I was watching how the prison-industrial complex is big business. While corporations may be able to run a more efficient system, by their nature, they cut costs and maximize profit, making money for shareholders and CEOs who may care nothing about the quality of their prisons. A similar argument can be made for private military contractors operating abroad and defense contractors who manufacture arms for the military.
2006-10-30 18:10:20 · 13 answers · asked by Brandon 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I think it all depends, with the prison argument, work detail is usually a privilege that prisoners want to do, and get (very) little pay for, besides they are in prison, living off of the state, they should help cover the costs of their incarceration. With the military contractors I think that the situation is shady, so, it seems like there is a good case for immoral activity. With the defense contractors, they create products to stay ahead of what our nation's enemies may have. Don't forget that WWII got the U.S. out of the Great Depression by stimulating a war time economy.
Was employing millions of American workers, allowing them to feed their families, while basically arming our future enemies, immoral? I
2006-10-30 18:45:29 · answer #1 · answered by MaL 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Convicted prisoners have violated the social contract. They were taken out of society because they are too dangerous to be left unattended. As far as I am concerned, they are not entitled to the same rights as those who have not violated the contract.
2006-10-30 18:50:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
To me the worst thing in the world someone can do... is to get a leg up by stepping on the backs of others while they are down.... I know that i am very idealistic... and that is how the world runs.. people take advantage of the disadvantaged....and i think that it sucks....
2006-10-30 19:05:48 · answer #3 · answered by sunny1falling 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ask George Herbert Walker Bush and Dick Cheney...they'll be able to tell you, those two ratbastards are the biggest profiteers of human suffering we've seen since WWII.
2006-10-30 19:02:38 · answer #4 · answered by J.A.R. 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, Just ask George Bush, Halliburton, Kellog, Brown and Root, Exxon mobil...They will all agree it is not wrong to roll in the sprawls of wealth while the homeless person outside your gate hasn't eaten in days,,,,My friend it is the American Way....Hope you like sarcasim
2006-10-30 18:27:49 · answer #5 · answered by LENNON3804 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Extremely.
2006-10-30 18:17:16 · answer #6 · answered by Answerer 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I believe you explained the leaders in the Middle East quite well. Amazing how the liberals defend the leaders in Iran and Syria.
2006-10-30 18:17:02 · answer #7 · answered by haterade 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I have to give it up to you on one of the most interesting and difference of opinion I've seen on this forum!
As for the human suffering ? Any human suffering is absolutly immortal!
2006-10-30 19:21:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
it incredibly is "maximum" people, my pal. Micheal Vick used canines to kill one yet another. As for persons and death, numerous international places help a type of hospice care the place the guy is permitted to "die with dignity," with existence help bumped off and medicines presented for discomfort. Animals are considered "helpless" and "dumb" by capacity of maximum, so interestingly they are dealt with extra helpful than people who're believed to be self-helping.
2016-10-21 00:59:54 · answer #9 · answered by mchellon 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
2006-10-30 18:13:03 · answer #10 · answered by sangheilizim 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋