Is citizenship tied to a particular political and moral culture? If so, are citizenship and cultural/ moral rights compatible?
Is citizenship tied to a particular political and moral culture? If so, are citizenship and cultural/ moral rights compatible? This essay will reflect on relationship between cultural rights and citizenship. However, before thinking about it, one should clearly understand what does cultural rights and citizenship mean. Citizenship is a legal or political status. It also means being a member of particular state. In this sense brings with it certain rights and responsibilities that are defined in law, such as the right to vote, the responsibility to pay tax and so on.1 Cultural rights contain of the right of access to cultural life, right to participate in cultural life, the right to cultural identity, to cultural survival, to use one's language, as well as to access and establish media in one's own language,2 the right to be educated in one's own language and in culturally appropriate ways,3 the right to protection of cultural heritage, and the right to forms of development which are consistent with culture.4 There are 194 countries in the world in which people, the citizens of them, have unique culture and ethics. At the same time, it cannot be told that there is only one nationality living in each country. As known, there was constant people's movement during the centuries. So one country has majorities and minorities. These groups can have can have different cultural
The story of The Metamorphosis is one of loneliness and horror. Kafka.
The story of The Metamorphosis is one of loneliness and horror. Kafka wrote in a fashion that allows a reader to interpret the story in a way that may be different each time it is read. Gregor Samsa, a young, hard working man, is transformed overnight into an insect and his entire world, has been turned up side down. The purpose of his existence is only to serve his family, but he never really gets the respect he deserves. The story describes how unappreciated Gregor is being treated which reveals the existence of selfishness and selflessness within the Samsa's family. Gregor is very important to the family's welfare. As being the only working member, he has no choice but to take care of all the family responsibilities. For so long he wants to quit his work, as he complains on page 4 "oh God, what a grueling job I've picked...I've got the torture of traveling, worrying about changing trains, eating miserable food at all hours, constantly seeing new faces, no relationships that last or get more intimate." But he persuades himself every time by saying, "Besides, I have to provide for my parents and my sister". Gregor knows that the future of the family is dependent on him, thus he selflessly gives up his own interest and is enslaved by all of these obligations he has been given. But the family never concerns about him, all that mattered to them is what Gregor is able to
Descartes – Meditation I
Descartes - Meditation I Descartes' " general demolition of my opinions" is probably based upon some sort of realization that things are not comfortable or the way they ought t be. He seems to feel the need for not necessarily altering his opinions, but merely finding some truth and reasoning behind his opinions, simply proving them right or wrong based upon what he learns. "I realized that once in my life I had to raze everything to the ground and begin again from original foundations, if iI wanted to establish anything firm and lasting in the sciences"(351). It comes across as maybe a turning point or midlife crisis for Descartes as he projects stating, ""The task seemed enormous, and I was waiting until I reached a point in my life that was so timely that no more suitable time for undertaking these plans of action would come to pass"(315). Descartes makes it very clear that he is not content on what he knows thus far in his life and that he must find some proof to what he already knows or some reasoning in general for why things are the way they are. Descartes first attack is on the human senses and how they are deceiving. He moves deeper and beyond sense immediately and the idea of "setting". "I am sitting here next to the fire, wearing my winter dressing gown, that I am holding this sheet of paper in my hands...But on what grounds could one deny that these hands
Moral wisdom seems to be as little connected to knowledge of ethical theory as playing good tennis is to knowledge of physics" (Emrys Westacott). To what extend should our actions be guided by our theories in ethics and elsewhere?
"Moral wisdom seems to be as little connected to knowledge of ethical theory as playing good tennis is to knowledge of physics" (Emrys Westacott). To what extend should our actions be guided by our theories in ethics and elsewhere? Ethics are rules set by a society to guide people's actions. They depict a general understanding of what is right and wrong in a society. Following ethical views is usually considered as being right, while rejecting them is usually conceived as being wrong. However, different societies have different rules of ethics. These are based on differences in their culture. Therefore, ethical views are not universally the same in all respects and vary amongst societies. Since ethical theories have no single identity to be defined by, how can they guide our actions? Surely they cannot because there would be different guidelines in whatever society you are in. Herein lies where the standards of ethical absolutism and ethical relativism arise from. Ethical absolutism states there are definite rights and wrongs that apply universally. Ethical relativism states there are no true rights and wrongs to follow. In a sense, both standards are correct to an extent. There are rights and wrongs that apply to most, if not all societies. Although there are instances where an action can be both right and wrong, depending on what perspective of the action is being observed
Should We Legislate Morality?
Should We Legislate Morality? If something is immoral should it also be illegal? In America, we should not pass laws where the primary concern is morality; we should only pass laws which have civil values as their primary concern. Civil values in this case are values which either ensures the safety or order of a society, such as, traffic laws or zoning laws. Also involved are more important values such as freedom, democracy, and liberty which have been laid out by our founding fathers. I have two basic reasons for holding this view. First, we live in a secular society. There is a supposed wall of separation between Church and State, and I think rightly so. Church and State should only be united in a theocracy America is not one of those and could not become one without changing the character of the nation. However, I am aware that the moral basis for the tradition of English law that the U.S. legislative and judicial systems are deeply rooted in, are based on essentially Christian principles. As I think that morality without Christ is ultimately empty, then to legislate true morality would be to legislate Christianity, thus violating the Church and State separation. Seeking to mend the religious backsliding in the United States by this sort of method is not right. It is trying to get the government to cover a moral problem by redefining it through political change rather
In Plato's Crito, is there a valid 'agreement' between Socrates and the City of Athens, as Socrates claims? Would such an agreement justify Socrates' decision?
Darshan Sanghrajka MP1001 - History of Ethics Tutor: Andrew Fischer Date: Friday, 1st November 2002 Words - 1200 In Plato's Crito, is there a valid 'agreement' between Socrates and the City of Athens, as Socrates claims? Would such an agreement justify Socrates' decision? In Plato's Crito, Socrates has been sentenced to death for corrupting the youth of Athens with teachings of philosophy. In it, Socrates argues that he cannot escape prison because he would be breaking his tacit agreement with the City of Athens. What follows, is a discussion of whether there is such a valid agreement and consequently, whether such an agreement would justify Socrates' decision to face death. I will argue that such a tacit agreement does indeed exist, be it purely hypothetical and not constitutional but would not justify Socrates' decision to die. The agreement has inherent flaws which actually ought to justify him fleeing but it is only his own firm beliefs that persuade him to adhere to the agreement, flawed as it may be. First, the agreement itself needs to be described. Socrates argues by staying in Athens, there is a tacit agreement between him and the State, that he should either obey the laws or change them through persuasion. It is not written down but implicit, by his decision to remain in Athens. An illustration might help explain this; when we get into a taxi, we don't need
Ethical Egoism
PY1105 Matriculation No: 100013701 Tutor: Beth Curzon-Edwards Question 3; "It is each person's duty to do what is in his or her own best interests." Can this principle provide the basis for morality? Discuss. I hereby declare that the attached piece of written work is my own work and that I have not reproduced, without acknowledgement, the work of another. Essay 1: Self-interest as a basis for Morality The statement "it is each person's duty to do what is in his or her best interests" cannot provide the basis for morality because it has no justification for splitting the world up into two categories (ourselves and others) and is unable to discern conflicts of interest. This essay is intended as a discussion of the arguments both for and against codes of self-interest as morality through a discussion of Ethical Egoism and what its universalisation naturally leads to; the idea of social contract. Ultimately, universalised self-interest cannot provide a moral foundation as it is unacceptably arbitrary- just as our lives are improved by freedom to create, so we value the lives of others to do the same, as products of each can be exchanged to mutual benefit. Duty is understood as every rational individuals moral obligation, best interest as having both immediate and long-term benefits to an individual, and morality refers to a code of conduct that, given specified
“In nova fert animus mutatus dicere formas corpora;”
"In nova fert animus mutatus dicere formas corpora;" For transformation to occur there must be a catalyst, a force so powerful that it has the ability to change the psychological as well as the physical human form. This catalyst is desire. Desire to transform chaos into order set the stage for the stories of creation. Desire to gain access to more food is the foundation of evolutionism. Desire to eat the forbidden fruit is thought to be the fall of man, thus transforming the world from a pristine paradise to a moral battleground. Since the beginning of time, our world and its inhabitants have been metamorphosed according to this natural law of desire. The civilization of ancient Greece was one of male dominated hierarchy and rigid social order. In The Bacchae, Euripides brilliantly demonstrates the terrible ramifications brought about by denying the nature of human existence, the struggle between rational morality and uncontrolled passion. Dionysus is the god of wine, dance, excess, savagery and ecstasy, he appeals to the inner desires of mankind and encourages people to experience life without restrictions. Euripides uses him as the embodiment of all that the Hellenistic society feared: the irrational, the primal, the exotic, the Other. His followers retreat to the woods where they have orgiastic festivals, feed upon livestock that they have ripped apart with their bare
How scientific were the theories of the Presocratics?
How scientific were the theories of the Presocratics? ' The theories of the Presocratics are mainly seen as philosophical, however there is an element within some of their thought which can be interpreted as scientific. In this essay I propose to argue that, although the scientific aspect of their thinking cannot be understood in the same way as modern science, it should be regarded as an important first step towards scientific investigation as we know it today. For the purpose of this essay I will focus upon the Presocratic philosophers whose work exhibits the most evidence of scientific thought. These are the Ionians, the Pluralists and the Atomists. How scientific the theories of the Presocratics are depends on what is meant by the term "scientific". According to a contemporary definition of science the Presocratics' ideas look very unscientific. Science today is viewed as the; "'"Systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms""' (Collins English Dictionary). Presocratic theories fail to meet this criterion. Their pronouncements are cast in a dogmatic form, not as tentative hypotheses whose fate is decided by systematic experiment. Indeed there is little evidence to suggest that many of the Presocratics' theories are
Aristotle’s Account of Virtue.
ARISTOTLE'S ACCOUNT OF VIRTUE Aristotle's Nichomachean ethics is largely concerned with achieving the highest good. To achieve the highest good, which we call happiness, he argues that we need virtue. In this paper, I will examine what virtue consists in, and within that section explore how virtue is related to reason. After that, I will discuss Aristotle's ideas about how to achieve virtue. Finally, I will present a criticism of Aristotle's view on habituation and explain why I find it to be unreasonable. Aristotle begins his explanation of virtue by stating that we are searching virtue of the soul, not of the body, since happiness (which is what we are seeking) is an activity of the soul. He then says that there are two divisible parts of the soul, the part with reason and the non-rational part (1102a-30). Within the non-rational part lies two more parts: a plantlike, and a more human part. The plant-like part is concerned with things like nutrition and growth, and is not at all governed by reason. The more human part, however, which is concerned with appetites and simple desires, listens to and obeys reason. Since Aristotle closely ties reason with virtue, he decided to focus mainly on this, more human, part. Aristotle finds it necessary to divide this more human part into another two parts, one, which consists of reason in itself, and the other which listens to reason
