Political and Economic Risk for Brasil Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Political and Economic Risk for Brasil - Essay Example In regards to economic changes they are considered extremely risky, as stated in MarketWatch.com "Brazil has been a rollercoaster for investors lately. President Luis Inacio da Silva's government is embroiled in a corruption scandal, with accusations of accepting bribes in exchange for legislative support" (Kollmeyer 2). Luiz Incio Lula da Silva was elected to the position of President in 2002. After being elected Lula changed many of his initial plans regarding retirement, tributary and labor. These changes did not go over smoothly with some members of his cabinet and caused further tension. The President believes one the main problems citizens in Brazil face is hunger and has devised a plan to disperse money to underprivileged citizens. Although this act was positive many citizens believed that this was not the most important issue that Lula could have spent money on. One of the most publicized scandals in Brazil occurred when Brazilian Labor Party member Roberto Jefferson admitted he gave bribes to promote the presidential campaign (Wikipedia). According to the BBC news, "based on a survey of 78 firms conducted in 2003, found that just over half had been asked for bribes by officials responsible for tax collection." The survey also found that more than two-thirds of the firms admitted spending up to 3% of their annual revenues on bribing officialdom, the rest spent more than that. This problem is partially because the Brazilian bureaucracy has always encouraged a flexible guideline to the rules (Plummer). Although the president's ratings did falter for a bit, they are now up again and he is projected to be able to win the upcoming election. According to the Political Risk Yearbook Lula has taken great steps to enforce social growth but at the same time will be hurt as he tries to maintain policies for foreign investment. PRY also feels that Lula has intentionally stalled some major problems like debt and that will come full circle when elections come around as other candidates will be able to highlight these weaknesses. With stalling these economic issues, it makes foreign traders weary to invest and will cause growth rates to be lower than expected. Although the trade surplus was healthy in the past years the import prices have risen and therefore caused a deflation in the export growth. This will cause a deficit over the year and by 2009 the deficit is expected to reach 3.3 billion dollars (Political Risk Yearbook 4). In addition to the many problems the president will face come election time, there is an inflation problem that is still prevalent in Brazil. In 2003 Brazil had a 13 percent inflation rate which is the fourth highest in South America (Political Risk Yearbook 8). In reaction to Lula's actions people have reacted and lashed out against their President. When the President promised to settle families on non-productive land and didn't follow through workers began to "squat" or refuse to leave the land and work to produce goods for their country. Although many of the "squatters" were non- violent they made a stand that affected the

Sexual Harassment Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Sexual Harassment - Essay Example In Vinson verses Meritor Savings Bank, 477 United States 57 in 1986: the United States Supreme Court acknowledged harassment lawsuits against firms for encouraging a sexually aggressive work setting. In 2006, United States’ Head of the state then, George W. Bush endorsed a law that banned the spread of irritating messages on the Internet (also known as spamming) with no discloser of the transmitter's identity. Harassment is unwelcome behavior that is centered on religion race, sex (including pregnancy), citizen origin, color, age (41 or older), and disability. Harassment becomes illegal where 1) stomaching the offensive behavior becomes a situation of sustained employment, or 2) the behavior is severe and persistent enough to make a work setting that a sensible person would ponder intimidating, hostile, and abusive. Anti-discrimination directives also forbid harassment against persons in retribution for filing a prejudice charge, attesting, or playing a part in any manner duri ng an investigation, lawsuit, or proceeding under these directives; or opposing occupation drills that they rationally believe victimize against persons, in defilement of these laws (Walsh 76).Annoyances, petty slights, and unrepeated incidents (unless very serious) will not amount to the point of criminality. To be illegal, the conduct has to create an employment setting which would be hostile, intimidating, or unpleasant to rational people (Walsh 78). Aggressive conduct may comprise, yet not restricted to, slurs, offensive jokes, epithets and name-calling, physical attacks and threats, bullying, ridicule and mockery, invectives and put-downs, invasive objects and pictures, in addition to meddling with work execution. Harassment can transpire in a range of situations, comprising, but not restricted to, the following: The harasser could be the victim's overseer, a boss in another area, a negotiator of the proprietor, a colleague, or even a non-worker. The victim does not need to be the individual harassed, however, can be anybody affected by the unpleasant conduct. Illegal harassment may arise with no economic damage to, or acquittal of, the victim (Walsh 78). Avoidance is the effective tool to eradicate harassment within the place of work. Employers are urged to take suitable steps to avert and correct illegal harassment. They ought to communicate to workers that undesirable harassing behavior will not be stomached. They can achieve this by forming an effective grievance process, offering anti-harassment coaching to their employees and managers, and taking instant and suitable action once a worker protests. Employers should endeavor to form a setting in which workers feel open to raise trepidations and are self-assured that those apprehensions will be tackled. Employees are urged to notify the harasser openly that the demeanor is undesirable and has to stop. Employees must also convey harassment to administration at a primary stage to inhibit its escalation ( Friedman 40). The company is inevitably accountable for harassment through an overseer whose harassment ensues in an undesirable employment deed such as dissolution, failure to hire and promote, in addition to loss of salaries. If the overseer's harassment ensues in an aggressive work setting, the manager can avoid legal responsibility only

Intelligence-led policing requirements of COMPSTAT Essay

Intelligence-led policing requirements of COMPSTAT - Essay Example The implication of this is that the commander naturally throws in his ‘enthusiastic support and energetic leadership’ to the program and the immediate goal of the program considering that his name and reputation is on the line, which is tangibly manifested by his obligation to personally deliver the report in the presence of the top brass and other units. COMPSTAT, like ILP, is largely based on the analysis of crime-related data and statistics, with analysts forming an integral part of its operations collating all submitted crime-related data and making sense of them through the crime mapping. The analysts then prepare the COMPSAT book, upon which the week’s presentation and discussions during the standard COMPSAT session are based on. The only difference is that in the ILP, the data gathered and collected are not necessarily known facts and statistics but unconventionally gathered data from tips, leads and reports of suspicious activities. Meetings and sessions a re also held in the COMPSTAT policing program periodically conducted usually, at least, once a week. This meetings and sessions, however, cannot be strictly categorized as the strategic and tactical, as required in ILP, because they consist mostly of presentation by a commander of the crime-related incidents in his/her jurisdiction and the strategies taken as a consequence and an interrogation of some sort by a facilitator, usually the chief or his designated assistant, of the law enforcers commander.

The Life and History of Aristotle Essay Example for Free

The Life and History of Aristotle Essay Aristotle was born in 384 b. c. in the small town of Stagira on the northeast coast of Thrace. His father was the physician to the king of Macedonia. It could be that Aristotles great interest in biology and sci ence in general was nurtured in his early childhood as it was the custom, according to Galen, for families in the guild of the Asclepiadae to train their sons in the art of dissection. When he was seventeen years old, Aristotle went to Athens to enroll in Platos Academy, where he spent the next twenty years as a pupil and a member. At the Academy, Aristotle had the reputation of being the reader and the mind of the school. He was profoundly influenced by Platos thought and personality even though eventually he was to break away from Platos philosophy in order to formulate his own version of certain philosophical problems. Still, while at the Academy, he wrote many dialogues in a Platonic style, which his contemporaries praised for the golden stream of their eloquence. He even reaffirmed, in his Eudemus, the very doctrine so central to Platos thought, the doctrine of the Forms, or Ideas, which he later criticized so severely. There is no way now to reconstruct with exactness just when Aristotles thought diverged from Platos. Platos own thought, it must be remembered, was in process of change while Aristotle was at the Academy. Indeed, it is usually said that Aristotle studied with Plato during Platos later period, a time when Platos interests had shifted toward mathematics, method, and natural science. During this time, also, specialists in various sciences, such as medicine, anthropology, and archeology, came to the Academy. This meant that Aristotle was exposed to a vast array of empirical facts, which, because of his temperament, he found useful for research and for his mode of formulating scientific concepts. It may be, therefore, that the intellectual atmosphere of the Academy marked by some of Platos latest dominant concerns and the availability of collected data in special fields provided Aristotle with a direction in philosophy that was congenial to his scientific disposition. The direction Aristotle took did eventually cause him to depart from some of Platos doctrines, though the degree of difference between Plato and Aristotle is still a matter of careful interpretation. But even when they were together at the Academy, certain temperamental differences must have been apparent. Aristotle, for example, was less interested in mathematics than Plato and more interested in empirical data. Moreover, as time went on, Aristotles gaze seemed to be more firmly fixed upon the concrete processes of nature, so that he considered his abstract scientific notions to have their real habitat in this living nature. By contrast, Plato separated the world of thought from the world of flux and things, ascribing true reality to the Ideas and Forms, which, he thought, had an existence separate from the things in nature. It could be said, therefore, that Aristotle oriented his thought to the dynamic realm of becoming, whereas Platos thought was fixed more upon the static realm of timeless Being. Whatever differences there were between these two great minds, the fact is that Aristotle did not break with Plato personally, as he remained at the Academy until Platos death. Moreover, throughout Aristotles later major treatises, unmistakable influences of Platos thought are to be found in spite of Aristotles unique interpretations and style. But his distinctly Platonist period came to an end upon Platos death, when the direction of the Academy passed into the hands of Platos nephew Speusippos, whose excessive emphasis upon mathematics was uncongenial to Aristotle, for which reason, among others, Aristotle withdrew from the Academy and left Athens. It was in 348/47 b. c. that Aristotle left the Academy and accepted the invitation of Hermeias to come to Assos, near Troy. Hermeias had formerly been a student at the Academy and was now the ruler of Assos. Being somewhat of a philosopher-king, he had gathered a small group of thinkers into his court, and here Aristotle was able for the next three years to write, teach, and carry on research. While at Hermeias court, he married this rulers niece and adopted daughter, Pythias, who bore him a daughter. Later, when they had returned to Athens, his wife died and Aristotle then entered into a relationship with Herpyllis, which was never legalized but which was a happy, permanent, and affectionate union from which there came a son, Nicomachus, after whom the Nicomachean Ethics was named. After his three years in Assos, Aristotle moved to the neighboring island of Lesbos, settling there for the time being in Mitylene, where he taught and continued his investigations in biology, studying especially the many forms of marine life. Here he also became known as an advocate of a united Greece, urging that such a union would be more successful than independent city-states in resisting the might of Persia. Then, in 343/42 b. c. , Philip of Macedon invited Aristotle to become the tutor of his son Alexander, who was then thirteen years old. As a tutor to a future ruler, Aristotles interests included politics, and it is possible that it was here that he conceived the idea of collecting and comparing various constitutions, a project he later carried out by collecting digests of the constitutions of 158 Greek city-states. When Alexander ascended the throne after his father Philips death, Aristotles duties as tutor had come to an end, and after a brief stay in his hometown of Stagira, he returned to Athens. Upon his return to Athens in 335/34 b. c. , Aristotle embarked upon the most productive period of his life. Under the protection of the Macedonian statesman Antipater, Aristotle founded his own school. His school was known as the Lyceum, named after the groves where Socrates was known to have gone to think and which were the sacred precincts of Apollo Lyceus. Here Aristotle and his pupils walked in the Peripatos, a tree-covered walk, and discussed philosophy, for which reason his school was called peripatetic. Besides these peripatetic discussions, there were also lectures, some technical for small audiences and others of a more popular nature for larger audiences. Aristotle is also said to have formed the first great library by collecting hundreds of manuscripts, maps, and specimens, which he used as illustrations during his lectures. Moreover, his school developed certain formal procedures whereby its leadership would alternate among members. Aristotle formulated the rules for these procedures as he also did for the special common meal and symposium once a month when a member was selected to defend a philosophical position against the critical objections of the other members. For twelve or thirteen years Aristotle remained as the head of the Lyceum, not only teaching and lecturing, but above all formulating his main ideas about the classification of the sciences, fashioning a bold new science of logic, and writing his advanced ideas in every major area of philosophy and science, exhibiting an extraordinary command of universal knowledge. When Alexander died in 323 b. c. , a wave of anti-Macedonian feeling arose, making Aristotles position in Athens very precarious because of his close connections with Macedonia. As Socrates before him, Aristotle was charged with impiety, but, as he is reported to have said, lest the Athenians should sin twice against philosophy, he left the Lyceum and fled to Chalcis, where he died in 322 b. c. of a digestive disease of long standing. In his will he expressed sensitive human qualities by providing amply for his relatives, preventing his slaves from being sold and providing that some of his slaves should be emancipated. As with Socrates and Plato, Aristotles thought was of such decisive power that it was to influence philosophy for centuries to come. From the vast range of his philosophy, we shall consider some aspects of his logic, metaphysics, ethics, politics, and aesthetics. ETHICS Aristotles theory of morality centers around his belief that people, as everything else in nature, have a distinctive end to achieve or a function to fulfill. For this reason, his theory is rightly called teleological. He begins his Nicomachean Ethics by saying that Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good If this is so, the question for ethics is, What is the good at which human behavior aims? Plato had answered this question by saying that people aim at a knowledge of the Idea of the Good. For him this supreme principle of Good was separated from the world of experience and from individuals and was to be arrived at by the minds ascent from the visible world to the intelligible world. For Aristotle, on the other hand, the principle of good and right was imbedded within each person; moreover, this principle could be discovered by studying the essential nature of man and could be attained through his actual behavior in daily life. Aristotle warns his reader, however, not to expect more precision in a discussion of ethics than the subject-matter will admit. Still, just because this subject is susceptible of variation and error does not mean, said Aristotle, that ideas of right and wrong exist conventionally only, and not in the nature of things. With this in mind, Aristotle set out to discover the basis of morality in the structure of human nature. Types of Ends Aristotle sets the framework for his ethical theory with a preliminary illustration. Having said that all action aims toward an end, he now wants to distinguish between two major kinds of ends, which can be called instrumental ends (acts that are done as means for other ends) and intrinsic ends (acts that are done for their own sake). These two types of ends are illustrated, for example, in every action connected with war. When we consider step by step what is involved in the total activity of a war, we find, says Aristotle, that there is a series of special kinds of acts, which have their own ends but which, when they are completed, are only means by which still other ends are to be achieved. There is, for one thing, the art of the bridle maker. When the bridle is completed, its maker has achieved his end as a bridle maker. But the bridle is a means for the horseman to guide his horse in battle. Also, a carpenter builds a barrack, and when it is completed, he has fulfilled his function as a carpenter. The barracks also fulfill their function when they provide safe shelter for the soldiers. But the ends here achieved by the carpenter and the building are not ends in themselves but are instrumental in housing soldiers until they move on to their next stage of action. Similarly, the builder of ships fulfills his function when the ship is successfully launched, but again this end is in turn a means for transporting the soldiers to the field of battle. The doctor fulfills his function to the extent that he keeps the soldiers in good health. But the end of health in this case becomes a means for effective fighting. The officer aims at victory in battle, but victory is the means to peace. Peace itself, though sometimes taken mistakenly as the final end of war, is the means for creating the conditions under which men, as men, can fulfill their function as men. When we discover what men aim at, not as carpenters, doctors, or generals, but as men, we will then arrive at action for its own sake, and for which all other activity is only a means, and this, says Aristotle, must be the Good of Man. How shall the word good be understood? As Plato before him, Aristotle tied the word good to the special function of a thing. A hammer is good if it does what hammers are expected to do. A carpenter is good if he fulfills his function as a builder. This would be true for all the crafts and professions. But here Aristotle distinguishes between ones craft or profession and ones activity as a person. To be a good doctor, for example, did not for Aristotle mean the same thing as being a good person. One could be a good doctor without being a good person, and vice versa. There are two different functions here, the function of doctoring and the function of acting as a person. To discover the good at which a person should aim, Aristotle said we must discover the distinctive function of human nature. The good person, according to Aristotle, is the person who is fulfilling his or her function as a person. The Function of Man Aristotle asks, Are we then to suppose that while carpenter and cobbler have certain works and courses of action, Man as Man has none, but is left by Nature without a work? Or, if the eye, hand, foot and in general each of the parts evidently has a function, may one lay it down that man similarly has a function apart from all these? Surely, man too has a distinctive mode of activity, but what is it? Here Aristotle analyzes mans nature in order to discover his unique activity, saying, first of all, that mans end is not mere life, because that plainly is shared with him even by vegetables, and, says Aristotle, we want what is peculiar to him. Next there is the life of sensation, but this again manifestly is common to horses, oxen and every animal. There remains then an active life of the element that has a rational principle. .. if the function of man is an activity of soul which follows or implies a rational principle then the human good turns out to be activity of soul in accordance with virtue. Since mans function as a man means the proper functioning of his soul, Aristotle sought to describe the nature of the soul. The soul is the form of the body. As such, the soul refers to the total person. Accordingly, Aristotle said that the soul has two parts, the irrational and the rational. The irrational part in turn is composed of two subparts, the vegetative and the desiring or appetitive parts. For the most part, these are something contrary to the rational principle, resisting and opposing it. The conflict between the rational and irrational elements in man is what raises the problems and subject matter of morality. Morality involves action, for nothing is called good unless it is functioning. Thus Aristotle says that as at the Olympic games it is not the finest and strongest men who are crowned, but they who enter the lists, for out of these the prize-men are selected; so too in life, of the honourable and good, it is they who act who rightly win the prizes. The particular kind of action implied here, if one has in mind Aristotles analysis of the soul, is the rational control and guidance of the irrational parts of the soul. Moreover, the good man is not the one who does a good deed here or there, now and then, but the one whose whole life is good, for as it is not one swallow or one fine day that makes a spring, so it is not one day or a short time that makes a man blessed and happy. Happiness as the End Human action should aim at its proper end. Everywhere people aim at pleasure, wealth, and honor. But none of these ends, though they have value, can occupy the place of the chief good for which people should aim. To be an ultimate end an act must be self-sufficient and final, that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else, and it must be attainable by people. Aristotle seems certain that all people will agree that happiness is the end that alone meets all the requirements for the ultimate end of human action. Indeed, we choose pleasure, wealth, and honor only because we think that through their instrumentality we shall be happy. Happiness, it turns out, is another word or name for good, for like good, happiness is the fulfillment of our distinctive function; or, as Aristotle says, Happiness is a working of the soul in the way of excellence or virtue. How does the soul work to attain happiness? The general rule of morality is to act in accordance with Right Reason. What this means is that the rational part of the soul should control the irrational part. That the irrational part of the soul requires guidance is obvious when we consider what it consists of and what its mechanism is. Referring now only to the appetites, or the appetitive part of the soul, we discover first that it is affected or influenced by things outside of the self, such as objects and persons. Also, there are two basic ways in which the appetitive part of the soul reacts to these external factors, these ways being love and hate, or through the concupiscent and irascible passions. The concupiscent passion leads one to desire things and persons, whereas the irascible passion leads one to avoid or destroy them. It becomes quickly apparent that these passions or capacities for love and hate, attraction or repulsion, creation or destruction, taken by themselves could easily go wild. In themselves they do not contain any principle of measure or selection. What should a person desire? How much? Under what circumstances? How should he relate himself to things, wealth, honor, and other persons? We do not automatically act the right way in these matters; as Aristotle says, none of the moral virtues arises in us by nature; for nothing that exists by nature can form a habit contrary to its nature. Morality has to do with developing habits, the habits of right thinking, right choice, and right behavior. Virtue as the Golden Mean Since the passions are capable of a wide range of action, all the way from too little to too much, a person must discover the proper meaning of excess and defect and thereby discover the appropriate mean. Virtue is concerned with our various feelings and actions, for it is in them that there can be excess and defect. For example, it is possible, says Aristotle, to feel the emotions of fear, confidence, lust, anger, compassion, pleasure, and pain, too much or too little, and in either case wrongly. To feel them when we ought to, on which occasions, toward whom, and as we should is the mean; that is the best state for people to be in, and this is virtue. Vice, again, is either extreme, excess or defect, and virtue is the mean. It is through the rational power of the soul that the passions are controlled and action is guided. The virtue of courage, for example, is the mean between two vices: namely, cowardice (defect) and foolhardiness (excess). Virtue, then, is a state of being, a state apt to exercise deliberate choice, being in the relative mean, determined by reason, and as the man of practical wisdom would determine. Therefore, virtue is a habit of choosing in accordance with a mean. The mean is not the same for every person, nor is there a mean for every act. Each mean is relative to each person inasmuch as the circumstances will vary. In the case of eating, the mean will obviously be different for an adult athlete and a little girl. But for each person, there is nevertheless a proportionate or relative mean, temperance, clearly indicating what extremes—namely, gluttony (excess) and starvation (defect)—would constitute vice for that person. Similarly, when one gives money, liberality, as the mean between prodigality and stinginess, is not an absolute figure but is relative to ones assets. Moreover, for some acts there is no mean at all; their very nature already implies badness, such as spite, envy, adultery, theft, and murder. These are bad in themselves and not in their excesses or deficiencies. One is always wrong in doing them. Deliberation and Choice There are in the rational soul two kinds of reasoning. The first is theoretical, giving us knowledge of fixed principles or philosophical wisdom. The other is practical, giving us a rational guide to our action under the particular circumstances in which we find ourselves, and this is practical wisdom. What is important about the role of reason is that without this rational element, we would not have any moral capacity. Again, Aristotle stressed that although we have a natural capacity for right behavior, we do not act rightly by nature. Our life consists of an indeterminate number of possibilities. Goodness is in us potentially; but unlike the acorn out of which the oak will grow with almost mechanical certitude, we must move from what is potential in us to its actuality by knowing what we must do, deliberating about it, and then choosing in fact to do it. Unlike Plato and Socrates, who thought that to know the good was sufficient to do the good, Aristotle saw that there must be deliberate choice in addition to knowledge. Thus, Aristotle said that the origin of moral action—its efficient, not its final cause—is choice, and (the origin) of choice is desire and reasoning with a view to an end. There cannot be choice without reason. And again, intellect itself moves nothing, but only the intellect which aims at an end and is practical. Morality and moral choice imply human responsibility. If some ways of behaving are right and others wrong, it is necessary to discover why a person acts in a wrong instead of a right way. If we are to praise or blame, praise virtue and blame vice, a person must be truly capable of making a choice. Aristotle assumed that an act for which a person could be held responsible must be a voluntary act. A genuine choice is a voluntary action. But not all our actions are voluntary. Thus, Aristotle said that praise and blame arise upon such as are voluntary, while for the involuntary allowance is made, and sometimes compassion is excited. The distinction, as he saw it, between voluntary and involuntary acts was in general this: Involuntary acts are those for which a person is not responsible because they are (1) done out of ignorance of particular circumstances, (2) done as a result of external compulsion, or (3) done to avoid a greater evil. Voluntary acts are those for which a person is responsible because none of these three extenuating circumstances obtain. The Virtues In a general way we have already defined virtue as the fulfillment of mans distinctive function and as the mean between extremes. Another way to describe Aristotles concept of virtue is to consider each virtue as the product of the rational control of the passions. In this way we can combine all aspects of human behavior. Human nature consists for Aristotle not simply in rationality but in the full range covered by the vegetative, sensitive or appetitive, and the rational souls. Virtue does not imply the negation or rejection of any of these natural capacities. The moral man employs all his capacities, physical and mental. Corresponding to these two broad divisions in man there are two functions of reason, the intellectual and the moral, and each has its own virtues. There are accordingly intellectual virtues and moral virtues. The intellectual virtues are philosophical wisdom and understanding and owe their birth and growth to teaching and learning. Moral virtue comes about as a result of habit, whence comes the name ethics (ethike), formed by a slight variation from the word ethos (habit). All the moral virtues have to be learned and practiced, and they become virtues only through action, for we become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts. The cardinal moral virtues are courage, temperance, justice, and wisdom. In addition to these, Aristotle considered also the virtues of magnificence, liberality, friendship, and self-respect. And although he acknowledged the central role of reason as a guide to practical and moral action, he nevertheless concluded that philosophic wisdom is superior to practical wisdom, that contemplation is most likely to lead to happiness. Contemplation Aristotle concludes that if happiness is the product of our acting according to our distinctive nature, it is reasonable to assume that it is acting according to our highest nature, and that this activity is contemplative we have already said. This activity is the best, says Aristotle, since not only is reason the best thing in us, but the objects of reason are the best of know-able objects. Moreover, contemplation is most continuous, since we can contemplate truth more continuously than we can do anything. Finally, we think happiness has pleasure mingled with it, but the activity of philosophic wisdom is admittedly the pleasantest of virtuous activities. POLITICS In his Politics, as in his Ethics, Aristotle stresses the element of purpose. The state, as man, is endowed by nature with a distinctive function. Combining these two ideas, Aristotle says that it is evident that the State is a creature of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. So closely does he relate man and the state as to conclude that he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god. Not only is man by nature destined to live in a state, but the state, as every other community, is established with a view to some good, exists for some end. The family exists primarily to preserve life. The state comes into existence in the first instance to preserve life for families and villages, which in the long run are not self-sufficing. But beyond this economic end, the function of the state is to ensure the supreme good of man, namely, his moral and intellectual life. Unlike Plato, Aristotle did not create a blueprint for an ideal state. Even though Aristotle viewed the state as the agency for enabling people to achieve their ultimate goals as human beings, he nevertheless realized that any practical theory of the state must take note of what kind of government is adapted to particular states [that] the best is often unattainable and that the legislator must be acquainted with which is best relatively to circumstances how a state may be constituted under any given conditions [and] how it may be longest preserved, concluding that political writers, although they have excellent ideas, are often unpractical. For these reasons, Aristotle had little patience with Platos most radical ideas. Ridiculing Platos arrangement for the abolition of the family for the guardian class and providing a public nursery for their children, Aristotle said that there is no reason why the so-called father should care about the son, or the son about the father, or brothers about one another. The communal ownership of property would likewise destroy certain basic human pleasures as well as engender inefficiency and endless disputes. Types of States Aristotle was willing to recognize that under appropriate circumstances, a community could organize itself into at least three different kinds of government. The basic difference among them is primarily the number of rulers each has. A government can have as its rulers one, a few, or many. But each of these forms of government can have a true or a perverted form. When a government is functioning rightly, it governs for the common good of all the people. A government is perverted when its rulers govern for their own private gain or interests. The true forms of each type of government, according to Aristotle, are monarchy (one), aristocracy (few), and polity (many). The perverted forms are tyranny (one), oligarchy (few), and democracy (many). His own preference was aristocracy, chiefly because even though ideally an individual of exceptional excellence would be desirable, such persons do not exist with sufficient frequency. In an aristocracy, there is the rule of a group of men whose degree of excellence, achievement, and ownership of property makes them responsible, able, and capable of command. Differences and Inequalities Because he relied so heavily upon his observation of things, it was inevitable that Aristotle would make some mistakes. Nowhere is this more true than in his estimate of slavery. Observing that slaves invariably were strong and large, he concluded that slavery was a product of nature. It is clear, said Aristotle, that some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these slavery is both expedient and right. To be sure, Aristotle took great care to distinguish between those who become slaves by nature, a mode he accepted, and those who become slaves by military conquest, a mode he rejected. He rejected slavery by conquest on the highly defensible grounds that to overpower someone does not mean that one is superior to him in nature. Moreover, the use of force may or may not be justified, in which case enslavement could very well be the product and extension of an unjust act. At the same time, speaking of the proper treatment of slaves, he proposed that it is expedient that liberty should be always held out to them as the reward of their services. The fact is that in his own last will and testament, Aristotle provided for the emancipation of some of his slaves. Aristotle also believed in the inequality of citizenship. He held that the basic qualification for citizenship was a persons ability to take his share in ruling and being ruled in turn. A citizen had the right and the obligation to participate in the administration of justice. Since a citizen would therefore have to sit in the assembly and in the law courts, he would have to have both ample time as well as an appropriate temperament and character. For this reason, Aristotle did not believe that laborers should be citizens, as they had neither the time nor the appropriate mental development, nor could they benefit from the experience of sharing in the political process. Good Government and Revolution Over and over again Aristotle made the point that the state exists for the sake of mans moral and intellectual fulfillment. A state, he said, exists for the sake of a good life, and not for the sake of life only; also, the state is the union of families and villages in a perfect and self-sufficing life, by which we mean a happy and honourable life. Finally, he said, our conclusion is that political society exists for the sake of noble actions, and not mere companionship. Still, whether a state produces the good life depends upon how its rulers behave. We have already said that the perverted forms of government are distinguished from the true forms by this, that the good rulers seek to achieve the good of all, whereas the perverted rulers seek their own private gain. Whatever form a government has, it will rest upon some conception of justice and proportionate equality. But these conceptions of justice can bring disagreement and ultimately revolution. Democracy, as Aristotle knew it, arises out of the assumption that those who are equal in any respect are equal in all respects; because men are equally free, they claim to be absolutely equal. On the other hand, Aristotle said oligarchy is based upon the notion that those who are unequal in one respect are in all respects unequal. Hence, being unequal in property, they suppose themselves to be unequal absolutely. For these reasons, whenever the democrats or oligarchs are in the minority and the philosophy of the incumbent government does not accord with their preconceived ideas, [they] stir up revolution Here then are opened up the very springs and fountains of revolution. Aristotle concludes that the universal and chief cause of this revolutionary feeling [is] the desire of equality, when men think they are equal to others who have more than themselves. He did not overlook other causes such as insolence and avarice as well as fear and contempt. Knowing these causes of revolution, Aristotle said that each form of government could take appropriate precautions against it; for example, a king must avoid despotic acts, an aristocracy should avoid the rule by a few rich men for the benefit of the wealthy class, and a polity should provide more time for its abler members to share in the government. Another precaution is to guard against the beginning of change. Most important of all, Aristotle urged that there is nothing which should be more jealously maintained than the spirit of obedience to law. In the end, men will always criticize the state unless their conditions of living within it are such that they can achieve happiness in the form of what they consider the good life.

Hate crimes :: essays research papers

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Victims of hate crimes vary in the indiscretions placed against them, whether it is from a simple slander to a vicious attack. But they all have the same mutual notion that the crimes that were committed against them are far above other crimes because they were carried out in hate. I believe that the idea of creating a separate punishment for crimes of this nature is absolutely nonsensical and inane in theory.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In the attached article, it states that â€Å"Congressional negotiators stripped a measure to strengthen 1960s-era hate crimes law from a massive defense bill, likely killing for this year the effort to broaden hate crimes protections for gay people and the disabled (Reuters, 2004).† This action, for some, it a disappointment and a big step back in their movement. â€Å"Backers of the hate crimes legislation, a top priority for gay rights and disabled advocacy groups (Reuters, 2004)† seem more interested in intensifying punishment that is only against them. Such cases that they believe deserved intensification are those like â€Å"the dragging death of a black man named James Byrd in Texas (Reuters, 2004)† and â€Å"the fatal beating of a young gay man named Matthew Shepard in Wyoming (Williams, 2004).†   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  But I believe the ideals that those kind of people are fighting for is a futile effort and a lost cause. Singling out crimes and criminals with the addition of â€Å"hate† has no added value in the context of the crime. A crime that has been committed in the essence of hate is only as valid as a crime that is not completely perpetrated out of hate. And yes, a hate crime is seen as more debauched in our growingly politically correct society, but under the scrutiny of law it should not be seen as a special crime in need of special punishment. In our legislation we should not make a special needs section to satisfy the victims of intolerance.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In our society everything and everyone is suppose to be equal, and in classifying two different murderers as one being a hate murderer and the other simply a murderer is not acceptable. Now I am not trying to defend murders in my accusations but rather am trying to make a point. Crimes that are committed out of intolerance of one’s beliefs or actions are no different than a crime that is committed out of pure pleasure per se.

Crucible- Abigail Williams Essay

Due to our nature, the human race will do astonishing things in the name of love and fear. Abigail Williams in â€Å"The Crucible† is a fantastic example of this. Not only are her actions absurd to try and gain John Proctor’s whole hearted affection, who was her lover, but also to gain submission of an ample portion of Salem due to fear. A large part of the submissiveness was gained by her ability to manipulate others, especially those she knows well. She starts the fire of hatred, for witches and the townspeople, within Salem. The fuel was already there; all that was needed was the last spark to get the flame going. Abigail was this spark, created by her insatiable lust for John Proctor. She instigated the witch trials, and used the produced hysteria in an attempt at personal gain, using a step by step plan. This plan developed through the play, feeding Abigail’s ambition and power. Step 1. Manipulate the town’s girls into doing witchcraft in the woods. Abigail convinced some of the teenage girls in Salem to join her in the woods. Being unmarried teenage women in this time period, they had little to do, minimal social status, and undoubtedly yearned for adventure. There were only two people lower than them in status, and that would be Abigail and Tituba because Abigail was an orphan, and Tituba a black slave. She convinced Tituba, to sing songs from Barbados about witchcraft. Abby then persuaded Ruth Putnam to believe that Tituba would be able to conjure up the spirits of her dead siblings. If it worked then she could bring to light the mystery behind all of her dead siblings. In getting others to do it with her, she will not be the only one to be punished, therefore spreading the blame across many, and if caught the blame could be transferred to the one with the least status, the slave- relieving Abby of punishment. Step 2. Drink a potion to acquire John. While in the woods Abigail drank a charm in an attempt to kill Mrs. Proctor, which in her eyes is the only person between her and John. â€Å"You drank blood, Abby! You didn’t tell him that!† (Betty, A.1, p.1244). This quote begins to give the reader an idea of what Abigail will do to gain Proctor. It would take quite a drive for someone to willingly drink blood, and in drinking it, wish death upon another person. This was a very Puritan society, and all of her actions would be looked down upon by the townspeople. First she entered the forest (the place of the Devil), then she danced (unacceptable for women of that age), then she drank a charm of blood (not accepted by society), and lastly in drinking that charm she is wishing ill upon her ‘neighbor’ which is going against one of the Commandments. The Bible was the law at the time, and going against its foundation was disgraceful. Step 3. When discovered, blame Tituba. When Abigail is being questioned by Parris, the day after being caught, about the girls’ doings in the woods, she gives away little. She reveals â€Å"We did dance, uncle, and when you leaped out of the bush so suddenly, Betty was frightened and then she fainted. And there’s the whole of it.†(Abigail, A.1, p.1238). This sentence shows an insight to Abby’s manipulative power over Parris. Fainting from fright from being caught by her father doing an illegal activity could be an explanation for Betty’s inactivity. Abigail admits to what he saw, but makes it hard for him to push the question further when she says the finalized statement ‘there’s the whole of it’. The affirmation also denies any other doings, saying the girls are innocent. Parris then grasps at another chance to question Abby, this time about possible rumors of her in the town. She skillfully maneuvers around the interrogation, and then is saved by the entrance of Mrs . Putnam. Goody Putnam reveals her and her daughter (Ruth)’s desires to figure out what caused her children to die in infancy. Step 4. Exploit Tituba’s weaknesses, while hiding behind lies. When questioned Abigail turns the accusation to Tituba saying she was alone in conjuring the spirits of Ruth’s siblings. This brings the pressure off of Abigail and onto two other people. She can then sink into the background, becoming invisible while Parris and Hale interrogate Tituba. Tituba is the unhappy slave, with witchery songs, low status, and desiring to be free and return home. Due to this, Parris and Hale break Tituba down till she admits to contracting with the devil. In a frenzy to bring pressure off herself and avoid hanging, Tituba then goes on to state names of women in the community. Sarah Good and Goody Osburn are first. Then Abigail stands up from the shadows seizing the chance of being able to accuse people and bring the attention to her in a positive way by saying â€Å"I want the light of God, I want the sweet love of Jesus! I dance for the Devil; I saw him; I wrote in his book; I go back to Jesus; I kiss His hand. I saw Sarah Good with the Devil! I saw Goody Osburn with the Devil! I saw Bridget Bishop with the Devil!† (Abigail, A.1, p.1263). These exclamations go against what she has previously sworn, yet no one seems to notice anything besides her confession and the names she says. Abby repeated the names Tituba already said, along with another, therefore strengthening the accusations while playing on the slave’s incompetence of missing one of the people, which strengthens her own position. Step 5. Use newfound status to demolish those who oppose her. Since there are so many people being accused, the town gets an aura of being unsafe and corrupt by the Devil. This causes the accused to accuse others, from old rivalries and suddenly having a chance to comeback, or from being interrogated till they give up names, multiplying the numbers, while they also believe the accusations out of fear. Fear of being accused, of being witched, or of getting hung for disbelieving the court and the Bible. In Act II sixteen people had warrants sent out for their capture. Abigail continuously accuses people who confess, adding to her credibility. She also has fainting incidents, trances, and other public displays which she credits to others using demonic powers on her, sending the message that she is an innocent orphan being harmed by the Devil because she is standing against him. This helps her gain pity, and brings more citizens to her side. An example is when Mary Warren tries to testify against Abigail, Mercy, and Susanna. The girls exclaim that Mary has sent her spirit out in a wind to make them cold. This is proven by their exclamations. Mercy: â€Å"Mary, do you send this shadow on me?† Susanna: â€Å"I freeze, I freeze!† Abigail: â€Å"It is a wind, a wind!† Danforth: â€Å"Mary Warren, do you witch her? I say to you, do you send your spirit out?†(A.3, p.1307) Danforth’s question seems to state what the other girls were implying. This goes to show what some acting can bring upon a girl and a town. By faking a wind, the girls make Mary’s testament against them invalid, therefore increasing Abigail’s power within the court, and getting rid of another challenger. Step 6. Secure Goody Proctor as a witch using credibility established within the court. After accusing Elizabeth in Act 2 because of alleged use of poppets, Abigail has to make sure there is no way out for her. When this is done and she is hung she can finally have her love, John Proctor. The townspeople generally ignore evidence and support her claims of witchery, most likely out of fear of her power. John Proctor is one of the few willing to stand against her. After many attempts, all of which failed, John resorts to drastic measures. He admits to committing adultery. â€Å"I have made a bell of my honor! I have rung the doom of my good name- you will believe me, Mr. Danforth! My wife is innocent, except she knew a whore when she saw one!†(Proctor, A.3, p.1309) In this statement, Proctor not only admits to adultery, and tries to protect his wife; he also calls Abigail a harlot. Abigail is astounded by his reveal, and undoubtedly worked up by his language towards her. This is the point where Abby seems to realize that Proctor does not love her and that she won’t ever be with him, even if Elizabeth dies. Her plan has failed, and everything she has done was for nothing. Her astonishment turns to resentment, for she then makes no attempt to same John when he is sentenced to hang. Her only thoughts now seem to be of self preservation. She was the ring leader of the witch trials, and with them coming to the end, and no chance of being with John, her power will soon be gone. She steals her uncle’s savings then flees the city. She lost a love she never truly had, and in the process left behind a broken, manipulated town. Love and fear are two of the most influential emotions, and in â€Å"The Crucible† both are experienced firsthand through Abigail. The author, Arthur Miller, uses this to his advantage making the play and characters relatable to the audience. These universal themes are relevant at all times in history which is why the play is still shown to this day. Abigail is not only a great example of those traits, but also reflects a maniacal manipulator existing in many societies. This along with other traits makes her the most important character to the play, along with the witch trials which she helped instigate for personal gain. It’s amazing what a teenage girl in a small town can do with a few words and manipulation.

King Henry II of England in The Lion in Winter by James Goldman

James Goldman’s masterpiece, The Lion in Winter, is play that is regarded by many as one of the best. The play The Lion in the Winter is basically about the life of king Henry II of England. Although not everything that was mentioned in the play about King Henry II of England was entirely true, some of them are just product of fiction and while some are really unearthed from real history. Some audience or readers may have either liked or disliked King Henry II of England in James Goldman’s play. But if King Henry II of England’s character is based on a real person, could it be that the real King Henry II of England posses the same negative traits that the play had portrayed him? Or does James Goldman’s portrayal of King Henry II of England have historical and factual basic? In the play, The Lion in Winter, King Henry II of England was portrayed as aging and conniving. He was not portrayed as the likeable character but rather more of an antagonist that is against the plots of the other characters, namely his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine and his sons Richard, Geoffrey, and John. Basically, everyone was after the throne of King Henry II of England, including himself. He wanted nothing but to protect his throne away from those who want to steal it from him. He was in very good position to do that because he was king, he had all the power of a nation in his palm. He was so addicted to the power he possessed that he became a control-freak, much like every king in history. This was the life the fictional King Henry II of England and the real King Henry II of England. It was a life full of connivances and deception just like in the play. The play had themes like the dysfunctional family,   politics, aging, inheritance, all of which made the bulk of the play’s narration, all of which also made up the bulk of King Henry II of England. It just shows that even the person of highest political position and wealth are most likely to be unhappy. Although, King Henry II of England was portrayed as an aging-annoying snub in the play The Lion in Winter. He is in fact in reality a good-spirited and energetic person, regarded by many as one of the greatest kings to rule. Some reports that he dresses casually except for occasions that require proper attire. Some also say that he loves jokes and does not easily get offended by them, some even say that he has a considerably great humor. Some say that he is very adept in the field of law. Some say that King Henry II of England has an exceptionally photographic memory able to remember each and every person that he had faced. That last claim about the king sounded like an exaggeration to even me. Although there exists many positive notes to King Henry II of England, there also exists an array of negative notes for the king. Others claim that King Henry II of England had a very bad and short temper. Basically these set of others claim that King Henry II of England has a bad personality. I guess we wouldn’t know since it is too far of a history from where we standing today. Enough of his personal life and enough of how James Goldman had portrayed him, let us examine King Henry II of England according to how history itself had portrayed him. King Henry II of England is also known as Henry Plantagenet, Henry Fitzempress, Henry of Anjou, and Henry Curtmantle. He is considered as a king that had played a significant role in history and had accomplished many things. He was the first from the house of Plantagenet to be elected for the throne of the kingship of England. That in itself can be considered an accomplishment because as we know being first is always something to be proud of. Other notable achievements of King Henry II of England were that he was also the one responsible for many expansions of the kingdom and pacification of many rebellions. From the very start, King Henry II of England had inherited many lands form his father, Geoffrey Plantagenet, and his mother Empress Matilda. Although he had inherited many lands from his father, the most significant of lands was the one that her mother had inherited to him, the English throne. He had expanded the kingdom by conquering Ireland. But it didn’t stop there, the expansion went on until it spanned from the Scotland border to Northern Spain. The expansion during King Henry II of England’s term had almost covered more than half of France. (Tabuteau, 183) King Henry II of England was able to pacify rebellions from the kingdoms domain like of those in Scotland and Ireland. This fact is one reason why some people consider King Henry II of England as the greatest king to rule ever. He travelled all round his kingdom in a very active and energetic manner. He became known for being to survey his kingdom far more than any other king. Through this, he became familiar to the lands, thus the reason for his victory over insurgencies. Through travelling the lands, he was also able to spot several castles that were built illegally inside his kingdom. These castles were built by King Henry II of England’s enemies to show him that they to have the capability to build large and fortified castles. King Henry II of England had destroyed those castles together with their owners as a message that says he is still the one that has the most power.   (Tabuteau, 183) Another of his most notable achievement is that he had stripped the barons of their power to collect taxes. In this sense he had demolished the concept of baronship, and he had basically stripped them of their power over normal people. He had assigned sheriffs to collect the taxes from the people instead of the barons. This had been proven as an effective method to collect tax for King Henry II of England’s fast-growing kingdom. The tax remittances were then used for warfare finance in the crusades. King Henry II of England was also one of the firsts who wanted to be separated for the church. He had wanted the individual powers of the church and the government be separated as two different entities. He had wanted such separation from the church so he had formulated the Constitution of Clarendon. In that constitution, he had argued that an accused that is being trialed in church should be turned over to the government immediately when found guilty. (Tabuteau, 185) Perhaps his greatest and most notable achievement is that he was the one responsible of replacing the trial by combat with the more humane manner of trial by jury. I guess that we should thank him in that aspect because most of our legal courts today are based on what had King Henry II of England had decreed. We should thank him because if not for him, we would still be killing each other when we have legal disputes. We should thank him especially the lawyers, because through trial by jury they don’t have learn how to wield a sword, not to mention for their high salary. (Tabuteau, 186) Some argues that his most notable of all his achievements is his formulation of English common law which is now the basis for most of the world’s legal systems, and a centralized government system. (Tabuteau, 186) Although, King Henry II of England’s achievements had made him one of the most popular king even until now, his achievements were always put in danger because of family disputes over territories and other family matters. To resolve the disputes within his family, he had to resort to dividing his territories among his sons. His sons would later turn against him and join allegiance with the king of France. King Henry II of England would manage to pacify his sons for moment. But in the end Richard will manage to snatch the throne from him just in the play The Lion in Winter. Reference Tabuteau, E. Z. (1997).Henry II. World Book Encyclopedia