| Papers [1-12] of 4455 :: [Page 1 of 372] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 —> | |
|
|
The Philosophy of Suicide, 2008.
Looks at suicide and the writings of two leading existentialist philosophers Albert Camus and Arthur Schopenhauer.
1,815 words (approx. 7.3 pages), 4 sources, APA, $ 58.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the reality of suicide. The author relates that the two philosophers Albert Camus and Arthur Schopenhauer explain the philosophy of suicide through the concepts of human absurdity, the naturalness of pain and suffering and an inability to give meaning to life. The paper points out that both Camus and Schopenhauer argue that the act of suicide is a natural response to an inability to cope with a society that simply does not make sense. However, Camus' emphasis on the absurdity found in human life and how this absurdity prevents an individual from finding meaning in life makes his theory more complete than the more foundational theory of Schopenhauer.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
The Act
The Philosophy
Philosophy Era
The Philosophy of Camus and Schopenchauer: Existentialism
Thesis Statement
The Philosophers of Suicide
Argument One: The Absurd
Camus
Schopenchauer
Argument Two: The Pain of Human Existence
Camus
Schopenhauer
Argument Three: Lack of Meaning in Life
Camus
Schopenchauer
Personal Reflection
Conclusion
From the Paper
"Camus further argues that pain and suffering are a natural part of the human existence. In his The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus outlines the fact of pain and suffering. In the story the Greek mythological character of Sisyphus is condemned to repeat forever the same meaningless task of pushing a rock up a mountain, only to see it roll down again. Although Sisyphus suffers a life of constant pain and suffering caused by his task, Camus states, "The struggle itself is enough to fill a man's heart" thus "One must imagine Sisyphus happy.""
| |
|
Rousseau's Doctrine of Natural Rights, 2008.
This paper discusses Jean-Jacques Rousseau's doctrine of natural rights in comparison to liberal, political, social and economic theory.
2,328 words (approx. 9.3 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer notes that the great philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau was one of the foremost proponents of the theory of the social contract and of ideas concerning the basic nature of human society. The writer discusses that according to Rousseau, human beings were born neither good nor evil; rather it was an individual's self-interest that determined his or her actions, actions that might be deemed either positive or negative in the eyes of others. As individuals acted naturally in their own interest, larger societies would be plagued by the conflicts that grew out of the conflicting demands of individual women and men. Rousseau proposed to solve this problem by a variant of the social contract - an ostensible agreement between the various members of society. The writer discusses that the ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau contrasted strongly with those of other thinkers, such as John Locke, Adam Smith and Immanuel Kant, all of whom viewed humanity in far-more individualized terms.
From the Paper
"Cohesion equals the application of force or compulsion. Since human beings are individuals they view any combination of individuals as merely a means to serve their own personal ends. Coercion must be used if these disparate individuals are to act for the benefit of other individuals, and for the group as a whole. What Rousseau discovered in the idea of the Social Contract was a means to preserving individual happiness within the context of the necessary group. In accepting the General Will, the individual woman or man accepts the benefits of mutual cooperation along with the restrictions that such cooperation must impose. One surrenders some privileges in exchange for the greater security provided by group action and cohesion. If people do not pool their resources in times of adversity a few may survive, or none may survive. But, if all work together, hopefully most will survive. The same goes in the event of an attack on a region."
| |
|
Constructivism Vs. Rationalism, 2008.
This paper explains the constructivist theory and how it it contradicts the theory of rationalism.
1,313 words (approx. 5.3 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper explains constructivism to be a philosophy that holds that all knowledge, or how humans view their world, is constructed instead of being based on any actual realities. The paper discusses how constructivism is therefore fundamentally opposed to the premises of rationalism. The paper outlines how the constructivist theory finds its roots in ancient Greek philosophy and how it is applied in international relations.
From the Paper
"Constructivism is a philosophy that holds that all knowledge, or how humans view their world, is constructed instead of being based on any actual realities. According to constructivism, knowledge does not necessarily reflect any external realities but instead is contingent on conventions, human perceptions and the overall social experience of an individual. In other word, according to constructivist theory, knowledge is nothing more than artificial reality."
| |
|
Consequentialism as a Moral Theory, 2008.
An analysis and discussion of the objections to consequentialism and whether they render the theory unsuitable as a guide to criminal justice practice.
3,851 words (approx. 15.4 pages), 15 sources, APA, $ 105.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper provides an overview of consequentialism and outlines the central objections to this philosophical and theoretical stance in the context of criminal justice practice. The paper analyzes the extent to which this moral philosophical perspective is relevant to modern criminal jurisprudence. The paper presents the position that while this theory is limited, it also serves some important legalistic purposes and therefore this theory should be integrated with other philosophical points of view.
Outline:
Introduction
Overview of the Philosophy of Consequentialism
Objections to the Theory of Consequentialism
Consequentialism and Criminal Justice
Conclusion
From the Paper
"Substantive moral theories in modern philosophical discourse typically fall into the categories of consequentialist or deontological. Consequentialist theories, which derives from the ethos of utilitarianism, state that, "...agents must always act so as to produce the best available outcomes overall" (Scheffler S. review). In contrast to this position, deontological moral theories stress that the best overall outcomes are not of primacy significance. In the context of modern philosophical and moral theory, it is generally acknowledged that the consequentialist view is inadequate in terms of a comprehensive and inclusive moral theory."
| |
|
Ecotopia Imagined, 2008.
This paper analyzes Ernest Callenbach's work 'Ecotopia Emerging' and discusses living in such a society.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer notes that the world envisioned in Ernest Callenbach's text 'Ecotopia Emerging' seems both familiar and foreign, dated yet oddly prescient to a 21st century reader. The writer points out that the book was written during a period of rising conservative sentiment in the nation, and was meant to criticize an anti-environmentalist, pro-consumption, and fuel-wasting America around 1981. The writer pictures living in such a society and looks at what might be considered difficult and fulfilling. The writer maintains that in such a society there would be a greater sense of social responsibility to the community and to others because people would not be judged upon how they were able to accumulate the trappings of success. The writer concludes that those who are currently poor would likely flourish in Ecotopia, but life in Ecotopia would definitely come at a personal cost to people who are more affluent, or perhaps more iconoclastic, individual, creative and competitive by nature.
From the Paper
"Living in an entirely self-sustaining land that is not dependant upon dictatorships for fuel would be fulfilling on an emotional level, but the loss of freedom and mobility with the shift from cars to buggies would initially be difficult, especially since the rest of the world would still be using cars. Of course, there might be a certain amount of fun in learning how to drive a horse and carriage, and the emotional relationship provided by living so close to nature, and being dependant upon a warm and caring living being rather than a box of metal would be a bonus. But there would be added extra time every morning, to feed the horse, to hitch it up to a buggy or to saddle the animal, and to take the time to ride to work or school.
"Train travel would mean that an Ecotopian would not have to live like a 19th century dweller. But even though mobility across wide geographical expanses would still be possible, life would become recognizably different."
| |
|
Genesis and Incest, 2008.
This paper looks at the subject of incest while comparing and contrasting Genesis 12 and Genesis 20.
1,762 words (approx. 7.0 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 56.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares how Genesis 12 and Genesis 20 treat the subject of incest. The writer notes that one of the most taboo topics, even in our own society, is the question of what constitutes incest. The writer then relates that in Genesis, this topic is addressed not once, but twice, in Genesis 12 and Genesis 20. These incidents in the life of the patriarch Abraham (Abram) and his wife Sarah (Sarai) are, like other significant episodes in the first book of the Pentateuch, told and retold, virtually right after one another in ways that are similar but with some critical differences in plot and tone. The writer maintains that these two different versions of the same incident of the life of Abraham and Sarah are used to shed new light upon the meaning of the same anecdote. The writer concludes that although it has the same plot of the sister-as-wife, Genesis 12 is more interested in showing how God will intervene to protect Abraham on earth, and to show this is a demonstration of God's plan for Abraham to be a father of Israel. Further, the writer maintains that textual resonances with the later Mosaic covenant take predominance over character development, or even explaining basic details of the plot, like how Pharaoh understands the relationship between the husband and wife.
From the Paper
"Abraham believes that as a woman, Sarah's life (still Sarai) will be protected although very likely she will be violated, if the two of them are known to be married. He fears his own life will be at risk. But if the two are taken to be unmarried strangers, the Egyptians will be less hostile to them as foreigners. He anticipates her resistance to this idea (as it may still put her chastity in danger) but begs her to do so, so his soul might live. Abraham seems to make a plea that this is a God-fearing thing to do by invoking the soul, rather than merely asking his wife to engage in a potentially immoral deception to save his life.
"Interestingly, in both versions of the incidents, Abraham is not blamed for his deception by either his wife, the man he deceives, or the Lord, even though it places Sarai's life at risk, not his own."
| |
|
Government Agencies and Ethics, 2008.
This paper argues in favor of the statement "Any agency which works in secret can behave in a scandalous manner, and the CIA is no exception to this rule."
1,500 words (approx. 6.0 pages), 11 sources, APA, $ 49.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer analyzes the following statement on two grounds: "Any agency which works in secret can behave in a scandalous manner, and the CIA is no exception to this rule". The writer first discusses whether it is true that agencies which act in secret behave in a scandalous manner and then if so, whether the CIA is an exception or a demonstration of this rule. The writer then makes the argument that all agencies, throughout history and in whatever country, region or empire, that act in secret are inherently prone to dishonesty and unethical acts. Next, the writer maintains that the CIA must act, to some degree, in secret with some of its operations. Finally, the paper argues that the CIA will always be prone to dishonesty and unethical actions, which requires more regular oversight.
Outline:
Introduction
First Hypothesis: There has been an ethical agency in history
Second Hypothesis: The creeping moves toward professionalism have reduced ethical inhibitions
Ethics, the CIA and Recent History
Politics by Innuendo: Contributing to Unethical Conduct?
Conclusion: Is the CIA Inherently Untrustworthy?
From the Paper
"All agencies throughout history and across nations are prone to act in a dishonest and unethical manner. The proof to this hypothesis is the null hypothesis: that is, if the author has been unable to find a government agency which acts in secret, which over time has not acted in an unethical manner. A second null hypothesis would be to find a spying operation which has operated in an ethical and honest manner over a long period of time, therefore disproving the above statement.
"One can argue that any government agency requires power in order to be effective. Power comes through the purse--ability to fund, through coercion--ability to force, or through persuasion--ability to convince. None of these methods is, in and of itself, inherently unethical. One can persuade, coerce or bankroll activities in an open and above-board way."
| |
|
Thrasymachus and Thomas Hobbes on Justice, 2008.
A comparison of the views of Thrasymachus, the character in Plato's "Republic" and of Thomas Hobbes in his work, "Leviathan" on the topic of justice in society.
1,145 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the similarities between the speech of Thrasymachus, the character in Plato's "Republic" and the ideas of justice presented by Thomas Hobbes in his work, "Leviathan." The paper also looks at the notable differences between the two views, particularly their different versions of what justice is within society.
From the Paper
"Hobbes argues that men naturally compete for their own wellbeing, for power and wealth, and that in the course of that competition force and fraud are the only virtues as self-preservation is the ultimate goal (Hobbes, 78). A man is capable and should use every means in order to make what is best for him, in order to acquire even more power. Outside a society, there is no such thing as just or unjust. Individuals can make whatever is best for them for their self-preservation, and there are no punishments for their actions outside a society. Hobbes agrees with Thrasymachus on the point that justice is the advantage of the stronger, as the stronger have the advantage of imposing their justice, but further argues that in the state of nature there is no such thing as justice or injustice as these are terms that can only be defined in a contractual society. He argues that indeed justice is the advantage of the stronger, but only in the state of nature. Outside a civil society, the advantage of the stronger prevails as it is a competition."
| |
|
Judaism and Roman Catholicism Comparison, 2008.
This paper compares and contrasts the Jewish and Roman Catholic religions.
2,159 words (approx. 8.6 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 67.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer first provides an overview of Judaism and Roman Catholicism. The writer then presents a comparison of the two religions. The writer looks at Jewish and Roman Catholic beliefs in particular regarding God and Jesus Christ. The writer concludes that Judaism and Roman Catholicism have roots in the same culture and religious history that emerged in the Middle East. Both religions are monotheistic and believe ostensibly in the same God. Both religions share the same Old Testament books of the Bible. The writer maintains however, that in the history of both religions there have been important divergences from these common roots.
Outline:
Introduction: Brief Overview of Judaism and Roman Catholicism
Comparison
The Understanding of God
The Relevance of Jesus Christ
Original Sin
Heaven and Hell
Conclusion
From the Paper
" In other words, sin from the Roman Catholic perspective is the measure of the distance from God or righteousness and this original sin is rectified by the intervention of the Son of God, Jesus Christ. In contrast, Judaism does not recognize the validity or the concept of original sin. In contrast to the Christian view of salvation, the Jewish view is that the individual is not born intrinsically good or bad. The focus in Judaism is on the moral will, which can overcome evil and temptation in the individual. There is a greater emphasis in Judaism on individual action and personal moral perception, compared to the more deterministic view of original sin in Catholicism. "
| |
|
Obedience to the Law, 2008.
A look at how Socrates, Martin Luther King and Malcom X address the issue of obedience to the law.
1,132 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the different attitudes taken by Socrates, Martin Luther King Jr., and Malcolm X regarding the state itself and the laws it creates. It discusses how Socrates does not question the rightfulness of the system because he had chosen to abide by those laws when deciding to live in Athens. In comparison, the paper then looks at how Martin Luther King Jr. does consider the laws of the sytem to be a source of injustice, but he promotes a peaceful and non direct disobedience. The paper also examines how the most radical position is that of Malcolm X who rejects the laws as being the expression of white supremacy, infringing the emancipation of the black community, and therefore advocates a radical and even violent action against the system.
From the Paper
"Socrates' views on the obedience to the law were shaped largely by the context his trial and his sentence to death had created. His main idea is that obedience must be exercised in relation to the one entity that can differentiate between right and wrong, and not to the majority which could in any instance decide his future. In this sense, he argues in his dialogue with Crito that "we should not think so much of what the majority will say about us, but what he will say who understands justice and injustice, the one, that is, and the truth itself." This argument came as he tried to counter Crito's desire to help him escape the prison the Athenian state had placed him in awaiting his death. "
| |
|
Parable of the Good Samaritan, 2008.
This paper discusses and analyzes the text of the parable of the good Samaritan from the New Testament.
1,964 words (approx. 7.9 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer notes that the parable of the good Samaritan is one of the most familiar in the New Testament. It tells the story of a man who is harmed by robbers. The writer explains that two men pass him by, but the third stops and goes out of his way to help this stranger. The writer maintains that the parable of the good Samaritan teaches us that we are all the same. It teaches that differences are only skin deep and that we all must depend on our brethren for survival. The writer also explains that, in this parable, Jesus makes an obvious insult to the Pharisees and Levites, who felt more highly of their piousness than of their fellow man. The writer concludes that this parable is an excellent example of the type of actions that could end all conflict. The body of the paper includes a version of the text discussed.
Outline:
Historical Context
Literary Context
Structure
Grammatical Data
Biblical Content
Theological Importance
Application
From the Paper
"The most important note on historical context is that Jesus was speaking to the Jews in the passage. The Samaritans and Jews were enemies who despised each other. The tale, as told in the context of the audience had a hidden significance in the ideal of non-discrimination. In this story, a racist was helped by another racist. Through this act, they were brought together for the common good of all. This element is often lost in the retelling of the story because the significance of racial tensions between the groups is not known to modern audiences.
"The key element that is important to a clear understanding of the text is the social setting in which the parable is told. There are racial tensions between the groups sitting in the audience. The essential essence of the parable lies within the conflict between the different groups in the audience."
| |
|
Communitarianism, 2008.
An examination of the philosophy of communitarianism and Lenin's specific approach to communitarianism.
1,662 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 54.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discsses the communitarian vision of the way that a society should be run and describes the philosophy and beliefs of communitarianism. The paper then looks at Lenin's communitarianism and how it related to his Marxist beliefs. The paper also looks at symbolic interactionism as a theory of the individual and relates this to Lenin's views of communitarianism.
From the Paper
"Symbolic interactionism is a theory of the individual while functionalism is a theory of structure. Efforts have been made to create some middle theory that brings the two together. Giddens is one who has proposed such a theory, one he calls Duality of Structure and which involves both structure and individual agency. When we ask about the structure of social practices, we are seeking to explain how structures are constituted through actions and how actions are constituted structurally at the same time. Giddens suggests that the global dimension of thought and action so prominent in the modern world capitalist system ought to shape theoretical discourse in profound ways.
"He notes the dimensions of modernity as we enter the period of post-modernity, and he finds that sociology will more and more shed the residue of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century thought as we move into this post-modern phase."
|
|
|
