Tuesday, November 26, 2019
Problemas de viajar fuera de USA con visa U
Problemas de viajar fuera de USA con visa U  Si has aplicado para una visa U para và ctimas de crà menes, incluidos algunos casos de violencia domà ©stica,  o si tu solicitud ha sido aprobada puede que desees viajar fuera de EEUU. Pero,  ¿se puede hacer? La respuesta es que nadie puede impedir que se viaje. Pero es muy aconsejable no hacerlo. La razà ³n es que puede que no puedas regresar a Estados Unidos. Incluso si puedes, tomar su tiempo porque tendrs que ir al consulado y esperar por los trmites correspondientes. Por estos motivos, si ests en Estados Unidos y has pedido una visa U o si tu aplicacià ³n ha sido aprobada es muy recomendable que sà ³lo viajes  a otro paà s si es absolutamente necesario, siendo aconsejable que antes de viajar consultes tu caso con un abogado de inmigracià ³n especialista en este tipo de casos. Como este es un asunto muy serio, en este artà culo se explica quà © puede pasar si se viaja fuera de Estados Unidos, tanto mientras se tiene la solicitud de visa pendiente como si ya ha sido aprobada. Quà © se debe hacer si se necesita viajar y tambià ©n quà © momento es el ideal para viajar.  ¿Quà © puede pasar si se viaja fuera de Estados Unidos con visa U? Si sà ³lo has aplicado por la visa U ante el USCIS mediante el envà o de la planilla (forma) I-918 pero todavà a no tienes respuesta y viajas fuera de Estados Unidos necesitars ir a una embajada o un consulado americano para obtener la visa para regresar. Pero el proceso puede demorarse meses. En estos casos hay que esperar por la decisià ³n del USCIS. y aprueba la solicitud, iniciar la tramitacià ³n del visado. Y eso en el caso de que se apruebe. Si la aplicacià ³n de la visa U ha sido aprobada y viajas despuà ©s de dicha aprobacià ³n al extranjero tambià ©n es necesario ir a una embajada o consulado americano  para poder regresar. Esto es asà porque cuando el USCIS hizo su aprobacià ³n el à ºnico documento que entregà ³ fue un documento conocido como I-797C. Esto es simplemente una Nota de Accià ³n en la que se reconoce el estatus, pero no es una visa. Por lo tanto, hay que obtener una en una oficina consular de los Estados Unidos. Y este proceso puede demorarse meses. Adems, tanto en el caso de que se viaje fuera de EEUU cuando sà ³lo se tiene presentada la aplicacià ³n por la visa U como cuando se tiene aprobada la solicitud se corre un riesgo grande que que al presentarse al consulado la visa no sea aprobada. Las razones pueden ser variadas: Al estar en el extranjero no se ha recibido alguna notificacià ³n importante del USCIS.El gobierno considera que con este viaje se ha abandonado la peticià ³nEl gobierno dicen que al estar fuera se incumple con la obligacià ³n de colaborar con las autoridades, que es un requisito de este visado.Se puede considerar que no se sufre del alegado sufrimiento fà sico o psà quico que se ha alegado al solicitar la visa.  ¿Puedo viajar si antes de salir de Estados Unidos se solicita un advance parole? Esta opcià ³n sà ³lo es posible si la persona a la que se le ha aprobado la visa U ha pedido un ajuste de estatus mediante el envà o de la planilla I-485. Sà ³lo en este caso, y nunca antes, es posible solicitar el advance parole. En todo caso resaltar que es necesario poder alegar razones vlidas para el viaje. No se trata de que simplemente se quiere ver a la familia, etc. Problemas muy serios a tener siempre en cuenta Si un inmigrante ha permanecido en Estados Unidos ilegalmente por ms de seis meses seguidos se le va a aplicar el castigo de los tres y los diez aà ±os. Esto hace que sea muy problemtico salir del paà s porque puede ser dificilà simo volver a entrar hasta que pase el tiempo impuesto en el castigo. Y esto es asà incluso en los casos en los que se viaja con un advance parole en mano y al llegar a las aduanas y fronteras de EEUU no se permite ingresar al paà s.  ¿Cundo se puede viajar sin problemas fuera de Estados Unidos? Realmente lo ideal es cuando ya se obtiene la tarjeta de residencia, tambià ©n conocida como green card. La visa U puede transformarse despuà ©s de 4 aà ±os y mediante un ajuste de estatus en una residencia. Una vez que se obtienes ya se puede viajar y regresar a Estados Unidos. Este es un artà culo informativo. No es asesorà a legal.
Saturday, November 23, 2019
Humpty Dumptys Philosophy of Language
Humpty Dumptys Philosophy of Language In Chapter 6 of Through the Looking Glass Alice meets Humpty Dumpty, who she recognizes immediately since she knows about him from the nursery rhyme. Humpty is a bit irritable, but he turns out to have some thought-provoking notions about language, and philosophers of language have been quoting him ever since. Must a Name Have a Meaning? Humpty begins by asking Alice her name and her business:            ‘My name is Alice, but––‘           ‘It’s a stupid name enough!’ Humpty Dumpty interrupted impatiently. ‘What does it mean?’           ‘Must a name mean something?’ Alice asked doubtfully.           ‘Of course it must,’ Humpty Dumpty said with a short laugh: ‘my name means the shape I am–and a good handsome shape it is too. With a name like yours, you might be any shape, almost.’ As in many other respects, the looking glass world, at least as described by Humpty Dumpty, is the inverse of Alice’s everyday world (which is also ours). In the everyday world, names typically have little or no meaning: ‘Alice,’ ‘Emily,’ ‘Jamal,’ ‘Christiano,’ usually do nothing other than denoting an individual. They can certainly have connotations: that’s why there are so many more people called ‘David’ (the heroic king of ancient Israel) than are called ‘Judas’ (the betrayer of Jesus). And we can sometimes infer (though not with perfect certainty) incidental acts about a person from their name: e.g. their sex, their religion (or that of their parents), or their nationality. But names usually tell us little else about their bearers. From the fact that someone is called ‘Grace,’ we can’t infer that they are graceful. Apart from the fact that most proper names are gendered, so parents don’t usually call a boy ‘Josephine’ or a girl ‘William,’ a person can be given pretty much any name from a very long list. General terms, on the other hand, cannot be applied arbitrarily. The word ‘tree’ can’t be applied to an egg; and the word ‘egg’ can’t mean a tree. That is because words like these, unlike proper names, have a definite meaning. But in Humpty Dumpty’s world, things are the other way round. Proper names must have a meaning, while any ordinary word, as he tells Alice later, means whatever he wants it to mean–that is, he can stick them on things the way we stick names on people. Playing Language Games With Humpty Dumpty Humpty delights in riddles and games. And like many other Lewis Carroll characters, he loves to exploit the difference between the way words are conventionally understood and their literal meaning. Here are a couple of examples.       ‘Why do you sit out here all alone?’ said Alice†¦..           ‘Why, because there’s nobody with me!’ cried Humpty Dumpty. ‘Did you think I didn’t know the answer to that?’ The joke here stems from the ambiguity of the ‘Why?’ question. Alice means ‘What causes have brought it about that you sit here alone?’ This is the normal way the question is understood. Possible answers might be that Humpty dislikes people, or that his friends and neighbors have all gone away for the day. But he takes the question in a different sense, as asking something like: under what circumstances would we say that you (or anyone) are alone? Since his answer rests on nothing more than the definition of the word ‘alone,’ it is completely uninformative, which is what makes it funny. A second example needs no analysis.            ‘So here’s a question for you{says Humpty]. How old did you say you were?           Alice made a short calculation, and said ‘Seven years and six months.’           ‘Wrong!’ Humpty Dumpty exclaimed triumphantly. You never said a word like it.’           ‘I thought you meant â€Å"How old are you?†’ Alice explained.           ‘If I’d meant that, I’d have said it,’ said Humpty Dumpty. How Do Words Get Their Meaning? The following exchange between Alice and Humpty Dumpty has been cited countless times by philosophers of language:            ‘†¦and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents––‘           ‘Certainly,’ said Alice.           ‘And only one for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!’                 ‘I don’t know what you mean by â€Å"glory†,’ Alice said.           ‘Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t–till I tell you. I meant â€Å"there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!†’           ‘But â€Å"glory†doesn’t mean â€Å"a nice knock-down argument†, Alice objected.           †˜When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.’           ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean different things–that’s all.’           ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master–that’s all’ In his Philosophical Investigations (published in 1953), Ludwig Wittgenstein argues against the idea of a â€Å"private language.†Language, he maintains, is essentially social, and words get their meanings from the way they are used by communities of language users. If he is right, and most philosophers think he is, then Humpty’s claim that he can decide for himself what words mean, is wrong. Of course, a small group of people, even just two people, could decide to give words novel meanings. E.g. Two children could invent a code according to which â€Å"sheep†means â€Å"ice cream†and â€Å"fish†means money. But in that case, it is still possible for one of them to misuse a word and for the other speaker to point out the mistake. But if I alone decide what words mean, it becomes impossible to identify mistaken uses. This is Humpty’s situation if words simply mean whatever he wants them to mean. So Alice’s skepticism about Humpty’s ability to decide for himself what words mean is well-founded. But Humpty’s response is interesting. He says it comes down to ‘which is to be master.’ Presumably, he means: are we to master language, or is language to master us? This is a profound and complex question. On the one hand, language is a human creation: we didn’t find it lying around, ready-made. On the other hand, each of us is born into a linguistic world and a linguistic community which, whether we like it or not, provides us with our basic conceptual categories, and shapes the way we perceive the world. Language is certainly a tool that we use for our purposes; but it is also, to use a familiar metaphor, like a house in which we live.
Thursday, November 21, 2019
How Do Executed Offenders React To Their Punishments - Death Penalties Essay
How Do Executed Offenders React To Their Punishments - Death Penalties - Essay Example Other inmates hold onto the grudge. They are not sorry, and not affected by the sentences they are given. Others redeem themselves. They accept their crimes. At times they go further and apologize to the affected family. The various ways are explained in depthbelow. A major reaction to this punishment is mental illness. Mental illness is a condition characterized by impairments of one’s cognitive abilities. This impairment may also be behavioral functioning. The impairments are caused by head trauma in our case. An estimate of 5-10% of death row inmates has the problem of mental illness. Research has also shown that nearly all the inmates who are on death row suffer from brain damage. This is as a result of illness or trauma. All creaturesshudder at the thought of destruction. Human are survival animals. When one has no option to his survival, everything breaks down. The fabricant of humanity shuttered. This shutter is mental disorientation. Inmates are diagnosed by doctors an d those who have mental illness isolated. Diagnosis is done but the inmates refuse medication. Those awaiting execution are resolved to their fate. They see no reason for staying alive while you are condemned to die. The thought is ironical on its own. Some are even happy that they are sick. They even go ahead and neglect any dosages. Though there are forced dosages, this is not the solution. Some illnesses take more than medicine to heal. Mental illness is one, will is required. The inmate may be forced to treatment, but the will is important. Resolution to die makes healing difficult. Some inmates go ahead and self-admit their crimes. A good example here is Stanley â€Å"Tookie†Williams. Mr. Williams is a Nobel nominee: An author, Nobel Peace and Literature Prizes nominee. Mr. Williams was a co-founder of Crips. Crips is a Los Angeles-based street gang. The gang is responsible for hundreds of murders. Mr. Williams was convicted of four counts of murder. After a number of y ears of incarceration, Mr. Williams underwent a religious conversion. It was in this time that he authored his books. He went on and became admitted of his own crime and violence. He redeemed himself. He turned his life to uniqueness of unusual good works. Mr. Williams was executed by lethal injection. Though there was circumstantial evidence, Mr. Williams illustrated the other side of the coin. He illustrated how complex morality of the death penalty is. It is widely expected a death row inmate to be hostile. It is socially acceptable if he conforms to hate. Redemption, though expected, is unique. Mr. Williams reacted to the death penalty by redeeming himself. Other inmates become affiliated to the death row syndrome. Psychologists and lawyers argue that death row inmates develop phenomenons as they await execution. This phenomenon is called thedeath row phenomenon. The psychological effect of this phenomenon results to the death row syndrome. The living conditions on the death row have its effects. Some inmates turn to become suicidal. Other inmates become delusional. Others are pushed to insanity. The conditions that inmates face as they await execution are destruction to one’spsychology. The psychological damage is as torture. The more the waiting period, the more the torture. This makes the prisoner depressed. Some inmates are often forced to trying escaping from prison. Those on escape try colloquial ways that would make sure there is no going back. It’
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
Feminism in Women Hollering Creek Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words
Feminism in Women Hollering Creek - Essay Example My area of concern is how majority of the characters have the stereotypical outlook towards genders especially the men embodying the machismo while the women are depicted as being weak and also naive. While not belonging to any land whether Mexico or America, the Chicana protagonists intently look out for their identity and this just ends up negatively as their dreams end up shattered with abuse and neglect this is brought out clearly in the text with the emphasis being on how the female generation struggles while at the same time the author brings out the other side of the readers with the tales of the lives of immigrants especially the Mexican immigrants and their personality as a society. My main goal in this paper is to analyze the themes associated with feminism in the story â€Å"Woman Hollering Creek†by Sandra Cisneros. The theme of feminism will be analyzed from the perspective of similarities and differences between the cultures that are displayed by the story. This will be split between into sections with each looking at different aspect of cultures that are presented. Also under this section will be the historical context and a brief preview of the story by the author which depicts how the society is brought out. As the last part, I will be concluding with my thoughts on the story and the themes discussed especially the aspect of feminism and how the Mexican culture has been presented in relation to the women. Woman Hollering Creek The story is the title of the book by the same name; â€Å"Woman Hollering Creek†. It revolves around a Mexican woman by the name Cleofilas Enriqueta DeLeon Hernandez who has a belief she will live ever happily ever after; she marries a man by the name Juan Pedro Martinez Sanchez after her father consents the marriage. Thereafter she leaves her father and her six brothers in Mexico, the couple drive across the border to â€Å"el otro lado†- the other side; a dusty little town called Seguin in Texas. I t is here in Texas that she wants to start a new life as a wife in a ramshackle house but her hopes and aspirations of having a happy marriage are dashed just like the characters she watches in the telenovelas. Across a stream by the name Woman Hollering Creek, Cleofilas finds out that she had left a boring yet peaceful life with the family that she shared (her father and six brothers). All through her marriage with Juan; the relationship is tumultuous as Pedro is unfaithful, abusive and also leaves her in isolation most of the time. Her new life that was supposed to be full of passion like the ones she had seen in the telenovelas becomes â€Å"sadder and sadder†with each episode even though she has a belief that â€Å"when one finds, finally, the great love of one's life, [one] does whatever one can, must do, at whatever the case to protect it†¦Ã¢â‚¬ This results to her being depressed and the same time develops a keen interest she has on her legendary icon on the t elenovelas, la llorona, and the creek that is named after her legendary icon that runs behind her house. However, unlike the â€Å"weeping woman†in the telenovela; who chooses death as a solution and means to escape her unloving husband, Cleofilas in a sense chooses life and this will help in dealing with her problem. With the aid of
Sunday, November 17, 2019
Intention and Recommendations Essay Example for Free
Intention and Recommendations Essay In the early 1960’s, Columbia, as well as other Latin American countries, witnessed a rise in leftist movements motivated by endemic poverty, social inequality and the success of the Cuban Revolution. At that time, the FARC embraced the PCCs Soviet-style Marxist-Leninist ideology. The early membership of the FARC consisted of communist ideologues as well as noncommunist peasants, many of whom had been active during â€Å"la violencia†. The FARCs stated goal is to overthrow the current democratic government of Colombia and replace it with a Communist government. They claim to represent the rural poor against Colombia’s wealthy classes and oppose American influence in Colombia (particularly Plan Colombia), the privatization of natural resources, multinational corporations, and rightist violence. FARC has shown a willingness to meet with the Columbian government but no agreement has managed to have any permanence. In May 1984, the government and the FARC signed La Uribe peace accords which permitted FARC to form a legitimate political party, the Union Patriotica (UP). The UP party comprised of former guerrillas and Communists espoused anti-corruption policies, harsh penalties against narco-traffickers and progressive land and economic reforms. As the UP gained in popularity and political clout, they soon became the target of para-military right-wing death squads and drug cartels. Thousands of UP members and candidates have either been assassinated or have disappeared. With their hope at political legitimacy sabotaged, the FARC reverted back to violence and narco-trafficking. It is unclear if FARC has actually done anything positive in support of their stated agenda. The Counsel on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) states, â€Å"FARC is extremely out of touch and unconcerned with the interests of the Colombian public today, including the rural populace. †According to BBC News and COHA, less than 5 percent of the population supports FARC and their involvement with kidnappings and drug-trafficking denigrates their ideological rhetoric. It should be mentioned that Manuel Marulanda Velez died on March 25, 2008 of reported heart failure, after almost five decades of rule. Several of his key leaders have also recently been killed; one at the hands of his own guards. It remains to be seen what the affect of these deaths will have on the stability and future of FARC. The death of two key members of the Secretariat and a recent successful rescue of hostages from FARC (July 2008) supports the current belief that FARC is in a state of disarray; but they are far from disbanding. It is estimated that they still hold 700 hostages and control millions of dollars in drug trade. Economic and political stability play key roles in reducing the motivation of a populace to vehemently oppose governments. Programs that reduce the perception of government â€Å"injustices†will erode public support for any â€Å"radical†factions and erode groups internally, especially if they begin to doubt their purpose. The country practices a democratic government similar to the United States. According to BBC and COHA reports, President Uribe and the government have a high approval rating and the gross national product has been steadily rising along with tourism and trade. One of the weakest key indicators is a high unemployment rate (11%) which should be countered with government programs to employ young adults†¦the most vulnerable pool for radical organizations. This will further bolster the economy and take away a recruiting source. Although military pressure is essential with regards to fighting a paramilitary force like FARC, the use of military operations towards FARC should be used in tandem with local civilian authorities. Confidence in local authorities solidifies the local base and further weakens the recruiting pool. President Uribe’s increased military and police efforts have shown a significant reduction in kidnappings and assassinations. Corruption scandals that have plagued previous administrations do not seem to be a major issue with the current administration. Any signs of corruption should be dealt with quickly and firmly to support credibility of the administration. Colombian scholar Herbert â€Å"Tico†Braun suggests that a crucial factor in the mindset of para-military and terrorist organizations is the need to be recognized as a viable and key player in determining local and national policies. Braun states, â€Å"†¦the FARC wants to contribute something, and be perceived as helping the nation. If the FARC can be seen as forcing the government to make important societal changes, it might be willing to give something up in return, and possibly even begin disarming. With their willingness to participate in talks in the past combined with their current perceived vulnerability, talks should be offered again to FARC but only under very strict guidelines to include a limited disarmament. A political wing, comprised of â€Å"non-militants†or people outside the direct leadership of FARC, should be offered the ability to es tablish a political party to forward similar goals of the FARC. The eradication of narco-trafficking is probably the most difficult strategy to implement and enforce. Local and regional efforts should be a high priority of resourcing and highly-publicized. The international drug trade is lucrative and any hint of corruption within the government needs to be dealt with swiftly. The improvements in economy along with continued subsidies to farmers who grow legal crops will help to erode the drug trade internally. Support directly from the United States should be limited as it benefits the rebel propaganda. With Venezuela’s public withdrawal of support for the FARC, international alliances should be pursued with regards to drug enforcement, especially pertaining to land and water boundaries in order to make it easier for law enforcement to work without restrictions to borders. Although the geographical and political landscape of Columbia presents unique challenges in dealing with the FARC, the tenants for a counterterrorism strategy are basic: Commitment to a national political strategy, limited but clear and concise military strategy, priority resourcing of regional and local security, implementation of economic reforms, improvement of human rights protection, and a vigorous and effective counter-narcotics program.
Thursday, November 14, 2019
William Shakespeares Hamlet Essay -- Tragedy of Hamlet
William Shakespeare's Hamlet 'Hamlet' is a play written by William Shakespeare in late 15th or early 16th century. The main character Hamlet faces many difficulties, which cause him to doubt life, question death and look at human characters. The main problem, which in turn leads to others along his journey, is when he encounters his dead father in the form of a ghost. He tells Hamlet of his murder by his brother who is now married to his widowed wife, Hamlets Uncle and Mother. Hamlet spends the play trying to avenge his father's death and it is questionable to whether he does. In this essay I aim to examine Hamlet's state of mind and personality within four incidents. From there I will analyse any changes that I believe Hamlet to make and why I think they happen. My four chosen incidents are; Hamlets plan for a play (Act two Scene two), Hamlet's famous 'to be or not to be' speech and conversation with Ophelia (Act three Scene one), the death of Polonius in Gertrude's closet (Act three Scene four), and finally, when the news of Ophelia's death reaches Hamlet and leads into a confrontation with her brother, Laertes (Act five Scene one). To analyse the changes in the character of Hamlet it must first be considered how he deals with the news of his father's death before further revelations are revealed and then track his thoughts and actions as the play progresses. It must be determined if there is evidence of Hamlet being suicidal over the death of his father without such events as his 'antic disposition' in the way. We must also decide if Hamlet was insane, before or at any point through the play. Finally, why does Hamlet fe... ... very much alike, both nosey and very wordy. It provides mental recognition for Hamlet that he is changing and his childish way, from such scenes as Gertrude's closest, are not needed anymore. It also provides Hamlet with a thirst for blood and shows him what actions he is capable of. I believe it to be a second key scene for Hamlet. Finally, I think Hamlet is undeveloped emotionally and finds it very hard to deal with his father's death and to hear he was murdered destroys Hamlets life. I feel great empathy with him and understand why he may appear suicidal and mad to some, whereas I do not agree. I think he does remarkably well to deal with the situation and do no think that I could. I don't think he does revenge his father's murder but does not need to. He is a very interesting character who emerges victorious.
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
Ethics †Morality Essay
Ethical relativism is a view on morality stating that there are no universally accepted moral principles. Morality varies from one culture to another and no society has the right to impose their view of morality on other societies. Ethical relativism can be summed up to mean that morals are derived from what is culturally acceptable in any given society. ER is made up of two theses. The first is the diversity thesis, which simply says that moral practices are diverse across cultures. Ruth Benedict defends this theory by using homosexuality as an example. She explains how homosexuality was accepted and even encouraged in many cultures throughout history, like ancient Greece, but denounced in others. More evidence for the diversity thesis can be found in burial practices. Ancient Greeks honored their dead by burning the bodies. Similarly, Callatians showed respect to their dead by eating the bodies. However, both cultures were extremely offended when asked how much money would be required to institute the burial practices of the other. These examples clearly illustrate the vast differences in morality from culture to culture. ER’s second thesis is called the dependency thesis. It states that there is no objective standard by which to judge morality. Westermark defends this theory by saying that ethics is a learned set of behaviors instilled in every human at a young age by his or her surroundings. As a young person, we pick up on â€Å"right†and â€Å"wrong†by learning from those around us what is culturally acceptable. The ultimate source of morality, according to Westermark, is sympathy. This â€Å"gut feeling†of right and wrong is the only scale of morality each person has. Pojman has found many discrepancies in the theory of ethical relativism. Since ER says that no cultures view of morality can be criticized, we ought to be tolerant of all cultures. The problem is that tolerance would then be a universal moral principle, which ER says doesn’t exist. In fact it would be just as acceptable for a culture to be intolerant since morality is relative. Thus ER is logically inconsistent. This inconsistency makes ER inapplicable to solving conflicts between cultures, since each can be viewed as being morally right in any action by their own definition. Pojman also explains how any social reformers, like Martin Luther King Jr. , would inherently be wrong by going against the societal majority (i. e. those that determine morals). ER also implies that mass opinion is infallible, thus making a brutal dictator such as Hitler morally justified. The challenge of the ring is a hypothetical question posed to Socrates by Glaucon in the 5th century BC. Glaucon introduces a mythical ring that turns its wearer invisible. Glaucon says that every person, even the seemingly most moral, would use the ring to his or her advantage even at the detriment of others. His argument is based on the fact that the only reason people don’t live fully unjust lives now is fear of repercussions. Under the stipulation that one can never be caught, the fear vanishes one becomes immoral. Socrates responds by asking if injustice really does pay. His point is that by one’s own definition of success, one may or may not use the ring. For example if success is defined by a man as being scrupulous, he wouldn’t use the ring because ultimately it doesn’t lead to happiness for him. In contrast, the man who defines success by wealth would use the ring. Socrates says that to do injustice is to scar ones â€Å"soul,†which is equivalent to the modern word â€Å"character. †Both sides of the ring argument have merit. For the majority of the population I believe Glaucon is right, they would use the ring. However, some define happiness differently, and for them the ring is of no use. Friedman’s argument on corporate social responsibility is that it doesn’t exist. According to Friedman, a corporation’s only goal is to increase profits infinitely while staying within the realm of the law. He states that a corporate executive is merely an employee of the shareholders and his or her job is solely to increase return to the shareholders. If an executive were to be â€Å"socially responsible†and donate money to a charity, it’s an unauthorized distribution of shareholder funds. Thus being socially responsible is simultaneously being morally irresponsible. The burden of social responsibility should be placed on individual consumers. If they don’t like the policies and practices of a certain company they have the option to not buy the product or not invest in the company. The divine command theory makes a single differentiation between right and wrong. Simply, according to DCT, morally right means commanded by God and morally wrong means forbidden by God. This theory is highly criticized and many philosophers would say it has been refuted for thousands of years. The main criticism comes from Socrates and Euthyphro. The question is whether what is right is right because God says so (DCT) or does God say it’s right because he sees that its right (theory of natural law). Option one is quickly dismissed by Euthyphro because it implies quite a bit of arbitrariness. For instance, in the very beginning all actions were morally equal until God starting commanding and prohibiting certain ones. If God loving something makes it right, what reason is there for God wanting us to do right? If God commanded adultery, adultery would be morally right and obligatory. Option two means that there is a standard of morals independent from God’s own will. This contradicts the divine command theory’s basic component that commanded by God is right and prohibited by God is wrong. -Reason, Morality, and Public Policy: Classic and Contemporary Readings in Philosophy by: G. M. Brown, Ph. D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)