Globalisation and Free

Globalisation and Free Trade Essay Globalisation, also referred to as global integration is an important economic concept used to understand the economic, structural, political and cultural changes that have occurred in the world today. Globalisation is argued to have shaped the post-war world. Globalisation can be defined as the increase of interconnectedness between countries through international trade. The reduced policy barriers to trade and investment in the public sector and the reduced communication and transportation costs in the private sector are believed to be the main driving force behind globalisation (Frankel, 2006). Due to globalisation, the concept of free trade operates. Free trade is a policy where countries are able to trade freely with each other as there are no tariffs applied to imports and no quotas or subsidies applied to exports. According to the law of comparative advantage, the free trade policy allows both countries to gain mutually from trade – increasing economic growth. The increase in inequality and job losses which is occurring around the world is argued to be as a result of global logic of competitive profit-making management techniques of outsourcing and corporate migrations, atomisation, downsizing and widespread technological progress which all came about as a result of globalisation and free trade (Ukpere and Slabbert, 2007) Due to some consequences of globalisation, movements were formed against it (Krugman et al, 2012). The anti-globalisation movements argue that although globalisation increases the overall income of a country however the benefits are not equally distributed between the citizens. This widens income disparities which brings up social and welfare issues and could also limit the forces which drive economic growth as opportunities brought about as a result of globalisation may not be fully taken advantage of. Maintaining citizens support is important in order to sustain globalisation, however support shown by citizens could largely be influenced by the rising level of inequality (Subir Lall et al, 2012). The Ricardian Model of comparative advantage states that goods are produced competitively using one factor of production; labour, utilising constant-returns-to-scale technologies that vary across countries and goods (Deardorff,2007) . The Ricardian model puts forward that countries would export the good in which they have comparative advantage which is determined by opportunity cost, labour cost and labour productivity. A country has a comparative advantage in the production of a good if the opportunity cost of producing that good in terms of other goods is lower in that country than it is in other countries (Krugman et al, 2012). The Ricardian model illustrates a world with two countries, A and B which both utilise a single factor of production labour in producing good X and Y respectively. Assuming country A has comparative advantage in producing good X, then country A should specialise in the production of good X and would export it to country B. Since it is more cost effective for country B to import good X , Production of good X would decline in country B leading to a reduction in the demand for labour. As a result workers would lose their jobs leaving them with less disposable income – increasing inequality. As a result of globalisation, the cost of communication between countries is low, reducing the cost of controlling the geographically dispersed parts of an organisation. This allows organisations identify countries which have low production costs and set up branches in such countries in order to exploit the low production costs. This is referred to as outsourcing. Through this fragmentation of industry, the host countries are able to pursue their comparative advantage and maximise the use of their resources. However due to outsourcing, the movement of production to the host country causes people in the foreign country to be laid off their jobs as there is a decline in the demand for labour, increasing job losses and also the inequality gap. The factor-proportions theory stresses the importance of the interaction between the proportions of the factors of production that are utilised by countries in production and the proportion of the factors of production the country possesses (Krugman et al, 2012). The Hecksher- Ohlin model is a version of the factor-proportions theory . The model assumes that the country that is abundant in a factor exports the good whose production is intensive in that factor and can be referred to as â€Å"2 by 2 by 2†: Two factors of production, two goods, two countries (Krugman et al, 2012). Assuming we have two countries, country A and B which utilise two factors of production; labour and land to produce goods X(labour intensive) and Y(land intensive) respectively. The Hecksher-Ohlin model states that If country A has abundance of Labour and country B has abundance of land then country A would be effective in the production of good X and country B would be effective in the production of good Y. The Hecksher-Ohlin model purports that owners of abundant factors benefit from international trade and owners of scarce factor would lose from trade. Owners of the scarce factor would then be forced to lay off some workers – leading to disparities in the distribution of income which increases inequality (Krugman et al, 2012). The Stopler- Samuelson theory describes an interaction between relative factor rewards and the relative prices of goods. The theory purports that under some economic conditions (perfect competition, constant returns, equal number of goods produced to equal number of factors) the rise in market price of a good would result in an rise in the return to that factor that is most intensively utilised in producing that good whereas a reduction in the return to the other factor occurs. Due to free trade, there are reduced tariffs on imports and as a result, there is a decrease in the price of imported goods that are high skill-intensive reducing compensation of limited high-skilled workers. Also, there in as increase in the price of exported goods which the country has abundant factor, that are low skill-intensive and the compensation of low-skilled workers. In a developed country with relatively abundant high-skill factors the opposite would occur with a rise in openness resulting in higher inequality. Inequality is argued to be rising amongst countries. The differences between the global poor and global rich continues to increase (Haines, 2001). The income share of the richest quintile is increasing whilst the income share of the rest of the quintiles is decreasing. Although globalisation is argued to be largely responsible for the increase in job losses and inequality, we can also argue that technological progress has contributed to some extent. Technological progress is responsible for the increasing gap between the skilled and unskilled workforce as it puts greater importance on worker skills. As a result of this, in most countries skilled workers are paid significantly higher wages than unskilled workers as a result leading to differences in income distribution. Also, in most households nowadays, we’ll find that most people use telephones and computers, making it possible for individuals to purchase a wide range of goods and services from a global supply chain. Countries that sell goods and services at a lower price compared to other countries tend to have comparative advantage in producing the good according to the Ricardian Model. As individuals we tend to then purchase goods from the country which sells it at the lowest price when compared to other countries. These current patterns have led to a large section of the labour market withering away, increasing inequality and job losses amongst countries (Martin and Schumann, 1997). Samuelson (2004) indicated that using the Ricardian model, with two goods and two countries with different levels of productivity, technological progress in the lagging country would benefit the latter and the more developed country would end up losing from international trade. This reduces the mutual benefits from international trade – increasing inequality. In order to decrease the rising inequality and job losses the government should make providing easy and free access to education a matter of high importance. This gives unskilled and low income groups an opportunity to take advantage of opportunities which arise from globalisation as a result they would be able to lessen the disparities in income distribution and have more job opportunities (Subir Lall et al, 2012). Globalisation is believed to have significantly contributed to the increase in the overall wealth amongst countries however it has a disequalizing effect as access to wealth between the rich and poor segments of the population is unequal. Government should put in place policy reforms which are aimed at opening up access to finance, developing institutions that encourage lending to the low income groups in order to enhance the general distribution of income, which in turn helps to support the overall growth of the economy.

Oceans Act of 2000 Essay Example for Free

Oceans Act of 2000 Essay From sea to shining sea, America has always been a country dependant on its coastal waters. We use the oceans and the abundant resources found in them for everything from physical exercise, food, and medicines, to a place to dump our garbage, dispose of toxic chemicals, and to travel to far off destinations. The oceans provide much for us, and without them, life on Earth would not be sustainable. The oceans are a vital resource for humankind, and sadly, we have put them in immediate danger. The majority of the population of the United States lives in coastal regions. Due to this, marine-related industries, such as fishing and shipping, play a significant role in our nation’s economy. Unfortunately, the fishing business in the United States has dwindled. Overfishing has caused the collapse of New England’s cod, flounder, and haddock fisheries. The Gulf of Mexico has what is known as a â€Å"dead zone†, (Report of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation S. 2327) which was likely caused by pollution from the Mississippi River. Pollution is another issue altogether†¦ Runoff from our farmlands and cities flows down our rivers into the Gulf of Mexico and contaminates the coastal areas of our southern states. Oil spills threaten our marine wildlife. Harmful algal blooms have taken over many underwater habitats. Overabundances of sediment and nitrogen from farms and factories upstream suffocate the water ecosystems of our lands. Without strict guidelines and stream-lined regulations set up to properly control our pollution problem, humans will, ultimately, destroy the oceans. The need for urgent action to protect our oceans and waterways has never been greater. Although people have attempted to investigate and lay down the groundwork for improving the condition of our oceans in the past, their attempts have not been enough. In 1966, Congress passed the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act (Report of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation S. 2327), which was designed to lay out national objectives and programs regarding the oceans. Leading the commission was Dr. Julius A. Stratton, former president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. With Dr.  Stratton leading the way, along with advisors from congress including Senator Norris Cotton and Senator Warren Magnuson, the 1966 Act was a huge step forward for the country’s oceanic preservation efforts, yet for the next thirty years, it would be one of the only steps forward. The United States urgently needed to increase public awareness of the importance of the oceans to our nation. With that in mind, 1998 was declared the â€Å"International Year of the Ocean†. Spreading knowledge of the threats our oceans faced made it clear to Congress that we needed to take a second look at our ocean policies. On August 7, 2000, President Bill Clinton released a statement upon signing the Oceans Act of 2000. In it, he stated that â€Å"the legislation would establish a Commission on Ocean Policy, to make recommendations to the President and to Congress for a coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy. † (Statement on Signing the Oceans Act of 2000) The Oceans Act itself was the law requiring the formation of a sixteen member commission, whose job was to research the issues regarding our coasts and waters and to present a detailed report on their findings, and any recommendations to solve the issues, to the President. In September 2004, the Commission introduced their final report, â€Å"An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century†, and invited public comment on their findings. The report consisted of 212 recommendations for ocean policy. Members of the Alaska Oceans Program, American Littoral Society, Gulf Restoration Network, Natural Resources Defense Council, North Carolina Coastal Federation, People for Puget Sound, Sierra Club, and The Ocean Conservancy submitted their comments on the report. Public Comment on Final Report: An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century: Pre-Publication Copy) Although there were a few changes that these groups did not agree with, the majority of the information provided in the report was met with vast approval, especially the call for the implementation of a National Ocean Council, to consolidate the numerous agencies involved in the welfare of our waterways. Since the publishing of â€Å"An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century†, President Bush called for a 13. percent increase in National Science Foundation funding for ocean sciences. (A Sea Change in National Ocean Policy? by Matt Villano) However, much of the funding promised to support the National Ocean Council has been delayed and pushed back, making it very difficult to move forward with the recommendations of the Ocean Commission. In February 2008, the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, comprised of former members from the Pew Oceans Commission and the National Ocean Commission, a ssessed the nation’s progress in ocean policy throughout 2007. The grade they presented was a â€Å"C†. Funding seems to be the largest issue our nation is facing in terms of moving forward more quickly with the recommendations from the Commission, yet, as Andy Solow, director of the WHOI Marine Policy Center says, â€Å"If enough people get involved politically and on a grass-roots level, we can make significant progress in some of these areas without it. (A Sea Change in National Ocean Policy? by Matt Villano) The future of our oceans, as well as our planet, is still up in the air. Unless our priorities change, and funding is found to implement the changes needed to improve the status of our oceans, we may find ourselves on the verge of extinction.

The Role And Function Of The Declaratory And Constitutive Theories International Law Essay

The Role And Function Of The Declaratory And Constitutive Theories International Law Essay State recognition is one of the most contested topics in the international law. This problem appears to come back on the international agenda and reopens the great debate with the recent unilateral declaration of independence pronounced by Kosovo in 2008. Further attention was gained in August 2008, when Russia and Nicaragua recognized the statehood of breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The issue of recognition is of immense importance as it usually confirms the states legal existence as well as allows the new entity full political interaction with existing entities. Legal personality indicates that the new entity is capable of possessing international rights and duties, and has the capacity to maintain its rights by bringing international claims.  [1]  Additionally, it acknowledges that a recognized state must obey standards and regulation posted by international law, which in turns secures stable and peaceful international order. State recognition is a subject of a disagreement between two schools; the one in favour of constitutive theory and the one in support of the declaratory theory of statehood.The latter does not require the recognition of other states as long as it has achieved the known required standards to be a person of international law. In contrast, the constitutive theory does require the recognition of a state as sovereign by other states to be a person of international law.  [2]  This essay will explain the role and function of the two theories and their applications in the international community, and attempt to access which one is more functional. Finally it will clarify the difference between the recognition of the state and the recognition of the government. It is commonly understood, the state arises as a legal and political entity when it achieves certain requirements. Criteria for statehood are defined in 1993 Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of State (MC).An entity must posses: a permanent population; a defined territory; a government; and a capacity to enter into relation with other countries  [3]  . Conflict already appears with the effective government requirement. For example Shaw claims that this is not a precondition for recognition as an independent state  [4]  In opposition, Dixon argues that condition of effective government must be first satisfied, before an entity can claim to be a state.  [5]  on the subject of the last condition, Crawford for instance, sees capacity to enter into relations with other states as an attribute of an entity which has already reached statehood.  [6]  In addition to the MC, there is also a very great argument that that self-determination should be given more importance than state recognition; according to Raic : Whether a new State is created as a result of devolution, integration, dissolution, or secession, it is submitted that, in principle, in all of these cases, self-determination forms the legitimizing princi ple for the creation of the new State.  [7]   Overall, the presented legal condition for statehood, alongside with political action and certain facts are the basis for the state recognition in the declaratory understanding. It can be deducted that the declaratory theory, is little more in accord with practical realities  [8]  , as is based on natural law with an objective system of law.  [9]  Additionally, the declaratory theory operates on notion of the sovereignty of the state and the associated weakness or non-existence of any central guiding in the international system.  [10]   Declaratory theory maintains that a new entity will obtain capacity in international law not by asset of the permission of other states but by acceptance of the realistic 10092954 situation, which was result of their own effort and political actions. Moreover new state will not have to wait for the procedure of recognition by others.  [11]  Lall and Khemchand argue that appearance of new state and becoming a new subject of international law are instantaneous processes. Becoming aware of that there is no reason for claiming that states become subjects of law only after they have been recognised.  [12]  Similar reasoning is presented in Article 3 of the MC: statehood is free of recognition by the existent states, and an entity can exist even if others dont recognize it.  [13]  In addition, Brownlie claims that, if an entity bears the marks of statehood, other states put themselves at risk legally, if they ignore the basics obligations of state relations  [14]   The Charter of the Organization of American States, speaking about the fundamental rights and duties of state also declares the state is independent of recognition by other states. Pointing out that even before the recognition, state has the right to protect its integrity and independence.  [15]   Undoubtedly, if state meets the conditions for statehood but is not internationally recognized, it has much more difficult position for operating in international system. Nevertheless, it would not seem in law to amount to a decisive argument against statehood itself  [16]   Another strong argument in favor of the declaratory theory is the fact that even though any state does not recognize a new entity, it cannot deny this country legal obligations and duties obligates by international law. Furthermore, it itself is obliged to pursue the rules of law when dealing with such a state. This is clear in relation to Israel- Arab 10092954 relations. Moreover, the recognition from the declaratory point can avoid laps in time, when state is suspended in the legal, political space, and shun illogicality of considering an entity as a state and non-state at the same time. Even though the concept of obtaining the fully legal statehood through achievement of certain conditions seems very simple and logical, it is not as straight forward from situation where all circumstances are not satisfied. Firstly, if the state is perceived as a state hence fulfilment of statehood requirements, declaratory theory must clearly define in legal terms what state is.  [17]  particularly now, when the era of colonies is over, as well peaceful disintegration of massive powers , the existence of the new state is the result of violent breakouts, wars. Fulfilment of basic criteria to become a person of international law is just simple and many other elements need to be considered; elements that are not clearly and fully defined. Secondly, a question arises if the statehood could be obtained when an emerging entity does not posse one of the conditions for statehood, for example territory? This was case of Greece, and Netherlands during II World War. Another instance is lack of effective government, as in the case of the Annexation of Czechoslovakia by Germany in 1939.The situation can be further complicated when there are two governments: operating externally and acknowledged by international community and government within the state. The declaratory theory does not provide answers for those situations. Evidently then, state recognition is very important but is it enough to grant an emerging state a legal personality ? In 1912 Oppenheim famously concluded that: International Law does not say that a State is not in existence as long as it is not 10092954 recognized, but it takes no notice of it before its recognition. Through recognition only and exclusively a State becomes an International Person and a subject of International Law.  [18]   The constitutive theory maintains that it is the act of recognition that creates a new state and awards it with legal personality, not the process by which it actually gained independence. Lauterpacht claims that once the conditions prescribed by international law for statehood have been complied with, there is a duty on the part of existing states to grant recognition .  [19]  However, it must be emphasized that existing states have a full independence and discretion to either accept or reject a new state. This does not have to be supported with incident to conclude that is a very dangerous political tool. For example, the United States did not recognized the Peoples Republic of China and North Korea because they did not want to have any relations with those states. A further disadvantage of this approach, and possibly the most problematic, is the fact that unrecognized states are sustained in legal limbo. From the constitutive reasoning it follows that an unrecognized state does not posses any rights or obligations. This puts other states in danger as states outside the legal regime can act as they wish, without any legal consequences or jeopardy of being punished. Moreover, an interesting question arises what happens when an entity is recognized by one states but its legal position is denied by others. This creates confusion; moreover put forward a question of partial personality?  [20]   Nevertheless, the constitutive theory has some valuable points. For example, in cases when the state becomes exist as a result of unlawful actions such as violence, occupation or more likely the government through unconstitutional procedures, non recognition of such a state significantly questions the legal position of such an entity 10092954 and it is immensely harden to maintain a political existence.  [21]  Moreover, recognition of a new state by international community can increase the chances and, to some extent, cover defects in satisfying the criteria for statehood. Perhaps the safest and exact position when it comes to the constitutive theory has been expressed by Shaw who stated that recognition is constitutive in a political sense, for it marks the new entity out as a state within the international community and is evidence of acceptance of its new political status by the society of nations . This does not imply that the act of recognition is legally constitutive, because rights and duties do not arise as a result of the recognition.  [22]   Moving to the application of those two theories, it is believed that states and international community tend to apply declaratory position. German-Polish Mixed Arbitral Tribunal stated: the recognition of a State is not constitutive but merely declaratory. (à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦) The state exists by itself and the recognition is nothing else than a declaration of this existence, recognized by the State from which it emanates  [23]  The International Court of Justice in the Genocide Convention case clarify that the failure to maintain effective control over territory does not extinguish the legal entity in the eyes of the United Nations.  [24]  Legal requirements for statehood and the declaratory position where further confirmed by Commission of Jurists on The Aaland Islands, appreciate the importance of the recognition of Finland by other states, but called for conditions required for the formation of a sovereign state  [25]   10092954 The case of Israel is disputed, but clearly, even if the Arab countries are rejecting to recognize it, Israel has legal personality and is bound by international law to follow and respect international system. Considering Israel through constitutive theory it would mean that Israel would not be protected and would not have the legal right to defend its territory. even though that the Arab community do not recognize Israel, still have to acknowledge Israel and their legal duties that flow from international treaties that all parties have signed.  [26]   Despite the fact that Constitutive theory has not been formalized in any treaty, it has some applications in the international cases. . The Permanent Court of International Justice, used the premises of the constitutive theory in the Lighthouses case where effectiveness was disregarded for the fiction of continued sovereignty of the Turkish Sultan .  [27]  A second instance was the Morocco case regarding the continued sovereignty of Morocco although under the French Protectorate.  [28]  . Recognition without completion of statehood requirements of territory, population and effective government are present in some cases of former Yugoslavia. Bosnia was unanimously acknowledged by the General Assembly to the UN on 22 May 1992  [29]  , despite that Bosnia was losing some of the basics of statehood conditions. . 10092954 The different between the recognition of state and the recognition of government: Governments recognition is an acceptance by the recognizing state that the system in question is the effective authority and such demonstrate the will to cooperate.  [30]  Government and state are two inseparable factors; recognition of a state automatically grants recognition to the government.  [31]  It is generally accepted that the legal personality of a state does not affect the change of the government within the state.  [32]   Recognition of a government can be de jure (legally recognised), or de facto (regardless of whether or not it has been legally recognised). Israel was recognized by the United States and the United Kingdom by the device of having its government recognized de facto.  [33]   There are many efforts can arise in time of war or revolution. Crawford argues that belligerent occupation does not affect the continuity of the State, even where there exists no government claiming to represent the occupied State  [34]  . Clearly then, recognition neither changes nor determines the legal personality of entity under the international law. This was confirmed in Tinoco case: non-recognition for any reasonà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦cannot outweigh the evidence disclosedà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦as to the de facto character of Tinocos government, according to the standard set by international law  [35]  . When diplomatic relations with unrecognized government are suspended legal bindingness are still applicable. . 10092954 In conclusion, it is important to acknowledge the valuable elements and weaknesses of both theories. In addition, both have found application in the international political and legal scenario. The declaratory theory focuses on the international factual situation while the constitutive concentrates on the external legal rights and duties. As Worster said : Recognition alone does not create the internal factual situation of statehood, but may help to inspire such coalescence.  [36]  . Obviously neither theory is perfect. Because of that the international community leans to adopt the middle position and resolve the happening problems on individual bases by applying the most related element from both theories. It is Clearly that they are not mutually exclusive and on many circumstances confirmed that if they applied together ,it would allow an averting of complex legal questions regarding a new state and they are avoid political disorder. 10092954

Psychology :: essays research papers

Talk Show Tension Jerry, Jerry, Jerry†¦ Everyday, this chant is heard by millions of people watching the now infamous talk show, Jerry Springer. Even though just a few years ago, most people regarded these shows as ridiculous, now this chant is recognized and adored by many people in society. The most parsimonious explanation for this is that the shows now have more interesting and captivating topics. The premise of most episodes of these shows has changed greatly over the past few years; The topics have moved away from large scale social issues, like homosexuality and cancer, to relationship and familial issues, like adultery and mothers who are too flirtatious with their daughter's boyfriends. Many people would argue that the issues being presented now are not as interesting or captivating as the older issues. However, after watching an old episode and a new episode, most people agree that the emotions displayed by the guests in the newer shows are more visible, with actions such as onstage yelling and fighting. The general emotional content of the episodes has changed from sadness to anger. From a psychological standpoint, there are many influences that cause extreme anger to be displayed by the guests on talk shows. Imagine being a guest on the Jerry Springer show, as you walk onto the stage you see the large audience chanting those infamous words. You sit down next to your fiancà ©e not knowing what to expect, you are nervous and anxious. Finally, Jerry says those terrible words, So, don't you have something to tell your fiancà ©? She turns to you, looks into your eyes and says, Remember about a month ago when I disappeared at that party at your house? Well, that night your brother and me left the party early. I'm sorry, I have been sleeping with your brother for the past month. Suddenly, the anxiousness that you experienced is gone and replaced by anger, intense anger. You turn to Jerry as he asks you, Wow, she has been cheating with your brother, how does this make you feel? Your anger only gets more intense, you ramble to your ex-fiancà ©e and ask her how she could do such a thing. Again, Jerry interrupts the moment and yells into the microphone, Alright lets get the brother out here! As you see your brother walk through the door, you again hear that irritating chant echoing through the crowd.

Biographical Narrative based on the video Fatal Game :: essays papers

Biographical Narrative based on the video 8216Fatal Game8217 Arising lethargic and groggy after their sleepless night at camp six, Mark Whetu and Mike Rheinberger were slow to dress, melt ice, and get out of the tent at three o’clock in the morning. They should have left at one at the latest but the wind was too gusty. Unfortunately, by the time they loaded their backpacks, strapped on their crampons and were ready to leave, it was three thirty. Mark, an experienced climber knew they wouldn’t summit before one p.m. but he had only been hired as a guide for Rheinberger, who, after seven tries at Mount Everest had still not been able to summit. For Rheinberger, descent was totally unacceptable. Too much labour, too many sleepless nights, and too many dreams had been invested to not summit. He couldn’t come back for another try next weekend. To go down now, would have raised one big question: what might have been? Mark was in front of Rheinberger and was growing impatient with his dismal pace. Ahead of them Mark spotted another team, returning unsuccessful from their summit attempt. As the other team passed, they chatted a little. It wasn’t until then that Mark realised how late it was. Twelve thirty. They were more than four hours from the summit, if they hurried. Rheinberger was not quitting now. Mark decided not to argue and the duo continued their ascent. At five thirty, when the light was slowly fading, they were so close to the summit. Rheinberger was quickening his pace now as he knew victory was in his grasp. At six o’clock, Rheinberger had finally accomplished what he been previously unable to do for the last ten years. But even in this moment of triumph, he was weakening with every oxygen-deprived breath. Down to one knee, watching the sun disappear, he looked like this was what he was sent to earth to do. Alarm soon hit them both, as when they were only meters from the top the light disappeared altogether. â€Å"We’ll bevy.† Suggested Rheinberger. â€Å"It’s the only thing we can do.† ‘Unfortunately he was right.’ Thought Mark. And so, they bedded down for the night in the death zone. A height where the body is dying – starved, from life giving oxygen.

What Is Morality :: essays research papers

Definition essay: What is Morality? I'll tell you that morality is probably one of the biggest, most confusing things to look at when you need to write a paper about it. After some deliberation, I have concluded a few things about morality and what it is. Morality is one of those words that you don't hear very often, and use even less frequently. It is perfectly described by Webster's Dictionary as a set of guidelines that govern a person's actions. Without such a code, anarchy would rule supreme. Human beings are human because we can limit ourselves and our behaviour. Moral values are a byproduct of a society that must live together. Even though in Mother Nature the only restricting factor is that of reproduction and supply of food, because our society groups together, (otherwise it probably wouldn't be a society), it needs codes of conduct. We have established government, religion and moral character to regulate this population. All are fairly organized, with moral character being left entirely to the self, while with government or religion often times another person will tell you what to do. Without self-limitation, the Jones's across the street would be hell to live with. They would be insulting, perverse, lying and cheating neighbors. Morality, the set of rules that limit excessiveness in our behavior, is the foundation of all government, religion. It moderates our beliefs and laws; describes how one should act. Moral rules, if you will, include several basic so called 'golden' rules: thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not commit adultery; etc. When people start losing some or all of these moral rules, society falls apart. It has been proven, for example, by the Roman Empire. Close to the end of Rome's "glorious" rule, they ruled most of the known world. Also, people would have sex with any living thing that had a suitable opening. Human life was taken for granted: people committed suicide for stupid reasons; depression, shame, angst, my brother died. To our fairly Judeo-Christian moral standards today, this is despicable, horrifying.

Dualism and Monism: Of Body and Mind Essay

In philosophy, dualism refers to views about the relationship between mind and matter, claiming that mind and matter are two epistemologically separate categories. Proponents of dualism claimed that neither the mind nor matter can be reduced to each other in any way. Here, dualism rejected the materialist conception of history, especially the Hegelian concept of dialectics. There are two general classifications of dualism: substance dualism and property dualism. Substance dualism claimed that the body and mind are composed of distinct substances. Property dualism claimed that there is no distinction in substance between mind and body. The physical and mental attributes, however, are categorically distinct. In Buddhism, dualism refers to a category of consciousness. The body is the primary instrument of consciousness development. The mind is the full realization of enlightenment – the basis of knowledge and self-fulfillment. In orthodox Christian theology, dualism is subsumed under the soul/body classification. The body is distinct from the mind both in substance and consciousness. The physical attributes of an individual is subsumed under the notion of a general Divine consciousness, which governs every aspect of both mind and body. Monism claimed that there is a general unity within a field of inquiry. Some philosophers particularly Descartes, Hobbes, and Hegel argued that the unity of inquiry is in the rubric of Divine providence, which the individual may understand through the philosophical meditation. In relation to mind and body, monism asserted that the consciousness of the body is subsumed under the consciousness of the mind. The reality of the latter is generally, the unity and focus of the former. Hence, regardless of the condition of the body, the mind (through philosophical meditation) progresses to a state of self-enlightenment. Unlike dualism, monism argued the preeminence of the mind over all physical attributes, for it is the only manifestation of a greater preternatural unity. In orthodox Christian theology, monism considered a dangerous doctrine. Christian theology maintained the separateness of the Creator from the creature. The creature is not considered as an offspring of the Creator or the process of Divine imagination. The Creator transcends both the creature and reality itself, for its reality is different from the epistemological conception of reality. In monism, the differences between body and mind are as follows: 1) the body is the manifestation of physical reality – objective reality as perceived by the senses; 2) the consciousness of the mind is superior both in degree and comprehension than the consciousness of the body; 3) the mind is the sole individual realization of a given unity; 4) the relationship between mind and body is only ontological in nature (categorical); 5) their relationship is only arbitrary – measured by the general lifetime of the body.