Just because we have the technological power to use drones to take people/things out, that does not necessarily mean that we should. The main concern being brought up, that while we as a nation may have always killed people with a certain form of ease in the name of war, it has come at a high cost. It is expensive, and not too easy. However, with this drone system it is easier, less expensive, and does not require so much blood shed. This is an area of concern because this may become us as a nation to become much more relaxed when it comes to moral …show more content…
The debate of ones freedom comes into play with the Price Gouging case because by having this law and allowing people to maximize on welfare. Is it going against the merchants freedom by not allowing them to price their items at whatever price they please or going against the freedom of the consumer by giving them no other option other than to buy things at these inflated rates in times of desperate need? I think that while it is in a way going against the freedom of the merchant because they should be able to sell things for whatever they want, I think it is important in a time of need, people are able to get the necessities that they need in order to survive. I do not think that it is okay for a few greedy people to gain such a large profit, while people suffer.
The Purple Heart topic greatly displayed the promotion of virtue aspect because it is all whether or not our veterans should be given a purple heart when they have been physically injured, or have died in battle, as well as when a veteran has been injured psychologically. As a psychology major, I of course think that psychological illnesses, such as PTSD or depression are just as harmful or difficult to live with as any physical injury. I think that if someone has risked their life both physically and mentally then they should both be entitled to the Purple