Answer: This concept can be used to determine the acceptable level of risk, by placing the amount of risk in a given situation to balance against time, trouble, cost, and physical difficulty of taking precautions to avoid risk. If a balance is seen with risk against this variables, then the risk is acceptable.
The pitfall to applying this concept are as follows;
• it doesn't guarantee safety.
• it is always expensive, if we want to apply this principle to it best.
• it doesn't have a standard order for all kinds of risk. The application varies from risk to risk, also depending on locations of the risk.
Explanation: The ALARP principle is that risk shall be reduced as far as reasonably practicable. This means that zero risk can not be achieved. But we can achieve zero accident, using the ALARP principle.
Before we can boast for achieving ALARP, we must check if the risk is equal or less than time spent,cost, the trouble or challenge, and the physical difficulty of taking a good measure to avoid the risk. If the risk is equal or less than this variables, that means that the risk has been reduced as far as reasonably practicable.
The question asks, "What is YOUR philosophy?" I can't really tell you what YOU should think ... but I can present for you the ideas of a couple different political philosophers who took opposing stands on the issue.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were both English philosophers who wrote during the 17th century.
Hobbes published a famous work called <em>Leviathan </em>in 1651. The title "Leviathan" comes from a biblical word for a great and mighty beast. Hobbes believed government is formed by people for the sake of their personal security and stability in society. In Hobbes view, once the people put a king (or other leader in power), then that leader needs to have supreme power (like a great and mighty beast). The people are too divided and too volatile as individuals -- everyone looking out for his own interests. So for security and stability, authority and the power of the law needs to be in the hands of a powerful ruler like a king or queen. That was Hobbes' view.
John Locke famously published <em>Two Treatises on Civil Government </em>in 1690. According to Locke's view, a government's power to govern comes from the consent of the people themselves -- those who are to be governed. This was a change from the previous ideas of "divine right monarchy" -- that a king ruled because God appointed him to be the ruler. Locke repudiated the views of divine right monarchy in his <em>First Treatise on Civil Government. </em> In his <em>Second Treatise on Civil Government, </em> Locke argued for the rights of the people to create their own governments according to their own desires and for the sake of protecting their own life, liberty, and property. Locke always favored the people remaining in charge, and asserted that the people have the power to change their government and remove government leaders if the government is not properly serving the needs and well-being of the people.
As you write your own answer to this question for your class, you will want to decide, perhaps, if you agree more with Hobbes, that security and stability are most important ... or with Locke, that the authority and liberty of the people are always paramount.
On December 7, 1941, Japan attacked the United States Navy at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. As a result, the U.S. entered WWII.
<span>In 1945, the United States dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. </span>
<span>The bombs resulted in several casualties, and Japan surrendered. </span>
Hm. This will be tough, I'll research.
1) Fort Sumter battle.
2) Bull Run battle.
3) Battle of Fort Henry and Fort Donelson
4) Battle of New Orleans
5) Battle of Gettysburg
6) Lee surrenders to the North
7) Abe Lincoln is re-elected
8) Emancipation Proclamation
9) Battle of Antietam
10) Battle of the Monitor and Merrimack
Sorry if I'm not specific.
