African Americans and the Civil War Essay Example for Free

African Americans and the Civil War Essay In the world we live in many people take a lot for granted. Just the small simple things people don’t really appreciate, being ungrateful for the things that have been given to them. Many people and different situations have paved the way for our generation to become much easier to live in. African Americans during the civil rights movement had to face a lot of trills in order to make the world a better place. Many people don’t appreciate that because they are unaware of just how much grief African Americans had to go though to create a path for the upcoming generation. African Americans faced many hardships during the civil rights movement, some of those hardships were segregation, voting rights, and assassination of prominent African American leaders. Segregation was such a big obstacle for African Americans because not only were they not allowed to go certain places it became bigger than that. Everything in African Americans lives were split in half. There were white only signs places all over there towns. White only signs for bathrooms, restaurants, and water fountains. Everything was separated between the two races blacks and whites. One event that really stuck out like a sore thumb was The Montgomery Bus Boycott. During, the time of segregation blacks were allowed to ride the buses, but many rules had to apply. Blacks had a black’s only section on the bus that could be moved in any location of the bus. That means that the blacks’ only sign could be moved in front of two rows on the bus if that’s what the bus driver wanted. Black riders had to pay their bus far on the front of the bus and get off to walk to the back of the bus to ride. Some bus drivers would allow the blacks to pay and when the step off the bus the bus driver would drive away and leave them. When blacks did receive a chance to ride on the bus, if a white person did not have a seat to sit in a black person had to give up their seat. The blacks of Montgomery, Alabama, decided that they would boycott the city buses until they could sit anywhere they wanted, instead of being relegated to the back when a white boarded. On December 1, 1955, Mrs. Rosa Parks, an African American seamstress, was arrested in Montgomery, Alabama for not standing and letting a white bus rider take her seat. The plan to stop the whites from making the blacks move was the boycott. Blacks would no longer ride the buses anymore. That means that the bus companies were losing a lot of money. Blacks would walk to work or school and even carpool, but would not step foot on the buses. The boycott continued for over a year. Eventually, the United States Supreme Court put an end to the boycott. On November 13, 1956 the Court declared that Alabamas state and local laws requiring segregation on buses were illegal. On December 20th federal injunctions were served on city and bus company officials forcing them to follow the Supreme Courts ruling. African Americans had to face a lot just so that they could be treated as an equal on the bus. Segregation played a huge role in the school system. In public schools more so than any. That’s what stated the big flare Brown vs. Board of Education. The 1954 United States Supreme Court decision in Oliver L. Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka (KS) is among the most significant judicial turning points in the development of our country. Originally led by Charles H. Houston, and later Thurgood Marshall and a formidable legal team, it dismantled the legal basis for racial segregation in schools and other public facilities. Brown vs. Board of Education was not simply about children and education. The laws and policies struck down by this court decision were products of the human tendencies to prejudge, discriminate against, and stereotype other people by their ethnic, religious, physical, or cultural characteristics. Ending this behavior as a legal practice caused far reaching social and ideological implications, which continue to be felt throughout our country. The Brown decision inspired and galvanized human rights struggles across the country and around the world. The U. S. Supreme Court decision in Brown began a critical chapter in the maturation of our democracy. It reaffirmed the sovereign power of the people of the United States in the protection of their natural rights from arbitrary limits and restrictions imposed by state and local governments. These rights are recognized in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution. Brown was giving African Americans the opportunity to be accepted as an individual and not just as a race. Now, you would think that after the Brown vs. Board of Education whites would accept African Americans and treat them better. That was not the case and segregation did not stop there. Although, many people had hoped that it would it took the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to really make a change. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States that outlawed major forms of discrimination against blacks and women, and ended racial segregation in the United States. It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public. Once the Act was implemented, its effects were far-reaching on the country as a whole and had an immediate impact on the South. It prohibited discrimination in public facilities, in government, and in employment, invalidating the Jim Crow laws in the southern U. S. It became illegal to compel segregation of the races in schools, housing, or hiring. After passage of the law, the NAACP was the only major civil rights organization to maintain a large membership in the South, where it concentrated on organizing the ongoing struggle for black civil rights. During 1965-75, the NAACP remained committed to using litigation to challenge racial injustice. African Americans had to fight hard to get what they deserved and it took a lot of patients and time to receive change but it finally happened. That is we segregation ended and Africans were free to sit, eat, talk, shop, and work anywhere they wanted. Being able to vote is a very important ordeal. Many people in this day and time take advantage of being able to voice their opinions. Not taking advantage of who we desire to have in office is a sign of being ungrateful. African Americans were not given that right years ago. African Americans had to fight just so that they could vote. That’s when the Voting Act of 1965 came in play. Before, this Act was enforced African Americans had to take a literacy tests and pay poll taxes. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 abolished literacy tests and poll taxes designed to disenfranchise African American voters, and gave the federal government the authority to take over voter registration in counties with a pattern of persistent discrimination. Echoing the language of the 15th Amendment, the Act prohibits states from imposing any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color. The Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat, who had earlier signed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law. Being able to vote was an honor and so many people don’t even both to go vote during the elections today. African Americans fought for the right to vote without having to take tests or pay poll taxes and people still don’t go out to vote. That is taking voting rights for granted. Being an African American during the civil rights movement was a challenge, but being an African American woman was even difficult. That’s when the period of women’s suffrage played its role. Women’s Suffrage is the right of women to vote and to run for office. The expression is also used for the economic and political reform movement aimed at extending these rights to women and without any restrictions or qualifications such as property ownership, payment of tax, or marital status. Being a woman in this time period restricted of many rights. Womens suffrage has been granted at various times in various countries throughout the world, and in many countries it was granted before universal suffrage. Without women’s suffrage women would still be restricted to make decisions and just be limited to being mothers and wives. The women’s suffrage broke that cycle. The best way to leave a positive mark on the world is being a leader. It takes a lot of heart, courage, and sacrifice, in becoming a great leader. Leaders are persons that people look up to. They depend on a leader to give them hope to carry on and a positive role model to look up to. There were not too many people that wanted to take the position of being a leader, but a few chose to step up to the plate. African Americans needed kind and encouraging words to help uplift them during the civil rights movement. Two great leaders Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Melcolm X took on a job to lead the world into a better place called freedom. The two leaders gave African Americans hope to continue on when they wanted to just give up. African Americans depended on these two prominent leaders to strengthen them. African Americans during the civil rights movement needed to relay on someone and those leaders were the perfect ones. No one would have ever been ready for what was expected to come. For years African American have been told what they could and couldn’t do. They have been talked about, abused, lied on, and have had everything taken from them. But, still they have stayed strong through it all. When all they had were two great prominent leaders and they were taken from them as well they still stayed strong. Two great prominent leaders were assonated. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. Martin Luther King Jr. was an American clergyman, activist, and prominent leader in the African American civil rights movement. He was best known for being an iconic figure in the advancement of civil rights in the United States and around the world, using nonviolent methods following the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi. King was often presented as a heroic leader in the history of modern American liberalism. A Baptist minister, King became a civil rights activist early in his career. He led the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott and helped found the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1957, serving as its first president. Kings efforts led to the 1963 March on Washington, where King delivered his I Have a Dream speech. There, he expanded American values to include the vision of a color blind society, and established his reputation as one of the greatest orators in American history. But, as people have said â€Å"all things must come to an end. † At 6:01 p. m. on April 4, 1968, a shot rang out. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. , who had been standing on the balcony of his room at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, TN, lay sprawled on the balconys floor. A gaping wound covered a large portion of his jaw and neck. A great man who had spent thirteen years of his life dedicating himself to nonviolent protest had been felled by a snipers bullet.

My Inspirational Leader An Effective Leader Management Essay

My Inspirational Leader An Effective Leader Management Essay Whilst considering someone who is an effective leader I researched well-known historical individuals such as Churchill, Gandhi or Napoleon all of which had completely different personalities and attitudes. After careful consideration I then decided to focus my attention on Sir Winston Churchill (Churchill) his unique story of success provides an excellent example of someone who is an effective leader. During Churchills years in politics he developed his leadership skills and mental abilities and at the beginning of the Second World War these matched the requirements of the situation better than those of his political contemporaries. During the 1930s Churchill spoke out vigorously on the rise of the Nazi party. This ensured that when conflict between Britain and Germany unsurprisingly occurred, Churchill stood out as a statesman who had fought against the threat of Nazism for many years while other politicians had tried to appease Adolf Hitler. At this point in time Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of the time, lost the confidence of Parliament and resigned and new national support was given to Churchill the British public felt that he was a politician who understood the situation and someone who could be trusted to lead the country in a difficult time, it was clear at that point that Churchill had the skills and spirit to unite and lead the nation. Churchill used his personal skills and patriotism to motivate and inspire the British public to endure the hardships they faced with good humour, strength and resourcefulness. Churchill also used his extensive diplomacy and communication skills to forge alliances between nations with differing political and social philosophies, such as the communist Soviet Union and the capitalist United States. Churchill played a major role in the outcome of the Second World War, he had confidence in himself and was able to handle the crisis and he fully trusted his leadership abilities. He knew that would solve the problems, (Kotter, J. P., 1990), and so also will lead the people who trusted him. There is no doubt that his central leading style (Kotter, J. P, 1990) was nothing but excellent. One of the main properties Churchill had as a leader was the capability of inspiring people, regardless of the circumstances; he challenged people to make a unified effort.   Let us go forward together (Churchill 1940) this was his favourite slogan. Churchill had a skill of inspiring people to delivery and contribute above their limits, making them deliver more to a situation. Churchill constantly demonstrates enthusiasm, determination and optimism. Churchill used his personality to encourage individuals to work hard and excel in the jobs they were given. An effective leader accepts that challenge is a corporate asset and they have a legitimate responsibility to their followers (Howell and Shamir, 2005). When challenge is met with appropriate leader responsibilities the appropriate meaning leaders just need to get the job done, but in a way that encourages vision and considers cultural values (Kouzes-Posner, 2007). Winston Churchill was a man of immense  courage  and  creativity,  these and his other qualities shaped the war during Britains darkest hour without such a strong leader results could have been very different. Question 1b Forms of Leadership There are two forms of leadership:   Firstly, transformational leadership (Burns, J.M., 1978) that focuses on what a leader delivers rather than on their personal characteristics and their role within the team. Secondly, transactional leadership (Burns, J.M., 1978) demonstrated by leaders this involves directing followers motivating them motivating to appeal to their own self-interest. Transactional leaders often comes from formal responsibility in a company. The main goal of the follower is to carry out the instructions of the leader. Churchill encouraged people to find a way to win the world war and created an environment that persuaded thinking and instinct. He also emphasized methodical problem solving, rethinking, and gave careful reasoning rather than giving unsupported opinions (Kouzes-Posner, 2007). Churchill made a big change for Britain by saving the nation that almost had no chance to win the war against Germany. Transformational leaders are inspiring because they expect the best from team members as well as themselves. This approach to leadership often leads to high productivity and commitment from everyone in their team. The drawback of transformational leadership is that while the leaders enthusiasm is passed onto the group the leader needs to be supported by people as a result often transactional and transformational leadership styles are used. Transactional leaders ensure that routine work is carried out reliably, whereas transformational leaders look after initiatives that develop and add enhancements to a situation. Transformational leaders appeal to followers higher sense of morality, ethics and vision. Typically a Transformational leader must encourage the same motivational values they believe and allow followers to share similar beliefs. Churchill motivated followers to action by encouraging people to shared values and by satisfying their aspirations and expectations. Transactional leadership is based an exchange of something of value in which the leader possesses or controls in substitution for the followers return for their services, i.e. jobs for votes, subsidies for campaign contributions. The transactional style is typically what happens in a contracting scenario. In contrast, transactional leadership is a more conventional style in which work is exchanged for resources. A transactional leader influences subordinates by rewards in exchange for their efforts, follows workers closely and takes corrective actions when required. Transactional leaders ensure that routine work is done reliably, while transformational leaders look after initiatives that add new value to a situation. Word count: 910 My Progress as a Leader Question 2a Inquiries and Opportunities My inquiries to date have been focused around my part-time job in Tesco. Since TMA01 I have received feedback from my manager about my performance since joining the team and my efforts are being recognised and are helping me to progress further within the company. I have been working with Tesco for two months now and since starting I have been working for all of the different departments, this is now giving me the experience I need to achieve my goal as a Team Leader. Lots of my time has dealing directly with customers, often working very long hours and sometimes weekends. I am currently working with five people and I plan to apply for the team leader role within the next few months. My career goals of becoming a team leader will require strong management practices as well as strong leadership practices. My current activities and interests will help to educate myself and become a stronger leader. I will monitor the competition as well as the industry changes and if changes are made in the company I will understand why because I will have the knowledge of what is going on in the market sector. I will integrity inspire people with a shared vision of the future, set clear goals and motivate people towards them, manage delivery, communicate well w ith a teams (Kouzes-Posner, 2007).   If promoted I will continue to make decisions based on what is best for the company and customers. When making these decisions I will make sure they will coincide with our companys vision and values along with the companys strategy. When change is necessary I will ensure that I am proactive about making the change as well as positive about the change to minimise resistance. Question 2b Aspects of Leadership Leadership is ultimately about getting things done. It is the ability to influence, motivate and provide support others so that they can best contribute towards the successful attainment of the goals of their community or organisation. Productive inquiry is about taking action (Ramsey 2010). Recently I moved to another area within the company focusing on customer service, since moving I soon realised that there were many things that could be done much better. I quickly adapted to the environment, decided on taking corrective actions; helped developed operational goals and daily objectives to measure our success. The first item I noticed was that the morale was very low, people were pointing fingers and the productivity was awful, people were spending lots of time complaining rather than focusing on ways to improve the situation. Straightaway I implemented some changes after observing what was going on and after two weeks colleagues attitudes started to change and morale has become much better. I feel that by using all the practices of leadership and management described above I will excel in my current position as well as leverage myself into a better position within my company. Word count: 491

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

Subdivisions of Corneal Ulcers and Treatment :: Eyes Cornea Vision Health Medical Essays

Subdivisions of Corneal Ulcers and Treatment The eye is one of the vital organs in a human being. As seen on figure 1, the eye is composed of many different parts and function. The cornea is a clear covering over the colored iris and the pupil of the eye. The function of cornea is to help focus light on the retina and protect the iris, lens, etc. so that the eye can see. The cornea is best to compare with a standard contact lens. Although, the function of a cornea is to protect from harmful microorganisms, it is also vulnerable to those same unicellular organisms. One of the major diseases affecting the cornea is a corneal ulcer. A corneal ulcer is an â€Å"non-penetrating erosion, or open sore in the outer layer of the cornea, the transparent area at the front of the eyeball† (Medlineplus). Corneal Ulcer has many different names, depending on the microorganism that causes the ulcer. Some of the major diseases include Bacterial Keratitis, Fungal Keratitis, Acanthamoeba Keratitis, and Herpes Simplex Keratitis. Bacteria, fungi, amoebae, and viruses are the prime cause for these diseases. These microorganisms settle in the cornea, grow, and feed on the cornea. This process causes a corneal ulceration. Contact lenses are the leading way these microorganisms enter the cornea (discussed later). There contains multiple symptoms in order to identify corneal ulceration. Some of these symptoms include the following: eye redness, tearing increases, vision impairs, eye burning, itching, and photophobia (sensitive to light) start to develop (Medlineplus).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Many different methods of detecting corneal ulcer are present at the doctor’s office. Visual acuity test, Slit-lamp test, and Shirmers (tear) test are some of the tests that a doctor conducts during eye examination. Visual acuity test allows the doctor to measure a person’s vision by reading the eye chart (figure 6). A Slit-lamp is a specialized magnifying microscope in which a doctor could examine the cornea, iris, and retina. Its use is to look in the interior of the eye with the built-in laser and a camera (figure 7). Shirmers test determines whether or not there is enough tears to keep the eye moist. Another methods of detecting for corneal ulcer are Keratometry (measurement of the cornea) and scraping of the ulcer for analysis (Medlineplus).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  There are many different ways to treat corneal ulcer. Many times, corneal ulcer is treated in the doctor’s office using eye drops.

Communications between Parents and Children Essay -- Family Communicat

Healthy family relationships depend on healthy communications there are many ways and times to practice and teach good communication to children. There are many times that without good communication, the parent-child relationship suffers and sometimes ends abruptly. Good communication skills should be taught from birth and continue throughout adulthood. In order to have a good parent/child relationship with open communication, there must also be mutual respect. If there is no respect, the lines of communication will falter. Tom Schwartz states that he knows of â€Å"many cases where children are raised in an atmosphere of dark secrecy about both the matriarchal and patriarchal parts of their families. They grow up with a sense that something must be wrong but fear discussing this with their parents.† (5) Most people have grown up with family secrets, but some secrets can destroy a family. The act of hiding the secret(s) provides an excuse to limit self-disclosure, and reacts negatively on one’s self-esteem. â€Å"Good communication helps keep a family running smoothly and prevents misunderstandings from escalating into conflict or from being buried unresolved.† (Feiden, 68) When these become extremely limited or negative, there is an increased chance of a separation and possible ending of the relationship. The end of the relationship could mean that parent and child no longer talk, or they are forcibly separated for their own health in extreme cases. Unfortunately, â€Å"emotional health can be passed down from generation to generation just as easily as abuse and dysfunction,† (Bloch, 7) making such dysfunctions of communications a continuous process. In cases like this, communication is crucial. The secrets should be shared within the family. ... ...heir lives. Works Cited Bay, Willow, Talking to your Kids in Tough Times, New York: Warner books, 2003 Berenstain, Stan & Jan, What Your Parents Never Told You about Being a Mom or Dad, New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1995 Bloch, Douglas, Positive Self-Talk For Children, New York: Bantam Books, 1993 Children’s Defense Fund. â€Å"The state of America’s children 2008† 2009: 80 Pages. October 30, 2009 . Feiden, Karyn, Raising Responsible Kids, New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1991 Schwartz, PH.D., Allen, â€Å"Family Secrets†, April 25, 2007: 8 pages October 30, 2009, Sturges, Tom, Parking Lot Rules & 75 Other Ideas for Raising Amazing Children, New York: Ballantine Books, 2008

The Difficulties of Implementing the Good Friday Agreement Essay

The Difficulties of Implementing the Good Friday Agreement The Good Friday Agreement was voted on by a relatively large turnout of 68.8% in 1998 and was rejected by a significant 29% of people in Northern Ireland. For the past six years it has proved to be difficult to implement and there are a number of reasons for this. The emphasis on issues raised in the agreement has changed over the years and some are proving to be more difficult to implement than others. A major area within the Good Friday Agreement is the setting up of an Assembly. Hard line Unionists such as the DUP refuse to accept the Assembly. They refuse to sit at a table with Sinn FÃ ©in in cross party talks while they argue that Sinn FÃ ©in still have links with the IRA. The DUP's mindset has been created by fifty two years of unionist rule. They do not wish to accept principles contained within the agreement which they feel they have already rejected in the 1974 power sharing executive. The DUP are now offering a full re-negotiation of the agreement and their slogan for the last elections was, 'It's time for a new deal.' There are deep divisions within the official unionist party. There is continual disagreement over how many concessions can be made to nationalists. David Trimble the party leader has remained committed to the agreement despite bitter criticism from fellow unionists and himself also feeling uneasy over some elements of it. He has faced leadership challenges and recent defections to the DUP by Geoffrey Donaldson, Arlene Foster and Norah Beare have reduced the number of seats held by the UUP. David Trimble must have ... ...ng to have it raised again. The flying of paramilitary flags particularly around the marching season upsets and provokes nationalists who feel threatened by such and obvious display of paramilitary strength. The agreement could now be said to be more difficult to implement than before due to the recent election results. The middle ground lost out while extremists at the opposite end of the political spectrum gained votes. The DUP have a majority of 33 seats and Sinn FÃ ©in has 27. This perhaps suggests that more moderate voters have become disillusioned and no longer believe in the capabilities of their politicians to do their job. There could be a feeling of apathy towards the peace process. However this does not mean that peace is not obtainable in Northern Irelandand with hard work and co-operation it is achievable.

Was Magellan Worth Defending

Magellan is intelligent. UT another way you cool describe him is cruel. Another reason he was worth is because he was just try Eng to deliver spices. At that point he was completely innocent But on the other Han d he did lead his crew to their death. So at that point he was not worth defending. Beck cause he left with 270 men and came back with 18 but, Magellan was not one of the 18. So he was not worth defending right now. Another way someone could argue that he was not worth defending is that he made his crew do all the work. Some captions are like that but they probably did a lot more work than he did.Then again he was one of the people who want to sell spices. With that at least some of the spices got to where they were supposed to. So t hat is one big reason why he is worth defending. But still someone could argue both WA Another thing he did was help discover the world. And that is one huge reason why he is worth defending. He also did make a bunch of towns change religion ins, and if they refused he threatened them. People should have the choice of religion, s oh lot Of people would not defend him because of that. He also made his crew eat old biscuits, at rats, and drink yellow water.When he did that he probably got his crew re ally sick. But after all that he is kind worth defending. Was Magellan worth defending? After all the stuff that he did to his crew. But he did have some good in him. My opinion he was worth defending. But I have my reasons. Some of them are he helped discover the world, he was intelligent, h e was just trying to sell spices, and much much more. So for all the bad stuff he did he al so had some good. In my own opinion the good toward the bad. Including Magellan was a kind bad person but he was worth defending.