drug. † Despite the different references to marijuana, there has been a prolonged debate on whether it should be legalized for personal use or not.There are two approaches to the use of marijuana with one involving medicinal purposes while the other involves purposes of pleasure. Medical health is an important aspect of human life and the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes has the importance of improving human health. In the case of using marijuana for pleasure, there is the issue of abuse of drugs, which often results in lawlessness among users. Legalizing marijuana presents an ethical dilemma in the se nse that it is difficult to ascertain the intentions of the users hence the drug may end up being used for the wrong reasons (Burnham, 2011).This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the ethical dilemma arising from the debate on legalizing marijuana and presents the use of deontological reasoning theory in solving the dilemma. The paper also includes a comparison between deontological reasoning and relativism with the eventual identification of the theory that best relates to the personal opinion with regards to the debate on legalizing marijuana. The question of legalizing marijuana Should the use personal use of marijuana be legalized? There are numerous uses associated with marijuana.AIDS and cancer patients find marijuana useful as a drug that restores appetite and fights nausea. Marijuana also has nutritional value because its seeds contain vitamins and can be used in preparing cooking oil (Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart, 2003). Research studies also indicate that the mariju ana can be used in the manufacturing of clothes. The plant has been used in the manufacturing of paper and clothing material for a very long time and is considered produce higher amount of fibre compared to trees. Environmentalists have found the marijuana plant important in addressing the problem of deforestation and soil erosion.Marijuana is beneficial in the restoration of lost soil nutrients. To law enforcement agencies, marijuana is considered to play a major role in increasing the number of crime rates. A significant number of incarcerated criminals have at least used marijuana prior to their arrest. The above analysis on the use of marijuana and its impact clearly points out to the fact that one group will support the legalization of marijuana while the other will oppose such a move. However, the debate can be solved using two theories of deontological reasoning and relativism.Deontological Reasoning The theory of deontological reasoning proposes that actions are either corre ct or wrong in themselves without taking into account their consequences. The theory of deontological reasoning can be best explained with the use of an example of a murder case. In such a situation, a deontologist considers the act of murder as wrong based on the fact that it involves taking the life of another person. It is assumed that humans have the duty of preserving life hence one should never kill no matter the circumstances (Mizzoni, 2009).In a nutshell, this implies that the end does not justify the means. Generally, deontologists believe that human beings have the duty of upholding morality. People have the moral duty to do the right things and avoid doing things that are wrong. The consequences of an action are never considered in determining whether the action is right or wrong. An individual has to consider his or her moral duty in order to make moral decisions. In this case, the personal use of marijuana is considered right or wrong based on the moral duty of users ra ther than the consequence of the plant on its user.The theory of deontological reasoning is connected to three concepts including rights, duties and principles (Burnham, 2011). However, our discussion only focuses on duties in analyzing the debate on legalizing the personal use of marijuana. There is a brief discussion of the concept of rights with regards to the theory of deontological reasoning. If an individual has the right to life, other people have the duty of making sure that such a right is respected. This relates with the issue of legalizing the use of marijuana. From a doctor’s perspective, medical marijuana has medicinal value and can be used in preserving life through healing.In such a case, the government and law enforcement agencies have the duty of respecting the right to life by legalizing the use of marijuana in providing treatment (Gerber, 2004). Marijuana may also be used for a different purpose such as pleasure, which may eventually result in users going i nsane. In order to preserve the life of users, there is an urgent need to make it illegal for users to abuse marijuana. This is because it will reduce the number of cases related to drug abuse hence saving a significant number of the human population from getting insane or engaging in criminal activities.Insanity and criminal actions have may result in the loss of life. The theory of deontological behavior proposes two classes of duties. First, there are general duties, which are commonly identified as prohibitions. Examples of prohibitions include do not kill, do not steal, and assist the needy among other general duties. The second class of duties relate to duties arising from the fact that there exists specific social relationships. For instance, if an individual has made a promise, then he or she has the duty of keeping the promise.Additionally, if one is a parent, then he or she has the duty to provide for the children. In this case, legalizing the personal use of marijuana is considered under the class of general duties (Jebreal & Lukes, 2011). One argument is that marijuana should be prohibited because it involves abuse of substances. On the other hand, doctors with patients have the duty to provide them with treatment even if it involves the use of marijuana as a medicine. Aquinas notes that each person has duties related to personal actions. An individual has a duty to keep promises, but does not have the duty to ensure that promises are kept.According to the theory of deontology, people should be more concerned with fulfilling personal duties but never make attempts of bringing out the most good. This is because it may result in the violation of the concept of a duty. In this case, we only have the duty of meeting the needs of other people rather than maximize the good (Mizzoni, 2009). There are a number of actions that people may choose from but they are free to act as they please. Basically, this means that people have the option of using marijuana for whatever reasons regardless of its consequences. There are instances when duties conflict with each other.W. D. Ross notes that in such cases, one does not require rules in solving such a conflict. One is only required to use their judgment in arriving at a solution. However, there are cases whereby one lacks the criteria that can be used in making decisions (Mizzoni, 2009). Deontologists argue that identifying the intentions of actions can provide a solution. Ross argues that actions are determined to be wrong or right based on the intentions of the agent. Therefore, deontological reasoning justifies the legalization of marijuana on the basis that it is used to improve human health.The use of marijuana can only be considered illegal if users intend to harm others. Relativism According to the theory of relativism, an action is considered moral or immoral relative to the cultural norms of the agent. This means that an action is considered right or wrong based on the moral norms of the culture within which it is practiced. A particular action may be considered moral in one culture while immoral in another culture. Relativists are opposed to the use of universal moral standards in determining whether an action is right or wrong (Jebreal & Lukes, 2011).The United Kingdom may consider the use marijuana as morally wrong while Amsterdam considers it morally right. According to relativists, there is no standard framework to be used in resolving moral disputes such as the legalization of marijuana across different members of society. Relativism is different from deontological reasoning in the sense that upholds societal norms as the determining factor on moral issues. According to relativism, marijuana should be legalized or not based on what society considers being moral or immoral (Jebreal & Lukes, 2011).However, in the case of deontological reasoning, actions are considered to be right or wrong based on the moral duties of an individual. Whereas relativism plac es emphasis on society in solving ethical dilemmas, deontological reasoning places emphasis on the moral duty of an individual. In this case, a relativist may support the legalization of marijuana because it is commonly used among members of his or her society. The same person may oppose legalizing marijuana because it is uncommon to use marijuana or use of marijuana is considered immoral within his society.The theory of relativism raises a number of important issues related to legalizing marijuana. First, different societies have conflicting moral beliefs and that believes of people within a society are deeply determined by their culture. It is therefore important that we incorporate the relativism when arguing for or against legalizing marijuana. Second, the theory provides for the exploration of reasons that influence the differences in beliefs of different individuals. This ensures that we also challenge the beliefs we hold for or against the legalization of marijuana (Burnham, 2011). Marijuana should be legalizedMy personal opinion is that there should be the legalization of marijuana. After making comparisons between the theory of relativism and deontological reasoning, I have discovered that relativism contains views that are closer to my own views. The issue of legalizing or prohibiting marijuana should be determine on the basis of what society views to be right or wrong rather than the moral duties of an individual. The theory of deontological reasoning argues that individuals have the moral duty to do what is right and at the same time avoid what is wrong but such actions are never aimed at aximizing most good (Gerber, 2004). However, relativism argues that an action is morally good or bad based on the cultural norms of a society. In such a case, actions are either considered to be good or bad for the collective benefit of society. This means that marijuana should be legalized because it helps the society or it should be made illegal because it harms the society. There are two perspectives that can be used in supporting the use of marijuana. They include marijuana as a medicine and marijuana as an illicit drug. Medical MarijuanaSince 1972, medical marijuana has been considered an illegal substance in the United States and across a number of countries in the world. In the United States, the congress banned the use of medical marijuana on the basis that it was harmful to the health of consumers and even placed it in the first schedule of the Controlled Substances Act. Generally, the congress considered that the drug did not have any healthy gains for the human body. However, recent research studies on the effects of marijuana provided different results to the claims presented by the US congress.Theses research studies have led to the discovery that medical marijuana can be used as medicine and has the potential to heal a number of diseases (Burnham, 2011). Marijuana contains a chemical THC, which has been proven to be harmless to human body. The new discoveries provide enough reasons for the legalization of marijuana. Failure to legalize marijuana implies that a significant number of people will be denied access to proper medication. Marijuana as an illicit drug Illicit drug use is a major problem and many countries led by the US have found it very difficult to address the problem.Various governments have established a number of programs aimed at solving the problem including treatment and prevention programs, international narcotics control, and drug education programs (Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart, 2003). Despite the efforts of government agencies to solve the problem of illicit drugs use, there is still an increase in the number of drug users. Research studies indicate that marijuana is the most commonly abused illicit drug. A perfect example is that in 1990, the US recorded approximately 6 million people using marijuana on a weekly basis or more.The increasing usage of marijuana as an illicit drug has bee n closely associated with crime rates all over the world. In 2002, the US reported that approximately 40 percent of jailed adults have at least tried using marijuana. This has the implication that the legalization of marijuana presents a big threat to law and order. Despite the fact that the use of marijuana has become a major problem, the war against its use has proven to be very costly compared to the benefits accrued from legalizing marijuana.For instance, the United States of America spends approximately 12 billion dollars in fighting the problem of marijuana. Legalizing the use of the same drug has the benefit of earning revenues for the government from taxation of marijuana. Instead of the government banning the use marijuana, it should legalize it but ensure that its cultivation, sale and purchase are regulated in order to control criminal activities associated with marijuana (Gerber, 2004). Legalizing marijuana is indeed an ethical dilemma given the fact that it can be used as medicine as well as an illicit drug.However, deontological reasoning proposes that an action is good or bad based on the moral duty of an individual rather than its consequence. The theory therefore proposes that the morality of legalizing the use of marijuana is a personal choice. On the contrary, the theory of relativism proposes that an action is morally ethical relative to the culture within such an action is practiced (Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart, 2003). It is on the basis of the theory of relativism that I propose the legalization of the use of marijuana.The benefits of legalizing marijuana such as healing and economic value far outweigh the cost of prohibiting its use. References Burnham, A. (2011). Benefits of Legalizing Marijuana. New York: GRIN Verlag. Gerber, J. R. (2004). Legalizing Marijuana: Drug Policy Reform and Prohibition Politics. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group. Jebreal, R. & Lukes, S. (2011). Moral Relativism. New York: Profile Books. Mizzoni, J. (2009). Ethics: The Basics. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Rosenthal, E. , Kubby, S. & Newhart, S. (2003). Why Marijuana Should Be Legal. Chicago: Running Press.

Nature Vs. Nature Nature And Nurture - 969 Words

Human beings are complicated and have complex personalities—and serial killers even more complex. Determining where these personalities come from, especially in serial killers, is a question of speculation asked by psychologists. One theory, nature, is that who people are is determined by genetics. Another theory, nurture, is that people are who they are because of environment. Both theories are in fact correct; however, the cause of personality is not solely nature or nurture, but on a case by case basis, can be both. According to Saul McLeod in â€Å"Nature versus Nurture in Psychology,† nature is â€Å"what we think of as pre-wiring and is influenced by genetic inheritance and other biological factors.† Nature is our prewritten genetic code—genes determine physical characteristics like height, eye color, hair color, but genes can also determine personality. When studies based on nature are performed, fraternal twins are often studied; In â€Å"Nature and Nurture Debate† Sarah Mae Sincero states that â€Å"When fraternal twins are reared apart, they show the same similarities in behavior and response as if they have been reared together† (1). Even though the environment has changed, behavior stays the same. McLeod defines nurture as followed: â€Å"Nurture is generally taken as the influence of external factors after conception e.g. the product of exposure, experience and learning on an individual† (1). With the nurture factors of surroundings, childhoodShow MoreRelatedNature Vs Nurture : Nature Or Nurture874 Words   |  4 Pages Nature or Nurture. Nature may be all of the genes and hereditary factors with which influence them to become who they are such as physical appearances and personality characteristics. Nurturing impacts people’s lives as well as how they are raised and all the environmental factors. In combination, these qualities can be the true identity of oneself. Many people may argue that nurture appears to a play huge factor in the two, but others may think otherwise. Not having both as a characteristic canRead MoreNature Vs Nurture : Nature And Nurture1821 Words   |  8 PagesNature and nurture are usually seen as very different things, but they are actually somewhat similar and even integrated. There is a huge debate over which holds more influence over how people develop and whether they behave based on genes or their environment. In Sincero’s article Nature and Nurture Debate she discusses arguments for both sides, saying behavior may be completely in a person’s genes, or it could come from experience and influence. Many people believe â€Å"that the criminal acts, tendencyRead MoreNature And Nurture : Nature Vs. Nurture1780 Words   |  8 PagesAs Nature Made Him: Nature vs. Nurture Human behavior is determined by both biological and environmental factors. Psychologists are interested in learning which of these factors is a greater influence on human behavior and identity. Although psychologists today generally agree that both nature and nurture play a role in conditioning behavior, there is still disagreement about the part that each of the factors have in determining behavior. The nature versus nurture debate focuses around the extentRead MoreNature Vs Nurture : Is The Nature Or Nurture?1300 Words   |  6 PagesAoS 3: Student Directed Research Investigation Unit 1 Psychology - Megan Rodrigues RESEARCH QUESTION How is the nature vs nurture debate related to a consideration of the mental disorder, schizophrenia? INTRODUCTION Schizophrenia is categorized by thoughts or experiences that seem abnormal with reality, disorganized speech or behaviour and decreased participation in regular daily activities. Difficulty with memory and concentration are sometimes also present. The two hit hypothesis generally refersRead MoreNature Vs Nurture : Nature And Nurture1821 Words   |  8 Pages Nature and nurture are usually seen as very different things, but they are actually somewhat similar and even integrated. There is a huge debate over which holds more influence over how people develop and whether they behave based on genes or their environment. In Sincero’s article Nature and Nurture Debate she discusses arguments for both sides, saying behavior may be completely in a person’s genes, or it could come from experience and influence. Many people believe â€Å"that the criminal acts, tendencyRead MoreNature Vs. Nurture : Nature Versus Nurture1337 Words   |  6 PagesNature vs. Nurture There are many different ways that behavior can be explained, especially on the terms of nature vs. nurture. Aggression is a behavior that has been extensively analyzed in a complex manner and the causes of it can be explained many different ways. Aggression can be defined as hostile or destructive behavior that can cause injury or destructive outlook especially when caused by frustration. Nature can be defined as aspects of behavior that have been inherited or are genetic, whileRead MoreNature Vs Nurture : Nature And Nurture928 Words   |  4 PagesAs mentioned briefly in my self-introduction post, the nature-nurture portion of our textbook is the one part of this course I stated I looked forward to the most. I have always found myself engaged in a constant internal battle regarding nature versus nurture. Adding to this internal battle is the fact that I am married to an identical twin†¦a twin who drastically differs from his brother in several ways. These differences betw een my husband and his twin have resulted in my questioning if theRead MoreNature Vs Nurture : Nature And Nurture994 Words   |  4 PagesNature and Nurture: How They Interact in Human Development Nature or Nurture, which of these are the most important in shaping who we are? â€Å"Are genetics or environmental factors more important?† (Berk, 2014, p. 5) Researchers have been arguing whether nature or nurture is the most influential force in shaping human beings for a long time. The answer seems to be a complex combination of both nature and nurture. One thing that everybody can agree on is that human beings are more than the sum of ourRead MoreNature Vs Nurture : Nature Versus Nurture882 Words   |  4 Pagestheir parents. Meaning they think Nature is a big part in their life and why they are who they are. The genes in each cell in us humans determine the different traits that we have, more dominantly on the physical connections like eye color, hair color, ear size, height, and other traits. However, it is still not known whether the more abstract attributes like personality, intelligence, sexual orientation, likes and dislikes are gene-coded in our DNA. The nurture theory has experiments showing a child’sRead MoreNature Vs. Nurture : Nature Versus Nurture Essay1939 Words   |  8 PagesNature versus Nurture You got your dark brown hair from your father and you got your looks from your mother, but where did you get your excitement for sports and your love for all animals? A person’s physical characteristics lean more towards genes and heredity, but our genes are not mentioned as much when behavior is the topic. This is how the nature versus nurture debate first began. Scientists who believe in the nature theory believe that people behave the way they do due to heredity and genes