wasted on ineffective methods of improving our environment and energy issues

Wasted on ineffective methods of improving our

This preview shows page 37 - 40 out of 64 pages.

wasted on ineffective methods of improving our environment and energy issues. These consequences would be both detrimental and long-range, because they would merely stall our country from moving in a forward positive direction. The normative principles that seem to motivate proponents include the Principle of Ends and the Principle of Compensatory Justice. The Principle of Ends declares that one should never treat human beings as mere means to an end, but always as ends in themselves. Supporters are stating that we should not take advantage of farmers merely because they
Image of page 37
Sample Paper 38 provide for this country. The role farmers play is integral to our country and they should be treated with fairness and equality. This idea extends also to the idea of conservation in the sense that one should not use the environment only to benefit ones self as a means to their end. Rather, one should consider the repercussions of the treatment to the environment also. Supporters of the farm bill also employ the normative Principle of Compensatory Justice. This principle represents the notion that farmers should protected if they are financially hurt by economic conditions or natural disasters. In case of one of these scenarios, they will always be able to look towards the government for Compensatory Justice in the forms of direct disaster payments or crop insurance. Those against this year’s proposed farm bill also have obligations to groups. Detractors of the 2007 farm bill have a primary obligation to farmers. This is a shared obligation with supporters of the bill, however; their obligation is more towards smaller, family, and independent farmers. This is an informal obligation, but it should be noted in a state such as California (where there are primarily non-subsidized specialty crop farms) law makers should push for legislation that benefits their farmers. Obligations to farmers usually rest in which farms are represented in law maker’s states. Critics also have a secondary obligation to consumers. While the supporters have an obligation to tax payers, the critics of the bill have an informal responsibility to ensure that consumers are receiving the best value for farm based goods in price and quality. Consumers drive this
Image of page 38
Sample Paper 39 economy and the critics of the farm bill recognize the unofficial contract that must be protected in this legislation. A third obligation is the informal responsibility to nature. Critics identify the necessity to maintain a sustainable environment because of the benefits it provides to the nation. Critics also take a value based approach to the issues outlined in the farm bill based on their obligations. Because enemies of the farm bill want to protect small, family, and independent farmers they value equality in subsidies. They believe there should be justice and fairness in the division of government payments and that no farmer should be discriminated upon because of size of farm, gross of output, or income. Those against the farm
Image of page 39
Image of page 40

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 64 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes