Should the federal government be concerned with what Americans eat? Why or why not?
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 Federal Government and Food: A Balancing Act
The question of whether the federal government should be concerned with what Americans eat is a complex one, with arguments on both sides. While some believe that government intervention is necessary to protect public health and ensure food safety, others argue that individual liberty and consumer choice should take precedence. This essay will explore the pros and cons of federal government involvement in food regulation and consider the delicate balance between public interest and individual rights.
One strong argument for federal government involvement in food regulation is the need to protect public health. Foodborne illnesses, such as E. coli and salmonella, can have serious consequences, and government oversight can help to prevent these outbreaks. By setting standards for food safety, inspecting food processing facilities, and enforcing labeling laws, the federal government can ensure that consumers have access to safe and wholesome food. Additionally, the government can play a crucial role in addressing food insecurity, a pressing issue that affects millions of Americans. By providing food assistance programs and promoting nutrition education, the federal government can help to ensure that everyone has access to the food they need to thrive.
However, there are also valid concerns about federal government involvement in food regulation. Critics argue that excessive regulation can stifle innovation and increase costs for consumers. Furthermore, they contend that individuals should have the freedom to choose what they eat, without government interference. Some worry that government regulations may be overly restrictive, limiting consumer access to certain foods or discouraging the development of new and potentially beneficial food products.
Ultimately, the question of whether the federal government should be concerned with what Americans eat is a matter of balancing competing interests. While there is a clear need for government oversight to protect public health and ensure food safety, it is also important to avoid excessive regulation that could limit individual freedom and innovation. The federal government should strive to find a middle ground that strikes a balance between public interest and individual rights, ensuring that Americans have access to safe, affordable, and nutritious food while preserving their ability to make informed choices about their diet.
