The philosophers have only interpreted the world,in various ways. The point, however ,is to change it. Even though there can be countless arguments, there is no right or wrong. Recently, students in CUHK are debatingg the contract renewal of an Islamic restaurant. Even though arguments from both sides are well-supported, I would still like to offer some possible solutions. From what I have observed, the major disputes are about multiculturalism, fairness and quality of food.
Multiculturalism is one of the characteristics of Hong Kong, meaning we have to embrace and respect different culture. Some think that it is legitimate to renew the contract of islamic canteen because muslim is one of the cultures in Hong Kong. It is estimate there are …show more content…
But Rousseau thinks there is no difference to primitive society when the minority yield to the majority as this is not democracy. There is no point to argue which party should be prioritized. However, I still believe that renewing the contract can help encourage multiculturalism. On one hand, renewing allows islams to continue to stay; on the other, it allows local student to try different food. People are willing to embrace different culture when they have experienced how special it is. And so, we can also provide some opt-out solutions for islams. If they want to try other food, there will be local restaurants available in CUHK. For those, who really wanted to stick with islam, we have to respect them because everyone has the freedom of religion in Hong Kong. Everyone deserves a good life and one of the aspects is autonomy. People should have the autonomy to choose what they desire when it doesn’t violate others. Also, we respect people not because we wanted to be respected but because this is moral and we gain happiness from …show more content…
When people wanted to help others, they don’t think logically, but rather use their emotions. It means we wanted to help others because we fell compassionate for their situation, given that we are fine. Inequality is usually felt for oneself. Normal restaurants felt that it is unfair to renew the contract because they currently do not have places to set up. If everyone has the place, then they wont bother the contract renewal of Islamic restaurants. However, resources are limited and the question becomes who should be satisfied first. If we satisfied those with the greatest contribution, it would be unfair to Islamic restaurant as they have less chance to contribute where there is only little islams in CUHK. If we renew the contract directly, it would be at odds with our conduct as we are inclined to help the same ethnicity first. To create fairness for both parties, I believe we can solve this problem by combing the restaurants. Local chief and Islamic chief work in the Islamic restaurant together and are responsible to cook their own dishes but local chief cannot violate the rules in Quran. This is because the space is reserved for the Islamic restaurant. People may then argue that why should locals yield to the islams but I want to say absolute equality is impossible and the only way we could do is minimize the disparity. Hence I think we can
Multiculturalism is one of the characteristics of Hong Kong, meaning we have to embrace and respect different culture. Some think that it is legitimate to renew the contract of islamic canteen because muslim is one of the cultures in Hong Kong. It is estimate there are …show more content…
But Rousseau thinks there is no difference to primitive society when the minority yield to the majority as this is not democracy. There is no point to argue which party should be prioritized. However, I still believe that renewing the contract can help encourage multiculturalism. On one hand, renewing allows islams to continue to stay; on the other, it allows local student to try different food. People are willing to embrace different culture when they have experienced how special it is. And so, we can also provide some opt-out solutions for islams. If they want to try other food, there will be local restaurants available in CUHK. For those, who really wanted to stick with islam, we have to respect them because everyone has the freedom of religion in Hong Kong. Everyone deserves a good life and one of the aspects is autonomy. People should have the autonomy to choose what they desire when it doesn’t violate others. Also, we respect people not because we wanted to be respected but because this is moral and we gain happiness from …show more content…
When people wanted to help others, they don’t think logically, but rather use their emotions. It means we wanted to help others because we fell compassionate for their situation, given that we are fine. Inequality is usually felt for oneself. Normal restaurants felt that it is unfair to renew the contract because they currently do not have places to set up. If everyone has the place, then they wont bother the contract renewal of Islamic restaurants. However, resources are limited and the question becomes who should be satisfied first. If we satisfied those with the greatest contribution, it would be unfair to Islamic restaurant as they have less chance to contribute where there is only little islams in CUHK. If we renew the contract directly, it would be at odds with our conduct as we are inclined to help the same ethnicity first. To create fairness for both parties, I believe we can solve this problem by combing the restaurants. Local chief and Islamic chief work in the Islamic restaurant together and are responsible to cook their own dishes but local chief cannot violate the rules in Quran. This is because the space is reserved for the Islamic restaurant. People may then argue that why should locals yield to the islams but I want to say absolute equality is impossible and the only way we could do is minimize the disparity. Hence I think we can