Affirmative Action In US Essays - Discrimination, Social Inequality

Affirmative Action In US Affirmative action is wrong and will not help solve the problems minorities face. The reason it is wrong is because it's discrimination. It has no place in today's society in today's society because it does more bad than good. In addition to that most people don't enjoy the presence of affirmative action. Also, it appears that affirmative action can actually be detrimental to employees health. First of all, affirmative action is discrimination, there is no hiding it. When an employer hires anyone because he or she is a minority, even if someone else if more qualified to do the job, it is discrimination. Just because it is reverse discrimination, when whites are discriminated against and minorities are being discriminated for, doesn't make it right. Affirmative action legalizes discrimination (Steele 1990, 39). "I thought discrimination was illegal in this country (Buchanan 1995, 1)." Also, if this discrimination continues racism in the United States may become worse. Imagine what you would feel like if you couldn't get a job just because you are a white man and not a hispanic man. The racism will become worse because of it, and that is the very thing it is trying to prevent. It is possible that because of affirmative action, racism will grow and continue to grow until we history repeats itself and we end up living under Jim Crow laws again. That is an extr! eme possibility to end up under Jim Crow laws again, but it is a definite possibility to end up somewhere close to Jim Crow laws again. In addition to that, people say affirmative action is ok because it cures past discrimination (Keyes 1996, 1). Discrimination wasn't ok when blacks were the ones getting the short end of the stick. Therefore it's not ok when whites are discriminated against (DeWit 1996, 1). Two wrongs don't make a right. Therefore, affirmative action doesn't make discrimination ok just because it's against blacks instead of whites. Affirmative action in college is the most discriminating thing this country has ever seen since the Jim Crow laws many years ago (Buchanan 1995, 1). At ivy league colleges the median GPA of applicants is close to 4.0 and S.A.T.'s are close to 1300, minorities are let in with GPA's less than 3.0 and S.A.T.'s less than 1000 (D'Souza 1990, 231). The only way for colleges to achieve ethnic proportionalism is to downplay or abandon merit criteria and to accept students from typically under represented groups, such as blacks, hispanics, and american indians, over better qualified students from among whites and asian americans (D'Souza 1990, 231). Obviously, affirmative action is allowing undereducated citizens to get into college when the people that are qualified aren't getting accepted when they should. When we passed the equal opportunities law, it didn't mean treat different races differently, it means we should treat all people as equals, affirmative action doesn't treat everyone as equals (Hacker 1990, 229). If we lower acceptance standards for minorities, we should lower standards for everyone. Since nobody would do that we should raise the standard for minorities. In addition, if affirmative action gets its way, it will do more harm than good. Affirmative action will only work short term because if you hire a minority that's under qualified they'll eventually get fired. Also, you can only hire so many people, eventually you'll get too much under qualified people working for you and you'll eventually have to abandon affirmative action all together. Also, affirmative action doesn't work because it doesn't change anything (Keyes 1996, 1). If there is racism in today's modern age, then racism will always be present and affirmative action won't work. In addition if we need to discriminate against white people to give minorities jobs now, it won't change. Giving someone a job won't do any good in making the quality of life of minorities better. Just because you enroll more minorities in your college, doesn't mean you're making the playing field even. When someone isn't good enough to get into a certain college, they're out of their l! eague when they get in. Only 15% of black and 22% of hispanic affirmative action students accepted to Berkeley in 1987 graduated (D'Souza 1990, 233). To give minorities a better life "we have to fix the moral decay caused by the absence of two parent families to help minorities" (Keyes 1996, 1). Affirmative action is also insulting to minorities because they may feel they have to be helped out just to get a job (Steele 1990, 37). A minority that benefits

Vicarious Leisure Class Essays

Vicarious Leisure Class Essays Vicarious Leisure Class Paper Vicarious Leisure Class Paper Living the Lifestyle of a Celebrity: Conspicuous Consumption within the Leisure Class In Thorstein Veblen’s, The Theory of the Leisure Class which was first published in 1899, Veblen identifies a problem in our society for which many did not see. Veblen described society as a division of classes, one of these classes as he described as the â€Å"leisure class† or what we know today as the wealthier, upper class. In this book, Veblen describes society, and the economy, through the leisure class and analyzes their lifestyle through his time. The leisure class is a predatory culture and harmful to society, he explains, a leisure class has emerged from a â€Å"peaceable to a consistently warlike habit of life† (Veblen 7). Through this predatory class, Veblen describes various terms associated with the lifestyle of the leisure class, conspicuous consumption, vicarious leisure, and conspicuous leisure are only few terms he uses. These terms and the study of different lifestyles in different stages of development are described throughout this book, to explain the competitiveness and harm for which the upper class has brought to our society. In this paper, I will describe and discuss Veblen’s terms and lifestyles of the leisure class, how it relates to Karl Marx and his theories in society, and also similarities in which Veblen’s description of the leisure class is seen today. According to Veblen, the leisure class developed during the barbarian era, more specifically during the transition from savagery to barbarism, which also brought a more warlike community. Veblen argued that these warlike characteristics emerged through the leisure class; the members of this class were mostly men. During this time, hunting and gathering was the primary labor work, which was mostly employed by men of the leisure class. Veblen explains that even though this type of work provided food, farming and other work was more productive than hunting and gathering. The leisure class took over these warfare positions and prevented individuals of the lower class from learning to fight or owning weapons, this is when the leisure class started to gain their power and other classes started to rely and depend on the leisure class. In the predatory culture, this time of employment becomes only a form welcome to the upper class, this is what Veblen describes as conspicuous leisure, these individuals are wealthy enough to avoid work and engage in a type of lifestyle for which no other class can live. Individuals of conspicuous leisure don’t necessarily have to work because they already have the money. Veblen explains the individual’s time is â€Å"consumed non-productively (1) from a sense of the unworthiness of productive work, and (2) as an evidence of pecuniary ability to afford a life of idleness† (Veblen 23). During this time the leisure class started to emerge and the divisions of class’s were becoming more known to society. Similar to Veblen, Karl Marx also believed society was made up of class divisions. He explained his theory of class division through â€Å"proletariats† (have nots) and â€Å"bourgeoisie† (haves). The proletariats were those of the poorer class, which had nothing and the bourgeoisie were the wealthier class that had everything; these individuals would be considered the leisure class. Like the bourgeoisie, Veblen explained that individuals of the leisure class were expected to have almost everything, from servants to luxuries goods, this type of conspicuous consumption defined their status within the leisure class. These individuals of the leisure class can afford servants however the â€Å"real† leisure class, or the individuals at the top of the leisure class, can afford servants and also servants who do nothing. Marx believed that â€Å"class exploitation takes place when the labor power of one man is the property of another (Romero et al. . Marx theory is shown through servants of the leisure class. â€Å"Class Exploitation† is seen in the leisure class when the labor of servants is the property of those of the leisure class, â€Å"there supervenes a division of labour among the servants or dependents whose life is spent in maintaining the honour of the gentleman of leisure† (Veblen 63). Servants are only one factor that shows the wealth of the leisure class. According to Veblen, a member of the leisure class is known to show off his/her earnings. This type of behavior goes all the way back to the barbarian era when men showed off trophies, weapons, and other ideal possessions, â€Å"the last evidence of productive labour is its material product- commonly some article of consumption† (Veblen 44). The leisure class must have certain goods or items to gain fulfillment. This is similar to Karl Marx’s â€Å"false consciousness† which is described as a â€Å"sense of common identification with members of the same class† (Romero et al. ). False consciousness† is seen in the leisure class, regarding Veblen’s conspicuous consumption, the leisure class must consume certain items to be â€Å"happy† this is not necessarily known and explained however within every member of the leisure class they must have certain things to live happily in the upper class. Veblen defined this behavior within the leisure class in Chapter 6, â€Å"Pecuniary Canons of Taste†, â€Å"as it is a desire to live up to the conventional standard of decency in the amount and grade of goods consumed† (Veblen 102). He explains that the standard of living is keeping up with the others of one’s personal class. For example, if a neighbor buys a new car, you may go buy a new car just to keep up. â€Å"Each class envies and emulates the class next above it in the social scale, while it rarely compares itself with those below or with those who are considerably in advanced† (Veblen 104). Veblen defines the divisions of labor and that one whom competes with a higher class, through material may not be able to afford some materials of the higher class, and competing with a lower class is not striving for increasing achievement, so individuals stay within their class and compete with those whom are a little bit higher than them in the social structure. Marx defines this theory of â€Å"false consciousness† as something for which the individual does not necessarily notice, however it occurs. Like Marx, Veblen describes this standard of living as a habit, it’s something an individual is immune to and becomes a lifestyle, to which the individual does not realize they are constantly competing to keep up with the same lifestyles as others. â€Å"A standard of living is of the nature of habit. It is a habitual scale and method of responding to given stimuli† (Veblen 106). The longer the habit, the harder it is to let go, so one is constantly trying to keep up with class, society, and the standard of living. To keep up with the standard of living, individuals, mostly of the leisure class, will constantly continue to consume luxuries items and even though they are constantly consuming new items, the individual never seeks satisfaction; this refers to what Veblen describes as â€Å"chronic dissatisfaction†. This term is defined as always wanting more, one is never satisfied with what they have so they are constantly needing more (Veblen 31). Chronic dissatisfaction is a continuous cycle once one earns or receives something they just strive for the next thing. Chad Ochocinco is a NFL football player, who is constantly striving for more. He pursued modeling, then acting, and now has his second television series, and a video game. Ochocinco is an example of chronic dissatisfaction, although he has money and a career he wants more, after receiving a television series, he continued to strive for another one and added on a video game (â€Å"Wiki:Ochocinco†). Like Ochocinco, many individuals of the leisure class, continue to need more, this includes luxuries and other items. This type of consumption leads to another one of Veblen’s arguments of conspicuous consumption, which is when one consumes various goods, the best of food, and luxuries to show off one’s earnings. Conspicuous consumption is seen in our society today, this type of behavior does not just exist within the leisure class, however throughout every class and individual in our society. The want to consume is nothing new, we work and live to consume, we are what we consume. As seen with celebrities today, they consume the best cars, the best clothes, the biggest houses. Veblen explains a man of wealth â€Å"consumes freely and of the best, in food, drink, narcotics, shelter, services, ornaments, apparel, weapons, and accoutrements, amusements, amulets, and idols or divinities (Veblen 73). This type of consumption is what Veblen describes as â€Å"conspicuous waste†, the manner in which people dress is always seen and noticed, especially when celebrities are displaying them. With conspicuous consumption, the consumption and wealth must be displayed and noticed. As seen on the television show â€Å" Mtv Cribs† many celebrities, who are members of the leisure class, show off their homes, cars, clothes, and other items. Veblen argues this is harmful to our society, these luxuries and types of consumption are only for the leisure class, and one is expected to live this certain lifestyle in order to keep their standing in the leisure class. A man of the leisure class must consume certain goods and give away certain types of rewards or gifts to with hold his position within the leisure class. One example of conspicuous consumption he gives, which is seen today, is the consumption of â€Å"intoxicating beverages or narcotics†, which members of the leisure class are known to consume (Veblen 70). Like Grey Goose and Jose Cuervo, many celebrities only drink the top self alcohol. Also, many celebrities are getting involved in alcohol or drug related crimes, however we still honor them. For example, Lil Wayne, Michael Vick, Lindsay Lohan, and Paris Hilton are only a few celebrities who were convicted of criminal charges, yet are still in the lime light today. Paris Hilton was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) in 2006, and charge in 2007. In 2007, Hilton was sentenced to 45 days in jail for violating her probation, â€Å"according to prosecutors, she fail to enroll in an alcohol education course by mid-April 2007, and was stopped for two more traffic violations, including driving with a suspended license† (â€Å"Wiki:Paris Hilton†). After these incidents took place, Paris Hilton continued to live vicariously through the leisure class, from initially earning her fortune from her great-grandfather’s wealth, (Conrad Hilton, founder of Hilton Hotels) she continues to be a social icon, with her own hit television show, â€Å"Paris’s BFF†, as well as, her role as an actor in several movies, singer, model, and author (â€Å"Wiki: Paris Hilton†). Like Paris Hilton, many members of the leisure class are still honored and have status after criminal offenses, or drug/alcohol related mistakes. These celebrities are idols and influence our society, this is another reason Veblen argues the leisure class can be harmful to our society, â€Å"drunkness and the other pathological consequences of the free use of stimulants therefore tend in their turn to become honorific† (Veblen 70). The â€Å"emergence of the leisure class coincides with the beginning of ownership† (Veblen 22). During the barbarian stages, women became a form of ownership. Women were seen as a status symbol, a trophy wife, for which men of the leisure class could own and show off. When we own people, we own material or production, so by owning something one can exploit his earnings. Like ownership, most women of the leisure class are considered â€Å"vicarious leisure†. Veblen’s â€Å"vicarious leisure† is defined as people who live the life as though they are a member of the leisure class however don’t get all the material that comes with it because they are living through the wealthy. Throughout the barbarian stages, men were considered the breadwinner and worked while the women stayed at home while women were considered to live through their spouses. The women of the household were not suppose to work and were expected to be more â€Å"showy† about their leisure than men, they were expected to be beautiful and represent the household’s wealth. Like women, Veblen claims many individuals of the leisure class receive their wealth from their ancestors and get wealth without even working for it, â€Å"wealth acquired passively by transmission from ancestors or other antecedents presently becomes even more honorific than wealth acquired by the possessor’s own effort† (Veblen 29). Like mentioned earlier, celebrity Paris Hilton received her wealth through her great grandfather, Conrad Hilton whom was the founder of Hilton hotels. Through his wealth, Paris Hilton had a very wealthy childhood. She was born in New York, and moved to several different homes, including the homes in Manhattan, Beverly Hills, and the Hamptons, which are all very upper class locations (â€Å"Wiki: Paris Hilton†). Hilton had all the references to succeed and was not obligated to work. Like Hilton, Veblen describes these types of individuals within the leisure class, he refers to the leisure class as â€Å"waste†, meaning the leisure class does not contribute to society or the world as a whole, â€Å"does not serve human life or human well-being on the whole† (Veblen 97). Hilton pursued her career in modeling, eventually getting signed with Donald Trump’s model agency and appearing in various magazines (â€Å"Wiki: Paris Hilton†). Hilton’s career as a model, is an example of Veblen’s view on waste in the leisure class, pictures of Hilton in various magazines has no specific benefit to our society however only benefits her and her status, and wealth within the leisure class. According to Wikipedia, in September 2009, Hilton’s quote in one of her books, â€Å"Dress cute wherever you go, life is too short to blend in† was added to The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. Similar to Hilton, many celebrities and women care a lot about what they wear and how they dress. In Veblen’s chapter, â€Å"Dress as an Expression of the Pecuniary Culture† he describes how dress is an example of conspicuous waste, and how most women express their leisure through clothing. Like many celebrities and individuals of the leisure class the point of having nice clothes is to show them off, â€Å"our dress, therefore, in order to serve its purpose effectually, should not only be expensive, but it should also make plain to all observers that the wearer is not engaged in any kind of productive labour† (Veblen 170). This type of clothing is not used for protection or comfort yet its primary purpose is for show. Many women of the leisure class wear heels to work, especially women who are considered celebrities are constantly wearing heels wherever they go. Veblen explains that for a women to wear heels to work is unnecessary and â€Å"even the simplest and most necessary work extremely difficult† (Veblen 171). Today, dressing and fashion of the leisure class is very evident and is expected, however this is nothing new, this expensive and uncomfortable clothing for women goes very far back. The corset is, in economic theory, substantially a mutilation, undergone for the purpose of lowering the subject’s vitality and rendering her permanently and obviously unfit for work† (Veblen 172). The corset is only one example that Veblen gives, however this piece of clothing is the most constricting, and is only worn for show, ignoring the discomfort of the clothing. Veblen also continues to argue that the fashion and clothing styles change with the seasons and also are different in various areas. It’s amazing for one to see that this was the case during Veblen’s time because this is very true today. With winter, comes scarf’s, boots, and sweaters while summer women tend to wear shorts, cut off shirts, ect. Veblen also explains that the urban areas are more involved in fashion changes than the rural areas, meaning the wealthier communities have greater amounts of conspicuous waste in their clothing. New York City is one example of Veblen’s argument, this city is known for fashion and most women in New York City are examples of dress as a conspicuous waste. Sex in the City† was a huge television series and movie, about four women who lived in New York City and engaged in the fashion world. Through these four women, one can see the effects of an urban area on the style of dress needed to fit into the city. In the first â€Å"Sex and the City† movie, Carrie after a breaking it off with her boyfriend and buying very expensive shoes she expl ains, â€Å"It’s really hard to walk in a single woman’s shoes- that’s why you sometimes need really special shoes†. As in Veblen’s time, society is still using dress as a conspicuous consumption, which is more evident in women than men. If an individual is wearing cheap clothing, this can be considered unworthy by some, and those who wear expensive clothing are seen to be of the wealthier class. Dress as a conspicuous waste is seen as a spiritual need. For example church, when a family is getting dressed for church they tend to dress up in formal clothing. Veblen describes the need for this type of dress for spiritual reasoning is â€Å"not wholly, nor even chiefly, a naive propensity for display of expenditure† (Veblen 168). Veblen’s theory of leisure class is still in existence today and has a huge influence on our society as a whole. Today, the leisure class is taking over the media and is the idols and the people for which society looks up to, they are considered the successful individuals of society, the wealthy. Before reading Veblen’s book, I never thought the upper class, or now as I call it the leisure class, as harmful to society, however now it seems as though this standard of living and conspicuous leisure and consumption is harming our communities and the way individuals of our society live their lives. Conspicuous consumption is seen in every division of class, not just the leisure class. Each class is striving among themselves to be better than the other. One example Veblen uses in the book, is the use of silver spoons, explaining that many individuals of the leisure class use articles of gold, even though there are spoons for which are made from machines which are cheaper, and in most cases are more useful and better. However, the beauty and price of these expensive items are the reasoning behind this conspicuous consumption. Like Veblen’s example, this is seen in our society today, from decorations in a person’s home, to their cars, to their style of clothing, ect. Our society has grown to constantly be involved in conspicuous consumption and compete with others of the same class. Veblen was definitely correct with his ‘Theory of the Leisure Class’ and his theory is still very present today. I was surprised to see how present the leisure class was in pre-historic times and how similar the behavior of the leisure class is to the leisure class today. However, without the leisure class, and competitive society, I’m not sure if our society would be as successful as it is today. Many individuals strive for success because of the competitive drive and competition within our society. So maybe the leisure class and the competitive factors within the division of classes is good for the society, or maybe Veblen’s theory is right and the leisure class is actually harmful to our society and world as a whole. Veblen, Thorstein. The Theory of the Leisure Class. NewYork: Peguin, 1899. Print David Ashley, David Michael Orenstein. Sociology Theory: Classical Theory. Boston: Pearson, 2005. Print Romero, Rachel. Sociology 230: Classical Theory. Texas Aamp;M University. College Station, TX: August-November, 2010. Lecture Wikipedia: Paris Hiltion. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Web. 21 November 2010. http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Paris_Hilton. E2. 80. 9306:_As_an_author Wikipedia: Chad Ochocinco. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Web. 20 November 2010 http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Chad_Ochocinco Paris Hilton’s DUI Charges. Find Law. Web. 2010 http://news. findlaw. com/cnn/docs/ent/cahilton92606cmp. html Bushnell, Candace. Sex and the City. Part One. New York, 2008. Movie Thorstein Veblen. Academic Search Complete (ESBCO). Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th Edition. July 1, 2010. Print.

Risk & Return Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Risk & Return - Assignment Example The term business risk is used to refer to the uncertainty associated with the future projections or expectations that company holds in relation to the returns from the business (Besley, 2008). This risk is calculated either on the basis of assets or it may be calculated in terms of equity. In other words an organization tries to identify the return or loss it will face by investing a certain amount of money in assets or the return the company will gain by investing money that it has obtained through the measure of equity financing. If an organization does not obtain money from external sources and only obtains money from internal shareholders, the business risk is calculated in terms of the risks associated with organization’s own operations. The level of business risk an organization experiences is dependent on the stability of its operations. A business is said to have stable operation when organization experiences a steady flow of sales and purchases over a long period of time and there are lower chances that there will be any changes in these trends. A business is said to have unstable operations when the demand and supply of that business is difficult to predict or keeps on changing. For example: a power supplying monopoly is said to have lower risk of business since it is the only supplier and consumers do not have different options to choose from so its sales may not decline or fluctuate in the long run. A business that has stable operations is said to have lower business risk because it can easily meet its debt requirements in future through its sales and returns. On the other hand, a business that is unstable may not be able to meet its debt requirements on time and that is why such a business is said to have a higher business risk. An organization’s financial is risk is denoted as the risk that an organization experiences other than its business risk and is

The Road to Hell Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

The Road to Hell - Essay Example They credited his actions for dynamic liberal regionalization program that led to success of the timely regionalization policy due to the good relation with the government (Gareth 817). The government had close relationship with Barracannia that later made it to be independent that contributed to critical and challenging attitude towards the role of foreign interest. The story of Road to Hell tries to evaluate peoples views towards issues related to racism in modern days. Issues related to racism is not easy to be solved using legalistic approaches, therefore, it requires deeper research and understanding to give pure proves that the human discrimination in relation to sex, skin color, origin has brought some major issues within a community, organization and even the societies. The story tries to explain how people from different cultures and backgrounds do not always take issues of diversity into consideration. Majority estimates each other by their own scales and perceptions that always lead to conflicts due to misunderstanding. According to the story, Baker appears to be a racist. However, people need to be educated on human right to be sensitive enough to have the feeling and immediate support should be provided to the victims by listening their views carefully and respect them.The main cause of racial discrimination has led to cross cultural misinterpretation that occurs when a person gives meaning to observation and their relationship (Adler 8). Some group see themselves superior than others which makes them have power to carry out racist. According to Pierce on Critical Race Theory, he came up with â€Å"one must not look for the gross and obvious† say that tried to explain the accumulation of today’s racism (Web). With reference to this theory, Baker has been viewed as a racist because Rennalls was correct in his evaluation between them and the acceptance of Rennalls

Equity and Trusts Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Equity and Trusts - Essay Example This is because, it is expected that for a transfer to be effective, the share transfer form should be filled in, and then submitted to the company, for the completion of the share transfer process in the name of the new shareholder3. However, the ruling in the case Penningon v Waine EWCA CIV 227 [2002] ignored this maxim, and instead pitched the ruling on the intended actions of the transferor. This makes the principle of unconscionability vague in that; as the ruling provided in the case Tunkl v. Regents of the University of California, [1963], it is not possible to effectively establish the intentions of the transferor at the time of his/her death. The principle of unconscionability operates on the basis of three concepts, which are exploitation of weakness, duress and undue influence4. The holds that if any transfer is effected on the basis of any of the three concepts, where the transferor was forced to undertake the action out of severe pressure being exerted on him/her, then t he law, as was provided in the case Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. [1965], considers such a transfer as unconscionable, since it was undertaken contrary to the good conscious of the transferor, thus making such a transfer ineffective5. In such a case, the ruling considers the exertion of pressure that arises from the beneficiary of the contract, and thus nullifies the agreement on the basis of the transferor having been forced to undertake an action that was against his or her conscious will. However, the law is silent regarding the exertion of pressure on a transferor by circumstances which are entirely outside the defendant’s control, and thus the pressure arising from a non-beneficiary is not provided a remedy6. Therefore, owing to the silent nature of the law regarding the action to be undertaken in case of the exertion of pressure by a third party, the law becomes vague and unspecific, which then renders the judgment made in application of the principle of uncon scionability not a good law. The principle of unconscionability was established in the Re Rose [1952], where the court observed that if everything had been done to transfer the title from the transferor to the transferee, but a delay has be caused by the operation of the law, then the gift of transfer still remains effective, as long as the transfer is not affected by the contrary conscious will of the transferor7. This provision pitches the validity of the delay on the routine operation of the law8. However, in the case Penningon v Waine EWCA CIV 227 [2002], the delay was caused by the failure of Mr. Pennington to submit the transfer form to the company, and thus the delay in this case does not fit into the routine operation of the law9. Therefore, the ruling under the case Penningon v Waine EWCA CIV 227 [2002], was not undertaken on the basis of the legal delay, but out of a mistake that emanated from the representative of the company’s auditors. However, the explanation gi ven by Lord Justice Arden in this case was that it would have been unconscionable for Ada, the transferor in this case, to change her

Natural Rights Theory

Natural Rights Theory Natural rights are perceived as the inherent and original rights of human nature, which equally belong to all men without exception, and which are possessed solely because of their human condition.ÂÂ  They are held to stem from a concept of natural law, whatever definition may be attributed to the term. The theory of natural law and natural rights of man is, however, an obscure one. It seems a strange law, which is unwritten, has never been enacted, may even be observed without penalty, and imposes peculiar rights which are entitled prior to all specific claims within an organised society. It may be just an example of social mythology, but such an idea is still intriguing. For, to disregard it completely is to deny all its evident psychological, political and legal effects, and to adopt it fully is to be blind to mans own imperfections. That men are entitled to make certain claims by virtue simply of their common humanity has been equally passionately defended and vehemently den ied.[Â  [1]Â  ] H. L. A. Hart once asserted that if there are any moral rights at all, it follows that there is at least one natural right, the equal right of all men to be free.[Â  [2]Â  ] And the proposition that all men have natural rights or rights as human beings is found explicitly in the theories of Thomas Aquinas and John Locke, implicitly in the moral and political philosophy of Immanuel Kant, and at least problematic in the writings of Thomas Hobbes. At the level of practise, it is expressed not only in the rhetoric but in the constitutional innovations of the American and French Revolutions, stating that the end in view of every political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptable rights of man.[Â  [3]Â  ] When the ordinary citizen acts as a living and protesting individual, challenging the dictates of existing governments when and if he finds them oppressive, he is appealing to the very same values of freedom and equality among men, and in which social differe nces simply vanish, leaving the solitary individual with his essential human nature. Both conservative and socialist thinkers, however, have attempted to deny such claims, and instead assert the interests of the community as more important than those of the individual. As Karl Marx would put it, none of the so-called rights of man goes beyond egoistic man, an individual withdrawn behind his private interests and whims and separated from the community.[Â  [4]Â  ] The same idea and the same controversies have dominated political debates in the twentieth century regarding governmental practises. The importance of a persons rights to individuality and freedom from interference is central to the moral and political theories of such subjectivist thinkers as J. L. Mackie and David Hume. However, by no one has the theory of natural rights ever been properly justified or denied, or at least not as it has been defined and debated. Questions are then posed as to, why people should suppose that they have natural rights independent of the laws and governments of any existing society? If, for example, the laws of a society condemn a human being to slavery, how would his claim (if any) that freedom is a natural right of man be justified? And, if it could be said that there is an essential aspect of human nature which determines mans free status, a natural law which applies to all men, something in man which governs the relations of human beings independently of the laws of all particular societies, how can such natural facts be discovered if they have never been confirmed by observation? The answer may be contained in the proposition that man uniquely possesses the powers of reason. Thus, Roman lawyers, who were not the first to discuss natural law or natural rights, but the first to posit the theory defensibly, conceived of it as an ideal or standard, not yet completely exemplified in any existing legal code, but also as a standard fixed by nature to be discovered and gradually applied by men.[Â  [5]Â  ] It is a standard not created or conferred by mans voluntary action, but by nature, or God, and which all men have if they are capable of rational choice. According to Thomas Hobbes, the state of nature in which man lived before the social contract was a war of every Man against every Man,[Â  [6]Â  ] a condition of internecine strife in which the life of man was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.[Â  [7]Â  ] Thomas Hobbes believed that self-preservation was the great lesson of natural law and that law and government would become necessary as a means of promoting order and personal security. For each citizen to preserve his own life, he must give absolute and unconditional obedience to the law. Hobbes political theory is best understood if separate in two parts: his theory of Human Motivation, Psychological Egoism, and his theory of the Social Contract. The direction of this assessment will look exclusively to Hobbes theory of Social Contract. The social contract is used by Hobbes in defense of absolutism and is thus used to justify authoritarian government. Hobbes own goal was to rule out the legitimacy of civil rebellion and thus to eliminate the possibility of civil war, which he regarded as the greatest of evils. Hobbes informs us that we should infer the characteristics of political obligation from the intention of him that submitteth himself to his power, which is to be understood by the end for which he so submitteth.[Â  [8]Â  ] The use of a social contract to construct a natural rights doctrine is articulated most fully in the writings of John Locke.[Â  [9]Â  ] To Locke the state of nature that preceded the social contract was not, as conceived by Hobbes, one of brutal horror, but rather a golden age, an Eden before the Fall. In the state of nature, men have the right to freedom from interference by others and in turn a correlative duty to refrain from interfering in the life of others. However, at the same time, all men may be restrained from invading others rights, and from doing hurt to one another, the execution of the law of nature and preservation of individual natural rights is put into every mans hands, whereby everyone has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such degree, as may hinder its violation.[Â  [10]Â  ] Men have an obligation to preserve to the best of their ability the life, liberty and property to which others also have natural rights, as long as his own preservation comes not in competition.[Â  [11]Â  ] In moving from the state of nature to that of civil society, man carries with him the natural rights and some of the authority he had in that state of autonomy. There are certain powers, however, that man gives up in subjecting himself to civil authority. He gives up that power he had to do whatever he sees fit for the preservation of his life, since this power is to be regulated by the laws made by society. Man therefore signs a social contract, surrendering the power of punishing, which is to be so far disposed of by the legislative, as the good of society shall require. But he never surrenders his rights, and thus government is obliged to secure everyones property [liberty, life and possessions], by providing against those defects that made the state of nature so unsafe and uneasy.[Â  [12]Â  ] Man did not enter society to become worse than he was before, but only to have his natural rights better secured. When social contract theorists talk of the rights which men enjoyed in the state of nature, they are in effect saying what men ought to enjoy in any society, that all men ought to be free, independent of their social condition. Words like freedom and equality represented for the advocates of natural rights what they considered to be the fundamental moral and social values, which should be realised in any society of rational citizens. These values, and hence natural rights, in the social contract, are the basis for rights embedded in the clauses of constitutions. The fundamental purpose of law is therefore considered to be the protection of individual rights. In reality, however, positive laws of society are somewhat imperfect. Until a law was enacted in order to abolish slavery, slaves ought to have been free but clearly were not. Even though man seemed to be entitled by nature to natural rights, which might be denied to him by the positive laws of existing societies, the natural law and natural rights were impotent. The Social Contract approach to natural law culminated in the writing of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. As Barker has noted: Rousseau is a Janus-like figure in the history of natural law. He turns to it and belongs to it, he turns away from it and it belongs elsewhere.[Â  [13]Â  ] There are two distinct social contract theories by Rousseau. The first one is, Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men, usually referred to as the Second Discourse, and is a relation of the moral and political evolution of human beings over time, from a State of Nature to modern society. As such it contains his naturalized description of the social contract, which he sees as very problematic. The second is his normative or idealized theory of the social contract, and is meant to provide the means by which to lighten the problems that modern society has created for us, as laid out in the Second Discourse. Rousseaus idea of a state of nature is closer to Lockes than Hobbes, though without Lockes emphasis on the sanctity of property. Rousseau, the social contract is a mystical construct by which the individual merges into the community and becomes part of the general will. Preferably the people should govern themselves. But, as he acknowledged, it is unimaginable that the people should remain continually assembled to devote their time to public affairs.[Â  [14]Â  ] Law is the register of general will. Government can only be tolerated so long as it accurately reflects the general will. On the other hand, Rousseau insists that whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body: he will be forced to be free.[Â  [15]Â  ] What Rousseau is saying is that disobedience is morally illegitimate because it constitutes a failure to discharge a moral obligation a citizen incurred when acting as a citizen. Rousseau is, however, refusing to draw a distinction be tween law and morality: the general will is the moral will of each citizen. Rousseaus social contract theories outline a single, consistent view of our moral and political situation. We are gifted with freedom and equality by nature, but our nature has been contaminated by our contingent social history. We can overcome this sleaze, however, by calling upon our free will to reconstitute ourselves politically, along strongly democratic principles, which is good for us, both individually and collectively. [Â  [16]Â  ] If morality is not to be discovered but to be made, one may say that there are no real natural rights as described above by Lockes theories. Natural events cannot tell us what we ought to do until we have made certain decisions. Whether moved by reason or sentiment, or both, standards of behaviour are determined by human choice, not set by nature independently of men. And no man can have any valid rights in the absence of a society. That is not to argue in favour of the communitarian point of view that there can be no individual rights but it is to assert that human beings need one another in order to fully exercise all their rights. One may say that someone has the right to life only because someone else might have the power to kill him. For, if there were no else in the universe, there would be no need for protection, there would be no need for rights. Human beings can only vindicate their rights in relation to others, for human beings can only live in relation to others. It can thus be concluded that (human) rights are the product of social conditions, of mans general desire for harmonious relations and his instinct of self-preservation in a community of different and often conflicting interests. Hence, neither can there be no natural rights, as understood to be ordained by God, or, as many libertarians would defend, to be discovered by reason. Rather, mens own imperfections have made individual rights a natural quality of human beings. If they are thought to originate outside of human nature and interactions, natural rights are defiable; but nonetheless, in day-to-day life, we simply assume that we have these human rights. It may be a product of human imagination, and it probably is but we like to think that they are real.

Carton?s Change Essays -- essays research papers

It is human nature to carry a beast deep down within oneself. Whether one chooses to control the beast or be controlled by it is an individual choice. He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man. Most repress their inner rage, but some let it loose and lose that which makes them a human being. In the novel A tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens, Sydney Carton is not the man he initially appears to be. Sydney’s love for Lucie changed him greatly, and allowed him to become a better person. Sydney Carton’s final act of supreme courage in Paris is not an inspired emotional response, but a deliberate, carefully reasoned act. In the novel A Tale of Two Cities Sydney Carton drastically changes his life around and becomes a new man, which allows him to die with a clear conscience.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Sydney Carton is not the man he initially appears to be. Sydney is first described at Darnay’s trial as slouching and not paying attention to the proceedings of the court. He is portrayed as drunk, and even admits this to Darney at dinner. â€Å"’A last word, Mr. Darney: you think I am drunk? I think you have been drinking, Mr. Carton. Think? You know I have been drinking. Since I must say so, I know it. Then you shall likewise know why I am a disappointed drudge sir.’† (Dickens 91) Sydney feels that there is no hope for him, and that his life will never improve. Carton has much more potential, and could be so much more in life, yet he remains in the shadow of others happy to do the work of others. â€Å" Sydney had been working double tides that night, and the night before, and the night before that, and a good many nights in succession, making a grand clearance among Stryvers papers before the setting in of the long vacation. (Dickens 140) Carton has ma ny repressed feelings and memories, which he keeps hidden deep down within himself. He is a lonely man because of these repressed emotions and memories, which make Sydney turn toward drink.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The more Carton attempts to confront his problems, the more he resorts to recklessness and drinking. Sydney feels that no one cares for him, so he cannot care for another. â€Å"’I care for no man on earth and no man on earth cares for me.’† (Dickens 91) Carton’s memories of growing up without care eat away at him, and turn him away from other people, into solitude. Ca... ...ried away on the tumbrils to La Guillotine, he thinks philosophically about the future and even quotes a few scriptures. Before Carton is beheaded his mind becomes clear. He looks at his life and knows he is going to a far better place. â€Å"`It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.`† (Dickens 367) Carton’s carefully reasoned act of saving Charles Darnay was a truly heroic deed. Even though it was partly self-sacrifice, Carton still had a promise to uphold to Lucie and he wasn’t going to back out on it. Sydney Carton picks up the pieces of his broken life and becomes a new man, which allows him to die with a clear conscience at La Guillotine. Carton is not the man he is first portrayed to be. His love for Lucie allowed him to change greatly. Carton’s final act of supreme courage for Darnay and Lucie in Paris was not an inspired emotional response, but a deliberate, carefully reasoned act. Sydney Carton managed to drastically change his life. His Love for Lucie let him experience feelings that he had long suppressed. He became a compassionate individual, and died with a clear conscience.