The Queen Versuse Dudley And Stephens

The Queen Versuse Dudley And Stephens In this report, I will be using the sited case The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens (1884) with reference to the relevant moral philosophies to anlayse what are the possible options that people would decide when they are in the same situation as Dudley. Four English sailors were trapped at sea in a small lifeboat in the South Atlantic, over a thousand miles from land. They had only two cans of preserved turnips and no fresh water. They had been without food and water for several days. And finally, Captain Thomas Dudley suggested killing Richard Parker so that they could feed on him. Dudley and Stephens ended up killing Parker, and ate him to survive. They were rescued four days later and went to trial. They were sentenced to death penalty; however, their sentence was reduced to six months imprisonment later. 2 Utilitarianism and Categorical Imperative According to Jeremy Bentham (1748 1832), the utilitarian philosophy states that the right thing to do is whatever will maximize utility. He meant utility as whatever produces pleasure or happiness and whatever prevents pain or sufferings. He had made the assumption that human are governed by the feelings of pain and pleasure and that human like pleasure and dislike pain. This doctrine said that the right thing to do is whatever produces the greatest good for the greatest number. On the other hand, Immanuel Kant (1724 1804) provides us with another alternative philosophy Categorical Imperative. He said that categorical locates morality in certain duties and right regardless of the consequences. He regards morality not as to maximize happiness but rather regard people as an end, and never as a means to an end. We should treat people with respect and not use them as mere instruments. 3 Moral and Ethical Issues Raised Some moral issues raised from this case would be that Would it be morally justified to kill an innocent person out of necessity in order to prevent many other innocent persons from dying?; Would it makes a difference if Parker gave consent to be the one being killed? and Will it be morally justified to feed on Parker, assuming he died naturally? Some may argue that it would be essential to kill one person in order to save three lives. In this case, they support Benthams utilitarianism. While others might oppose the idea of utilitarianism and argue that Parker would have the right to live and to kill a person is considered as murder regardless of the reason which suggests the doctrine of categorical imperative. 4 Viewpoints of Captain Thomas Dudley and Edwin Stephen Both Dudley and Stephen claimed that they killed and ate Parker. Under the extreme situation, they had no choice but to kill someone out of necessity. Why is necessity so important to the extent that someone will kill another person in order to save the many other people? According to Oxford dictionary, necessity is defined as a thing that you must have and cannot manage without. Maslows hierarchy of needs states that you have to fulfill the basic physiological needs before other needs. Physiological needs refer to food, air, water, breathing, nutrition, etc. Dudley and Stephen were faced with the situation without food and water, which are considered as their basic needs. I believe that in this case, the fear of dying (without food and water for several days) makes them do anything in order to survive for a short while longer to sustain hope of rescue. Their own lives and families motivated them to kill Parker. The decision made might be unacceptable by others. During near-death experience, Parker was regarded as food to them; they would not think that it is morally wrong by eating him. Majority in the same situation as them would have probably done the same thing. For instance, people suffering from famine, often turn to practice cannibalism as a last resort. During the famine period (1609 1610) in colonial Jamestown, colonists turned to cannibalism. One man was confessed to have killed and eaten his pregnant wife out of necessity (Colonial Williamsburg, 2007). They figured out that the best decision that will benefit most of the people would be to kill Parker, the weakened and ill, since he is the most likely to die before them. I have made an assumption that they had used Benthams idea of utility a common currency of value to evaluate the benefits. They had translated human life into monetary terms. They had families to support unlike Parker who had no dependents. Therefore, the death of Parker will not only benefit Dudley and Stephen, but also their families in terms of financial support and no grieving over lost of their families. They do not regard this as morally incorrect as they think that the decision made was for the greatest good for the greatest number. Professor Michael Sandels example The Runway Trolley shows that most of the people would turn the trolley car onto the side track, killing one person instead of five persons for the first scenario. This is similar to the case of Dudley and Stephen where they killed one person in order to save more people except that in the trolley case is not cannibalism. They have made the same decision as what the majority will do. 5 Viewpoints of Dudley and Stephens Families Their interests would be that Dudley and Stephen ought to have the right to live. I supposed they supported utilitarianism where Dudley and Stephen would be considered as morally justified to have eaten Parker out of necessity. I think that the idea of the greatest good for the greatest number is supported by their families. Without this, Dudley and Stephen would be deem as criminal and maybe sentenced to death. They considered their welfare as a whole would be more beneficial than having all four sailors to die, leaving their families with grieve and no support. 6 Viewpoints of Richard Parker Dudley and Stephens disrespected Parkers individual rights. Everyone have the right to live, however, utilitarianism only concerns about the sum of satisfactions. In Parkers viewpoints, I think that he would favour impartiality, where he gets the right to choose. Impartiality would mean that each persons interests are equally important; from the moral point of view, there are no privileged persons. We must recognise other peoples welfare as important as their own. Another issue raised is that he is an orphan and he had no dependents, does this mean that they could violate Parkers individual rights? The United States Declaration of Independence declared in 1766 that all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I think that Parker prefers categorical imperative than utilitarianism. Categorical treat people as end instead of treating the person as a tool to achieve something else. It would be morally wrong, to use Parker as a tool for their own survival. 7 Viewpoints of General Public General public would be interested to know how this verdict would impact future similar cases. Precedent becomes binding and must be followed by courts of same rank. If judge allows the use of necessity as a defence, then there will be a higher risk of more atrocious crime. And the problem rise with who should decide what is considered as necessity. 8 My Stand as Captain Thomas Dudley If I were Dudley, I would not kill Parker and rather wait for rescue under the same circumstances. I would define moral as the principles of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong. I would support categorical imperative in this situation. The reasons for my choice are as below: Individual rights I believe that human have certain fundamental rights. Kant mentioned that every person is worthy of respect, not because we own ourselves but because we are rational beings, capable of reason; we are also autonomous beings, capable of acting and choosing freely. We should take into account of individual needs. However, utilitarianism would argue that by taking account of individual needs rather than the overall needs would produce greater unhappiness over happiness. Utilitarianism requires us to promote the general welfare which results in no priority given to our own interests. It stated that every persons life and interest rank equally with everyone elses. For instance, if a parent thinks that by sacrificing his child to be burned in a building, thinking that someone else in the building should be saved as their future contribution to the general welfare seems greater than the childs. (Cyndi Banks, 2004) I would think that the parents act as immoral. This is because family and friends are not just members of humanity, they are special to us and if we were to show no more concern for their welfare than others, it just does not seem right. I think to put a common currency of value to human life would be inappropriate. Human life is beyond calculations and assigning monetary terms to it does not suffice. This is because money could not buy health (life). Murder is murder, innocent Moreover, I think that murder is considered as fundamentally wrong, no matter under what situation; murder is still not morally permissible. No doubt that sometimes murder is use as self-defense, but it would still be morally wrong. If they were to do so, then what is the difference between them and the person who is causing danger to them? For example, in the case of terrorists, they killed thousands of people so as to achieve their purpose. When these terrorists were caught by the police, they interrogated and tortured them. In this way, the police are acting like the terrorists where they use others so as to achieve their goal. Kant said that we should not use people as instruments to achieve their own goals. I would agree to his idea that individual has the rights to live and it is unfair to make use of them to achieve their goal. Some may say that the terrorists deserved for what they have done. However, Parker is innocent, he did not do anything wrong to Dudley and Stephen nor did he choose to die. Consent This raised another issue of whether consent were given by Parker, would be morally justifiable for Dudley to do so. I think that the consent given by Parker would be a good reason (but not necessary the morally right reason) for Dudley to kill him. This merely lessens Dudleys guilt, but still morally incorrect. It does not mean that the permission given to do something would be morally correct. For example, if A were to give permission to B to kill C, does this mean that B is correct? I believe that everyone would agree that B is wrong. Necessity Parker had no family whereas Dudley and Stephen had families at home. They were without food and water for numerous days and the decision to kill Parker might have save the rest. I understand that under extreme situation, the fear of dying would make someone do something that he or she would not have done previously. However, this does not permit them to kill parker. I think that under no circumstances that someone has the power to voluntary take another persons life. Lord Denning laid down the general approach from the case of Southwark London Borough Council v Williams (1971) that necessity should be denied as a defence otherwise anarchy and disorder would follow. He add on that if hunger was allowed to become the basis of necessity, any poor person might seek to justify burglary to steal food by saying that he or she had reasonable believed that this was a response to the threat of malnutrition. As a rational person, I believe that this would not be what the general public would want. Therefore, even in Benthams point of view, to measure the overall happiness, I think it would be more appropriate to consider the general public instead of just Dudley, Stephen and their families. It would be morally wrong for Dudley and Stephen to kill Parker. Die naturally and feed on parker? 9 Conclusion I think that people will determine the right thing to do (whether involved or as onlookers), and decide based on different philosophies for different situations. They tend not to follow one particular philosophy at all times. For example, the case of ticking time bomb, where torturing of terrorist is required to reveal the bombs location (Michael Sandel, 2009). I believe majority would support the idea of torturing the terrorist to save thousands of lives even we are uncertain of whether he knows about the location. I still think that it would be morally wrong to torture the terrorist because I do not want to act like a terrorist. However, I think that it is not about right or wrong but rather you must do it even though you knew it was wrong. The difference between this case and Dudleys case would be the impact. In the terrorists case, not only thousands of lives are involved, the impact is greater where other countries might also be affected as well (financial and tourism). Secondly, I think that guilty does not equate to morally incorrect and vice versa. Similarly, law and morality are not the same, and many things may be immoral which are not necessarily illegal. If these men were to be found innocent, it would signal the divorce of law from morality. Lastly, I think that it would be a wise decision for not allowing necessity to be used as defence. Just like what Lord Denning had said, by allowing necessity as a defence, disorder would follow. Then what is the purpose for having law and justice? Law is to uphold the justice in society, if necessity can be used as defence, and then there would be a lot of excuses of the wrongdoer.

On the Concept of National Community

The piece On the Concept of National Community by Cesar Adib Majul simply discusses about Dr. Jose Rizal’s analysis in his community during his time and his analysis about it too. The piece mainly discusses about the basic defects that can be observed, that is traceable to the Filipinos. First, the defects of their educational training at home and in the schools and second is the lack of the national sentiment. As you go further on the piece, you’ll find yourself discovering how Dr. Jose Rizal tried to make the Filipinos understand what â€Å"national sentiment† is and how its absence affects the society Filipinos are into.How he tries to develop it in each and every Filipino through his writings for he believed that its development might not only reduce indolence but might slowly inevitably do away with what was depressive and stifling in the colonial regime. The first one that was discussed was about the kind of educational system the Filipinos have during Span ish regime. The attempt at personal improvement beyond the formal curricular requirements was judged by the authorities as presumptuous. How the educational system stifled the development of every Filipino which would have become productive and progressive.The second that was discussed which covers almost entirely the whole piece was about the absence of national sentiment and how each works of Dr. Jose Rizal tries to put it in every reader. And this is the thing I want to focus on. Dr. Jose Rizal’s work are complex, it is difficult to discover a positive description of what he called national sentiment but he characterized situations that reflected its absence, and in at least one case, he pointed out an evil in the society that might be due to its absence. According to the piece, there are three negative characterizations which can be found in La Indolencia de los Filipinos.The first one was an absence of national sentiment that allowed the individual â€Å"to be guided by his fancy and his self-love. † Which was portrayed by the character named Dona Victorina in Noli Me Tangere due to her desire to imitate the mannerisms, the idiosyncrasies and everything associated with the Spaniards, she succeeded only in making herself ridiculous. It is still observed in these modern days. How other Filipinos are more interested of imitating the foreign countries’ products, their language, and even their lifestyles not only among rich people but also among the average ones.It is very heart breaking to see how others have forgotten or does not pay attention to the great things that their own country have. They even leave the country and choose to stay to another country in great belief that they have more chances to be progressive out there. They are so absorbed in the other countries culture leaving behind our own. Secondly, the lack of national sentiment brings another evil †¦ which is the absence of all opposition to measures prejudicial to th e people. Another character without national sentiment was Basilio in El Filibusterismo.In spite of reminders by Simoun regarding injustices visited upon his mother and his brother, Basilio was not willing to take any risk in defense of justice. He had attained some achievement in the academic world, and he was graduating as a physician in a few months. He deemed it important not to alienate the authorities for fear that all he had been working for would be scattered to the winds. Basilio maybe wanted to have revenge for his mother and brother but he chooses not to for fear of opposing the authorities and would bring harm to his future.The problem need not be one of revenge but one of preventing future injustices. Essentially, the problem is that of national sentiment because the issue raised is whether one should oppose the injustices occurring in the future, regardless of possible consequences to him who opposes. This too is still observed in our country. It can be observed from s mallest crime committed (someone being rob or abused in public but those who sees them does not try to get involved in fear of harming their own life) up to the largest one (a corruption that has been witnessed but choose to shut in silence in fear of losing his own position) .Injustice still lingers in our country and it seems that it does not stop. If only one could let himself involved and does not let himself outranked its personal interest and comfort to the social society it would have been a very different society, different story for all of us. Thirdly, the lack of national sentiment brought about â€Å"the absence of any initiative in whatever may redound to its good (the peoples)†. The character who vividly portrayed this was Senor Pasta in El Filibusterismo he was in position to do something for what could contribute; it was believed, to the ultimate betterment of Filipino society.But he considered the whole project as one involving personal risks and he was afraid of reprisals from vested interests. However, it is more important to note that Senor Pasta was a man who used to work for himself and who did not have the conception of other interests more general and socially more important than his own particular or personal ones. This is again observed until now. How each people ignore their chances to participate on something which could lead to social improvement. There are lots of things that the piece discussed but these are the things that caught my attention. Sad to say but the national sentiment Dr.Jose Rizal wants each Filipino to develop or to have hasn’t been absorbed yet. These dilemmas that he has seen and does not want to continue are still haunting our country. If Dr. Jose Rizal is still around and is planning to write a novel or essay to tell people and make them realize how important national sentiment and loyalty to country is, I would ask him to make me a part of it for I portray each of the three negative effect of abs ence of the national sentiment. The first one is the absence of national sentiment that allowed the individual â€Å"to be guided by his fancy and his self-love.† I disregard Filipino songs or movies because I find it cliched. And I even consider working in the other country and live there because I find it unprogressive here in our beloved country. And I am so much interested with the literature and kind of education system in other countries that if I ever have the chance to choose where to study I’d be more than willing to go there. These are the few things of the many I had which falls on the first of the three negative characterizations of absence of national sentiment. I strongly believe that I am not the only one who has this kind of thought.Instead of thinking what could be done to improve the problems that our country is facing some would prefer to think of their way out into it by leaving the country. Secondly, the lack of national sentiment brings another ev il †¦ which is the absence of all opposition to measures prejudicial to the people. Opposing the authorities is a very sensitive issue to face. Maybe people choose not to get involve for the fear of harming himself and his family. He maybe just wants to protect himself from the powerful hand of the authority not knowing that what he was doing is giving the injustice a chance to happen again.Like letting the â€Å"kotong cops† get your money just to let you pass in a traffic violation thinking that opposing them would just aggravate the situation so you just let them do what they want. It may sound stupid that people are letting this to happen instead of calling the authorities to stop these little corruption but if you are going to ask me and some people we would just let them get what they wanted because in my opinion the fear of the consequences if you oppose them. And how can you even report this to the authorities if the authorities themselves are the ones who are do ing the crime?Thirdly, the lack of national sentiment brought about â€Å"the absence of any initiative in whatever may redound to its good (the peoples)†. Some thinks that being involved or not won’t make any difference in some issues the country is facing which too bad I have thought of too. From the simplest signature campaign that was about an â€Å"anti† or â€Å"pro† ideas up to the invitation to join the movement for this or that. People are too busy with their own lives and pay little attention to what’s going on with their society or sometimes it’s just their indolence to participate into some movements about social improvements.Like for example is for the election of the president or voting time. Some people do not participate into it. Saying they are too busy or whether thy vote or not our country wouldn’t grow or improve. Or in a simpler situation and a situation I’ve been too, like protest groups are asking me to j oin in their movement to fight for education or human rights but I just shrugged my shoulders on the idea thinking it would cost me so much efforts and time even I in the other hand can also see what was wrong in the system and what they’re fighting for.After reading the piece it made me realize of how important national sentiment is and the things that would happen if only everyone would have it. I’ve realized that reading the history of the Philippines, singing the national anthem or saying â€Å"I’m proud of my country† does not make me patriotic instead a true patriotic Filipino have their national sentiment and let himself involve in things that could help his country improve or grow.

On the Subway Essay

â€Å"On the Subway† is a poem by Sharon Olds that unfolds â€Å"to convey a sense of fear, ambiguity, inequality, and inner city tension. The situation is set by the title, and this makes all that follows clear as far as its meaning is concerned.†(para. 1). Ms. Olds tells the story through the narrator who while riding the train observes that she is alone with a young black boy. â€Å"While nothing really happens beyond the two observing each other, the poem still manages to shed light to inequality, prejudice, and stereotypes.†(para 1). The poem begins with the narrator telling the story of the two of them alone on the subway train through her observations and predisposed prejudices. There are many Symbolic references about class, race, and inequality made throughout the story. As the story begins the first symbolic reference unfolds as the narrator describes the boy’s feet and his shoes. As she goes on to further describe the boy’s shoe laces we get the sense of the imbalance of equality of the races. While the sneakers themselves are black it is the laces that are white and form a complex pattern which is referred to as intentional scars. The author uses the white laces to symbolize the imbalance of power that the young boy has had have more power to face as a minority. They also suggest that since the laces keep the shoes on or together that they. The laces could also be symbolic of the markings left on the boys’ ancestors back in the day when they were slaves and had received a beating thus bearing the scars of the beating. The woman also uses the boy’s clothing to further symbolize the stereotypes and the injustices between the races. She is fearful of the boy because of the type of clothing that he wears. She feels that because he is dressed in clothing that is considered to be more urban and open that he was dressed like someone who would be a mugger. The woman who was clothed in fur was covered. The woman is fearful of being attacked because she is more affluent and therefore more of a target. Both the boy and the woman are sizing each other and without really knowing one another they both have their own feelings about each other. The boy knows that since the woman is a white woman she is covered in fur and therefore she has more affluence and power. The woman is truly fearful of the boy because of her own preconceived thoughts about race. She cannot look passed what the boy looks like woman is uncertain of the boy. She looks at him with fear that he can attack her at any moment because of he r affluence. The author continues to discuss the separation of races by discussing how much easier it is to be a White person than it is to be an African American. The poem indicates that being white offers privileges that being African American does not. It is the color of her skin that has provided her with better opportunity and separated her from the boy on the train. This poem is relevant today as it exemplifies stereotypes and inequalities that are still present in our society. The woman on the train represents wealth and power. The boy represents missed opportunity and poverty. The woman on the train feared that she was going to be attacked by the boy on the train simply because of past experiences and making judgments on someone simply based on the color of his skin and how he was dressed. Chances are that had the boy on the train been white the woman on the train would not have the same fear or feel the same way. Even in our society today we have people who are still quick to make rash judgments while not having all the facts or making a decision based on past experience. I also think the poem does reference some compassion between the boy and the woman by the end of the poem as the woman mentions that both races can be misunderstood and that both of them can get hurt or be harmed by being judged. They each have struggles that they have to overcome.

The Duty of Obligation Essays

The Duty of Obligation Essays The Duty of Obligation Paper The Duty of Obligation Paper Essay Topic: Second Treatise of Government In this paper I will show the circumstances under which parents have a stronger obligation to care for their children, in accordance with Locke’s concept of tacit consent. I will also describe the certain conditions in which children should obey their parents using the idea of Rawls’ fair play. When a couple decides to have a child they are agreeing to be responsible for the life they bring into the world. According to Locke, the conditions for tacit consent begin with being aware of the situation and the consequences. Secondly, there must be a period of consideration available. Thirdly, the consequences of not accepting cannot be detrimental. Therefore, when a couple has sex knowing that they run the risk of pregnancy, they are aware of the situation. When a couple finds out that the woman is pregnant and they talk about possible outcomes, this suffices a consideration period and provides a reasonable way to express objections. For the third requisite the couple only has two options. They can choose to have the baby or they can choose to have an abortion. The option they choose depends on which outcome would be most detrimental to them personally. For example, a 13 year-old girl who gets pregnant might feel that being pregnant could jeopardize her life in a social or educational aspect. She may feel it is more detrimental than another person who is in the same situation but does not believe in abortion. Locke would suggest the best decision would be the most moral one. Thus, let us assume the couple has the child but cannot provide for it. Imagine that they were young, did not have a steady income and had no place to live so they gave the child up for adoption. Locke would argue that this is the most moral alternative for the couple. The child has a right from the parents to receive the basic means to survive: Conjugal society is made by a voluntary compact between man and woman; and though it consist chiefly in such a communion and right in one another’s bodies as is necessary to its chief end, procreation: yet it draws with it mutual support and assistance, and a communion of interests too, as necessary not only to unite their care and affection, but also necessary to their common offspring, who have a right to be nourished and maintained by them, till they are able to provide for themselves. (Locke, 37) In the Second Treatise of Government Locke describes that a child has the right to be nourished and maintained by its parents until the child is able to tend for itself. If children have the right to be cared for by their parents, then the parents must be obligated to provide the necessary essentials for living. I think Locke would agree that if a couple could not offer their offspring the care and nourishment needed to survive, that finding someone who could would be the best solution in this case. If parents have an obligation to care for their children, do children therefore have an obligation to obey their parents? Under Rawls’ principle of fair play, children have an obligation to obey their parents if the circumstance meets certain stipulations. First, a mutually beneficial and just scheme of social cooperation must be present. Cooperation comes through some type of cost, or effort. Finally, the advantages that succumb can only be obtained if all, or nearly all cooperate. However, if the majority participates, benefits can still be obtained without cooperation. Let us imagine a situation in which a drug addict mother is raising a child alone. Suppose she has no job and is on welfare. One month she blows her entire check buying drugs and has no money to pay the rent. She tells her 11 year-old son to go out and sell drugs to try to get money to pay the bills. Her son disobeys her because he does not want to be a drug dealer and end up an addict like his mother. Rawls would assert that the son does not have an obligation to obey his mother. According to the principle of fair play, in this situation there is no scheme of social cooperation and there is no mutual benefits. Rawls would also argue that the child does not have a prima facie obligation to obey his mother: I shall assume, as requiring no argument, that there is, at least in a society such as ours, a moral obligation to obey the law, although it may, of course, be overridden in certain cases by other more stringent obligations. I shall assume that this obligation must rest on some general moral principle; that is, it must depend on some principle of justice or upon some principle of social utility or the common good, and the like. (Rawls, 144) If the child were to obey his mother he would be violating his own morals and the justice system. He disobeys his mother out of personal belief and the respect for the law. I will now describe a scenario in which Rawls would agree that the child has an obligation to obey his or her parents. Suppose two other children (teenagers) grow up in the same neighborhood as the drug addict mother and 11 year-old son from the previous example. In this example the mother works all day long in order to barely pay the bills and put food on the table. She tries to make sure that her children stay off the streets and helps them with their homework. The mother tells the children that they need to get after school jobs to help with the bills. Only one child obeys. This example complies with the requirements of the principle of fair play. Rawls would argue that in this instance, the units of the family are cooperative in the sense that the mother works extremely hard to provide the best environment she can for her children. The majority of the family cooperates and sacrifices to ensure the security of a place to call home. This example also shows how one can benefit from the situation by not cooperating. The teenager who did not get a job benefits from the hard work of the mother and sibling. The teenager who does not actively participate in contributing still benefits from having a roof over above their head, food, and electricity. Suppose we combine the two examples I have just described and form a third example in which a mother who works just as hard as the mother in example two but the children, despite the mothers good intentions, rebel and fall into dealing drugs and the life of crime. Let us suppose that in this scenario the teenagers are dealing drugs in the house and have no respect for their mother who earns an honest living to provide for them. In example one I explained how parents are obligated to care for their children through tacit consent. Locke stated that children have the right to be nourished and maintained by their parents until they are old enough to provide for themselves. It is illogical to think that in a situation such as this that a parent is responsible for paying the rent, providing nourishment, and showing affection to children who do not even respect the rules of the household. Is a parent still obligated to their children if their children’s actions jeopardize their moral beliefs, violate their parental authority, and place the family in danger? Perhaps what Locke means is that the parent must try to provide for their children. If the intention of the parent is to look after the welfare of their child even if the child disobeys the parent, the parent is still obliging to the rules of tacit consent. The parent still wishes to help and care for her children but if by doing so she is putting herself in severe danger she must take drastic measures. Locke strives for the good of the whole, â€Å"no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions†(Locke, 32). This idea that Locke applies to the Law of Nature can be applied to this example. Locke would likely argue that the mother should not have to subject herself to a dangerous atmosphere. Yet, she still is obligated to be concerned for welfare of her children despite their lifestyle and even if she cannot help them. In conclusion, a parent’s obligation to a child is stronger than a child’s obligation to a parent. The reason is because under tacit consent a parent agrees to take care of the child. Even if the child does not obey the parent when he should, the parent is still bound to see to his well-being. However, if the parent does not fulfill the obligations to the welfare of the child, the child does not have to obey the parent. To decide if a child has to obey his parents the situation or demand must be applied to the principle of fair play.

Substance abuse essays

Substance abuse essays My name is Clifford Wise Jr., Im going to tell you about my history of substance abuse. Then Im going to tell you about my attitude towards crime and drugs now. It all started when I was about 11 or 12 years old it was my first time skipping school. I was supposed wait for my cousin to come pick me up so we could go to the park, but I walked to the park and waited for him there and some high school students were skipping school there too so I met all of them and they asked me if I smoked weed and I told them no because I havent. Then they pulled out some cocaine and was snorting it and they asked me if I wanted to try it so I did, I snorted about 3 or 4 lines, but I didnt like the way it made me feel. About 30 minutes after that they pulled out a bag of weed and they put it in a metal pipe and started smoking it and they passed it to me so I smoked it and they were telling me to hold it in so I could get real high so I did. I hit it a couple of times and I started to feel real slow. After that day I started smoking it whenever it was around, then I started smoking like every other weekend, then I started smoking more and more until one da y I got caught with some at Marshall Middle School, which was the school I was going to at that time, and that is what I went to my first program for. After doing nine months in that program I was on aftercare for about 3 months, until I started smoking weed again, but this time it was different because I was doing it everyday several times a day. One day one of my old friends, Eric, told me about crystal meth, I was 16 at the time. He told me how it makes you feel and he was making it sound like a good thing, so I decided to try it and I liked it. I started smoking meth like every weekend with Eric until I started wanting more of it, but the thing about it is that I didnt have the money for it so I started stealing CD players, speakers, and speaker amplifiers so ...

Diversity in the Workplace Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Diversity in the Workplace - Research Paper Example Examples of such high power distances are found in countries like Spain, South America, Italy, Africa, Mexico and the European countries having a predominantly Latin population. The relationships between individuals working in the same organization are known as individualism – collectivism. According to Hofstede, a rich and developed nation gives more emphasis to the individual manner of its people and a poor and underdeveloped nation believes in dwelling in a collective manner. The third reference found by Hofstede, is that of the prejudices made on the criterion of genders. He explains this as the emphasis provided by a particular culture on gender equality and terms it as masculineness – womanhood. A male dominated society has clearly demarcated roles of woman and man. Such cultures are seen in countries like Italy, Greece, Venezuela, Switzerland and Japan. This is not the case in cultures which are predominantly feminine in nature. Here such roles can be interchange d and there exists greater equality and integration between both sexes. Such cultures are dominant in countries like Finland, Denmark, Netherlands and Sweden (Hofstede, 1996). The fear of the unknown is termed by Hofstede as the control of the incertitude. This fear is far more dominant in cultures which has a greater need for planning, order and security and can be viewed in countries like Greece, Japan, France, Belgium and Portugal. The fear of the unknown is far less in developed nations like United Kingdom, Sweden, United States of America and Denmark. Depending on the constraints of time which can be further divided into long and short, the factor of Confucianism – dynamism has been provided by Hosstede (Lynch, 2002). The societies which are the forbearers of Confucianism, advocate...International Business Machines or IBM displays a diverse and talented manpower. Getting the full advantage out of diversity is one of the primary aims of this multinational firm as it belie ves that diversity leads to obtaining competitive edge over rivals. One of the main functions of this organization’s focus on diversity in workforce is its promise to provide the same opportunities to all individuals (IBM, 2012). By IBM terms, diversity means that individual discrepancies are expected, encouraged and revered so that every personnel in order to enhance productivity, achievement and innovation. The main goal of this organization is to form and preserve a culture which makes personnel valued and welcomed to this firm by maximizing the best use of varied talents and make IBM as the organization of choice to its customers and workforce. Currently IBM is focusing on the below mentioned diverse networking clusters. a) Disabled people – This is an association of disabled personnel and has strong links with the wider groups and is one of the most active clusters in IBM. b) Flexibility – This is another set up which actively finds personnel open to job sharing, part time or other supple working choices. c) Women in technology – Another association aiming to encourage and bear the development, growth, recognition and advancement of IBM’s current female workforce in the technical area. d) In order to emphasize multiculturalism, IBM has especially come out with a cultural diversity group.

Peer review of classmate's paper Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Peer review of classmate's paper - Essay Example This provides the reader with very well organized information. Having read such a comparison essay, the reader can easily remember the conflicts of opinions of the scholars that were discussed in the essay. Block system, on the other hand, provides a writer with increased convenience but it does so, on the cost of the quality of comparison. In the block system of a comparison essay, the writer discusses the opinions of only one scholar in the whole paragraph or a series of paragraphs on several aspects of the subject under consideration, and later, totally discusses the views and opinions of the second scholar. This is exactly what you have done in a major part of the essay. In such a system, the reader forgets the essay’s status of a comparison essay, and takes it as a regular essay. Although the reader gains knowledge about the opinions of both the scholars, yet he/she may feel difficulty recapitulating conflicting views of the two scholars over specific aspects of the subje ct.