The Mall as Disney Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

The Mall as Disney - Coursework Example Since Richards main concern is in Disneyland, Main Street is of much importance to him so that the people reading his essay can understand the whole history behind Disneyland Richard also uses Main Street because of its architectural similarities with Disneyland. This clearly shows that main street had a big role to play in the development of Disneyland. The past life of the American people shows by the architecture of Main Street. This same architecture also exists in Disneyland and this is the reason why Richard focuses a lot on Main Street. Main streets a generic street name, which in most parts of the world, used for socializing and retailing. USA Main Street has a lot of cultural impact on the lives of the American people. It is here that people came to shop for all their needs and at the same time sit down and socialize with others about what was going on in their lives. Main Street in the USA led to the development of several cities as more people came to these places to shop and socialize while providing enough recourse to the public to be able to come up with Disneyland. The architecture of Main Street also tells a lot about the culture of the American people. Every little building shows that the people were organized and that they valued art and architecture. The architectural configuration of Main Street gives us the impression of how the people loved buildings. The buildings perform different functions; some act as shopping malls. Each building has a place for socializing meaning that the people loved a lot of socializing. The other cultural role played by Main Street is the development of architecture in America. From Main Street, we are able to see how buildings look and how similar they are to Disneyland. We get to see how people built their houses, how they shopped and exact places where they socialized. Main Street also gives us the American culture of education. Many schools and colleges develop from

Project Proposal Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Project Proposal - Essay Example This project proposal tries to prove the critics wrong and assert that a coffee shop developed in Kuwait can become internationally significant with its line of products. In Kuwait, a US born coffee shop called Starbucks International is among the leading coffee vender shops (Fullerton, 2005). The main advantage held by Starbucks International is the specialty it offers to its customers, making it a unique coffee shop. In essence, for a coffee shop developed in Kuwait to flourish, it has to offer unique services, and this differentiation of products will result in its popularity nationally, and Kuwait being among the top tourist destinations it will eventually gain global recognition. Currently, there are hundreds of coffee shops in Kuwait, which is a challenge to any ambitious individual or group that intends to go into the coffee shop business. Mission The coffee shop company has to set a clear mission that will see it create a humble place, unique enough to ensure comfortable soci alizing of customers, a relaxed environment that is destruction free as they enjoy their coffee (Giovannucci and Ponte, 2005). The company intends to reach out to the world through opening of numerous branches that offer the same services at affordable prices. In addition, it will work towards investment of the profits realized so as to keep faith with its employees and shareholders (Giovannucci and Ponte, 2005) Problem Definition According to Golding and Peattie (2005), going into the coffee shop business will mean that the company comes with suitable strategies to ensure production of quality coffee that is unique from the other coffee shops. Different people have different preferences and tastes; thus, since the company intends to have branches worldwide a study will have to be conducted on coffee preferences and tastes of different people in influential markets. As Fullerton (2005) argues, the task faced is to investigate and come up with ways in which a coffee shop can be devel oped in Kuwait and extend its services across the world. Topic Relevance According to Golding and Peattie (2005:158), Arabs are fond of coffee, which forms a basis for the development of a coffee shop in an Arabic country. In addition, with the current Freedom of Movement, Arabs are all over the world. This does not mean that Arabs are the only target market since many other non-Arabic people love coffee (Holmes, 2004). The coffee shop, once in place, expects to fetch revenue approximating from ?500,000 in the first year of its operation to ?800,000 by the fifth year. According to Holmes (2004), the company will have to maintain its gross profit margin above 50% and maintain reasonable expenditure in its operations for it to achieve these targets. Research Objectives The new coffee shop has its business objectives just like any other business would have (Giovannucci and Ponte, 2005). In its birth year, the company’s expectations are; i. To be named by the customers and/or loc al restaurant guide as the best coffee shop locally. ii. Maintain a gross profit margin that is above 50% so as to realize its profit targets. iii. Realize immediate profits right from the first month of its operation. iv. Capture a local market of over 50,000 people in the first month of

John Forbes Nash Jr Essay Example for Free

John Forbes Nash Jr Essay John Forbes Nash Jr. (born June 13, 1928) is a mathematician who worked in game theory and differential geometry. He shared the 1994 Nobel Prize for economics with two other game theorists, Reinhard Selten and John Harsanyi. After a promising start to his mathematical career, Nash began to suffer from schizophrenia around his 30th year, an illness from which he has only recovered some 25 years later. John Nash was born in Bluefield, West Virginia as son of John Nash Sr. and Virginia Martin. His father was an electrotechnician; his mother a language teacher. As a young boy he spent much time reading books and experimenting in his room, which he had converted into a laboratory. From June 1945-June 1948 Nash studied at the Carnegie Institute of Technology in Pittsburgh, intending to become a technical engineer like his father. Instead, he developed a deep love for mathematics and a lifelong interest in subjects such as number theory, Diophantine equations, quantum mechanics and relativity theory. He loved solving problems. At Carnegie he became interested in the negotiation problem, which John von Neumann had left unsolved in his book The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (1928). He participated in the game theory group there. From Pittsburgh he went to Princeton University where he worked on his equilibrium theory. He received a Ph. D. in 1950 with the dissertation Non-cooperative games. The thesis contained the definition and properties of what would later be called the Nash equilibrium; 44 years later, it would earn him the Nobel prize. His studies on this subject led to three articles, the first entitled Equilibrium Points in N-person Games, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) (1950), and the others in Econometrica about The Bargaining Problem (April 1950) and Two-person Cooperative Games (January 1953). The only official economic lessons he followed were a series about international trade. In the summer of 1950 he worked at the RAND Corporation in Santa Monica, California, where he returned for shorter periods in 1952 and 1954. From 1950-1951 he taught calculus courses at Princeton, studied and managed to stay out of military service. During this time, he proved the Nash embedding theorem, an important result in differential geometry about manifolds. In 1951-1952 he became science assistant at MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts. At MIT, he met Alicia Lopez-Harrison de Larde, a math student from El Salvador, whom he married in February 1957. Their son, John Charles Martin (b. May 20, 1959), remained nameless for a year because Alicia, having just committed Nash to a mental hospital, felt that he should have a say in what to name the baby. As was his parents, John became a mathematician, but, like his father, he was diagnosed a paranoid schizophrenic. Nash had another son, John David (b. June 19, 1953), by Eleanor Stier, but refused to have anything to do with them. An admitted bisexual, he carried on intimate relationships with men during this period. Although she divorced him in 1963, Alicia took him back in 1970. But, according to Sylvia Nasars biography of Nash, Alicia referred to him as her boarder, and they lived like two distantly related individuals under one roof until he won the Nobel Prize in 1994, then they renewed their relationship. They remarried on June 1, 2001. In 1958 John Nash began to show the first signs of his mental illness. He became paranoid and was admitted into the McLean Hospital, April-May 1959, where he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. After a problematic stay in Paris and Geneva, Nash returned to Princeton in 1960. He remained in and out of mental hospitals until 1970, and held a research position at Brandeis University from 1965-1967. Illustrative is the 30-year publication gap between 1966 and 1996 of any scientific work. In 1978 he was awarded the John Von Neumann Theory Prize for his invention of non-cooperative equilibriums, now called Nash equilibria. Nashs mental health improved very slowly. His interest in mathematical problems gradually returned, and with it the ability to think logically. He also became interested in computer programming. The 1990s brought a return of his genius, though it lived in a still feeble mind. In 1994 he received the Nobel Prize in Economics as a result of his game theory work at Princeton as a graduate student. He is still hoping to score substantial scientific results. Between 1945 and 1996 John Nash published a total of 23 scientific studies, plus an autobiographical essay, Les Prix Nobel (1994) [1] (http://www. nobel. se/economics/laureates/1994/nash-autobio. html), first published in Sweden. A film titled A Beautiful Mind, released in December 2001 and directed by Ron Howard, dramatically portrayed some events of Nashs life. It is (loosely) based on the biography of the same title, written by Sylvia Nasar (1999) and received four Oscars in 2002. A deleted scene from A Beautiful Mind reveals that Nash (re)invented the board game known as Hex or (at Princeton) Nash or John, as it was often played on hexagonal bathroom floor tiles. A Beautiful Mind has been criticized for its inaccurate portrayal of John Nashs life and schizophrenia. The PBS documentary A Brilliant Madness attempts to portray his life more accurately.

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

Smoking Should be Banned in All Public Places Essay -- Papers Argument

Smoking Should be Banned in All Public Places Every year thousands of people die because of having cancer or other tobacco related illnesses due to smoking. Smoking is seen everywhere from our own television screens to even the world wide web; the internet. Tobacco is the substance that is in these cigarettes. These tobacco products are promoted through tobacco ads that are found almost everywhere you turn. They are in magazines, television screens, on the internet and even on cigarette boxes themselves. Alas, their tobacco ads do not tell the whole truth. Thus, many people fall prey to these tobacco cigarettes and once they try one cigarette, they are hooked on it. The reason this is so is the nicotine present in it, which is a kind of drug. So now, as you can see many have been addicted to the habit of smoking. Nowadays in almost all parts of the world has much controversy because people some people agree about smoke in public areas, but others who do not smoke complain about that; so much so that it has now become an issue. So, should smoking be banned in all public places? I would say yes, they should. Firstly, when many smokers smoke in public places, the people around them who do not smoke breathe in the smoke and they become passive smokers. These smokers can even get very ill due to the consequences of passive smoking. Researchers have even discovered that the onslaught of that kind of cigar smoke causes ninety-seven gases to malfunction. The Environment Protection Agency also reported that passive smoking causes 2500 to 3500 lung cancer deaths a year among non-smokers in just the U.S. alone. We may not know this but we... ...something that should be put into action. It is the only way smokers may reform their ways and start afresh. Although many others may also argue that air pollution does occur due to other factors, smoking is also a factor encouraging air pollution. So why not try stopping it while we can right now by taking a stand that smoking should be banned in all public places and turn it into a action that would prove the best all round? Smoke is very bad and the government should not authorize smoking in public places at all. It not only affects the people who smoke but also other innocent people. Moreover, if you smoke, you would have to think more about not only your own health but also for the other people whom you live with and who are around you. So, all in all, I conclude that smoking should be banned in all public places.

Cloning :: essays papers

Cloning Cloning is the process of creating a genetic duplicate of an individual. Since the February 1997 announcement of the birth of Dolly, a sheep cloned by Ian Wilmut, cloning research has increased considerably. Cloning humans has recently become much more of a possibility in society than it was years ago. Scientists are on the edge of a huge breakthrough in the field of human cloning, and society must ask itself whether or not it should be allowed. Many arguments can be made for and against human cloning, but since it is unethical and would take away individuality and disrupt social values, the practice of cloning humans is one that government should ban and society should not accept. Proponents of human cloning may argue that it is just a logical and inevitable advance in science research and technology. It is, however, too risky for human subjects. At the present time, the general consensus of the public is against human cloning. (Fitzgerald 37) Within a few years' time, however, the medical possibilities of human cloning may be attractive enough to change public opinion. Research on human cloning would involve huge risks for the initial clones, because any experiments in human cloning would eventually have to be carried out on human beings. Human cloning is unethical because the risks of this practice greatly outweigh the benefits. The technique that produced Dolly the sheep was successful in only 1 of 277 attempts. If this technique were attempted in humans, it would risk miscarriages in the mother and severe developmental problems in the child. Standard medical practice would never allow the use of any drug or device with such little study and without much additional animal research. (National Bioethics Advisory Commission) The actual risks of physical harm to the cloned child cannot be certain without conducting experiments on human beings. This in itself is unethical because no one knows what will happen and the child is in danger because "one does not know what is going to happen, and one is^possibly leading to a child who could be disabled and have developmental difficulties." (Professor John Robertson) Human cloning would violate a person's individuality and take away a child's identity. Cloned children would see themselves not as a person, but as an object that their parents could discard because of imperfection. A family is no longer a genuine family. Children should be valued for who they are, not according to how closely thy meet their parents' expectations. If a child were cloned, his life would already have been lived by another human

Uses and Gratifications Theory

USES AND GRATIFICATIONS THEORYThe uses and gratification perspectives takes the view of the media consumer. It examines how peopleuse the media and the gratification they seek and receive from their media behaviors. Uses andgratification researchers assume that audience that audience members are aware of and can articulatetheir reasons for consuming various media content.HistoryThe uses and gratifications approach has its roots in the 1940s when researchers became interested inwhy people engaged in various forms of media behaviour, such as radio listening or newspaper reading. These early studies were primarily descriptive, seeking to classify the responses of audience membersinto meaningful categories. For example, Herzog in 1944 identified three types of gratificationassociated with listening to radio soap, operas: emotional release, wishful thinking and obtaining advice.Berelson in 1949 took advantage of a New York news paper strike to ask people why they read thepaper, the respon ses fell into five major categories: reading for information, reading for social prestige,reading for escape, reading as a tool for daily living, and reading for a social context. These earlystudies had little theoretical coherence; in fact many were inspired by the practical needs of newspaperpublishers and radio broadcasters to know the motivations of their audience in order to serve them moreefficiently.The next step in the development of this research began during the late 1950s and continued during intothe 1960s, in this phase the emphasis was on identifying and operationalizing the many social andpsychological variables that were presumed to the antecedents of different patterns of consumption andgratification. Wilbur Schramm in 1954 asked the question, `what determines which offerings of mass communicationwill be selected by a given individual? ‘ the answer he offered is called the fraction of selection, and itlooks like