Invididual vs Collective 1. Youth across the world feel that they should be allowed to vote in elections and referendum. The legal voting age in Canada, for instance, is 18. However, astute and politically aware teenagers below the voting age feel that they should be allowed to participate in these elections. And indeed, they hold a strong argument, in that as individuals who care deeply about the state of their country, it would be right for them to be able to voice their opinions in elections. However, if the legal voting age were lowered, everyone that is above that age would be allowed to vote, including youth who may lack the maturity to vote properly. People who oppose lowering the legal age to vote feel that the influx of less than purposeful ballots could actually harm a society. Where do you stand on this issue? Do you feel that the legal voting age should be lowered? Definitely. The risks involved in lowering the voting age are not as important as allowing keen and politically aware young individuals to participate in elections Perhaps. While there may be some negative ramifications, lowering the voting age would ultimately be beneficial to society No. It’s a shame that astute youth are not allowed to vote, but the well-being of a large number of people is more important Of course not. One does not even need to consider the youth who deserve to vote. Lowering the voting age will probably result in the election of an unsuitable leader who regularly makes poor political decisions 2. Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is the practice of removing the clitoris, labia minora and labia majora, and then in some cases, stitching together the vaginal walls to insure fidelity to the husband. It is practiced in some nations in Africa, and is estimated to affect up to 100 million women. It is performed on little girls, and is considered to be a coming of age ceremony, when girls differentiate themselves from boys by removing their male parts. Aside from the immediate physical dangers, there is a psychological shock, as well as greatly increased chance of infection and death in the future. However, as disturbing as this may be to a person, it has been practiced for many years. If, hypothetically, the custom were to be suddenly condemned on a massive scale causing ALL practices of FGM to cease, one must consider the possible consequences. Sure, the young women of societies practicing FGM would be protected from the health and psychological problems. However, what would become of the societies? The social structure could be adversely affected, leading to the demise of whole villages. Even the natives who only mildly condone FGM would bear stigma on the international stage. If the latter hypothetical situation were to actually occur, how would you feel? Very happy. Though this would hurt a large number of people, the young girls have a right to escape FGM Mildly happy. It would be a shame that whole groups are hurt by this, but it would be much more important that FGM is no longer practiced Mildly unhappy. It would be good that FGM is no longer practiced, but it would not be fair to the societies where in which it occurs Very unhappy. Protecting girls from FGM does not outweigh the fact that entire societies would be disrupted and many innocent people adversely affected 3. Child labour is a very serious problem in many third world countries. In general, they are used for low skill and labour intensive jobs, such as agriculture, mining, food processing, and manufacturing good such as carpets, garments and furniture. Employers prefer children, as they are more obedient than their adult counterparts, and less likely to complain about their poor treatment. There have been reports of children not receiving their promised pay. As the children are unable to receive a proper education, it is difficult for them to rectify their situation. Though it might seem ideal to simply outlaw child labour, there would be some dire consequences. Though viewing the situation collectively makes abolishing child labour ideal, individually, the children would suffer. As little as the children are earning, it enables them to financially support their families. Many of the child workers are satisfied with their payment, and enjoy the special working status that they hold. Following the layoffs, employment would not be easily found, and many children would be left in dire situations. How would you feel about this? Very unhappy. I don’t believe that improving the collective situation would justify the imminent short-term unhappiness of the children individually at all Somewhat unhappy. I don’t think the children should suffer, but in the long term, this would be beneficial Somewhat happy. The laying-off of the children would be a shame, but I think the improvement of the children’s lifestyles would make it worthwhile Ecstatic. The children’s individual losses can be overlooked, given the much-improved collective situation.