Sample Solution
Gender and sexual minorities face inequality today for a variety of reasons. Historically, women have been systematically denied the same rights and privileges as men, leading to disparities in wealth, education, leadership roles and access to resources (Kruttschnitt & Krivacic 2008). This has had long-term implications on the economic security of these communities. For example, women are often paid less than their male counterparts for comparable work, which leaves them with fewer resources to support themselves or their families (Giannarelli et al 2005). Additionally, there is still significant discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals in many aspects of life including social acceptance and legal protection (Dillaway 2015). As a result they may struggle to find employment that provides adequate wages or benefits.
In addition to institutionalized sexism and homophobia, gender/sexuality minorities also face cultural biases that can limit their opportunities. Women often experience ‘glass ceilings’ where they are unable to advance within certain organizations despite being highly qualified for positions due to entrenched attitudes about female capabilities (Kanter 1977). Similarly same-sex couples may be excluded from certain housing arrangements because landlords perceive them as being untrustworthy or even dangerous (Hoffman et al 2016). These kinds of biases – whether conscious or not – deny these groups basic rights that are necessary for an equitable society.
Finally, gender/sexuality minorities are often subjected to higher levels of violence than other members of our society (Schwartz & DeKeserdy 2007). This type of physical abuse causes serious harm both emotionally and physically while also reinforcing existing patterns of oppression. In this way violence serves as a means by which power dynamics between genders/sexualities can be maintained over time.
Overall, it is clear that gender/sexuality minority groups continue to experience inequality today due systemic challenges such as unequal pay and limited access to resources; cultural biases which perpetuate discriminatory attitudes; and higher levels of physical violence compared with other members of society . Without addressing these issues head on we will continue to see disparities between different communities in terms of our overall health outcomes, economic security, educational achievement among other areas as well into the future.
First, it is never just to intentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittola’s first proposition. This is widely accepted as ‘all people have a right not to be killed’ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by “non-combatant immunity” (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: ‘care must be taken where evil doesn’t outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would come at a cost. However, this does not hide the fact the unintended still killed innocent people, showing immorality in their actions. Thus, it depends again on proportionality as Thomson argues (Frowe (2011), Page 141).
This leads to question of what qualifies to be a combatant, and whether it is lawful to kill each other as combatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’
In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must
