Liberty Is Seldom a Win-Win Situation. Which

¶ … liberty is seldom a win-win situation. Which ethical theory is the best in your opinion for selecting a "winner"? Utilitarianism? Deontology? Other? The philosophy of utilitarianism is problematic, given the difficulty of determining which group constitutes the 'majority' whose desires should rule over others.

It is often said that if the First Amendment (free speech) and the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable searches) were 'put to a vote,' the American public would vote against them, because of its collective dislike of the ability of unpopular groups to articulate their ideas and its anger at seeing guilty people go free. Also, utilitarianism makes no allowance for the rights of minority groups at all, which can intensify the 'losses' of the minority group whose liberties are infringed upon to protect the rights of others.

Deontology's excessive rigidity can result in the curtailment of freedom -- how does one create rules that are universally applicable in all circumstances? Ultimately, I believe that the philosophy of virtue ethics, or building a 'good character,' or being able to weigh with discernment the rights of the majority vs. The minority and the relative importance of different rights as they evolve over time in society is the best option for preserving a free society. This allows for more situational consideration of different variables.

Sometimes, the will of the majority should be upheld because the costs to minority groups are not as great while in other instances the rights of minority groups should prevail. Q2.

How do you react to a scenario of marketing / promoting/encouraging people to buy health care? Some people believe advertising is infringing on consumers' freedoms because they paint an artificial picture that lures people into buying the insurance (forcing them to do what they do not want but coerced into it by the advertisements that are continually bombarded through various media outlets).

Would you say this compares to the scenario you have given in your article? Although I agree that advertising can be annoying, advertising can play an important role in a functioning democracy. Advertising is necessary to allow candidates and political groups to express their views to a mass audience. True, the fact that certain groups have more money and power can give them greater and more sophisticated access to the media.

While 'equal time' may be mandated on air for candidates, special interest groups and political action committees can exercise undue influence by purchasing more air time under differently labels. A greater danger regarding health care is the likelihood that opponents of the law will purchase airtime to scare consumers away from supporting health insurance reform, as occurred during Clinton Administration's attempts at reform. Limiting spending on advertising is difficult because while candidates could face caps upon spending, groups that support candidates or specific types of legislation can still spend.