The political philosophy of Hobbes and Locke Essay Example for Free

The political philosophy of Hobbes and Locke Essay In this paper, I will examine the political philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. I will investigate both mens ideas individually and offer my own views on their theories. I will conclude the paper by comparing and contrasting the notions introduced in their respective writings. Thomas Hobbes was born in Wiltshire, England in 1588. He lived in one of the most unsettled periods in English history. Following a rebellion against King Charles, there resulted a civil war, which began in 1642. As a consequence of this political instability, Hobbes was forced into exile in November of 1640. He remained abroad living on the continent for approximately eleven years. During this period he worked and conversed with many of the great philosophers of his time. It was while in Paris in 1640 that Hobbes finally matured the plan for his own philosophical work. It was to consist of three treatises, dealing respectively with matter or body, with human nature, and with society. It was his intention, he says, to have dealt with these issues in this order, but his country was in turmoil with concerns regarding the rights of dominion, and the obedience due from the sovereigns subjects. As a result of this, Hobbes began instead with his examination of society. When stable government seemed to have been re-established by the Commonwealth, he had his ideas published in London. The same year, 1651, saw the publication of his greatest work, Leviathan, and his own return to England, which now promised a safer shelter to the philosopher than France, where he feared the clergy and was no longer in favour with the remnant of the exiled English court. The last twenty-eight years of Hobbes long life were spent in England. Hobbes philosophy can be described as materialistic, and mechanicalistic. He believed everything is matter. One cannot differentiate between matter, life and mind. To describe social reality, Hobbes would argue, is like describing physics or biology. It is concerned with matter in motion. He argued that all human life and all human thought are to be understood quite simply as matter in motion. In this regard Galileo heavily influenced his thinking. Hobbes identified two distinguishable types of motion. These he defined as  vital motion and voluntary motion. I will not indulged heavily into these notions, except to say, that Hobbes believed that the ultimate goal in all human motion is toward self-preservation. Basically what he is saying is that all motion is a result of fear of death. Although reason plays a significant role according to Hobbes, it is largely a regulatory instrument to these basic motions (1). Hobbes philosophical ideas are largely portrayed in his text, Leviathan. In this piece, he discloses the fact that he feels the evils of absolute power is still better than living in a society without that ultimate overseer. Perhaps as a result of the turbulent time in which he lived, Hobbes had an almost chronic fear of living within a chaotic society. It was his belief that a society without an absolute leader would be, or eventually become a chaotic one. Hobbes gives us a psychological explanation for why he believes this to be so. In his opinion, all people are by nature selfish and egoistic. As all men are selfish, and wish only to satisfy their own needs, competition for resources inevitably occurs. Resources are not infinite in amount, but are limited in their availability. As a result, Hobbes argues that conflict between men over these resources is unavoidable. Hobbes refers to people living in this state of nature as natural man (Hobbes, Pt 1, Ch 11). In his brief introduction to the Leviathan, Hobbes describes the State as an organism analogous to a large person. He shows how each part of the state parallels the function of the parts of the human body. He notes that the first part of his project is to describe human nature, in so far as humans are the creators of the state. To this end, he advises that we look into ourselves to see the nature of humanity in general. Hobbes argues that, in the absence of social condition, every action we perform, no matter how charitable or benevolent, is done for reasons, which are ultimately self-serving. For example, when I donate to charity, I am actually taking delight in demonstrating my powers, in its most extreme form; this view of human nature has since been termed Psychological Egoism. Hobbes believes that any account of human action, including morality, must be consistent with the fact that we are all self-serving. Hobbes speculates how selfish people would behave in a state of nature, prior to the formation of any government. He begins noting that humans are essentially equal, both mentally and physically, in so far as even the weakest person has the strength to kill the strongest. Given our equal standing, Hobbes continues by noting how situations in nature make us naturally prone to quarrel. There are three natural causes of disagreement among people: competition for limited supplies of material possessions, distrust of one another, and glory in so far as people remain hostile to preserve their powerful reputation. Given the natural causes of conflict, Hobbes concludes that the natural condition of humans is a state of perpetual war of all against all, where no morality exists, and everyone lives in constant fear (Hobbes Pt 1, Ch 13). Under such conditions, there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no culture of the earth, no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Hobbes continues offering proofs that the state of nature would be as brutal as he describes. We see signs of this in the mistrust we show of others in our daily lives. In countries, which have yet to be civilized, people are barbaric to each other. Finally, in the absence of international law, strong countries prey on the vulnerability of weak countries. Humans have three motivations for ending this state of war: the fear of death, the desire to have an adequate living, and the hope to attain this through ones labour. Nevertheless, until the state of war ends, each person has a right to everything, including another persons life (Ibid). In articulating the peace-securing process, Hobbes draws on the language of the natural law tradition of morality, which was then championed by Dutch philosopher Hugo Grotius (1583-1645). According to Grotius, all particular moral principles derive from immutable principles of reason. Since these  moral mandates are fixed in nature, they are thus called laws of nature. By using the terminology of the natural law theory, Hobbes is suggesting that, from human self-interest and social agreement alone, one can derive the same kinds of laws, which Grotius believes are immutably fixed in nature (2). Throughout his discussion of morality, Hobbes continually re-defines traditional moral terms, such as right, liberty, contract and justice, in ways which reflects his account of self-interest and social agreement (Hobbes Pt 1, Ch 14). For Grotius and other natural law theorists, a law of nature is an unchangeable truth, which establishes proper conduct. Hobbes defines a law of nature as follows: A Law of Nature (lex naturalis) is a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or takes away the means of preserving the same; and to omit that by which he thinks it may be best preserved. Hobbes continues by listing specific laws of nature all of which aim at preserving a persons life. Hobbess first three Laws of Nature are the most important since they establish the overall framework for putting an end to the state of nature. Given our desire to get out of the state of nature, and thereby preserve our lives, Hobbes concludes that we should seek peace. This becomes his first law of nature (Ibid). That every man ought to endeavour peace as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war; the first branch of which rule contains the first fundamental Law of Nature, which is, to seek peace and follow it. The second law of nature advocates the position that man in this state is entitled to defend himself (Ibid). The mutual transferring of these rights is called a covenant and is the basis of the notion of moral obligation and duty. For example, I agree to give up my right to steal from you, if you give up your right to steal from me. We have then transferred these rights to each other and thereby become obligated to not steal from each other. From selfish reasons alone, we are both motivated to mutually transfer these and other rights, since this will end the dreaded state of war between us. Hobbes continues by discussing the  validity of certain contracts. For example, contracts made in the state of nature are not generally binding, for, if I fear that you will violate your part of the bargain, then no true agreement can be reached. No contracts can be made with animals since animals cannot understand an agreement. Most significantly, I cannot contract to give up my right to self-defence since self-defence is my sole motive for entering into any contract (Ibid). Hobbes derives his laws of nature deductively, modelled after the type of reasoning used in geometry. That is, from a set of general principles, more specific principles are logically derived. Hobbess general principles are: that people pursue only their own self-interest, the equality of people, the causes of quarrel, the natural condition of war, and the motivations for peace. From these he derives the above two laws, along with at least 13 others. Simply making contracts will not in and of itself secure peace. We also need to keep the contracts we make, and this is Hobbes third law of nature. Hobbes notes a fundamental problem underlying all covenants: as selfish people, each of us will have an incentive to violate a contract when it serves our best interests. For example, it is in the mutual best interest of Murphy and I to agree to not steal from each other. However, it is also in my best interests to break this contract and steal from Murphy if I can get away with it and what complicates matters more, Murphy is also aware of this fact. Thus, it seems that no covenant can ever get off the ground. This difficulty is overcome by giving unlimited power to a political sovereign who will punish us if we violate our covenants. Again, it is from purely selfish reasons that I agree to set up a policing power, which will potentially punish me if I deviate from the agreement (Hobbes, Pt 1, Ch 15). As noted, Hobbes first three Laws of Nature establish the overall framework for putting an end to the state of nature. The remaining laws give content to the earlier ones by describing more precisely the kinds of covenants, which will preserve peace. For example, the fourth law is to show gratitude toward those who comply with covenants. Otherwise people will regret that they complied when someone is ungrateful. Similarly, the fifth law is that we should be accommodating to the interests of society. For, if we quarrel over every minor issue, then this will interrupt the peace process. Briefly,  here are the remaining laws: cautious pardoning of those who commit past offences; the purpose of punishment is to correct the offender not an eye for an eye retribution; avoid direct or indirect signs of hatred or contempt of another; avoid pride; retain only those rights which you would acknowledge in others; be equitable; share in common that which cannot be divided, such as rivers; items which cannot be divided or enjoyed in common should be assigned by lot; mediators of peace should have safe conduct; resolve disputes through an arbitrator. Hobbes explains that there are other possible laws, which are less important such as those against drunkenness, which tends to the destruction of particular people. At the close of Chapter 15, Hobbes states that morality consists entirely of these Laws of Nature, which are arrived at through social contract. Contrary to Aristotles account of virtue ethics, Hobbes adds that moral virtues are relevant to ethical theory only in so far as they promote peace. Outside of this function, virtues have no moral significance. Hobbes continues in Chapter 17 by arguing that in order to ensure covenants and peace, power must be given to one person or one assembly. We do this by saying, implicitly, I authorise and give up my right of governing myself, to this person or to this assembly of people, on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner. His definition of a commonwealth, then, is this: One person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their peace and common defence This person is called a sovereign. He continues that there are two ways of establishing a commonwealth: through acquisition, or through institution. In Chapter18 Hobbes lists the rights of rights of sovereigns. They are, subjects owe him sole loyalty, subjects cannot be freed from their obligation, dissenters must consent with the majority in declaring a sovereign, sovereign cannot be unjust or injure any subject, the sovereign cannot be put to death, the sovereign has the right to censor doctrines repugnant to peace, legislative power of prescribing rules, judicial power of deciding all controversies, make war and peace with other nations, choose  counsellors, power of reward and punishment, power of all civil appointments, including the militia. In Chapter 19 he discusses the kinds of governments that can be instituted. The three main forms are monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. He argues that monarchy is best for several reasons. Monarchs interests are the same as the peoples. He will receive better counsel since he can select experts and get advice in private. His policies will be more consistent. Finally, there is less chance of a civil war since the monarch cannot disagree with himself. His overriding belief here is that the sovereign, most likely a king, will only have the best interests of his subjects at heart, as he, Hobbes argues, is only as wealthy as his country. Rather inconsistently when you consider his theory overall, Hobbes also grants certain rights, or liberties to the subjects living within his monarchist society. These liberties, as you might expect, are established to ensure the right of the subject to self-preservation. Therefore, if the sovereign unnecessarily places the life of the subject in peril, either directly or indirectly, the covenant has in effect been broken, or the subject is free to disembark from the agreement. The subject is expected to defend his country from attack, should that occur, despite the danger it may entail for his life. However, he is not obliged, for instance to testify against himself in court, as that would quite obviously be counter to his desire for self-preservation. This concept was incorporated in the United States Constitution in the form of the Fifth Amendment, and many upstanding members of society have enjoyed its benefits since, including Al Capone, Jimmy Hoffa, and most recently Junior Soprano! Another idea introduced by Hobbes which was embraced by the United States legal system, as well as our own, was his belief that the subject had the right to sue the sovereign if his needs were not met. Hobbes theory has often been criticised quite severely and I believe rightly so. His individualistic perspective suggests that our self-preservation is the dominant motivation in our lives. Society exists, if we are to believe Hobbes theory, simply as a method of ensuring our self-interest, or at least maximising it. His theory is built on the premise of mutual trust, yet  the society would collapse without the threat of sanctions imposed by the sovereign. So, in fact it is not trust that is the raft that keeps society afloat, rather it is obviously fear. The most disturbing fact in regard to his theory, I believe, is Hobbes notion that society arises largely as a result of our selfish ways. He suggests that we are egoistic, as we as being are driven by our desires. It seems that he does not seriously consider the fact that our desires could incorporate any notions of legitimately, and unselfishly wanting to help others. This in my opinion is rather bizarre. There are other aspects to Hobbes theory that I find difficult to comprehend. His assertion that a monarchy offers us the best option for government is ludicrous to say the least, and his arguments to support this position are feeble at best. I will address just one of them here, to prove my point. In the course of his dialogue, Hobbes makes the claim that the best possible way to ensure that the constantly changing desires and needs of subjects are met, is to have a King or Queen as sovereign. When you consider some of the monarchies of our day, I will draw particular attention to the British monarchy, and how out of touch they are with their subjects, I think that it is fair to say that Hobbes opinions on this issue is almost laughable. Another aspect of Hobbes political philosophy that I find particularly disconcerting is his belief that conflict must never occur between subjects and their sovereign. Often, if not always, change only occurs as a result of conflict. Without conflict, we might never develop and advance significantly as societies. Revolutionary leader Thomas Jefferson said: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is natural manure (3). I believe that the threat of revolt is always necessary in order to keep leaders firmly in tune with the needs of their citizens. The final comment I will make on Hobbes work on this matter relates to the fact that I believe his theory is extremely defeatist in essence. Basically, Hobbes theory is built on the foundation that we desire peace so much that we should be willing to accept the evils of absolute power, or even dictatorship in order to maintain it. John Locke was born in Somerset, England in 1632. Like Hobbes, he lived in a period of great political instability. He was forced to flee England twice as a result of this situation, however, unlike Hobbes; he was not soared against mankind as a consequence. In his major political works, his Two Treatise on Civil Government, he attempts to justify the revolution of King William of Orange against the legitimate monarch, King James II. In the first of these two treatise, Lockes purpose is to attack the ideas of pro-royalist; Sir Robert Filmer, and specifically his theory put forward in his work; The Patriarch. In the Second Treatise on Civil Government, Locke puts forth his own ideas on the establishment of a democratic government. The focus of this piece shall be in the analysis of this work, as it displays Lockes own thoughts and believes. Locke developed the theoretical argument that became the basis for democracy, as we know it today within the western world. His ideas were to become the building blocks for the development of the constitution in both the United States of America and France. In fact, sections of his writings appear almost word for word in the United States Constitution and Declaration of Independence. The influence of his ideas on todays world cannot be understated. In examining Lockes ideas, I also hope to demonstrate how distinctly different his thoughts often are from Hobbes. There are a few similarities between the two mens work however. For one, Locke, like his predecessor Hobbes, begins his work by giving what he believes is the historical description of how governments came into existence. In the same way as Hobbes, Locke commences by examining the relevance of the social contract to the establishment of government. Also corresponding to Hobbes he discusses the state of nature. However, Locke believes that the fundamental mistake in Hobbes theory is in his ideas introduced on this issue. Lockes state of nature is a largely peaceful one. Men live side-by-side, own property, possessions, and are free to do with these as they please. He rejects Hobbes notion that men are as a rule selfish, but rather thinks of a situation were many times people cooperate with each other, but unfortunately sometimes they are egoistic, but not always. For Locke, the law of nature that governs behaviour within this  state, is quite simple. People should not harm others in his life, health, liberty or possessions (Locke, Ch 2). Life within the state of nature for Locke is a life of perfect freedom. Its moral order is overseen by the law of nature, which is God-given, and exists independent of any constitution or society. Essential to this moral well being, are the natural rights of the people living within this state. These entitlements include that of life, liberty, property and also the authority to reprimand those who violate the natural law. It is difficult for individuals to do this alone, and so it is as a result of this factor, according to Locke that we were forced to vacate the state of nature, and establish societies. When a person breaks the law of nature, it is essential, he believes, to have the institutions in place to be able to punish the person, or persons in a fair and just manner. It is due to this fact that man originally voluntarily agreed to create society in order to have these institutions established (Ibid). These institutions that had to be erected had a number of goals, or objectives, which it needed to fulfill. Firstly, laws had to be created that reflected the needs of the population. In addition, these laws must become relatively fixed within the framework of that society, to the extent that those who would come under their influence would know them. Locke also felt that it was imperative to have at the core of these legal institutions impartial judges, who would have both knowledge of the law and authority to adjudicate in legal disputes. Finally, Locke rightly believed that all of this would be pointless unless the society had in place the resources to enforce these laws. If it did not, then quite simply the laws would not be followed (Ibid). Locke also discusses what he calls his state of war, which is very similar to Hobbes state of nature. In this state, there are no common judges or established institutions of law. Locke describes an environment where the fittest survive. This state of war can exist both inside a society and outside the bounds of it. It occurs when somebody, or some group, attempts to acquire resources solely as a result of their power. Opposition to such  tyrants, according to Locke, is not only justified, but he would even argue that at times it is completely necessary for the maintenance of the society. If an issue such as this is not addressed, life will simply revert back to the conditions experienced within the state of nature (Locke, Ch 3). The accounts I have already given of the consensual agreement among citizens to establish legal institutions to oversee the upholding of the law are the basic rudiments of democracy. Laws within such a democracy are created only after long deliberation, and are not invented on the spur of the moment. This is often the case under the rule of monarchies, according to Locke, were laws are created and destroyed at will to simply fulfil the wishes of the sovereign. Furthermore, laws within a democracy will be created by representatives of the people and so, Locke argues, should clearly reflect the wishes of the society with whom they represent. An interesting fact built into Lockes theory, is his belief that certain aspects of human behaviour should not come under the influence of governmental control. He referred to these as rights. This particular notion of Lockes was another aspect of his theory incorporated in many national constitutions. The most notable of these, is The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. The bill of rights grants those living in the United States certain undeniable rights, such as the right to free speech, the right to choose where one worships, and also the right to bare arms to mention a few. Also included within The Bill of Rights is the right to own private property. Again, this is another aspect of Lockes theory that he gave particular emphasis to within his work (Locke, Ch 5). Locke considered property to be much more than just material substance. He believed property to actually be part of oneself, as it is clearly the fruit of your own labour. Throughout his writings, property is used in a much broader sense than the dictionary definition of the word. It is usually referred to as meaning such things as life and liberty. Therefore, Locke argues that to attempt to take an individuals property from them, it is much more than simply theft. Instead, he maintains that it is an assault on you as a person. This particular opinion on property is very different from the  beliefs expressed by Hobbes. For him, property is a creation of society. Furthermore, he insists that no person can claim anything as his own within the state of nature. What you own is only yours for as long as you are strong enough to hold onto it. Lockes ideas were obviously in marked contrast to those put forward by Hobbes regarding property. Locke believed that we were all created equal in nature; therefore, society had no right to take from us what nature had given to us initially. This conception was advanced further and indeed incorporated into law. It is of course the NOTION that we are all equal in the eyes of the law. I deliberately highlighted the word NOTION, because I believe that is all it is, and the truth in reality is actually far from this (Ibid). The most democratic aspect of Lockes theory is incorporated in his ideas that when we departed from the state of nature, we voluntarily gave up some of our personnel rights to the government. Specifically, the right to punish those who transgress the law. This right is given to the executive who is appointed by the people and is therefore responsible to them. Lockes government is almost like a secretary for the mass population. Acting like a secretary, the government should simply do the jobs required by, or requested by the people. If the government does not fulfil the wishes of the population, Locke maintained, they should be removed from office. For Locke, power lies with the people. Revolution by the people is not to be ruled out if the government has to be removed for not fulfilling the wishes of its citizens (Locke, Ch 8). In order to prevent abuse of power by the government, or indeed any one area of it, Locke introduced the idea of dividing the government into three branches. Each branch has the capability to influence, and if necessary, restrain the other branch or branches of government. The different strands of government he established were the executive, legislature and federative. Again, these branches of government are remarkably similar to those used in the United States. The executive and legislature proposed by Locke are very similar to those used in the U.S. government. Lockes federative branch was intended to deal with foreign negotiations, and does not in fact exists in the U. S. government framework. The third element of government there is  called the judicial and deals with the legal applications of government. The overall goal of using three branches of government is nonetheless very similar in purpose; in that its aims are restrict power from becoming to great within any one branch (Locke, Ch 12). Locke was particularly concerned with the executive gaining too much power. As a result, it is the legislature who is granted the greatest power and influence within government. The legislature makes the laws and the executive is only charged with enforcing these laws. Therefore, the ability of the executive is severely restricted by the limitations of the laws sent down from the legislature. Another interesting aspect of Lockes desire to restrict the executive is his belief that they could be removed from their office by the legislature should they defy the rules of that office. Again, an idea very similar to this is found within the scheme of the United States government. Impeachment proceeding can be taking against any member of the civil government, if they are believed to have broken any rules of their office. In the history of the country, impeachment proceeding has been introduced against three presidents. These affairs, overseen by the House of Representatives determine whether there is sufficient evidence against the accused to warrant a trial before the Senate. None of the three presidents were ever convicted of the charges against them. President Andrew Jackson was taken to trial before the Senate, but failed to be convicted by one vote. President Richard Nixon resigned from his office before proceeding could really get under way, following the fallout from the Watergate Scandal. Most recently, President Bill Clinton survived a vote in the House of Representatives and so was not forced to undergo a legal trial before the Senate. I believe Lockes theory is a substantial improvement on that proposed by Hobbes. Locke correctly identifies the two major weaknesses I see in Hobbes theory. They are centred on his believes that man is innately selfish, or egoistic, and so is motivated solely by self-interest, and also his believe that man can live stably and securely under the sovereign leadership of a monarch. He fails to convince me on either of these points. Despite the fact that I see much to be praised about Lockes theory, I feel that there are  certain frailties that should be addressed, and I will conclude this essay by those that I feel are most significant. Essential too much of Lockes theory is his belief that living within the state of nature, we have certain rights, which he insists should be transferred to the societal or governmental level. Locke provides little evidence to offer support for the significance he places on these rights, and the evidence he does provide is certainly not totally convincing. Concerning opinion on social contract, Locke fails to identify his position on the double contract, and seems to tactfully dodge this difficult issue. Although certainly not nearly as individualist as Hobbes, Lockes theory does seem to lean in favour of the individual, rather than towards the genuine concerns of the group as a whole. One notion within his theory in particular seems to suggest this standpoint most clearly. His belief that we consent to joining society, definitely suggest to me that one is doing so for ones own good, and any thoughts of common good, are secondary at best. Finally, Lockes belief that government and society should be built on the premise that the majority rule, at first glimpse appears fair. This idea certainly was an enormous step forward from the ideas of those who came before him, going all the back to the ancients. However, often within democracies this notion is taking too literally and the majority rule only while considering their own interests and not those of the society as a whole. Minorities are treated like second-class citizens. Evidence of such behaviour can easily be found even within our own borders in Northern Ireland. Endnotes: 1. Gauthier, D. Hobbes, A Companion to the Philosophers. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001), 305. 2. Blackburn, S. Dictionary of Philosophy. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 163. 3. Darwin, B. (Ed.) The Oxford Library of Words Phrases. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981), 130. Note: All other quotations cited throughout this essay are taken from: 4. Hobbes, T. Leviathan, Classics of Moral Political Theory. (Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company Inc., 1996, 2nd Ed.). 5. Locke, J. Two Treatises of Civil Government, Classics of Moral Political Theory. (Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company Inc., 1996, 2nd Ed.).

Business Ethics Essay Example for Free

Business Ethics Essay What is ethics? What are some common ethical types? Why do business people need it? Can ethics be taught to people? Ethics is a study of morality, stems from the ancient Greek â€Å"ethos† meaning custom or habit. It is a study of theories concerning what is good and evil in human conduct. There is no particular set of laws defining what is ethical and what is not, because there is no right or wrong answer. The second sense of ethics speak of â€Å"codes of ethics†, which are a set of rules serve as guidance to people, often in fields of professions such as business or medical. Ethical contrasts with unethical, which goes against the codes of ethics. There are several ethical theories in Western philosophy. Many of them look at the fruits of one’s action – categorized under Consequentialism, while other theories uphold one’s right and duty, which is Deontology. Consequentialism pertains to cost and benefits. It deals with the results and consequences of performing or not performing an action. For example: If war brings more good (money, oil, labor) than bad (casualties) then it is ethical. Some consequentialist theories are utilitarianism and ethical egoism. Utilitarianism, according to Bentham and Mill, the right action is which creates the greatest good for the greatest number. People should ask what action would promote the greatest amount of happiness for people who are affected. For example: a utilitarian would say euthanasia is ethical if that would bring satisfaction to the suffering patient and financial relief to the family. Ethical egoism, according to Ayn Rand, says we should do what is purely in our best interest, as opposed to altruism. It promotes one’s well-being above others. Meanwhile deontology pertains to rights, duties or obligations. It concerns the morality of the action that is being performed (or not performed) rather than the results deriving from said action. In Kantian deontology, he promotes the Golden rules (don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t commit suicide) which are absolute rules that one must follow no matter what. Therefore it would be unethical to steal food even if it is for a dying person. In Lockean deontology, John Lock believes each individual is entitled to natural rights, such as right to live, right to freedom, right o pursue happiness, ect. Another theory is virtual ethics, which is similar to Confucianism, in that a person’s virtues are habits and characteristics that one exhibits. Business people need ethics because it helps prevent malpractices and corruptions. Business practitioners should refer to business codes of conduct as a guide to maintain good business practices that help safeguarding customer confidence, rights and satisfactions; protecting employees and shareholders’ interests and legal rights; and upholding healthy competitions among businesses. According to Socrates, ethics are what people ought to do and it can be taught. Psychologists also argue that a person’s ability to deal with moral issues is not formed since birth but develop gradually. I personally think a person’s moral can be shaped and that ethics should be taught, because without it we are left with a generation full of confused individuals whom are unable to comprehend and decide what right and what is wrong. That said, ethics should not be forced on people but should only serve as a guide and advisor. Because there is no uniform set of rules for ethics, it is subjective to the psycho-demographic and geographic of the teachers. A new learner should be given space to assess and confirm what he believes is right and wrong for himself. 2/ What is an argument? What makes it valid/invalid, sound/unsound, good/ bad, â€Å"true†? An argument is a collection of statements or propositions, including premises and conclusions, in an attempt to persuade another that the conclusion is true. The premises are intended to provide support and evidence in favor to the speaker’s stance, and in some cases they don’t success. There can be an indefinite number of premises, while there needs to be at least one conclusion. Conclusions are statements about the point the argument is trying to make. An argument needs to base on logic, in order to avoid logical fallacies (such as slippery slope argument) which make an argument bad, invalid or unsound. An argument is valid, or colloquially speaking, is good if the premises give logical and true reasons to prove that the conclusion is true. It is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, or if the conclusion follows from the premises in a logical way.

Professionalism In Information Technology

Professionalism In Information Technology Professionalism may be considered as behaving in an appropriate manner and adhering to accepted principles and practices. It is not only vital in the field of Information Technology but it is also very important in other fields. Some of the key aspects of IT Professionalism are competence in IT, knowledge, various skills such as soft skills, ethical behaviour and certification. Professionalism and ethics must be taught and practised at the secondary level of schooling. Professionalism is required not only in the field of Information Technology but also in other fields in order to bring about reputation, ethical behaviour and add value to any organization. This paper discusses about IT Professionalism and Ethics and how professionalism is applicable in IT industry. With the help of class discussions, case study and literature review, ethics and professionalism in IT and other fields are discussed. In this paper, an effort has been made to answer some of the questions below: Why IT professionalism is needed and why is it important? What is ethics? Why Ethics is needed? Role of ethics in Information Technology Discussion IT professionals should not only have good technical knowledge and experience but also have right attitude with good soft skills such as communication, interpersonal, analytical, statistical, managerial, leadership skills etc. Nowadays, businesses require professionalism in order to provide best quality service to the customers and to satisfy their requirements. Professionalism also provides a platform for ethical trade. It greatly increases profits, productivity and high market value in an organization. It greatly benefits the individuals who follow it and impacts society in a positive manner. Let us look at some of the qualities which describe a professional (ACM, 2000) Trustworthiness: Professional trusts himself in whatever he does and trusts other people. Honesty: Professional is honest when working and follows right code of conduct. Punctuality: It is one of the most important aspects of professionalism. Responsibility: Professional is responsible towards his work and handles work effectively. Leadership: Professional has good leadership skills and is a good team player. Confidentiality: Maintains confidentiality of information in an organization. Competency: Professional is technically competent in his field. What is Ethics? Ethics may be considered as regulations which differentiate between right and wrong. It also aims to differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. Why Ethics is needed? Ethics helps people to respect and value themselves as well as others. It is based on core values such as Trust, simplicity, integrity, excellence, success and reputation. Ethics in an organization helps in retaining the talent and minimizes attrition rate of jobs. It aims to improve profits and increases productivity among the employees in an organization. Why IT professionalism is needed and why is it important? In order to enhance the growth and add value to an organization. It helps to provide better services to clients It increases trust with employers and employees within an organization Create companys own brand value IT professionalism forms the pillar for companys own vision and mission It improves customer satisfaction They should be aware of the various types of educational programs, different job titles and functions, and some aspects of the employment supply and demand. They should be aware of the need for each computing worker to have professional responsibility for their work, and an awareness of the importance of appropriate ethical behaviour in the group. They must also have an awareness of the impact of information technology on society as a whole and on individuals, and be prepared to handle a variety of issues arising in the workplace. (Little, J. C. and Granger, M. J., 1999) Role of Ethics and Professionalism in Information Technology IT has modernized the living standards of mankind. In IT, professionalism plays a major role in bringing the changes to an organization and to the humanity. Technology can be used as a benefit or for destruction. Ethics play a major role in determining the right use of technology. There is a very fine line between professional and non-professional. IT professional must have proper code of conduct, right attitude and good moral values and should not misuse the technology. Nowadays, due to the rapid advancement in technology there has been a widespread misuse of technology. With the rise of Internet there has been unethical and unprofessional behaviour which have led to severe problems such as computer viruses, Spamming and hacking. In IT education, ethics should be taught and allowed to be practiced in all schools and institutions. Students must be made aware of the consequences which result due to unethical behaviour. It is in the early stage that these values should be inculcated within them which will lead a long way later in life. There has been an increase in cyber crimes due to the misuse of Internet. Many a time, students are unaware of ethics and professional behaviour. Professionalism must be strictly followed in schools and institutions and should be practised at an earlier stage. In universities, plagiarism is unethical. Copying others ideas and work, without proper acknowledgement to the original author it is unfair and severe action is observed and implemented. Case Study and personal experience Personally, it has been a wonderful learning experience studying the importance and role of ethics and professionalism in IT. As goes the famous quote, Character, not circumstances, makes the man. (Booker T. Washington), professionalism and ethics helps in making use of science and technology for noble purposes. In our case study (Digital Artefact on IT Professionalism by Trailblazers, 2010), we discussed about non-professional behaviour and some of the reasons causing it. Non-professional behaviour mainly results due to lack of ethics and lack of soft skills. Let us look at some of the differences between professional and non-professional Professional Has self respect and treats others with respect Has honesty and performs his/her duties Responsible and dedicated towards work Skilled, knowledgeable and experience Team player and has good management skills Good communicator Right attitude and sound character Non professional Does not respect others Lacks honesty and does not perform his duties Not responsible or dedicated Lack of knowledge, skills and experience Not a team player and lacks management skills Not a good communicator Does not have right attitude, bad character The difference between a professional person and a technician is that a technician knows everything about his job except its ultimate purpose and his place in the scheme of things (Livingston, 2010) An example of unethical behaviour in an organization If an employee in an organization fails to follow the right code of conduct and does not follow ethics, he/she will be penalized. An individual will not be successful in his field if he does not have moral values. An example of how atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima was completely unethical. People were not educated about the danger and the extent of damage that would be caused by atomic bombs. Had they been imparted proper knowledge and safety measures during the war, many peoples lives would have been saved (Matloff, 1966). How IT professionalism is applicable to me? IT professionalism helps me to advance in the IT industry and my aspiration is to become network support engineer. In order to be a professional in the networking field, developing a career development plan is useful. As change is rapid in IT industry, I need to constantly update my skills and knowledge to be proficient and successful. Certifications play a major role in the IT industry (Steven Philip, 2010) and by proper planning and management of daily activities, I will be able to obtain higher certifications and get hands-on-experience in networking field. Network professionals provide and enforce security of confidential information over the Internet. They must adhere to ethics when performing their duties and also provide suitable advice to fellow employees or clients. (NPA, 2007) Some of the important guidelines and practices for network professionals Technical expertise and knowledge Confidentiality to be maintained within an organization and with clients Following proper ethical codes Adherence to principles and practices Conclusion In the present world the role of an IT professional is vital. IT professionalism is not just about acquiring skills, knowledge, experience and certifications but also giving equal importance to core moral values, principles and ethical behaviour (Jide, 2010). This will have a huge impact on ones personal life brings about positive changes in an organization and benefits the society. A true professional is a combination of excellent knowledge and skills with fine character and virtues. Government and organisation must promote IT professionalism and penalize the employees or workers who do not follow it. Professionalism and ethics is clearly defined in other professions such as doctors, advocates, engineers etc. IT professionalism is more concerned with technical skills, knowledge, expertise and certifications and no clear guidelines on ethical behaviour are defined. Professionalism is best learnt when one practices than by merely studying it.

Justice In Platos The Republic Essay -- Plato Republic Justice Philos

Justice In Plato's The Republic Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote â€Å"One man’s justice is another’s injustice.† This statement quite adequately describes the relation between definitions of justice presented by Polemarchus and Thrasymachus in Book I of the Republic. Polemarchus initially asserts that justice is â€Å"to give to each what is owed† (Republic 331d), a definition he picked up from Simonides. Then, through the unrelenting questioning of Socrates, Polemarchus’ definition evolves into â€Å"doing good to friends and harm to enemies† (Republic 332d), but this definition proves insufficient to Socrates also. Eventually, the two agree â€Å"that it is never just to harm anyone† (Republic 335d). This definition is fundamental to the idea of a common good, for harming people according to Socrates, only makes them â€Å"worse with respect to human virtue† (Republic 335 C). Polemarchus also allows for the possibility of common good through his insistence on helping friends. To Polemarchus nothing is more important than his circle of friends, and through their benefit he benefits, what makes them happy pleases him.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Upon the summation of the debate between Polemarchus and Socrates, Thrasymachus enters into the fray. He states that justice â€Å"is nothing other than advantage of the stronger† (Republic 338c), and also that the greatest life is that of perfect injustice, to be found in the life of a tyrant. This definition leaves no room for the common good because it creates a life of compet...

THEME ON EMILY DICKINSON :: essays research papers

Poems of Emily Dickinson Thesis of my paper that I am trying to prove to the reader is that Emily Dickinson is a brilliant extraordinary writer. She talks about mortality and death within her life and on paper in her poem works. Although she lived a seemingly secluded life, Emily Dickinson's many encounters with death influenced many of her poems and letters. Perhaps one of the most ground breaking and inventive poets in American history, Dickinson has become as well known for her bizarre and eccentric life as for her incredible poems and letters. Numbering over 1,700, her poems highlight the many moments in a 19th century New England woman's life, including the deaths of some of her most beloved friends and family, most of which occurred in a short period of time (Introduction, Paragraph 2). In many short poems, several readers or critics of Dickinson point out her methods of exploring several topics in "circumference," as she says in her own words. Death is perhaps one of the best examples of this exploration and examination. Other than one trip to Washington and Philadelphia, several excursions to Boston to see a doctor and a few short years in school, Dickinson never left her hometown of Amherst, Massachusetts. In the latter part of her life she rarely left her large brick house, and communicated even to her beloved sister through a door often left "slightly ajar." This seclusion gave her a reputation for eccentricity to the local towns' people, and perhaps increased her interest in death (The Belle Of Amherst, Dickinson). Some knew Dickinson in Amherst as, "the New England mystic,". Her only contact to her few friends and correspondents was through a series of letters, seen as some authors and critics to be equal not only in number to her poetic works, but in literary genius as well (Introduction Dickinson). Explored thoroughly in her works, death seems to be a dominating theme through out Dickinson's life. Dickinson, although secluded and isolated, had a few encounters with love; two perhaps serious affairs were documented in her letters and poems. But, since Dickinson's life was so private the exact identity of these people remains unsure. What is known, is during the Civil War, worried for her friends and families' lives, death increased in frequency to be a dominant theme in her writings. After 1878, the year of her influential father's death, (a treasurer of Amherst College, and a member of the Congress), this theme increased with each passing of friend or family, peaking perhaps with the death of the two men she loved (The Belle of Amherst, Dickinson).

Everybodys All American :: essays research papers

Everybody’s All-American is the story of a famous football player who becomes an overweight middle-aged has-been. Gavin "the Gray Ghost" Gray is a legendary college football player who marries his homecoming queen sweetheart and embarks on a professional career full of difficulties. â€Å"The Gray Ghost† is a Louisiana football legend. There had never been a better, faster ball player, and everyone knows the hero is headed for pro football. To no one's surprise, Gavin marries his sweetheart, beauty queen â€Å"Babs.† He is a first-draft pick in the pros, as expected, and soon after that, the two begin their family. I was especially interested in this movie because I am, myself, a college athlete. This movie brought out the importance of having a life and goals other than playing a professional sport. Too many young athletes these days have unrealistic goals of going to the pros, while in actuality the chances of them doing so are next to impossible. Many athletes are in college just to play their sport, and do not care about their academic performance. Eventually, the limelight will fade and professional athletes will become has-beens left to reminisce about their â€Å"glory days.† Often in college, athletes will do just enough to get by and not care about what their academic performance means. Unfortunately, especially in some larger schools, preferential treatment for athletes does exist among the faculty. This also gives athletes the advantage at the time, but hurts them in the long run. In the movie, the ideal marriage of Gavin and Babs begins to come apart, when Gavin cannot deal with the loss of the glory he had in his youth.

Is Lie Good or Bad

I recently read the story named† The Whole Truth†. This story was telling us lies are a bad idea but you can lie in some situations. This story told us about a yound man named Bob, he lied to a parking lot owner that he was graduated from high school and he was 21 years old but actually he was 18. He got a job. After 4 months, his boss suggested him to go to college. He feel nervous because he lied to his boss and that will be the cause him to lose his job. Acording to the passage which was said: â€Å"Most of people agree that telling lies is a bad idea. But there are times when telling a lie might be a good idea†. First of all, lie is considered to be bad, and most people hate liars. Have you ever read the ironic story named â€Å"a wolf and a liar† about a shepherd boy always lie with the villagers about a wolf is attacking his sheeps and need help and one day that happen and this boy called for help but noone help him because they think he just wanted to make fun and a wolf killed many sheeps of him. Moreover, some lie can be cause of serious problem. If you had been watching many criminal movies you might know about this which is about some people wanted to have more benefit for themselves and they provide a wrong information that may cause that company have to face a serious challege such as backrupt and workers in that company also may lost their job. On the other hand, some times you can telling a lie because that help you pass the trouble, help yourself or to help others. The passage above about a young man who lied to a parking lot owner to get a job but he really work hard there. No one in the world is never lie before and also now. Here is very symple example which is about 2 lover, a man love 1 girl and he have to lie to his girlfriend whenever he wanted to go out with her because she very busy with her studies and her job. In my opinion, every one did lie at least a hundred times in their life but you have to think before you tell other a lie. You have to know about consequence of what you are doing, is it bad or good? Some people they totally believe lie is a badest thing of the world because they believe that liars are always a bad people and that is a crime. However, my opinion is their adversary. I don’t say lie is good but it depend on what you are lying about and who you are lying to. In conclusion, no one can tell that lie is good or bad because lie can help people and also can cause people to face with a serious problem.