Example collocations logo

Individuals in sentence

2416 examples of Individuals in a sentence

These efforts have mobilized the Islamic State’s enemies, while inspiring a growing number of discontented individuals and groups to self-recruit to its banner.
Corporate Liability for Human RightsWittingly or unwittingly, individuals do things that injure other individuals.
For society to function, it must provide individuals with incentives not to do so, through rewards and punishments, regulations and fines.
Of course, individuals have a moral responsibility not to injure others.
But modern society cannot and does not simply rely on individuals doing the "right" thing.
Today, we believe that individuals, corporations, and institutions should be held accountable for their actions.
As difficult as we may find it to condemn individuals who use drugs and surgery to transform themselves in accordance with dominant aesthetic standards, on a social level these procedures compound the problems they are meant to fix.
Otero explains the logic behind the initiative in terms of “protecting individuals.”
Individuals earn “claims” over their lifetimes, first by being legal residents, and then by, say, obtaining educational degrees, earning professional certifications, performing community service (including military service), and making money.
The Trouble with Libertarian PaternalismCHICAGO – There are many arguments against government paternalism: apart from limiting individual choice (for example, the choice to remain uninsured in the current health-care debate in the United States) and preventing individuals from learning, history suggests time and again that the conventional wisdom prevalent in society is wrong.
Social security is a paternalistic form of forced savings for old age, preventing individuals from consuming and saving as they please.
It exists, in part, because individuals know that civilized societies will never stand by and watch the elderly starve.
So individuals are forced to save in order to prevent them from gaming the system – not saving when young, knowing that they will be assured a minimum level of support by a humane society when old.
Essentially, by exploiting behavioral quirks, they would nudge people into making decisions that are good for them, even while individuals have complete freedom to change their mind.
Often, the default option is unsuitable for most individuals – for instance, it typically allocates all savings to low-return money-market funds.
Choice remains unexercised, because individuals do not consciously think through their decision.
If their choices can be directed, is this not paternalism plain and simple, rendered more sinister because individuals are unaware that they are being nudged, and cannot raise their guard?
This, they believe, is better than the current typical default option of putting individuals’ money into money-market funds.
What if there were no default option, and individuals were sent repeated, and increasingly urgent, reminders to choose an allocation if they did not choose one already.
Tax avoidance by big corporations and wealthy individuals, which by some estimates cost poor countries $200 billion a year, is a case in point.
A few years ago, when I was working as a private health-care strategy consultant, I advised high-net-worth individuals and their companies in South Sudan, the Gambia, and Tanzania on the best ways to give back to the communities where their businesses operated.
But if individuals can do tests from which insurance companies are barred, and if those who receive adverse genetic information then buy additional life insurance without disclosing the tests that they have taken, they are cheating other holders of life insurance.
London is a favorite destination for wealthy Russians, and the British government is now considering whether to support such an initiative, although there are indications that it will maintain an unofficial and unpublished list of the banned individuals in order to forestall legal challenges.
It would show that the West does not seek to punish Russia or Russians generally, but only those individuals about whose role in human-rights violations the West has good evidence.
Whether individuals can repress and recover memories of traumatic sexual abuse has been especially contentious.
Yet if these individuals were unable to remember their abuse, on what basis would they attempt to recall it in the first place?
Technology has been diffusing power away from governments, and empowering individuals and groups to play roles in world politics - including wreaking massive destruction - that were once reserved to governments.
And it is asking how individuals can maintain their psychological stability in an era of rapid change, marked by urbanization and an onslaught of global communication in a society that had no televisions until a decade ago.
Our moral sentiments both limit individuals’ abuse of the common good, expressed in the conflict between “me” and “us,” and maintain the coherence of the group, to support the competition between “us” and “them.”
How can Europeans be happy that the Iron Curtain is gone if individuals and groups across the Union barricade themselves behind private iron curtains?
BackNext