“Technology is destroying our families and our country”

In 300-400 words, respond in an intelligent manner. You may use sources from history, current events, and the bible. Be kind and respectful, discuss why they could rightly feel this way and offer your response.

Sample Answer

The advantages of technology notwithstanding technological developments are today destroying family setup as parents get too engaged on their phones and computers therefore leaving the children unattended to, lonely, Isolated and angry. Being social creatures, need to interact in order to develop into healthy beings. However, overdependent on technology back at the family level only serves to interfere with this crucial requirement. Additionally, technology exposes little kids to adult content and literature through social platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and among sites. These social platforms keep spouses addicted to them and not crating time for one another and therefore detaching themselves from respective spousal commitment.


The precept of 'Obligation to Protect' (R2P) was established upon the idea that the worldwide network should never again rehash similar errors in their inability to mediate in the Rwandan emergency, which prompted an acceleration of helpful intercession in the post-Cold war period. Hypotheses concerning helpful intercession are frequently suspicious of its reasonability, refering to that coercive methods for taking part in military mediation are conflicting of its motivation, to be specific to end the maltreatment of human rights.

Until today, well known talk encompassing the privileges of states to mediate stay in contradiction especially concerning a state's commitment to react towards 'violations against humankind' coordinated at those past their fringes (Evans and Sahnoun, 2002). By the by, the emergencies of Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda and Kosovo during the 1990s provoked the global network to reassess its capacities and good commitments when examining intercession, particularly considering the disappointment of the United Nations in reacting 'short of what was needed' in the Rwandan emergency and NATO's mediation in Kosovo that offered ascend to the disagreeability of mediation.

Accordingly, the universal network meant to set up a redefinition of intercession, in which a state's sovereign rights were never again to be confined as reserving the "option to intercede" yet rather the "obligation to ensure". Therefore, in 2001 the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) drafted the system dependent on simply war standards which came to be known as the 'Obligation to Protect' (R2P) convention. The tenet called for states to satisfy their commitments in their obligation to avert, respond and modify in light of the four mass abominations of slaughter, ethnic purging, atrocities and wrongdoings against humankind.

True to form, the appropriation of the structure by the UN earned blended responses, isolating the global network into camps of those on the side of intercession to secure human rights against states who emphatically protected their sovereign rights to self-assurance of their residential undertakings. In any case, since the appropriation of the R2P rule in 2005, its reality as a standard embraced by the United Nations has not changed helpful mediation in any useful terms, more than it has been in principle, by and large because of the nonattendance of the political will of states to participate in intercession where it doesn't concern their inclinations.

The topic of commitment and political will is not any more evident in the Rohingya emergency, which has now been named as the second most noticeably awful philanthropic emergency behind Syria. For quite a long time, the Rohingya Muslims have been exposed to oppression and ethnic separation, in which the Arakan Project Report has uncovered huge infringement of rights suffered by the individuals, all of which would fall under the violations of mass barbarities that would warrant mediation from the global network under the R2P principle.

In spite of the fact that it was accounted for that the Rohingyas have lived in Myanmar throughout the previous two centuries (Uddin, 2014), they have been precluded from securing access to any fundamental rights by the specialists of Myanmar who view them as 'illicit foreigner' and hence, are subject to philanthropic guide given by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Neighboring nations, for example, Bangladesh, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia have likewise stretched out help to suit the Rohingyas, yet Bangladesh has especially felt the limitation and consumption in their assets, making them deny help for any more Rohingyas, in dread of flooding against Rohingya estimations inside their locale.

While the Burmese governments professed to do everything they can to de-raise the threats in what they call 'a common hardship' between the Rohingya Muslims and Arakanese Buddhists, they have not taken any supreme or significant measures in guaranteeing that the emergency would end and that they would change to their nationality laws to allow insurance to the Rohingyas. The security powers in Myanmar have rather been accounted for to share in a staggering effort to drive out the Rohingyas into Bangladesh and 'crash' those that remain. It is likewise significant that while the Rohingyas have been commandingly determined out of Myanmar to Bangladesh, as they accept that thinking about that is the place the Rohingyas initially originated from. Thus, the Rohingyas have experienced repatriation by the Bangladeshi specialists to them back to Myanmar where they are not needed, rendering them without a spot to come back to without any rights to secure them.

In their consistent move between outskirts, the Rohingyas have been deserted to settle in and around settlement camps which have just delayed their intensifying living conditions. In coming up short on a citizenship to neither Myanmar nor Bangladesh, the Rohingyas are rendered stateless with no security under the structure of global law because of the nonattendance of rights. Subsequently, it is urgent that the universal network should satisfy their commitments spread out by the R2P to guarantee that the Rohingya emergency would not be a dreary error as seen in Rwanda.

Accordingly, through a little N approach, this paper will investigate the theoretical troubles that emerges when examining mediation under the R2P teaching and whether the universal network is ethically defended in deciding to not intercede in the Rohingya emergency. The paper theorizes that the global network isn't defended and this will be contended explicitly through assessing the issues that emerges from sway in intercession, and the disavowal of rights to the stateless Rohingyas.

Writing audit

The essential point of this paper is to distinguish and assess the elements that legitimize the degree that states can be ethically advocated in their inability to react to their commitments to advance and secure the privileges of residents inside their own outskirts and those past in agreement to the R2P convention. Numerous hypotheses encompassing the ethical reasonability of mediation recommends that intercession is quite often not advocated, this segment will therefore endeavor to reveal and fundamentally audit whether this announcement holds.

At the point when we discuss intercession, it worries of military mediation through coercive and mighty means, an idea which apparently compares the philanthropic motivations behind protecting casualties of oppression that it has wanted to accomplish with the utilization of power, a power that can without much of a stretch be mishandled by outer powers. Subsequently, it is hard to decide the careful good weight of seeking after intercession.

Compassionate military mediation has been characterized as the "compelling responses to conditions when the infringement of human rights inside a lot of limits is horrible to the point that it makes discuss network or self-assurance or 'difficult battle' appear to be so critical and insignificant, that is, in instances of oppression or slaughter" (Davidovic, 2008). Numerous observers censure the irregularity of utilizing philanthropic intercession to handle these infringement to human rights because of the very actuality that similar states that produce systems to make moral commitments in mediating in another state's local issues and break its power are similar states that either neglect to deliver infringement to human rights because of political expenses or neglect to act in convenient design to de-heighten the contention.

a. Sway

There is a solid absence of agreement inside existing scholarly writing with respect to helpful mediation and R2P, where its utilization has implied the misusing of reacting to strife, setting further terrible instances of its usage. While the simply war hypothesis on intercession endeavors to decide the cases for which wars can be advocated with the utilization of power as a pre-emptive measure, the R2P principle just blueprints manners by which states must embrace preventive estimates, for example, authorizes in tending to the infringement of rights instead of to seek after mediation with power, in order to not fear the rupture of any sway that could prompt the more noteworthy results or counter. It is normal that states would act conflictingly as reactions to mass outrages would run in like manner because of the varying greatness of the contention and abilities of states to handle them.

Walzer (1977) attests that it is supported to encroach upon a state's sway through mediation when the "fit", that is the implicit agreement among natives and the legislature, is broken because of the ascent of "national freedom" developments coordinated against the state. Such uprisings establish that the "fit" is in this way broken and the administration can't guarantee authenticity. He additionally contends that sway might be superseded and mediation is just ethically legitimized for compassionate reasons which incorporates the security of human rights against outrageous maltreatment, for example, annihilation or other 'violations against humankind'. In different conditions, mediation is in this way ethically disallowed because of the idea that intercession is commensurate to the twofold infringement of rights, to be specific the privileges of the individuals to self-assurance and the privileges of the state to sway and regional trustworthiness.

Be that as it may, such violations might be exaggerated and too expansive to even think about allowing fitting measures to be taken when considering intercession particularly as characterizing what 'wrongdoings against humankind' for the most part involves is abstract to a person. Nardin and Slater (1986) reprimands Walzer's accentuation on the "fit" between the administration and its residents refering to that human rights misuses may likewise happen in networks where such 'fit' exists, particularly in occasions of greater part oppression.

On the topic of sway, Nardin and Slater (1986) affirm that a conceivable contention encompassing the legitimacy of int