Do we have a moral obligation to protect the environment?
When taking up the matter of environmental ethics many people affirm that we have a moral obligation to protect the environment. I don’t want to ask if you agree or disagree,but rather if you can make sense of the claim at all. Can we have an obligation to the environment itself, or are we really saying that we have obligations to people (present or future who rely upon the environment)? If we can have a direct obligation to the environment, what is it aboutan environment that is the proper recipient of that obligation? Is it the animal life in it? Is it the land itself? Do we have the same obligations to all environments (desert and rainforest alike)? If our obligation is really to the people who depend upon the environment, would we be doing anything intrinsically wrong if we destroyed our planet? That is, imagine we developed adequate space travel such that we couldfind and colonize another suitable planet for all to live on. If every person was safe, prosperous, and consenting on the new planet, would we be doing anything inherently wrong by wringing the last resource out of this planet until every ecosystem wasliterally destroyed?
What, if any, moral obligations does the American government have towards its people?
What is this a rhetorical question ?! How about these moral obligations ? : 1) To treat it's citizens in a fair and even handed manner. 2) To protect them from domestic and foreign criminals. 3) To be transparent in their decisions and workings whenever possible. 4) To realize that their power comes from the people they govern.
Do governments have a responsibility for health of their citizens?
If we intend as “Government” an organisation made by and supported by a democratically elected assembly, I believe that it is one of its main duties to protect and care for the health and well being of all the members of the community that it was appointed to card about.To this purpose it enforces laws, codes and regulations enacted by Parliament to prevent the release of harmful substances in the environment, ensure the safety of products and equipment (such as cars, elevators, appliances, buildings, etc.), and prevent the spread of infectious diseases through vaccination programs.It can also mandate paid sick leave regulations in order to make sure that any worker who falls ill can get treated and stay home until healed without fear of losing his job, because forcing sick persons to work anyway could lead to workplace accidents and spread germs to coworkers, thus putting other people's health at risk.In civilized countries governments run health care services designed to provide its citizens with free health care at the point of service, in order to ensure that everybody gets the necessary treatment without fear of losing his/her life savings or becoming heavily indebted.This benefits society at large because people with illnesses cannot provide for their family and end up in need of public assistance, becoming a burden to their country rather than an asset.
What is a government's obligation to the people of its nation?
Defence because without this the country would cease to exist.Law and Order, including human rights, and democracy, because without these the country would be an anarchy.Infrastructure where there is a clear benefit to society in general, or a net economic gain, because this underpins a successful country, and allow economic growth to benefit everyone, especially the most successful.Universal Education because without it you limit opportunity which limits the potential of the country as a whole, and create an economic underclass who will rob those who are more successful.Universal Healthcare because it's efficient and no-one can afford to pay for serious interventions with cash, and insurance specifically excludes known conditions (it's not a charity).A social safety net for the weak and infirm because this is humane, and to support people through temporary hardship, because 99% of successful people suffer hardship at one time or another and their loss would undermine the future of the economy.
If the government has the prime duty to serve and protect its citizens, in return, what is our reponsibility to the state?
Q. If the government has the prime duty to serve and protect its citizens, in return, what is our reponsibility to the state?(1) You need to look at the full, overarching sweep of the polity, to appreciate both sides of the ledger.(2a) Social contractSocial contract in the broader sense, is not to be confused with Democracy. You can have a social contract in a high-performing democracy, or a Benevolent dictatorship. In a functional social contract abstraction, the citizenry is cool with the State’s system of bones and muscles. E.g. in a Benevolent Dictatorship, the citizenry at large may be happy to trade-off a lower level of civil liberties with sustained, aggressive economic development.(2b) CoercionIt’s not necessarily all serve and protect, play nice, although that’s the state’s ultimate objective.The state has coercive power over its citizenry. Law enforcement. Decide on the fate of the fetus in your body. Incarcerate badasses. Jury duty. Military conscription.(2c) ServiceThe state serves its citizens. Depending on the particular stew-of-the-day swirl of political, economic and social ideologies, such services maybe direct (e.g. government provides postal services), or indirect (provide an enabling ecosystem for citizens, including their businesses, ala invisible hands) to thrive (or sink).(2d) ProtectionThe state protects its citizens, self-evidently, from external threats, and less intuitively, from themselves. Humanity has dark self-destructive instincts, Hobbesian “nasty, brutish and short”, alongside glowing, soaring altruism, in its colorful continuum of impulses.(3) We come back to the question: “In return, what is our reponsibility to the state?”Social contractSustain the social contract with respect to the citizen’s end of the compact.Respect the valid outcomes arising from the social contract ministrations and gyrations, even if we disagree vehemently. E.g. election results, referendum results, the oftentimes inexplicable will of the majority.The social contract is living and breathing. Revise it as and when appropriate, notwithstanding its abstract nuances.Duty, more precisely Civic Duty, e.g.obey the law,pay tax,vote,jury duty,donate blood.Obligation e.g. military conscription. Obligations are generally granted in return for an increase in an individual's rights or power. A President’s obligation is greater than a lay-citizen’s obligations.
What do you see as the US government's moral responsibilities?
The government’s role is to see to it that every citizens rights are upheld and everyone has equal protection under the law. The Constitution of the United States lays out rights and responsibility for all. Next time you vote, make sure your representative has read this great document and understands their responsibility to uphold its provisions.The President, his cabinet and representatives shouldn’t get to pick and choose which provisions they will or won’t uphold. All citizens are protected unless a totally partisan government takes over and decides which group of people they will represent to the full extent of the law.This is why voting is so important. When you fail to exercise your franchise, it opens the door to authoritarian type government, in which a dictator persecutes those who don’t follow the party line. It leads to inefficient government, in which fat cats are in charge and take advantage of taxpayers who have no choice but to give in to their illegitimate power.The advantages of a two party political system are evident by present circumstances, which have seen some outrages in the voting process, the way voting districts are drawn, voter registration abuses, jamming unpopular candidates and policies down the throats of the majority of citizens. bad trade,When Congress of either party sits by and does nothing about bad presidential decisions, the results can only spell disaster. When the majority party acts as a rubber stamp for the president, despite the dire consequences of his activities, it is reprehensible. When one party is in power at every level of government, all citizens are endangered by their leadership. The separation of powers loses its meaning as the whole government marches in lockstep, like Russia, North Korea and China.