Across the United States, there are quite a few examples of cities and states where a strong interest in securing the DNA of citizens is being argued as in the public good.
One example is in Arizona where they are mulling over a mandatory DNA database containing the DNA of every Arizona resident (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/02/dna-arizona/583120/)
In Virginia, a similar concept is being argued (https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/medical-and-genetic-privacy/proposal-expand-mandatory-dna-collection), and the debate rages.
The question is – there are many positive reasons why DNA should be collected, but there are a few questions raised about this policy / practice.
Consider and evaluate, and analyze the pros and cons.
Points are awarded based on how much you analyze and the complexity or depth of your answer. Superficial analysis will receive minimum points.
In order to address the specific question, first, the word “fact” needs to be defined. Often associated with information and knowledge, a fact is a truth that has been verified and is supported by objective evidence. This being said, facts are limited by the scope of human ability and reality. Therefore, factual disputes can occur and will examined within the areas of knowledge of art and history. Regarding facts as a truth, individuals can mention the theory of relativism which states that there is no absolute truth, so truth is considered relative to culture or the individual; essentially, what is considered true for some, is considered false for others. Therefore, relativism allows both views to be valid. On the other hand, some can argue that truth is considered what an individual believes to be true. It is the use of our judgement, which stems from reason, that ultimately allows us to reach a conclusion. Therefore, facts as an aspect of truth can be subject to disputes; even if the facts are clear, judgements may differ based on reason, emotion, sense perception, and language. This leads to the knowledge question, to what extent is reason reliable in obtaining knowledge in history? History is the study of present evidence of the past. Using primary or secondary sources, historians try to understand the past using these records. In history class, different historians’ perspectives are examined on one specific event. For example, regarding German foreign policy, intentionalist historian Hugh Trevor- Roper stated Hitler was a man of ideas that had clear strategic objectives in foreign policy and war. On the other hand, structuralist AJP Taylor argued Hitler’s foreign policies were essentially a continuation of imperial German motives and aimed to overturn the terms of the Versailles Treaty. These two historians can have differing views since they use reason to reach a different conclusion. Therefore, it is the methodology of history as an area of knowledge which requires the use of reason by which individuals not only analyze and construct their own ideas, but also, in which people can collectively create meaning by exchanging and improving these ideas. It is through reason that the legitimacy of knowledge claims can be questioned and answered. When disagreements occur, not only do the facts and subject of the matter need to be questioned, the evidence which allow facts to be accepted or valid need to be questioned. As individuals seek to determine the validity of facts, other issues will arise, such as reliability, and will allow them to consider the purpose of analysis in the framework of history and the issue of truth defined in the context of history. The interpretations and perspectives of individuals based on their process of reason will invite analysis. In one case, Historian R.G Collingwood (1889-1943) drew attention to the importance of going beyond the study of the actual historical event and understanding the motives and reasons behind those involved to understand the event as a whole. This involves using emotion, imagination, and reason in order to evaluate the actions and thought process behind an event. However, if may difficult to sympathize with certain events or historical figures like Hitler, P>GET ANSWER