They can frame the issue the issue in terms of national security, religion, public health, or economics — with emphasis on policies that would lead to
societal benefits rather than sacrifice and hardship.
Not exact matches
@ total non sense Perhaps we're splitting hairs here, but I was trying to be kind by implying that
rather than treating religiosity as a mental disability, for which the supposedly clinically sick can receive insurance
benefits and evade personal actionable responsibility by claiming illness, it would be better to treat religiosity as a
societal functional disorder which can be addressed through better education and a perceptional shift towards accepting scientific explanations for how the world works
rather than relying on literal interpretations of ancient bronze age mythologies and their many derivations since.
No matter what sort of morality you are measuring, religiosity, doesn't seem to provide any
benefits at all and, in fact, is correlated more closely with
societal dysfunction
rather than
societal health.
The
benefits to the dog FAR outweigh simply not having puppies, though as pet over-populations looms as a
societal problem it is important to be «part of the solution»
rather than «part of the problem.»
In one model, the use of assumptions recommended by the Office of Management and Budget produces an estimated positive
benefit from increasing CO2
rather than a net
societal cost.
They find more saliency with messages about individual health
benefits rather than leading with the less tangible
societal benefits of reduced pollution.
I believe what lies beneath the Court's decision today are the benighted notions that one can tell when racial discrimination
benefits (
rather than hurts) minority groups, see Adarand, 515 U. S., at 239 (SCALIA, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment), and that racial discrimination is necessary to remedy general
societal ills.