“Government is necessary to ensure the proper use of force. For this reason it must
specify objective lows to clarify the use of force, and it must have the ability to
enforce these laws. The purpose of government is to protect the individual rights
of its citizens” [1]
In 2001 the Government of India said it would propose a bill banning Tobacco
Companies from advertising and promoting sporting and cultural events. This led
to major debate in India about the feasibility of such a law as well as the
Governments rights to do such a thing. Many questions were raised including if
this was a good move for the Government financially as well as the ethical role of
the Government in having regulatory powers over something that it benefits …show more content…
71) How much more important is it for a Government to set
the moral tone of the Country? In examining moral implications we must
ask the question “Who will be harmed by this ban?” The answer is anyone
who believes that the Government is a neutral body looking after the best
interests of the majority.
In the United States today there is a debate over foods that are labeled “fat
free”. They labeling implies that the food is healthy because we have been
told for so many years that we should pursue a low fat diet by our
Government. We have a Government agency that is supposed to monitor the
claims on food products with the best interest of the public in mind.
Unfortunately the foods that are labeled as “fat free” have been chemically
altered and had huge amounts of sugar added to them in order to make up for
the flavor that is lost when removing the fat. This can make the foods
more calorically dense and much less healthy than their full fat counterparts.
We see that there is a danger in allowing ourselves to become complacent
and believe that the Government has our best interests at
specify objective lows to clarify the use of force, and it must have the ability to
enforce these laws. The purpose of government is to protect the individual rights
of its citizens” [1]
In 2001 the Government of India said it would propose a bill banning Tobacco
Companies from advertising and promoting sporting and cultural events. This led
to major debate in India about the feasibility of such a law as well as the
Governments rights to do such a thing. Many questions were raised including if
this was a good move for the Government financially as well as the ethical role of
the Government in having regulatory powers over something that it benefits …show more content…
71) How much more important is it for a Government to set
the moral tone of the Country? In examining moral implications we must
ask the question “Who will be harmed by this ban?” The answer is anyone
who believes that the Government is a neutral body looking after the best
interests of the majority.
In the United States today there is a debate over foods that are labeled “fat
free”. They labeling implies that the food is healthy because we have been
told for so many years that we should pursue a low fat diet by our
Government. We have a Government agency that is supposed to monitor the
claims on food products with the best interest of the public in mind.
Unfortunately the foods that are labeled as “fat free” have been chemically
altered and had huge amounts of sugar added to them in order to make up for
the flavor that is lost when removing the fat. This can make the foods
more calorically dense and much less healthy than their full fat counterparts.
We see that there is a danger in allowing ourselves to become complacent
and believe that the Government has our best interests at