Plato Vs Nozick Essay - 1152 Words

Utopia is â€Å"an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect.† according to en.oxforddictionaries.com. Although this is the ideal definition, there are many varying definitions of what a utopia is. Throughout history, many philosophers have argued their different views on what utopia is. This paper argues why two philosophers Plato and Nozick, disagree on utopia and how they might challenge one another’s ideas. The Republic is considered one of the first pieces of philosophy that touch on utopia. In order to create the perfect city, in which Plato describe as a polis, he argues would be run by a perfectly developed society. To achieve this perfectly developed society, there needs to be specialization and class†¦show more content†¦For example, on page 396, it states â€Å"Neither the shoemaker nor the farmer should ever attempt to do one another’s job, because they would do so poorly, or, at the very least, do so without the job’s highest potential ever being fulfilled†. (396e) Plato argues that each individual can practice one pursuit well but cannot practice many of them well because being skilled at one thing is most important. If one â€Å"tried to do this and dabbled in many things, he would surely fail to achieve distinction in all of them† ( 394e). Plato might challenge another philosopher like Nozick, in questioning the effectiveness of a freeform society. Plato believes that having each citizen do a single job to the best of their ability, will allow the city to work like a perfect system. A free-flowing system would in Plato’s eyes be unorganized and chaotic, with no structure. In Anarchy, State and Utopia, Nozick discusses his ideal society. He begins by addressing a fundamental idea he believes occurs in any development of utopia. That is, people are different, and their preferences for an ideal community also differ. He states â€Å"The best of all possible worlds for me will not be that for you. The world, of all those I can imagine, which I would most prefer to live in, will not be precisely the one you would choose. Utopia, though, must be, in some restricted sense, the best for all of us; the best world imaginable, for each of us.† (Nozick, p.298). Nozick’s solution to this is a free-formShow More RelatedPrinciples of Microeconomics Fifth Canadian Edition20085 Words   |  81 Pagesanticompetition, 384–385 asymmetric information, 493–495 collusion, 378–379 common resources, 240–242 consumer choice, 475–476, 478–479 consumption tax, 255–256 corporate income tax, 261–263 deadweight loss, 171–173 discrimination, 429–431 drugs, monopoly vs. generic, 324–325 fixed and variable costs, 300 gasoline taxes, 216–217 gas prices, 122–123 Giffen good, 475–476 income effects on labour supply, 478–479 income redistribution, 437–438 income tax, 255–256 minimum wage, 127–130 monopolies, 324–325 payroll

If I Can Change the World Free Essays

If I could change the world, money, the axis of evil, will not be the center of everything. It will just be a part of life, not the criterion of man’s success in life. People will stop killing each other for money; people will stop defrauding others of their money. We will write a custom essay sample on If I Can Change the World or any similar topic only for you Order Now If I could change the world, money will stop its reign as king over man’s soul. In Saudi Arabia, Women, dressed in black from head to toe with only their eyes sticking out, were moving about busily. If I could change the world, women will be given the same rights as men. Why do these men think that they are the gods of this land? Women in other countries have proved that they could emulate men; don’t these women have the same potential? If I could change the world, these women will definitely be free to show off all their talents for this country’s own benefit. â€Å"To Israel, please,† I replied, remembering the suicide attacks I’ve heard of so many times. We were greeted by a gunshot which miraculously passed through us but hit a man behind us who immediately fell to the ground, which was already wet with fresh blood. If I could change the world, there will be no wars. Look at that man over there,† I said, pointing to someone who was frantically holding the dying man who was shot upon our arrival. â€Å"He can tell you about the helpless feeling of holding a dying friend in his arms, feeling the life flowing out and not being able to do anything about it. What will happen to that dying man’s family? If he is the breadwinner of the family, how will the rest of his family survive? If he is the only son of an old mother, how many sleepless nights will the mother spend weeping for her lost son? If I could change the world, nations will learn to forgive and forget each other’s mistakes. Nations will learn to respect each other’s religion, culture and perspectives. Leaders of nations will not hunt for reasons to harm and to attack, but will search for ways to help and to cooperate for a better world How to cite If I Can Change the World, Essay examples

Why English Is Important free essay sample

Why study English and History? This joint degree enables students to combine the study of history with that of English language and literature. The intersection between language, culture, and history is currently the focus of active debate within both the disciplines and you are encouraged throughout your course to relate literary and historical ideas in the investigation of your chosen periods, topics, or authors. The course is centered around the twin assumptions that historical documents are just as much ‘texts’ as are poems, plays or novels, and are therefore subject to literary interpretations, and equally that poems, plays and novels represent historically grounded ways of interpreting a culture. The joint school in English and History offers you a very wide choice of options. It is largely open to you to design the course of study which meets your own interests: tutors in your college will offer advice and help you to select the subjects best suited to your strengths. We will write a custom essay sample on Why English Is Important or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page The course trains you to set different kinds of writing, in different languages, in their full social, historical, literary and linguistic contexts. You will read widely in poetry, fiction, drama and criticism and will learn to analyse and to write critically about what you have read. A History course already enriched by a strong cultural input is an ideal companion to the study of English literature. Whether your interest is in early or Middle English, the Renaissance, or the later periods, intellectually fruitful combinations are possible. The joint degree includes two explicitly interdisciplinary papers taught jointly by specialists in the two subjects. The English and History degree will equip you with analytical and writing skills that are readily transferable into many other situations and many professions. It opens up the opportunity to go into a great variety of careers. What can I study as part of the course? In your first year, you will take introductory and methodological courses in both subjects (on the History side, there is some choice in which course you take here). Together with these, you will choose one History course from a selection of periods of British history ranging from 300 A. D. to the present day, and one English course from a selection of periods of literature, namely Old English, Middle English, Victorian, or Modern. In your second and third years, there are some opportunities to weight the course towards the History side. The centrepiece of the course is the two interdisciplinary papers you take, chosen from a list of three or more. In addition to these, you can choose from a wide range of options from both schools, including period papers not offered in the first year, and more specialised options from both schools. There is a huge degree of choice in these papers; students can either choose to specialise in a specific period or topic, or can pick and choose from the wide range of options. In addition, you can offer a dissertation on any topic of your choosing. Up to three of the papers you offer can be assessed by coursework rather than exam. Why English is important IF YOU are currently learning English in a school, college or institute of further education, you join approximately one billion other people around the world who are engaged in the same pursuit. However, as you try to memorise proper grammar, and try to avoid the mistakes common to most students of English, you may wonder why you are learning the language in the first place. So, why is English important? After Mandarin, English is spoken by more people than any other language, and is the native language of more than 350 million people. More people speak English than those who speak the Arabic and French languages combined. Moreover, English is the international language of diplomacy, business, science, technology, banking, computing, medicine, aviation, UN NATO armed forces, engineering, tourism, Hollywood films and arguably the best pop and rock music in the world. English has plenty of words to choose from. In fact, an English speaker is offered the biggest vocabulary of any language with a choice of 500,000 to 1,000,000 words (including technical and scientific terms). But don’t panic, most English speakers do very well with a vocabulary of around 20,000 words. English can be fun too. For instance, the music of such stars as Elvis Presley, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Michael Jackson and Madonna has encouraged fans to speak the language of their idols, whilst others have enrolled in English classes to improve their understanding of the dialogue in films and TV shows. Or perhaps they have embraced English to enjoy the writing of Stephen King, George Orwell or J. K. Rowling. They may even have an interest in speaking English just to converse with travellers from other countries, who communicate by using the English global interlingua while travelling abroad. Finally, if you are studying English at school, college or university, remember that getting an ‘A’ grade in English is almost worthless, in terms of communication, if you cannot speak the language. Spoken English is used in the best careers, the best universities, and is increasingly being used at job interviews. So like it or not, English is a very important language to learn how to speak.

Zimmermann Telegram in World War I

Zimmermann Telegram in World War I The Zimmermann Telegram was a diplomatic note sent by the German Foreign Office to Mexico in January 1917 which proposed a military alliance between the two nations should the United States enter World War I (1914-1918) on the side of the Allies. In return for the alliance, Mexico would receive financial assistance from Germany as well as could reclaim territory lost during the Mexican-American War (1846-1848) (1846-1848). The Zimmermann Telegram was intercepted and decoded by the British who in turn shared it with the United States. The release of the telegram in March further inflamed the American public and contributed to the American declaration of war the following month. Background In 1917, As World War I ground on, Germany began assessing options for striking a decisive blow. Unable to break the British blockade of the North Sea with its surface fleet, the German leadership elected to return to a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare. This approach, whereby German U-boats would attack merchant shipping without warning, had been briefly used in 1916 but was abandoned after strong protests by the United States. Believing that Britain could be quickly crippled if its supply lines to North America were severed, Germany prepared to re-implement this approach effective February 1, 1917. Concerned that the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare could bring the United States into the war on the side of the Allies, Germany began making contingency plans for this possibility. To this end, German Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmermann was instructed to seek a military alliance with Mexico in the event of war with the United States. In return for attacking the United States, Mexico was promised the return of territory lost during the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), including Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, as well as substantial financial assistance. German Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmermann. Public Domain Transmission As Germany lacked a direct telegraph line to North America, the Zimmermann Telegram was transmitted over American and British lines. This was permitted as President Woodrow Wilson allowed the Germans to transmit under the cover of U.S. diplomatic traffic in hopes that he could remain in touch with Berlin and broker a lasting peace. Zimmermann sent the original coded message to Ambassador Johann von Bernstorff on January 16, 1917. Receiving the telegram, he forwarded it on to Ambassador Heinrich von Eckardt in Mexico City via commercial telegraph three days later. Mexican Response After reading the message, von Eckardt approached the government of President Venustiano Carranza with the terms. He also asked Carranza to aid in forming an alliance between Germany and Japan. Listening to the German proposal, Carranza instructed his military to determine the feasibility of the offer. In assessing a possible war with the United States, the military determined that it largely lacked the capability to re-take the lost territories and that German financial assistance would be useless as the United States was the only significant arms producer in the Western Hemisphere. President Venustiano Carranza of Mexico. Public Domain Furthermore, additional arms could not be imported as the British controlled the sea lanes from Europe. As Mexico was emerging from a recent civil war, Carranza sought to improve relations with the United States as well as other nations in the region such as Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. As a result, it was determined to decline the German offer. An official response was issued to Berlin on April 14, 1917, stating that Mexico had no interest in allying with the German cause. British Interception As the ciphertext of the telegram was transmitted through Britain, it was immediately intercepted by British code breakers who were monitoring traffic originating in Germany. Sent to the Admiraltys Room 40, code breakers found that it was encrypted in cipher 0075, which they had partially broken. Decoding parts of the message, they were able to develop an outline of its content. Realizing that they possessed a document that could compel the United State to join the Allies, the British set about developing a plan that would allow them to unveil the telegram without giving away that they were reading neutral diplomatic traffic or that they had broken German codes. To deal with the first issue, they were able to correctly guess that the telegram was sent over commercial wires from Washington to Mexico City. In Mexico, British agents were able to obtain a copy of the ciphertext from the telegraph office. This was encrypted in cipher 13040, which the British had captured a copy of in the Middle East. As a result, by mid-February, British authorities had the complete text of the telegram. To deal with the code breaking issue, the British publicly lied and claimed they had been able to steal a decoded copy of the telegram in Mexico. They ultimately alerted the Americans to their code breaking efforts and Washington elected to back the British cover story. On February 19, 1917, Admiral Sir William Hall, the head of Room 40, presented a copy of the telegram to the secretary of the U.S. Embassy, Edward Bell.​​ Stunned, Hall initially believed the telegram to be a forgery but passed it on to Ambassador Walter Hines Page the next day. On February 23, Page met with Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour and was shown the original ciphertext as well as the message in both German and English. The next day, the telegram and verifying details were presented to Wilson. Ambassador Walter Hines Page. Library of Congress American Response News of the Zimmermann Telegram was quickly released and stories about its contents appeared in the American press on March 1. While pro-German and anti-war groups claimed that it was a forgery, Zimmermann confirmed the telegrams contents on March 3 and March 29. Further inflaming the American public, which was angered over the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare (Wilson broke diplomatic relations with Germany on February 3 over this issue) and the sinking SS Houstonic (February 3) and SS California (February 7), the telegram further pushed the nation towards war. On April 2, Wilson asked Congress to declare war on Germany. This was granted four days later and the United States entered the conflict. Zimmermann Telegram in World War I The Zimmermann Telegram was a note sent in 1917 from the German Foreign Minister Zimmermann to his ambassador in Mexico, containing details of a proposed alliance against America; it was intercepted and published, strengthening US public support for war against Germany as part of World War One. The Background By 1917 the conflict we call The First World War had been raging for over two years, drawing in troops from Europe, Africa, Asia, North America, and Australasia, although the main battles were in Europe. The main belligerents were, on one side, the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires (the Central Powers) and, on the other, the British, French and Russian Empires (the Entente or Allies). The war had been expected to last just a few months in 1914, but the conflict had dragged on in a stalemate of trenches and massive death tolls, and all sides in the war were looking for any advantage they could gain. The Zimmermann Telegram Sent through a supposedly secure channel devoted to peace negotiations (a transatlantic cable belonging to Scandinavia) on January 19th, 1917, the Zimmermann Telegram – often called the Zimmermann Note - was a memo sent from the German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmermann to the German Ambassador to Mexico. It informed the ambassador that Germany would be resuming its policy of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare (USW) and, crucially, ordered him to propose an alliance. If Mexico would join in a war against the US, they would be rewarded with financial support and re-conquered land in New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona. The ambassador was also to ask the Mexican President to propose his own alliance to Japan, a member of the Allies. Why Did Germany Send the Zimmermann Telegram? Germany had already stopped and started USW - a program of sinking any shipping coming near their enemies in an attempt to starve them of food and materials - because of fierce US opposition. Americas official neutrality involved trading with all belligerents, but in practice, this meant the Allies and their Atlantic coastlines rather than Germany, who suffered from a British blockade. Consequently, US shipping was frequently a victim. In practice, the US was giving the UK aid which had prolonged the war. The German high command knew renewed USW would probably cause the US to declare war on them, but they gambled on shutting Britain down before an American army could arrive in force. The alliance with Mexico and Japan, as proposed in the Zimmermann Telegram, was intended to create a new Pacific and Central American Front, greatly distracting the US and aiding the German war effort. Indeed, after USW resumed the US severed diplomatic relations with Germany and began debating an entry into the war. The Leak However, the secure channel wasnt secure at all: British intelligence intercepted the telegram and, recognizing the effect it would have on US public opinion, released it to America on February 24th, 1917. Some accounts claim the US State Department was also illegally monitoring the channel; either way, US President Wilson saw the note on the 24th. It was released to the world press on March 1st. Reactions to the Zimmermann Telegram Mexico and Japan immediately denied having anything to do with the proposals (indeed, the Mexican President was content at a recent American withdrawal from his country and Germany could offer little beyond moral support), while Zimmermann admitted the Telegrams authenticity on March 3rd. It had often been asked why Zimmermann came right out and fully admitted things instead of pretending otherwise. Despite Germanys complaint that the Allies had been wiretapping secure peace networks, the US public - still concerned at Mexicos intentions following trouble between the two - was aghast. A vast majority reacted to both the Note, and weeks of growing anger at USW, by backing war against Germany. However, the note itself did not provoke the US into joining the war. Things might have stayed as they were, but then Germany made the mistake which cost them the war and restarted Unrestricted Submarine Warfare again. When the American Congress approved Wilsons decision to declare war on April 6th in reaction to this, there was just 1 vote against. Full Text of The Zimmermann Telegram On the first of February, we intend to begin submarine warfare unrestricted. In spite of this, it is our intention to endeavor to keep neutral the United States of America. If this attempt is not successful, we propose an alliance on the following basis with Mexico: That we shall make war together and together make peace. We shall give general financial support, and it is understood that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona. The details are left to you for settlement. You are instructed to inform the President of Mexico of the above in the greatest confidence as soon as it is certain that there will be an outbreak of war with the United States and suggest that the President of Mexico, on his own initiative, should communicate with Japan suggesting adherence at once to this plan; at the same time, offer to mediate between Germany and Japan. Please call to the attention of the President of Mexico that the employment of ruthless submarine warfare now promises to compel England to make peace in a few months. Zimmerman (Sent January 19, 1917)

Free Sample Essay on Five Stages of Grief

Free Sample Essay on Five Stages of Grief Because death is an inevitable, natural fact of life, grief is only just as natural. â€Å"Grief† is defined as a deep sorrow, especially one that is caused by someone’s death. Some handle the death of a loved one better than others. Others, well, it tears them up inside and continues to negatively affect them for the rest of their life. Nonetheless, there is generally a process that a person tends to experience beginning after the passing of a loved one, and it starts with the initial shock of losing a dearly loved person and ends with finally accepting their passing. One model that explains the process of grieving is Elizabeth Kubler-Ross’ model â€Å"The Five Stages of Grief† – in which there is 1) Denial, 2) Anger, 3) Bargaining, 4) Depression and 5) Acceptance. Denial happens to people when they first lose a person to death and can’t believe it has happened. They deny it. It is essentially a stage of shock, numbness, and disbelief. They are not denying the death has occurred; they are more so experiencing this mentality: â€Å"I can’t believe this person, whom I love so much and came to depend on, will never be around to embrace again.† This thought process serves to protect the grieving because to understand this reality all at once would be too intense and overwhelming for the living loved ones. Eventually one asks, â€Å"How did this happen?† and â€Å"Why?† But this is natural; it’s a sign that they are moving out of the denial phase and into the process of healing. The second stage is anger – at oneself, at God, at the loved one, at the world. It is often kept bottled up inside until it turns into guilt – guilt that more could have been done to prevent this loved one’s death. But this is a completely natural response to loss. Recognizing this anger phase of the process of grieving and being able to control these strong emotions is a crucial step to moving on toward acceptance. You may also like: What are the qualities of a good friend? Pandas: Failure in a cute disguise Persuasive essay on Allan Edgar Poes story The art of effective problem-solving Argumentative essay on violence in children and the media Bargaining is the third stage. This occurs when the grieving person wants life to be like it used to be when the deceased was still alive and well. They essentially fixate on going back in time in order to prevent the death from happening in the first place. It is the â€Å"If only† mentality. This keeps the person focused on the past – and they avoid dealing with the emotions of the present, the reality of the deceased. Depression is the fourth stage of grieving, according to Elizabeth Kubler-Ross’ model of â€Å"The Five Stages of Grief.† It is when the person who has lost a loved one and who is grieving enters a darker level – one with intense feelings of emptiness and sadness. When daily habits become a burden, and joy is hard to find in any event or experience. It is not a mental illness at this point, per se, but a natural response to loss. In this stage, the griever allows himself or herself to begin accepting the loss. At this point, they allow themselves to feel the pain, loss, grief and sadness that comes  with the death of a loved one. This is crucial to healing – experiencing these emotions for this reason. The fifth and final stage of the grieving process is acceptance. It is not the cure to grief, as the loss of a dearly loved one can impact a person for the rest of their lives. Acceptance only means the person who has lost a loved one is ready to try and move on – to accommodate themselves in this world without the loved one. This is a process that everyone experience in one shape or form. It is one that can actually bring a person closer to the departed, the loved one, with a clear sense of the previous life and clear understanding how they want life to be now.

Is President Barack Obama a Good President Essay

Is President Barack Obama a Good President - Essay Example In a reflective analysis of the various aspects of the President-ship of the current president of the US, one may undoubtedly argue that Barack Obama is one of the most prominent and effective leaders and presidents in the history of this great nation. First of all, his life story very well reflects the true American story – incorporating the â€Å"values from the heartland, a middle-class upbringing in a strong family, hard work and education as the means of getting ahead, and the conviction that a life so blessed should be lived in service to others.† (President Barack Obama). Therefore, the President has been aware of the American story very well which has helped him tremendously to shape his opinions and policies as a president of the people. The vast amount of experience in the public service arena has contributed to the success of Obama as a great leader and president of the nation which is also reflected in the nation’s unwavering belief in his ability to unite people around a politics of purpose. Some of the fundamental points to argue why Barack Obama is good president and effective leader of the nation include his intelligent leadership; he is not war-hungry or money-hungry; the effect of his genial and luminous personality on diplomacy; his civil rights struggles; his awareness of an overall reform of the various political policies of the nation, etc. In consideration of these features of his leadership and many others, one must argue that President Obama is one of the most effective and successful presidents that the people of the United States have ever seen. It is important to remember that, when President Obama was elected as the 44th President of the United States, there was a great expectation about his ability to lead the nation from the front to a great period in the history of the nation and he seemed like a different kind of leader in comparison with many of his predecessors. Definitely, he has lived up to those expecta tions which earned him high reputation even in the international scenario. As the BBC Radio 4’s Today program evaluates, President Obama has not just been the first black man in the White House but also ‘a new sort of American president’: thoughtful, reflective and determined to represent all of his country. (Mardell). This remark about the leadership of the president very well reflects the various aspects of the policies of his government. All through his tenure, the President has given great thought and reflective attitude towards the various issues facing the nation, be it economic crisis, employment issues, or matters of international affairs. Most of the Americans considered, and still consider, President Obama as the most important transformational figure of the nation who can lead this great nation to meet the demands of the contemporary world. The former state secretary Colin Powell was right when he endorsed Barack Obama describing him as a ‘transf ormational figure’ who was the right president for this moment in time. In his words, President Obama is the right choice for leading this great nation as he has both style and substance. (Bennis, 2009, p. 223). One of the major factors that contribute to the success of Barack Obama as the transformational president of the nation is his leadership qualities. It is important to recognize that the world’s hunger for effective leadership at the international scenario has been satisfied by the election of this charismatic new leader as the president of the United States on November 4, 2008. Millions of Americans wept with pride in their country and relief on the night of his victory as he had triumphed over old prejudices. â€Å"One result of Barak Obama’s extraordinary election is to remind us of just how thin our leadership bench is.†

Defamation is it for the rich Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 7000 words

Defamation is it for the rich - Essay Example It is evident from the research that the law of defamation appears to be rather simple since a plaintiff seeking to substantiate a claim is generally required to establish that the defendant made/published defamatory statements and that those statements referred to the plaintiff or at the very least, any reasonable or objective person would conclude that the statements referred to the plaintiff. However, below the surface, there are barriers contained in common law precedents and statutory provisions that complicate an otherwise simple requirement to the extent that access to justice is not so straighforward. For instance, the word â€Å"malice† consistently appears in the Defamation Acts and case law although proof of malice is merely a theoretical requirement and is â€Å"purely formal†. As W. Horton explains:â€Å"Though the word (maliciously) is usually inserted in the plaintiff’s statement of claim, no one takes any notice of it at trial except for the purp ose of inflating damages where there has been spite or deliberateness.† Be that as it may, the overuse of the word malice is only a small token of the complexities with which act as an impediment to a straightforward defamation law suit. The more serious issues are found in the substantive law. For instance, defences such as fair comment and truth are typically available but will only protect opinionated statements and will do nothing to protect statements of fact. While there are other defences the underlying goal of defamation law is to provide for the accuracy and fairness of published or communicated statements.