Question

in your own words; what are the basic arguments for and against arming teachers. Use some of the ideas we looked at in Chapters 8 and 9 to evaluate and understand the moral structure of this question about arming teachers and the moral principles and values involved. (e.g., primary role of government from Social Contract perspective is to protect citizens. How best to do this?, distributive justice, egoism, altruism, philantropy Etc.) Finally, where do you stand regarding this issue? What do you think, should teachers be armed or not? Use any sources you wish to get informed, Do not quote from articles. Write a 400- 500 word paper.

*heres the articles he gave us to read before the paper

YES: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/02/22/after-silence-on-parkland-nra-pushes-back-against-law-enforcement-the-media-and-gun-control-advocates/?utm_term=.d4a095c8ecbf

YES: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/24/armed-teachers-texas-trump-362397?lo=ap_c1

MAYBE: http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/montana-s-senators-and-congressman-cautious-on-arming-teachers-as/article_4d4f0776-8bb9-5822-bae9-a07033142223.html

NO: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/22/arm-teachers-trump-nra-gun-safety-plan-why-its-wrong

-Thanks

Answer 1

America is an individualistic society which allows individuals to be as they like. It provides individual rights to people and gun license is one such individual freedom which has started threatening the safety of majority of people. Shooting innocent people by some lunatics is on the rise. Social Contract theory suggests that there are duties and responsibilities for the rules and the rulers and they should mutually transfer their rights. One of the primary responsibilities of the government is to provide security to its citizens from internal and external threats. Moral theories, such as Utilitarian suggests that one’s action should bring good to maximum people. So, the president has announced that the government would arm 20% the teachers. There are different arguments for and against this issue.

Many people view this decision as a good choice because the shooter may be from anywhere, inside the school or outside. The Marshal programme already exists in some states where one Marshal is provided for 400 students. They will be trained and checked just like any police but they will be active only in school shootings. Arming teachers will help the schools have a feel of security and the action will be swift. The readiness of an armed force within the campus ensures timely action and save lost of innocent lives. People who support this are also aware that the parents should be convinced that someone will be with gun in the school to protect their children because it shouldn’t have a negative impact on the children.

There are others who oppose the idea of arming teachers with guns by saying that a teachers job is to teach and teach peacefully. If you arm them with guns, their mind will be always on the gun and not on the teaching. 20% is a huge count and this in number will be more than half a million which is to create a mini army. Now, think of the cost involved and the deviation it would bring in the teaching profession. The state should spend more money on student counseling and deterring people with mental disorders from entering the school. The president has announced budget cut to the public schools which will directly affect the counseling budget thus giving more room for this type of behaviors. Instead of spending on the guns and training the governments could think of more beneficial programmes that would identify future defaulters and help them overcome their disorders or evil thoughts.