“You don’t simply say ‘I’m sorry to a man you’ve robbed. . . . You return what you stole or your apology takes on a hollow ring.” Consider the ethics of reparation in the USA that attempts to address harms done to racial groups other than whites and women. That is, in the realms of racism and sexism.

Let’s bring the discussion of reparation for harm done down to the ethical foundation underlying it. Forget, for now, the apparent achievability of implementing programs that may seem impossible to implement. For example, giving back the land robbed from native people may sound utterly impossible to implement, but perhaps it is the only truly ethical choice in this circumstance. What about reparation for the enslavement of African Americans? Or for the economic, personal, and societal impacts of sexism on women? There are, of course, more examples of groups affected.

Please write a 2-page paper in our standard format on the ethics of reparation. Examine your own actual ethical view on this topic and write from that stance. Choose one, two, or three groups that have been discriminated against (African Americans / Native Americans) and envision ways that reparation might become a reality. Try to dig deep and consider what would actually make up for the harm done, as well as achieve a level of equality currently. If you feel that reparation and/or equality are not appropriate, then substantiate that stance.

Carefully read the chapter prior to writing and bring in material that supports your ideas. Put yourself in the shoes of the groups you are examining. Would your reparations make a difference to you? If not, what might? Gaining equality of opportunity and well-being in all areas of life is an important part of reparation. Can you begin to address this possibility? The idea, in philosophical writing, is to be clear and succinct.

Philosophy Ethics required textbook (Timmons, Mark. Disputed Moral Issues: A Reader. Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press, 2017 (Chapter 6 Sexism, Racism, and Reparation).

In 2016, the UN General Assembly adopted a Resolution on State-provided Health Care. The Resolution expressed “total support for the right of all persons, however needy, to be provided, directly by their governments, with the health care of the highest available quality.” It went on to call on all states to “institute, without further delay, comprehensive systems of government-delivered universal health care” for all persons within their jurisdictions. Several states, including several major states, spoke out strongly against the Resolution, but after a vote, it was adopted by a large majority (181 in favor, 5 opposed, 8 abstentions). One delegate gave a speech proclaiming that “the Resolution represents a significant development in international public health law” and the UN General Assembly had instituted “a firm global commitment to universal government-delivered health for all.”
The positions of States X, Y, and Z on this matter are as follows:
State X voted in favor of the Resolution. It issued a statement that praised the Resolution as “a statement of international law.” However, it went on to say that “certain unfortunate and unavoidable economic constraints preclude the government of State X from implementing the Resolution immediately.” The statement continued: “When the economic climate is sufficiently improved, State X undertakes to give prompt and full effect to the terms of the Resolution.”
State Y also voted in favor of the Resolution. It also, however, expressed concern about the compatibility of the Resolution with a pre-existing treaty obligation, which committed it to safeguard “the right of private enterprise to play the predominant role in health-care delivery” in State Y.
State Z voted against the Resolution. In a statement, it noted that “the government of State Z is of the opinion that the resolution is utopian and aspirational, and consequently is wholly devoid of legal significance.”
To what extent, if any, is EACH of these states (X, Y, and Z) legally bound by the contents of the Resolution? In each case, explain the reasons for your conclusion.

Answers should be typed, printed out and no more than 1500 words in length. All sources must be properly referenced and there should be an appended bibliography of all of the sources consulted.

Using the scenario discussed in the article, talk about how Aristotle and Mencius would each evaluate the ethics of the action. For Aristotle, consider the virtues and how it impacts us as human beings to act like that; also whether treating people like that is clearly either compatible with or incompatible with any of the virtues, and why. For Mencius, consider both the 5 relationships and the 4 sprouts of goodness/humanity and their properly developed form. Then briefly evaluate the value of the different theories in helping us see and fully understand the ethical issues in the treatment this woman received.

Claim, Evidence warrant paper, pretty simple. All sources must site. doesn’t have to be too crazy. I want at least 2 evidence from each source posted. There are 4 sources. And they must have some sort of connection in a way. For the intro explain what is being discussed and for the conclusion connect all the evidence together and explain how they are related. If you need any more info on the paper, please ask me anything and I will respond to help.

Social psychologists care about isolating the processes involved in understanding a phenomenon. That is, they care about having sufficient evidence that X causes Y in their research and that it does so in the real world as well. Discuss their concerns and how they deal with or solve these concerns, and why these solutions work

Explain discounting and augmentation effects in social perception, and how they differ from each other. Then provide your OWN social psychology-relevant example (real or fictitious) of these mental processes in action, and explain how they can shape social perception. Your example cannot be used from the textbook or lecture material.