Is it appropriate to fine parents for skipping vaccination?
Sample solution
Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell.
In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.
God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.
Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.
To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.
References
Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.
Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.
Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.
Sample Answer
Sample Answer
The Appropriateness of Fines for Parents Skipping Vaccination
Introduction
Vaccinations play a crucial role in protecting individuals and communities from the spread of infectious diseases. However, some parents choose to skip or delay vaccinating their children due to personal beliefs or concerns. This decision can have significant public health consequences, as it increases the risk of disease outbreaks. To incentivize vaccination and protect public health, the idea of imposing fines on parents who skip vaccines has been proposed. In this essay, we will examine the appropriateness of fining parents for skipping vaccinations.
Thesis Statement
While the intention behind imposing fines for skipping vaccination is to protect public health, it is a complex issue that requires careful consideration of ethical, legal, and practical aspects. Alternative approaches such as education, promoting vaccine accessibility, and addressing parental concerns should be prioritized before resorting to fines.
Ethical Considerations
Parental Autonomy: Imposing fines on parents for skipping vaccination raises questions about individual rights and parental autonomy. Some argue that parents have the right to make decisions regarding their child’s healthcare, even if it conflicts with public health recommendations. Balancing individual autonomy with the need to protect public health is essential.
Socioeconomic Disparities: Fines may disproportionately affect lower-income families who may already face barriers to accessing healthcare services. Such penalties might deepen existing social inequalities, making it difficult for disadvantaged families to comply with vaccination requirements.
Legal Considerations
Legal Frameworks: The legality of imposing fines for skipping vaccination varies by jurisdiction. While some countries or states have implemented mandatory vaccination policies with associated penalties, others prioritize parental choice and informed consent. The legal landscape should be carefully examined and aligned with existing legislation and human rights principles.
Enforceability and Practicality: Implementing and enforcing fines for non-compliance with vaccination can be challenging. It requires effective monitoring systems, clear guidelines, and appropriate administrative infrastructure. Ensuring that the implementation is practical and does not create undue burden on healthcare systems is crucial.
Alternative Approaches
Education and Awareness: Prioritizing education and awareness campaigns can help address vaccine hesitancy and misinformation. Providing accurate information about the safety and benefits of vaccines can empower parents to make informed decisions in favor of vaccination.
Improving Vaccine Accessibility: Ensuring that vaccines are readily accessible to all individuals is vital. This includes addressing financial barriers, enhancing healthcare infrastructure, and expanding vaccination programs to reach underserved populations.
Addressing Concerns and Building Trust: Engaging in open dialogue with vaccine-hesitant parents, addressing their concerns, and building trust in healthcare providers can help overcome barriers to vaccination. Respecting parental concerns and providing evidence-based information can be more effective than punitive measures.
Conclusion
While the idea of imposing fines on parents who skip vaccinations is well-intentioned, it raises ethical, legal, and practical challenges. Balancing individual rights with public health interests is crucial in navigating this complex issue. Instead of immediately resorting to fines, alternative approaches such as education, improving vaccine accessibility, and addressing parental concerns should be prioritized. By fostering a supportive environment, promoting accurate information, and addressing barriers to vaccination, we can achieve higher vaccination rates while maintaining respect for individual autonomy and minimizing social disparities.
