Theory and Explanation in International Relations (Honours Component) Essay

Theory and Explanation in International Relations (Honours Component) - Essay Example Smith believes that the distinction between explanatory and constitutive theories is basic ontological difference that emerges out of the differing ways in which IR theorists see the social world. (p27) If one examines what this argument is saying, one could very well use the science/antiscience scheme wherein scholars are divided in the way they see the social world with one favoring the concept of a natural social world – something that is outside of our theories; while the other, stressing that such world is what we actually make it. Explanatory theorists explain the end of the Cold War in the context of the chain of events that that have transpired over time. Types of this theory such the positivists and the realists offer additional details to the fundamental position on the subject which include the attempt to locate the causal roles that are played by particular elements in the chosen object domain for future use or to predict future events and trends. What this means is that explanatory theory is all about making sense of what is given, based on the facts and about attempting to understand their modes of operation. (Cox 1981) A number of authors use this dimension to the theory to explain how they seem to solve problems. The idea is that explanatory theories are concerned with making the world work better â€Å"within clearly defined, and limited parameters.† (Dunne, Kurki & Smith 2007, p26) Otherwise, Morgenthau (1978) maintained that when theories are divorced from facts they became informed by pre judice and mere wishful thinking. (p4-29) On the other hand, constitutive theories follow an entirely different track in theorizing about the end of the Cold War. It does not dwell on the causal theories or the questions that ask the whys and hows. Instead, it is concerned with the â€Å"properties of things by reference to the structures in virtue of which they exist.† (Wendt 1998, p105) Because of this, theories that

Psychiatry and control of human behavior Essay Example for Free

Psychiatry and control of human behavior Essay I. In order to create such a resolution and usually to resolve an ethical dilemma nurses use four fundamental ethical principles of nursing care and practice, which are considered by many experts as a cornerstone of ethical guidelines. Autonomy The first one is autonomy. This principle means that individuals have a right to self-determination, that is, to make decisions about their lives without interference from others (Silva, M. Ludwick, R., 1999b, p. 4). It is also possible to define empirically that autonomy consists of two elements: data acquired or proposed as a presupposition and reaching the decision as the action. Beneficence The second is beneficence. This principle is thought to be a basis of day-to-day nursing care and practice. The principle of beneficence and utilitarianism direct health care professionals to make an ethical decision to provide the maximum benefit and to minimize harm to the greatest number of people involved (Silva, M. Ludwick, R., 1999b, p. 4). Beauchamp and Childress (1994, p. 192) state that Each of three forms of beneficence requires taking action by helping preventing harm, removing harm and promoting good. (cited by Silva, M. and Ludwick, R., 1999b, p. 4). This ethical principle may cause some ethical questions when a dilemma regarding performing of a mentally ill patients wishes appears. Nonmaleficence The third fundamental ethical principle is nonmaleficence or do no harm, which is easily connected with the obligation of a nurse to defend safe keeping of the mentally ill patient. Born out of the Hippocratic Oath, this principle dictates that we do not cause injury to our mentally ill patients (Silva, M. Ludwick, R., 1999b, p. 6). Justice The fourth basic ethical principle is justice. This principle implies giving each person or group what he/she or they are due (Silva, M. Ludwick, R., 1999b, p. 7). This principle applies to parity, integrity or another point that may be fundamental for the justice decision. In nursing care and practice the principle of justice usually centered on rightful admission to nursing care and on rightful allocation of scarce resource. Rightful admission to the care means that nurses are easy of access to provide nursing care and a mentally ill patient as well as any member of a society realizes that nursing care is completely accessible. The principle of justice †¦ guides health care professionals to treat every client with fairness and equity regardless the prognosis of illness, social and economic status of clients, the social and financial consequences impose on others (Wilcockson, M., 1999, p. 21). Though it is necessary to remember what actually has the priority if we will compare it with nurses good, a nurse sometimes mixes up with what the nurse considers to be a mentally ill patients good. It is questionable what composes good for a mentally ill patient without violating his or her autonomy or allowing the mentally ill patient to suffer bitterly. And can it be ethical to abolish the choice of the mentally ill patients. For example Beauchamp and Childress (1994, pp. 277-278) maintain that paternalism can obtain two forms a weak and a strong one. They assert that weak form paternalism implies is that a nurse defends the mentally ill patients good when he or she is incapable to resolve some questions as a consequence of problems like depression or the effect of medicaments. But a strong form of paternalism, they say involves interactions intended to benefit a person despite the fact that the persons risky choices and actions are informed, voluntary, and autonomous (cited by Silva, M. and Ludwick, R., 1999b, p.5). II. In the proposed case study the old lady didnt write DNR order, thus, the nurse behaved just adequately. She remembered about her duty to a mentally ill patient to preserve her autonomy but it was no possibility for her and for her mentally ill patient to identifying and addressing problems in the decision-making process as the lady was too depressed. Her quality of life was decreasing ad she couldnt live independently but it was still questionable were these reasons adequate enough to make end-of-life decision. On this ground it is necessary to investigate the notion of quality of life. This obscure notion implied the situations when decisions concerning the question of withdrawing nursing care are formed and †¦based on the likely low levels of self-awareness, reasoning, communication and activity that the mentally ill patient will have and the low probability of improvement (Thompson, E., Melia, K. M. and Boyd, K. M., 2001, p. 44). Usually it is not up to mentally ill patient to make quality-of-life decisions as they are often reached by doctors or relatives. In other words quality of life should be determined by mentally ill patients themselves being able to evaluate it adequately. The unproved understanding of notion is often used in statements like: After all, we shouldnt waste any more money on this person because their quality of life will be so low, anyway (Hunt, G., 1994, p. 125) Considering the case study we may that the quality of life of the old lady was not so low as to bring to end-of-life solution. However it was up to the mentally ill patient to decide that problem independently as it was her right to create DNR order but she didnt do it, besides her depressed state and, thus, low self-determination was among the main reasons for reasonable nurses acts. III. If we try to use these four fundamental ethical principles to the case study that was chosen for our investigation beforehand we will be able to evaluate the deeds of nurse from ethical point of view. For example, it is clearly evident that nurse violated the principle of autonomy because autonomy of a mentally ill patient means the opportunity to make decisions about his or her life without interference of others. If taking into account this principle then it was up to a seventy three year old woman to decide either she needs to obtain emergency CPR or not. This principle was thus violated by the nurse, and the reasons for such behavior are not deciding in this matter. She might have ignored this principle basing on the other principles that prevent a nurse from doing harm, meaning to rescue the life of her mentally ill patient because human life is valuable and unique. But while the nurse deprived her mentally ill patient of the possibility to choose life or death, the nurse thus made herself responsible for this decision, which is evidently wrong. At least, the nurse should have noted that the mentally ill patient didn’t want to be rescued. As for beneficence, we may suppose, on the other hand, that it was a demonstration of weak form of paternalism. In such case the nurse protected the good of a seventy three year old lady as she was incapable to resolve end-of-life questions as a result of her depression and decreasing of the quality of her life. Consequently the deeds of the nurse were well-taken and righteous. But the nature of the action is also ambivalent, as the nurse might have been directed by her own notion of good, or the notion that the nurse obtained while studying ethics. The nurse shouldn’t have been define independently if the woman was really unable to make reasonable decisions, the nurse must have at least objectively estimate the problems and conditions of the mentally ill patient that led to such mentally ill patient’s intention.   This thought may also be confirmed and at the same time called in question by the principle of nonmaleficence. The nurse protected the safety of her mentally ill patient, but without mentally ill patients wish. It is questionable, would be the note of DNR be regarded as the injury caused to the mentally ill patient. If the life and conditions of this old woman were so poor, they made her suffer; the nurse must have taken it into account while deciding what would be more or less painful for her mentally ill patient. This may be regarded as the intention to take off responsibility from the nurse. Observing the last principle of ethics, justice, it is necessary to note that this principle was violated by the nurse. Her mentally ill patient was at least due to be heard. Her wishes and demands should have been taken into consideration, moreover, the mentally ill patient did not ask to help her die, and she just wanted to prevent her from suffering in future. Thus taking into consideration these four main principles, the case seems to be contradictory. It seems that the nurse acted basing upon her own notion of what is good, safe and just for her mentally ill patient, without taking into account the demands, wishes, living conditions and problems of her mentally ill patient. Of course, definite peculiarities of these principles allow justifying the actions of the nurse, if we look at the situation form the point of view of value of human life. One more issue that should be examined is the absence of mentally ill patient’s order for DNR. This may also be a reason to justify the actions of the nurse. But as soon as the demands was heard by the nurse, the nurse should have defined this problems with the mentally ill patient and helped the woman write a necessary order, if it was her wish. Nurses often cant decide what their actual point of view about some ethical dilemmas is and how far those perceptions go. Anyway nurses should have to do with their own system of moral values but at the same time to determine whether it fits into the big picture (Stacey, J., 1998, p.8). It is necessary for a nurse to take a turn for the better foreshortening of problems and challenges in the area of care by forming at any rate a bifocal view of the problems (Stacey, J., 1998, p.7) Of course, not all ethical dilemmas concern death. Nurses deal with ethics on every eight-hour shift. †¦for example, the Nursing Code of Ethics says to hold all things confidential, but sometimes there is information others need to know, explains Freeman (cited by Stacey, J., 1998, p.4). However nurses often can appear in the situation of resolving of a complex moral dilemma that regards an appeal for assisted death. This problem is one of the most complicated issues in nursing practice. This question is also a key one in the case study that we have in some way already investigated earlier. Given the poor quality of life that seventy-three years old woman would probable suffer she demanded not to perform any heroic measures in the event of cardiac arrest. So she does not want to live anymore. But when the nurse sees the mentally ill patient next she is being resuscitated as there was no Do Not Resuscitate order (DNR) in her notes. Reference List Hunt, G. (1994) Ethical issues in nursing. Routledge. Silva, M. and Ludwick, R (1999a). Ethical Thoughtfulness and Nursing Competency. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 10 December, 1999. Available from http://www.nursingworld.org/ojin/ethicol/ethics_2.htm [Accessed 17 February 2006] Silva, M. and Ludwick, R. (1999b). Interstate Nursing Practice and Regulation: Ethical Issues for the 21st Century. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 2 July, 1999. Available from http://www.nursingworld.org/ojin/ethicol/ethics_1.htm [Accessed 14 February 2006] Silva, M. and Ludwick, R. (2002). Ethical Grounding for Entry into Practice: Respect, Collaboration, and Accountability. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 30 August, 2002. Available from http://www.nursingworld.org/ojin/ethicol/ethics_9.htm [Accessed 14 February 2006] Silva, M. Ludwick, R., (2003) Ethical Challenges in the Care of Elderly Person. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 19 December, 2003. Available from http://nursingworld.org/ojin/ethicol/ethics_14.htm   [Accessed 15 February 2006] Stacey J. (1998) A Question of Ethics. Emory Nursing University[online]. Available from http://www.whsc.emory.edu/_pubs/en/ [Accessed 17 February 2006] Thompson, E., Melia, K. M. and Boyd, K. M. (2001) Nursing Ethics. 4th ed. [n.p.] Wilcockson, M. (1999) Issues of life and death. [n.p.]

Contemporary Moral Problems And Issues Philosophy Essay

Contemporary Moral Problems And Issues Philosophy Essay As Glaucon recalls the legend of Gyges he said that, a Shepherd found a powerful magic ring in a fissure opened by an earthquake. If the ring was worn, the person will become invisible and would able to travel anywhere and do anything undetected. However, he used the ring for evil, to get what he wants and satisfaction. There are two kinds of ring, the virtue and rouge. In the story the morality that has been raised in the story was about being greedy on the power that he possesses. This power made him to think evil rather than doing good deeds and he cannot let go of what he have. He acted selfishness, choosing to become immoral to the whole society and go against the cleanliness of his heart. 2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism. Psychological egoism, means that all men are self-centered in everything that they do. Just to satisfy his needs for his own good which acts as self-interest. And Ethical egoism, means how men ought to act. That gives a factual response of a persons behavior; they have no obligation to do anything what is in their own interest, regardless of the effect on others. 3. Rachels discusses two arguments for psychological egoism. What are these arguments, and how does he reply to them? The first argument describes one persons action as selfish, and another persons action as unselfish. We are overlooking the crucial fact that in both cases, assuming that the action is done voluntarily, the agent is merely doing what he most wants to do. The first argument shows bad example it would not deserve to be taken seriously, because it rests on the premise that people never voluntarily do anything except what they want to do. And the second argument for psychological egoism is the so-called unselfish actions always produce a sense of self-satisfaction in the agent, and since this sense of satisfaction is a pleasant state of consciousness, rather than to bring about any good for others. 4. What three commonplace confusions does Rachels detect in the thesis of psychological egoism? The three commonplace confusions are: Confusion of Selfishness with self-interest. Assumption that every action is done either from self-interest or from other-regarding motives. Common but false assumption that a concern for ones own welfare is incompatible with any genuine concern for the welfare of others. 5. State the arguments for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesnt Rachels accept this argument? An ethical egoism is inconsistent, because the egoism cannot be easily advocated that is commonly adopted by many. And if people adopted the egoistic policy of pursuing their own interests to the exclusion of his interests, as he pursues his interests to the exclusion of theirs, then such a world would be impossible. So he himself will be an egoist, but he will want others to be altruists. 6. According to Rachels, why shouldnt we hurt others, and why should we help others? How can the egoist reply? By doing actions that would harm others may affect them. He will protest that we may accept this as a reason, but he does not. There are limits to what can be accomplished by argument, and if the egoist really doesnt care about other people. As a reason not to do an action simply because he cares about what happens to that other person. What the egoist says that he does not accept that as a reason, he is saying something quite extraordinary. Discussion Questions: 1. Has Rachels answered the question raised by Glaucon, namely, Why be moral? If so, what exactly is his answer? Yes, his answer was, we must be a moral not for ourselves but for others. 2. Are genuine egoists rare, as Rachels claims? Is it a fact that most people care about others even people they dont know? Yes, the genuine egoists are rare, because most of the people can love or care others, even though they dont really know that person. Helping others may give a reason for doing it as a good habit to show what care really means for them. 3. Suppose we define ethical altruism as the view that one should always act for the benefit of others and never in ones own self-interest. Is such a view immoral or not? The view is not immoral, because things and life are never too late, in our lives no one is perfect, and to make an impact about this we should show how we develop our moral values. John Arthur: Religion, Morality, and Conscience Review Questions: 1. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion different? Morality involves our attitudes toward various forms of behavior like lying and killing, its typically expressed using the notions of rules, rights, and obligations. While religion typically involves in prayer, worship, beliefs about the supernatural, institutional forms and authoritative texts. 2. Why is religion necessary for moral motivation? Religion is necessary for moral motivation, because those religious motives are far from the only ones people have. The decision to do the right thing is made for a variety of reasons. 3. Why isnt religion necessary as a source of moral knowledge? Religion isnt necessary a source of moral knowledge, because people tends to not understand truly the idea of religion it should always be done right. 4. What is the divine command theory? Why does Arthur reject this theory? The divine command theory mean that God has the same sort of relation to the moral law as the legislature, which has to statutes it enacts without Gods commands there would be no moral rules, just as without a legislature there would be no statutes. Arthur rejected the divine command theory, simply because he doesnt believe in God. 5. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion connected? The two are connected, because morality is influenced by religion and they are based on its moral code, which also creates a culture. 6. Dewey says that morality is social. What does this mean, according to Arthur? As Arthur made a study about the morality is social, its about the sense that we are, subject to criticism by others for our actions. We discuss this with others what we should do, and often hear from them concerning whether our decisions were acceptable. Only through the powers of imagination can we exercise our moral powers, envisioning with the powers of judgment what conscience requires. Discussion Questions: 1. Has Arthur refuted the divine command theory? If not, how can it be defended? Arthur did not refute the divine command theory, because he talks about the limitation to the premise of God he is refining god where the principle of God is very powerful. We should remember that in every religion, we can never truly understand the concept of God, because it can never decide the concerns of society and conclusion can never be a factual. 2. If morality is social, as Dewey says, then how can we have any obligations to non-human animals? Even though animals are not human beings. They are also a living thing that can think, feel, and etc. We should have obligations for them, because we also get some of our resources from the animals. 3. What does Dewey mean by moral education? Does a college ethics class count as moral education? Moral education simply means your own family tradition on how you grow up with them and how they raise you. Family is our first teacher in our lives, and we also involve within the society. Yes, because moral education has been taught, which we are learning from discussions and on how we act them in the real world. We will carry this as long as we live. Friedrich Nitzsche: Master-and Slave-Morality Review Questions: 1. How does Nietzsche characterize a good and healthy society? Nietzsche characterizes a good and healthy society by allowing superior individuals to exercise their will to power, their drive domination and exploitation of the inferior. The superior person follows a master-morality that emphasizes power, strength, egoism and freedom, as distinguished from a slave-morality that calls for weakness, submission, sympathy and love. 2. What is Nietzsches view of injury, violence, and exploitation? Nietzsches view of injury, violence and exploitation is from the result in a certain rough sense in good conduct among individuals when the necessary conditions are given. Its a will to the denial of life, a principle of dissolution and decay. 3. Distinguish between Master-Morality and Slave-Morality. Master-Morality has the idea of a good and bad character and its also similar to the noble and despicable. While Slave-Morality has the idea of morality of utility and according to them the evil man arouses fear. 4. Explain the Will to Power. This is best described on how you think, if you put something on mind that you like to achieve something or a goal. The power of your will become immovable. That youll do everything just to get what is best. We develop this through experience, so that we will have a strong will, which strives constantly towards a self-chosen goal under the influence of a self-supplied motivation. Discussion Questions: 1. Some people view Nietzsches writings as harmful and even dangerous. For example, some have charged Nietzsche with inspiring Nazism. Are these charges justified or not? Why or why not? Nietzsches writings are not harmful and not may cause danger. These are very factual record that can be supported through the future. He made every opinion and classified it to have a meaningful life for the whole society, which we could easily identify what are our strengths and weaknesses. 2. What does it mean to be a creator of value? It truly defines the origin of where and how it started that belongs to their ancestors so they could master something coming from the history. Mary Midgley: Trying Out Ones New Sword Review Questions: 1. What is moral isolationism? According to Midgley, the view of anthropologists and others that we cannot criticize cultures that we dont understand. We learn from our culture on how we live our lives. This is an essential doctrine of immoralisim, because it forbids any moral reasoning. It also falsely assumes that cultures are separate and unmixed, whereas most cultures are in face formed out of many influences. 2. Explain the Japanese custom of Tsujigiri. What questions does Midgley ask about this custom? Tsujigiri is a Japanese samurai sword, which means crossroads-cut because it had to be tried out if it works properly; it had to slice through someone at a single blow, from the shoulder to the opposite flank. Otherwise, the warrior bungled his stroke. This could injure his honour, offend his ancestors and even let down his emperor. So tests were needed, and wayfarers had to be extended. The questions are: Does the isolating barrier work both ways? Are people in other cultures equally unable to criticize us? Does the isolating barrier between cultures block praise as well as blame? and What is involved in judging? 3. What is wrong with moral isolationism, according to Midgley? According to Midgley, moral isolationism would lay down a general ban on moral reasoning. This is the programme of immoralism that carries a distressing logical difficulty. 4. What does Midgley think is the basis for criticizing other cultures? Midgley thinks that the culture of our society is the basis of criticizing other cultures. It defines that, why would we judge other culture if we also criticize our own culture. Discussion Questions: 1. Midgley says that Nietzsche is an immoralist. Is that an accurate and fair assessment of Nietzsche? Why or why not? No, because each one of them has different beliefs that they follow and has also different perspective. 2. Do you agree with Midgleys claim that the idea of separate and unmixed cultures is unreal? Explain your answer. No, everything can change, because in one country, you cant tell whether the people there follow the same culture or not. Living in one country can have different varieties of culture and own beliefs. John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism Review Questions: 1. State and explain the Principle of Utility. Show how it could be used to justify actions that are conventionally viewed as wrong, such as lying and stealing. It states that actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or pain. Hence, utility is a teleological principle. This once again raises some of the same basic issues of associated with hedonism, as discussed in the earlier section on Teleological Theories. Recall that a hedonist believes that the good life consists solely in the pursuit and experience of pleasure or happiness. The feelings of pleasure and pain are biological events involving our central nervous system, which are controlled by our cerebral cortex. We obviously experience pleasure when we perform certain acts that fulfill biological functions such as doing something that can be done every time if a person is very dependent which causes to lie and steal. 2. How does Mill reply to the objection that Epicureanism is a doctrine worthy only of swine? Mill reacted by saying that represent human nature in a degrading light; since the accusation supposes human beings to be a capable of no pleasures except those of which swine are capable. The comparison of the Epicureanism life to that of beasts is felt degrading, precisely because a beasts pleasure do not satisfy a human beings conceptions of happiness. He doesnt consider the Epicureanism to have been by any means faultless in drawing out their scheme of consequences from the utilitarian principle. 3. How does Mill distinguish between higher and lower pleasures? The two pleasures are, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure or the higher pleasure. If one of the two is, by those who are competently acquainted by both, placed so far above the other that they prefer it, even though knowing it to be attended with a greater amount of discontent and would not resign it foe any quantity of the other pleasure which their nature is capable of, we are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality, so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small amount. 4. According to Mill, whose happiness must be considered? -Mill said, neither of the happiness should be considered. He said that neither pains nor pleasures are homogenous and pain is always heterogeneous with pleasure. He said that for that standard is not the agents own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether. Utilitarianism could only attend its end by the general cultivation of nobleness of character, even if each individual were only benefited by the nobleness of others and his own, so far happiness is concerned, were a sheer deduction from the benefit but the bare enunciation of such an absurdity as this last, renders refutation superfluous. 5. Carefully reconstruct Mills proof of the Principle of Utility. The Principle of Utility says that happiness is nothing more than ones pleasure and absence of pain. However, happiness is subjective from one person to the other. Ones happiness can or cannot be another persons happiness. Happiness varies from person to person. Also, ones perception of what happiness is varies from one person to the other. One might think that he is doing an act that will make him happy however, it really does the opposite. A man is destined to be happy. Mans end is to reach Happiness. Subjective in a sense that they believe certain things that doesnt make them happy, they feel happiness temporarily. However, mans being subjective prevents man to achieve happiness. Discussion Questions: 1. Is happiness nothing more than pleasure and the absence of pain? What do you think? No, because happiness is where you feel free of thoughts that could not bring depression and wont give hatred. Happiness can be seen in a person once their desire is fulfilled. Happiness also is not being alone this is shared to others and to God. 2. Does Mill convince you that the so-called higher pleasures are better than the lower ones? What about the person of experience who prefers the lower pleasures over the higher ones? Yes, because higher pleasures give maximum experience once in a life time. This is where we always remember the good times. I also agree on the second question, having lower pleasures over the higher ones can test you if you really love a person. But if you give up on something, all of your hopes can disappear one by one. 3. Mill says, In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. Is this true or not? Yes, the statement is true. The principle of utility states that actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or pain. Hence, utility is a teleological principle. This once again raises some of the same basic issues of associated with hedonism, as discussed in the earlier section on Teleological Theories. Recall that a hedonist believes that the good life consists solely in the pursuit and experience of pleasure or happiness. 4. Many commentators have thought that Mills proof of the Principle of Utility is defective. Do you agree? If so, then what mistake or mistakes does he make? Is there any way to reformulate the proof so that it is not defective? No, because Mills principle has explained its definition thoroughly. Although the principle of utility is difficult to apply and often leads to immorality, it is, nevertheless, an important moral principle. Fundamental problem for utilitarianism is justifying the altruistic principle of self-sacrifice in order to benefit others. James Rachels: The Debate over Utilitarianism Review Questions: 1. Rachels says that classical utilitarianism can be summed up in three propositions. What are they? As said in the book, the three propositions are actions are to be judged right or wrong in virtue of their consequences. Nothing else matters. Right actions are, simply, those that have the best consequence. Second is, assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is caused. Everything else is irrelevant. Right actions are those that produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness. Lastly, in calculating the happiness or unhappiness that will be caused, no ones happiness is to be counted as more important than anyone elses. Each persons welfare is equally important. Right actions are those that produce the greatest possible balance of happiness over unhappiness, with each persons happiness counted as equally important. 2. Explain the problem with hedonism. How do defenders of utilitarianism respond to this problem? By hedonism, it believes that happiness is the definitive good, and unhappiness is the definitive bad. We would always value all sort of things, including artistic creativity and friendship, for their own sakes. It makes us happy to have them, but only because we already think them good. Therefore, we think it a misfortune to lose them, independently of whether or not the loss is accompanied by unhappiness. 3. What are the objections about justice, rights, and promises? For justice, according to the critics of Utilitarianism this is incompatible with the ideal of justice. Justice requires that we treat people fairly, according to their individual needs and merits. It also illustrates how the demands of justice and the demands of utility can come into conflict, and so a theory that says utility is the whole story cannot be right. For rights, this has a bond with the legal rights and morality behavior. The moral to be drawn from this argument is that Utilitarianism is at odds with the idea that people have rights that may not be trampled on merely because one anticipated good results. But we dont think that our rights should be set aside so easily. Its a notion that places limits on how an individual may be treated, regardless of the good purposes that might be accomplished. For promises, its because the only kinds of considerations having to do with the future, because of its exclusive concern with the consequences, Utilitarianism has is confine our attention to what will happen as a result of our actions. Utilitarianism is that it seems to be an adequate moral theory because it excludes what we might call backward-looking considerations. 4. Distinguish between Rule- and Act-Utilitarianism. How does rule-utilitarianism reply on the objections? Rules will be established by reference to the principle, and individual acts will then be judged right or wrong by reference to the rules. Rule-Utilitarianism is to contrast the original theory it has no difficulty coping with the three antiutilitarianism arguments, now commonly called the Act-Utilitarianism is something McCloskey, would tempted to bear false witness against the innocent man because the consequences of that particular act would be good. 5. What is the third line of defense? This third line of defense discusses moreover various irrational elements, including prejudices absorbed from our parents, our religion, and the general culture. It doesnt follow the concept of justice, individual rights and so on. It simply talks about the way of thinking. Discussion Question: 1. Smarts defense of utilitarianism is to reject common moral beliefs when they conflict with utilitarianism. Is this acceptable to you or not? Explain your answer. We all know what is right and wrong; we should always understand the facts that may give a good sense and values to help each other. All of us have different beliefs, but even though they are different, we only have one goal in our lives. Common moral consciousness could bring a support for only a short term; we should know the values of life. 2. A utilitarian is supposed to give moral consideration to all concerned. Who must be considered? What about nonhuman animals? How about lakes and streams? We all have freedom, but we should not abuse it. Its also our responsibility to save the animals and also the lakes and streams. Not all the time they are still there for us, because most of the time we always abuse our planet, and we dont respect and love the animals and our environment. It could create an unhappy result for the animals, lakes and streams. 3. Rachels claims that merit should be given moral consideration independent of utility. Do you agree? I agree that merit should be given moral considerations, because it can give a lot of benefits that may help the people to think what would benefit for them. Even if its only a small reward, this can help people to do good deeds and it would practice a good moral for everyone. Immanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative Review Questions: 1. Explain Kants account of the good will. Its impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will. For Kant, good will is not good, because of what it affects or accomplishments. Its fitness for attaining some proposed end, its good through its willing alone, which is good in itself. 2. Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperative. Hypothetical means possibility or circumstances. As for categorical imperative means having knowledge about what it contains, which has no conditions to be applied. 3. State the first formulation of the categorical imperative (using the notion of a universal law), and explain how Kant uses this rule to derive some specific duties toward self-and others. From the illustration, this principal of self-love can become a universal law of nature. Its then seen at once that a system of nature by whose law the very same feeling whose function is to stimulate the furtherance of life should actually destroy life would contradict itself and consequently could not subsist as a system of nature. 4. State the second version of the categorical imperative (using the language of means and end) and explain it. For the universality of a law that everyone believing himself to be in need can make any promise he pleases with the intention not to keep it would make promising, and the very purpose of promising, itself impossible, since no one would believe he was being promised anything, but would laugh at utterances of this kind as empty shams. Discussion Question: 1. Are the two versions of the categorical imperative just different expressions of one basic rule, or are they two different rules? Defend your answer. I think they differ in expressions of one basic, we should think first before we do an action. The same treatment with everyone else, by simply looking what is the right way to do. But as for the second formulation, it discusses a means and ends. 2. Kant claims that an action that is not done from the motive of duty has no moral worth. Do you agree or not? If not, give some counterexamples. I agree, because it is truth that there are no moral worth since everyone should consider their duty as an individual. Rational nature exists as an end in itself. Thus the value of all objects that can be produced by our action is always conditioned. 3. Some commentators think that the categorical imperative (particularly the first formulation) can be used to justify nonmoral or immoral action. Is this a good criticism? Yes, because commentators has good insight about the categorical imperative. It can also be justified if a persons action is morally right or wrong. I can say that its a good criticism, because they have a point of what it really is. Aristotle: Happiness and Virtue Review Questions: 1. What is happiness, according to Aristotle? How is it related to virtue? How is it related to pleasure? According to Aristotle, all human beings seek happiness, and that happiness is not pleasure, honor, or wealth, but an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. Virtue is of two kinds, moral and intellectual. Moral virtue comes from training and habit, and generally is a state of character that is a mean between the vices of excess and deficiency. 2. How does Aristotle explain moral virtue? Give some examples. According to Aristotle, Virtue is of two kinds, moral and intellectual. Moral virtue comes from training and habit, and generally is a state of character that is a mean between the vices of excess and deficiency. Example is that Aristotle portrays the virtue of courage as a mean between the extremes of rashness and cowardice. 3. Is it possible for everyone in our society to be happy, as Aristotle explains it? If not, who cannot be happy? Yes, it is possible for everyone in our society to be happy, but its hard to know what kind of happiness would the society like, because most of the people have different definition of being happy. Not like what Aristotle explained. A character of a person should have passion and love. All of us deserve to be happy and want to feel happy. Discussion Questions: 1. Aristotle characterizes a life of pleasure as suitable for beasts. But what, if anything, is wrong with a life of pleasure? Aristotle define pleasures which are suitable for beasts, most of them cannot change what a human being thinks. They are defined as a whole different level, which can be expressed in a bad manner and can be done with evil things and thoughts. 2) Aristotle claims that the philosopher will be happier than anyone else? Why is this? Do you agree or not? I agree on what Aristotle said that it can bring happiness than anyone else, since a mission has been made, and it was been fulfilled. If we compare it to others, his definition of happiness doesnt compose of pleasure, honor or even wealth. Joel Feinberg: The Nature and Value of Rights Review Questions: 1) Describe Nowheresville. How is this world different from our world? As defined by Feinberg, Nowheresville is a world like our own except that people do not have rights. As a result, people in this world cannot make moral claims when they are treated unjustly. They cannot demand or claim just treatment, and so they are deprived of self-respect and human dignity. 2. Explain the doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties. What is Feinbergs position on the doctrine? The doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties means that all duties entail other peoples rights and all rights entail other peoples duties. Feinberg believes from both ways as he defined it. 3. How does Feinberg explain the concept of personal desert? How would personal desert work in Nowheresville? Based on Feinberg, he calls it a sovereign monopoly of rights. When a person is said to deserve something good from us what is meant in parts is that there would be certain propriety in our giving that good thing to him in virtue of the kind of person he is, more likely in virtue of some specific thing he has done. A desert has evolved a good bit away from its beginning by now, but nevertheless, it seems clearly to be one of those words. One should be happy that they ever treat us well, not grumble over their occasional lapses. It deserves from what you teach and learn to expand all knowledge and share experience. 4. Explain the notion of a sovereign right-monopoly. How would this work in Nowheresville according to Feinberg? As a sovereign right-monopoly, it means that one country is being self-governed; we dont have any rights to complain, because for it, we have no knowledge about it. The notion of a sovereign right-monopoly means that if one country self-governed us, we have no right to complain since we are not knowledgeable of our rights. Its also about treating people in a good and bad way. Sovereign was quite capable of harming his subjects, he could commit no wrong against them that they could complain about, since they had no prior claims against his conduct. 5. What are claim-rights? Why does Feinberg think they are morally important? Claim-rights are person that has claim to the rights. God could have claimed performance of the martial duties as his own due and God alone had claim-rights violated by the nonperformance. By believing in claim-rights these are important, because if we wont claim it people might abuse our rights. Discussion Question: 1. Does Feinberg make a convincing case for the importance of rights? Why or why not? -Yes, because Feinberg shows the possibilities of having the right and respecting others by not stepping on the boundaries of each individuals. 2. Can you give a noncircular definition of cl

Eating Disorders and the Media :: Argumentative Persuasive Topics

Eating Disorders and the Media Today's society is undeniably marked by cultural norms and ideals.   The question is, however, does the mass media's depiction of this norm cause harmful behavior in its population?   Researchers have shown that there is a bias in the way television targets children in advertising (Ogletree, S., Williams, S., Raffeld, P., Mason, B., Fricke, K., 1990) and that this media influence over people has always been observable (Miles, M., 1995).   This targeting of audience members serves the purpose of singling out the most desirable consumer for the product to encourage their economic support.   So if advertising is only concerned with selling product, why is it blamed for the low self-esteem and body image and thus the bulimia and anorexia seen in today's women?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The images projected by the media in commercials, products, wrote ads etc. give today's consumers an idea of what "normal" should look like (Sellers, M., Waligroski, K., 1993).   The people in the ads would all have the ideal body proportions, material possessions and social status in order to deserve the attention the ad places on them.   Viewers see the ads and compare the body images they see to themselves, which is likely to reveal a discrepancy.   Five years ago, the average female model weighed 23% less that the average woman of the time (Miles, M., 1995) and the difference is only growing.     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Men to are affected by the media's portrayal of what ideal looks like.   Jirousek explains the evolution of the ideal male figure from a slim and "romantic" shape to the "superhuman" image we see in television and the rest of media today (1996).   With the beginning of televised football in the 1930's, the popularized image of males incorporated the larger than life appearance from shoulder pads and other "armor" to encompass movie heroes, comic book characters and clothing models.   With the males in the public eye having these muscular figures and distorted proportions, the "normal" male then received the impression that this is what women wanted even if the look does not come easily to most men.   Fabio is a good example of this image (although Jirousek states that Fabio is more for the female consumer than the influence over male viewers, 1996).   This male image could be just the thing a man needs to see in order to feel completely below expectations t hus, resulting in low self-esteem.

Competency Goals Statement Ii

Competency Goals Statement II Goal: To advance physical and intellectual competence. It is essential to the growth and development of every child to advance their physical and intellectual needs. There are numerous ways to encourage this type of development. I offer a variety of activities that promote the advancement of the physical and intellectual competence of the children in my care. Children are encouraged to participate in daily large motor activities to enhance physical development. I do this by being very enthusiastic and even joining in with the children at play.Outside we play tag, ball, hopscotch, and other made up games. Inside we play parachute, and beanbag toss. I also communicate with the children and their parents about the importance of being physically active. In class we have discussions, and I send newsletters home to parents with ideas for activities. Children in my classroom get plenty of time for large motor activities and know why they are important to their health. I help children develop cognitive skills by encouraging them to try things out. For example, when it snowed this winter the children placed snowballs in the freezer and discovered that they froze into solid ice.They thought that the snow would stay the same rather than freeze, and were surprised that the snow froze. We discussed what happened and why it may have happened. Cognitive skills are used daily in our classroom and the children have fun developing them. Creativity is in the materials and interest areas throughout our classroom. Children have access to art supplies to create their own artwork. Paints, markers, pencils, crayons, and paper are available for children all the time. Many types of music are sung and played during the day.Children can use instruments and scarves to move with the music. Many different kinds of clothing can be found in the dramatic play area. In my classroom I help children learn, understand, and use words to communicate. This is done by enco uraging conversations throughout the classroom. I ask children about what they are during all the time. I also reminded them to use their words to express themselves when they are having a hard time communicating. Items are labeled around the room so that they can connect the words with the objects.I have a word wall in the writing center that contains new vocabulary every two weeks so that children are exposed to new words. The children in my classroom always have opportunities to develop their communication skills. In conclusion, it is essential to the growth and development of every child to advance their physical and intellectual needs. I do so many things in my daily schedule that promote Physical, Cognitive, Communication and Creativity. By the time my children in my classroom are ready to move up to the next room I am very confident that they are ready. Word Count: 466

Langston Hughes-the Voice of African Americans Essay Example

Langston Hughes Langston Hughes-the Voice of African Americans Essay Langston Hughes-the Voice of African Americans Essay and â€Å"I, Too† by Langston Hughes are representative of Hughes ability to capture the vast experience of being black in America. Hughes’ ability to define African American heritage and the daily experience of being black in America through poetry and essays helped move the Harlem Renaissance into the forefront of American Literature. For Hughes, being African American meant many different things. As an African American each day was different and through the years Hughes’ experiences continued to allow him to relate what it meant to be black in America. Whether it was pride in one’s heritage or anger about racism; Hughes’s poetry was able to capture the feelings of the many blacks who were dealing with the issue of being black, but wanted to fit into â€Å"white Americaâ€Å". In Huges essay the negro artist, he captured the essence of blacks looking at themselves through the eyes of white America â€Å"But this is the mountain standing in the way of any true Negro art in America- this urge within the race toward whiteness, the desire to pour racial individuality into the mold of American standardization, and to be as little Negro and as much American as possible. . Hughes felt the need to address the racism and prejudice that existed in America. Though Hughes was very optimistic about America and its ability to improve racial tensions the reality of racism was hard to ignore. In I, Too Hughes used a black male servant as a metaphor for African Americans. The servant who is sent away to the kitchen whenever company comes allows the reader to understand Hughes’ view of America and its attitude toward African Americans. Hughes examines the segregation of America and the idea that change is possible. The actions of the servant reveal the struggle of African Americans as a people who want to be equal to other Americans. The title of I, Too itself suggests that the speaker of the poem believes that he is also an America. The speaker includes himself as one of the many who â€Å"sings America† (line 1). The idea that one â€Å"sings America† reveals a pride in being a citizen of the United States of America. The speaker aware of his â€Å"two-ness,† his two identities of being black and American, expresses the anger of knowing that many people do not acknowledge him as an American. For this reason Hughes allows the speaker a response to those who do not believe blacks to be Americans worthy of equal opportunities and rights. The speaker identifies himself also as the darker brother (line 2) revealing that he is black (dark skinned) while connecting himself to white Americans who are lighter in complexion. The use of the word ‘brother† helps the speaker to assert that he believes that he is an American symbolizing the common bond he shares with whites. The speaker goes on to say that he is sent away to the kitchen by his employers when company arrives. He implies that he is sent away because â€Å"they† (his white employers) believe his not worthy of being at the table when others are dinning. The inferiority that the speaker feels suggests the feelings of many African Americans who experience racism and prejudice. The speaker then addresses the unfair treatment by his employers in his response in lines 5-7 â€Å"But I laugh, And eat well, And grow strong. † The speaker laughs at the ridiculousness of his employer’s actions. The speaker seems amused that his employers believe that by keeping him in the kitchen they can forget his presence. This line allows Hughes’ message to be heard. Hughes sends a message to America that the â€Å"darker brother† or African Americans will continue to fight racism and prejudice. The speaker who symbolizes all African Americans would not be content with inequality and injustice. Hughes not only provides readers with the problem in America but also what he believes is the appropriate response to the unfair treatment of African Americans. Hughes provides an optimistic view of the future of the African American race by giving the speaker hope for better treatment from his employers. â€Å"Tomorrow, I’ll be at the table When company comes† allowing the speaker to envision a day when America would be a place of equality and fair treatment of all people. Hughes word choice lends itself to the frustration that many African Americans felt in terms of racism. The word â€Å"dare† in line 11 suggests that one day the act of ordering the speaker to eat in the kitchen would be condemned. Hughes provides an idea for what will one day happen to those who do not believe in the value of blacks as people or American citizens. In line 15 the speaker says â€Å"They’ll see how beautiful I am And be ashamed. † Hughes seems to infer that once whites begin to recognize the value of African Americans as people and citizens they will be ashamed of the way they have treated them. The last line brings to life Hughes idea of a new America; a place where a black person can say with pride and a sense of belonging â€Å"I, too am America. † If I, Too allowed Hughes to reveal an African American’s desire to be a proud American equal to white citizens The Negro Speaks of Rivers reveals the part of the African American identity that celebrates the strength and pride of an African heritage. â€Å"The sun was setting as the train reached St. Louis and began the long passage from Illinois across the Mississippi and into Missouri, where Hughes had been born. The beauty of the hour and the settingthe great muddy river glinting in the sun, the banked and tinted summer clouds, the rush of the train toward the dark, all touched an adolescent sensibility tender after the gloomy day. The sense of beauty and death, of hope and despair, fused in his imagination. A phrase came to him, then a sentence. Drawing an envelope from his pocket, he began to scribble. In a few minutes Langston had finished a poem. † (Rampersand, 1988) Hughes wrote The Negro Speaks of Rivers at 17 and dedicated the poem to W. E. B. Dubois. Though he was young and inexperienced as a writer; the poem revealed Hughes’ pride in his roots and the beginning of a legacy of poetry for African Americans. Hughes suggests that four rivers- the Euphrates, the Congo, the Nile, and the Mississippi have helped to cultivate black people throughout the years. The Negro Speaks of Rivers is quite different from other poems in that Hughes connects all black people through their African heritage. The poem spans over years of blacks in history who benefit from a heritage that has allowed the speaker to believe that his â€Å"soul has grown deep like the rivers† (Hughes, 1926). Hughes lists the rivers in their historical order which helps the reader to understand the legacy of the rivers that have shaped people of African descent. As each river is revealed in the poem the speaker’s soul grows deeper symbolizing a race of people who become stronger throughout history. From the building of pyramids to the end of slavery the poem seeks to show the connection Hughes felt to his ancestors. Hughes legacy of providing a voice for African Americans continued throughout his career. In 1951 nearly two decades after writing I, Too in which he addressed the issue of racism Hughes revisited the pain associated with being African American in Theme for English B. Hughes explores the relationship between an African American student and his white teacher. The poem reveals how race affects the African American’s self-identity. The speaker of the poem first reveals his instructor’s command â€Å"Go home and write a page tonight/ And let that page come out of you-Then, it will be true† (Hughes, 1951). The student questions the assignment revealing his hesitation to complete it. In the next stanza Hughes reveals the speaker’s identity. The speaker reveals that he is a colored college student; and that he is the only colored student in class. This assertion helps the reader to understand that this student believes that he is different from his peers and his instructor because of his race. As the speaker ponders his age and his experiences he realizes some of the things that reveal his self-identity. As the speaker continues he lists the many things that contribute to his identity. In lines 24 and 25 the speaker even recognizes that in some ways he is like people from other races. In his self-analysis the speaker realizes that though he is not white and his instructor is white he need not avoid what is true about their relationship. The truth is that they are both American as Hughes state in line 33 and there are times when African Americans do not want to be associated with white Americans and vice versa. The speaker accepts his reality and is made aware that in being African American he is able to learn from his white instructor. The speaker seems more satisfied when he realizes that the instructor can learn from him as well. In all three poems Hughes accomplished the task of giving African Americas a poetic voice. This voice allowed the pride of one’s heritage, the anger and frustration about social injustices, and the pain associated with being African American to become a part of American Literature. Hughes’ ability to draw from his experiences and those of the people knew gave him a range of topics for his work. Hughes desire to uplift the African American race is evident in most of his work. Through his poems I, Too, The Negro Speaks of Rivers, and Theme for English B Hughes gives African Americans reasons to feel proud of who they are and what they contribute to society.