Group 6 is better than Group 7

Group 6 is better than Group 7 1

Group6 is better than Group 7


Followingthe consistently debated issue on whether the Chief AdministrativeOfficer of Halifax should be obligated to live in Halifax, two groups6 and 7 came up with an argument. With Group 6 against the motion andgroup 7 strongly stating that the CAO should be obliged to reside inhis city of work, an analysis of both groups reveals that group 6 isbetter than group 7. Group 7 presents its report in a more orderlyway. There is a detailed breakdown of facts that relate to the issueat hand that gives the analyst an overall view of what to expect fromthe report. This is a plus to group 7.


Itis the normal assumption that noble agents should do things in theirinterests. The point on ethical egoism is not a good argument forgroup 7. The position for CAO comes with much power and an ampleremuneration, which according to them, is at the expense oftaxpayers. The claim that commitment to duty can only be shown by himresiding in the city, however, is not valid since Mr. Richard Buttshas been able to manage his position and to relocate him four yearsdown the line might destabilize him. His interest in Torontopositions should not be an issue. This only paints him as one whoaims to better himself and intransitive to accomplishment. He should,therefore, be allowed to live in an environment that gives room forpersonal improvement (Tremaine,1999).


Whenit comes to arguing about productivity, group 6 states better pointscompared to group 7. The responsibilities of Mr. Butts and hisresponse in the case of an emergency have been carried out properlyin four years. It is not a necessity that he should live in Halifaxto show expertise. He is not the one to make calls during anyemergency. Instead, he delivers recommendations to the advisory thatdeals with emergencies. Mr. Butts’ residence in Toronto has notaffected his productivity to the extent of deserving to have hisresidence limited to Halifax (Whitehead,et al.2009).


Group7 is not justified to put Mr. Butts’ self -interests aside as he isnot a prisoner to his job. Group 7 goes ahead to state thatHaligonians are likely to have few issues to justify a demand forButts to live in Halifax to an impartial media. This statement israther contradictory. It does not uphold the strong original claimthat Mr. Butts should relocate to Halifax. It is not a good argument,therefore (Lightbody,2006).


Mr.Butts is qualified for his profession. It requires a high degree ofexpertise, learnedness and training. According to Robinson, imposingresidency requirement can deter a good candidate from accepting aposition and hence limiting the ability to attract top quality staff.His appointment was based on qualification and experience so thequestion on utilitarianism should not matter as his pay is directlyproportional to his ability to improve the community. He is anadvantage to the society so he should be pardoned of harsh rules(Thomson2007).


Bothgroup 6 and group 7 having stated their views concerning the issue,group 6 proves to outweigh group 7 as its claims are accompanied byshreds of evidence from different articles and texts from theconstitution. Group 6 views the issue from both the social aspect andprofessional aspect compared to group 7 which bases its argument onservice to community and productivity but ignores the social side ofMr. Butts. Group 6 is, therefore, better than group 7.


Lightbody,J. (2006).&nbspCitypolitics, Canada.Peterborough, Ont: Broadview Press.

ThomsonGale (Firm). (2007).&nbspthecollege blue book.Detroit, Mich: Macmillan Reference USA.

Tremaine,M. (1999).&nbspAbibliography of Canadian imprints, 1751-1800.Toronto: University of Toronto Press

Whitehead,M., Bell, A., Gaskin, N., Meikle, S., &amp Adam, T. (2009).Considering New Discovery Layers.