Price Elasticity of Demand
PED Price elasticity of demand (PED) is the responsiveness of quantity demanded to the changes in the price given. The main factors that affect PED of good are the number and closeness of substitutes, necessity of the product and how widely the product is defined, and also time. One of the most important determinants of PED is the number and closeness of substitutes; it can briefly be explained as when there are more substitutes for a product, the demand will become more elastic. Also when the substitute available is closer, the demand would be more elastic too. For example, there are many different brands of sports wear available on the market and if one of the brand increases the price of their product, this will lead customers to a change in demand to another brand. Generally products such as sports wear, food, house products tend to have elastic demand whereas products like oil have inelastic demand since there are very few substitutes for it. The necessity of the product and how widely the product is defined also affects the PED of a good. If we take food as an example it is a necessary product and food is very important to our lives so it is inelastic. However if we define food more deeply (chicken, beef, pork etc...), the demand would become less inelastic since there would be substitutes. Basically the more the product is narrowed, the less inelastic it gets. Time
The possession of knowledge carries an ethical responsibility. Evaluate this claim.
“The possession of knowledge carries an ethical responsibility.” Evaluate this claim. The right to study and possess knowledge is a fundamental right for every human which is enshrined in nearly every single country’s constitution. However, the decisions that are made when this knowledge is applied could potentially have repercussions. At this point, ethics becomes involved in the use of knowledge. In order to evaluate the claim that the possession of knowledge carries ethical responsibility, it is important to understand ethics and knowledge in the general sense To put it simply, ethics is moral philosophy, or rationalization of conduct as either right or wrong. Normative ethics is the study of determining a moral course of action. The two most prominent ethical guidelines are Kantianism and Utilitarianism. Immanuel Kant suggested that ethics revolve around duty, rather than emotions. All actions are related to an underlying principle. Kantian thought supports the idea that the actions are justified by a set of rules outlined in Kantianism. Utilitarianism is based on the idea of a greater good. Positive and negative consequences are quantified and the most positive consequence for the greatest amount of people is chosen, sometimes at the expense of others. For utilitarian school of thought, an individual strives to do the most good, even at the expense of the
To understand something you need to rely on your own experience and culture. Does this mean that it is impossible to have objective knowledge?
To understand something you need to rely on your own experience and culture. Does this mean that it is impossible to have objective knowledge? How humans understand different events in their life varies. This topic suggests that people mostly rely on their experience and culture to comprehend their surrounding. They use subjective knowledge, which is based on personal opinion and a personal interpretation of events1, such as ethical issues. However, the question is if objective knowledge is possible. I would argue that it is. Mathematics, for example, can be understood through objective knowledge, facts and impersonal judgement, because the subject is not influenced by people's subjective desires or perception.2 Science, Art, and history, on contrary, can be comprehended by subjective or/and objective knowledge. In this essay I will explain with different examples that humans sometimes use subjective or/and objective knowledge to understand the world around us. People understand events in different ways. There are things in life that humans need to experience to understand it, for example not touching a warm stove. Most children, as I did, touch the warm stove despite their parents' warning, and after they have been hurt, they learn from their experience not to touch it again. Another way of obtaining an understanding is through culture. How people interpret events has been
"To what extent can it be said that the First World War was caused by the alliance system?"
"To what extent can it be said that the First World War was caused by the alliance system?" The First World War took place between 1914 and 1918. Although the conflict began in Europe, it ultimately involved countries as far away the USA and Japan. Historians still disagree over the fundamental causes, as there are numerous factors contributing to the outbreak of war. Although it was set off by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria by a Bosnian Serb nationalist in Sarajevo, World War 1 was a result of leaders' aggression towards other counties, which was supported by rising nationalism of the European nations. Imperial competition and fear of war prompted arms race and military alliances, which further escalated the tension contributing to the outbreak of war. The alliance system was a cause of mistrust and belligerent attitudes in Europe. By the summer of 1914 Europe had been divided into two distinct groups: The Triple Alliance, that incorporated Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy and The Triple Entente, that consisted of Franco-Russian Alliance with Britain as an entente partner of both. The alliance system was also responsible for the military plans that led to the spread of war. It is undeniable that the First World War was partially caused by the alliance system. The Alliance System was undoubtedly a cause of war. The Alliances forged at the end
Things Fall Apart
Things Fall Apart Character Response Jerry /1/2010 Nigeria, an African country of a befuddling history, is the chosen setting for Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart. In the midst of the novel, readers find themselves audiences for a story of cultural collision. Many characters recoiled in sheer disgust and fright at the sudden outburst of British rule, while others embraced it wholeheartedly, yearning for release from their own ridiculous traditions. Achebe has outshone himself by establishing the proper sense of cultural rejection and one of appreciation, through the palpable description of numerous character personalities. In the far off village of Umoufia, lived a man of past grievances, a man of massive build and an insatiable hunger for revenge. This man was familiarly known as Okonkwo, the village's most horrid and terrible chap, haunted by the ghost of his past. His father, Unoka, had paved a way of shame and poverty for his son, which Okonkwo never ceased to attempt to erase. Caught in his most unnatural fascination, Okonkwo refused to accept the presence of foreigners in his land. Simply forgetting all traditions and falling victim to the British enforced regime revolted Okonkwo, and he merely brushed the entire notion off as one would do to an irksome fly. Abandoning trying to regain his son, Nwoye, who had clasped at the new religion with such force, Okonkwo
Theory of Knowledge
TOK Practice Essay: "Different Cultures have different truths." "A truth is that which can be universally accepted." What are the implications for knowledge of agreeing with these opposing statements? Aakaanksh (A.K) Pothukutchi Friday, May 02, 2008 Mr. Richmond TOK According to Albert Einstein, one of the great minds of the human races, "Truth is what stands the test of time." The seemingly innocent looking question: "What is truth," appears in one's mind. In an effort to better humanity the elite minds have concocted three different theories of truth, none of which is individually satisfactory, but combined provide a glance into the "truth" about truth. The word truth, in context of the question, is a statement which conforms to fact and is commonly/universally accepted as the reality or actuality. At first glance, both statements appear to be contradictory in nature, as they transmit conflicting two conflicting ideas of truth. The first statement conveys the idea of relativism, the belief that what is true is what is accepted by one's culture/community; while the second statement dwells mainly on the idea of absolutism, a philosophical argument which claims that a statement is either absolutely true or absolutely false, leaving no room for any middle ground. The statements are in direct conflict with each other in that, the first leads us to imply that each individual
When should we trust our senses to give us truth?
When should we trust our senses to give us truth? Truth is a medium to express actuality. To humans, primary sources of truth are our senses. As the view gained through our senses is quite objective, language emotion and reason are applied to make it more subjective to us. One therefore asks to what extent truth brought to us by our senses is supported or contrasted with our language, emotion, and reason. In this respect there is often a trend where language assists sense perception to provide objective perception and this information is then processed using emotion and reason based on experience to make it more subjectively relevant to us. Further, truth provided solely by our senses is by no means the same in the different areas of knowledge, and based on A.J. Ayer's concept of knowledge being justified true belief (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP)) it is important to find the truth no matter which area of knowledge is being presented. An example would be science and art as they utilize sense perception in different ways to find truth and ultimately knowledge. Hence the question arises to what extent truth, gained through our senses, in science versus in art compares. To what extent is truth brought to us by our senses supported or contrasted with our language, emotion, and reason? However the environment is perceived, the human never completely relies on the
When should we trust our senses to give us truth?
When should we trust our senses to give us truth? In this essay I am going to be discussing the topic of 'when should we trust our senses to give us truth' and if it is a relevant statement or not. I will be using knowledge issues to back up this theory and also will be using different ways of knowing and different areas of knowing for this to happen. Humans have initially five main senses but in actual fact there are nine these extra ones include the feeling of heat, balance and acceleration, kinaesthetic sense and pain. For example when you are in a car you can judge the speed you are travelling at by your balance and acceleration but also by vision, so you could be on a simulator and feel as if you are going somewhere so your vision combines with this to give a match to show if it is a certain scenario. This can have many interpretations as to why and how we achieve this knowledge. We should trust our senses to give us truth, as without it we would have no justification for anything like for example if you have a carton of apple juice and the way you can tell it is apple juice is by using prior knowledge and using senses such as vision, taste and smell. Also you need to combine these to actually be sure that it is what it is. In some cases one bit of prior knowledge is sufficient but in most others it is not. Our senses are a vital and important tool that we use so
When Should We Trust Our Senses To give us Truth
The world is a big place, filled with people full of curiosity and with their own individual quests. People are constantly talking, looking, hearing, smelling, and gaining knowledge from things and people from their environment. The scope of knowledge gained on a day to day basis is therefore vast. To what extent though, is this knowledge we acquire true? People are constantly seeking for answers to their questions or solutions to their problems; in a way, they seek a pathway to truth. The quote: "rather than love, than money, than faith, than fame, than fairness... give me truth" (Thoreau) justifies that truth is a necessity of life and every man seeks it to distinguish between reality and fantasy. To understand truth, we need to know its three basic theories. The correspondence theory states that a statement is true if it corresponds to a fact. The Coherence theory says that a proposition is true if it fits in with our overall sets of belief. Finally, the pragmatic theory states that a proposition is true if it is useful or works in practice. We will use these three theories to understand when our senses can be trusted to give us the truth. The human species are said to have the weakest of all senses in terms of potency because they can be easily deceived. Perception is a very sophisticated issue because not everything we perceive is real. Optical illusion for sight, not
When should we trust our senses to give us truth?
Sense perception is one of the four ways of knowing. It is our senses that give us the ability to smell, hear, touch, see and taste. As we use these abilities to perceive the world around us, how much can we rely on them to give us the truth? This also begs the question, when should we trust our senses to give us truth? Epistemology is one of the main branches of philosophy1 which attempts to answer these questions. We identify an epistemological problem; our knowledge of the external world that may be misguided by our senses. When we speak of 'trusting' our senses, it is referred to whether we may 'rely' on our senses, and use our senses as valid measures of our existing world. Our senses are used so often since they are the most immediate forms of the ways of knowing. But our senses can be fallible. To explore these issues, we will look into the arts and the natural sciences. G. E. Moore (1941) asserts that "a thing can't be certain unless it is known". He believes that this differentiates the word 'certain' from the word 'true'. Something can be true that is not known by anybody, but it can't be certain2. Thus truth lies in reality, independent of whether it is known or not or how it is perceived. Truth is defined by several substantive theories, which all commonly agree on knowledge that represents reality. Able to distinguish truth helps to answer; how much can we trust
