Vincent Van Gogh at the National Gallery of Art Essay

Vincent Van Gogh at the National Gallery of Art - Essay Example Reproductions of his work appear on posters, calendars, mouse pads, and other widespread consumer items. His influence was especially strong on the French Fauvists and German Expressionists immediately following his death. Even those works not immediately known today are quickly recognized by his unique style and approach, yet Van Gogh himself saw little of this success or popularity while he was alive. No publications can be found discussing his work while he was alive and only a few mentions of him, mostly negative, are found before 1910. However, paintings such as Wheatfield with Cypress reveal a great deal of the artist’s approach and emotion as well as the various ways in which he revolutionized the art world. Wheatfield with Cypress is an example of Van Gogh’s work while he was a resident at Saint-Remy hospital for the mentally unstable. It is a member of a series of paintings in which Van Gogh explored an image or a theme. Whether it was this painting or another one of the series, he wrote to his brother Theo that the trees â€Å"are always occupying my thoughts, I should like to make something of them like the canvases of the sunflowers, because it astonishes me that they have not yet been done as I see them. The tree is as beautiful of line and proportion as an Egyptian obelisk. And the green has a quality of such distinction. It is a splash of black in a sunny landscape, but it is one of the most interesting black notes, and the most difficult to hit off exactly that I can imagine† (cited in Wallace, 1969: 144). His fascination with the trees themselves as well as their contribution to the landscape overall is evident within this painting. The image depicts an initially confusing scene. The brightly lit landscape is covered by a swirling mass of clouds in a sky that seems eternally blue. The scene depicts a golden wheatfield not far from the hospital in which Van Gogh stayed in southern France.

Parliamentary sovereignty Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Parliamentary sovereignty - Essay Example The notion of Parliamentary Sovereignty has been central to democratic practice for a considerable period of time. In a democracy, the legislature is elected by popular vote and this has been a major feature of the English Constitution. In the initial stages of democracy in Britain, liberty was at grave risk due to monarchical power.1 As a consequence of the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty, the Parliament was empowered to enact or rescind any law whatsoever. In addition, no individual or organisation was permitted by English Law to set aside or overrule legislation enacted by Parliament. In R (Jackson) v Attorney General,2 Lord Hope stated that Parliamentary Sovereignty was not absolute. Thereafter he referred to the enactment of the 1972 European Communities Act and the 1998 Human Rights Act which had effectively diminished the power of Parliament to legislate.3 There was disagreement among their Lordships, regarding the ruling in R (Jackson) v Attorney General. This divergenc e in view related to whether the process detailed under section 2 of the Parliament Act 1911 and 1949, could be employed by the House of Commons to extend the life of Parliament beyond 5 years. The decision in the Jackson case apparently supports this view. Most of the members of the House of Lords were against this conclusion.4 However, they were signally unable to substantiate it in a manner that was consistent with promoting the supremacy of Parliament. In particular, Lord Hope highlighted the fact that the notion of absolute legislative sovereignty of Parliament that had been derived by Dicey from Blackstone and Coke was undergoing gradual change. However, in his judgement in this case, Lord Hope refrained from explicitly declaring that the courts lacked the power to question the validity of legislation for the reason that the latter was incompatible with union legislation.5 However, Lord Hope was of the opinion that union legislation was a tangible constraint on Parliamentary S overeignty. As per Lord Hope, the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty was central to the Constitution. However, due to certain developments, Parliamentary Sovereignty was not absolute. Consequently, it would be incorrect to contend that Parliament’s freedom to legislate is unrestricted.6 In addition, Lord Hope stated that the rule of law, which was implemented by the courts, was the decisive controlling factor, and that the Constitution was founded on this element. Furthermore, Parliamentary Sovereignty would be rendered a hollow doctrine, if the general public refused to acknowledge legislation enacted by it, on the grounds that it was extremely offensive and incongruous. The fulcrum of the British Constitution is the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Dicey, wrote extensively on the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty and deemed it to be the underlying feature of British political institutions, as well as the very bedrock of constitutional law.7 As per Dicey, parlia ment can repeal or enact any law and the judiciary cannot hold a statute to be invalid for the reason that it breaches legal or moral principles.8 Thus, every fundamental law, with the exception of the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, can be altered by Parliament. One of the critical features of the rule of sovereignty is that no parliament has the power to bind its successors. Thus, there is no avenue, whereby a parliament can ingrain an Act of Parliament.9 In other words, every Act of Parliament can be repealed by subsequent legislation. Dicey was a strong proponent of the thought that the Rule of Law would be affected by discretionary power, as the latter would ultimately result in arbitrary decisions. This has been criticised by some scholars, who have contended that discretion is inevitable in a modern state, if a wide range of regulatory and welfare duties have to be carried out.10 All the same, several important values are incorporated in the Rule of Law, such as acces s to justice, accountability, certainty, due process, efficiency,

Personality Features of the Entrepreneur

Personality Features of the Entrepreneur Ability to set high personal but obtainable aims The concern of personal accomplishment, rather than reward of success Knowledge and experience-According to Schultz (1975) states that entrepreneur talent is not only innate, but may also improve by experience and education. Entrepreneur knowledge is the important element for any company performance. Brà ¼derl et al (1992) states that the higher level of Entrepreneur education bring positivity in the productivity, which automatically leads to increase the company profit. Hence higher productivity helps to increase efficiency and processing of management and on otherwise tends to attract the customers and participating profitably with suppliers and Investors. Hambrick and Mason(1984) also concludes that company success is totally dependent on the entrepreneur Knowledge. Knowledge mainly depends on the education and the past experience (Barker III and Mueller 2002; Hadjimanolis 2000).By attaining good knowledge, entrepreneur develops new innovative ideas and try to make them real. On the other hand Hisrich Peter (1995); Mcgrath MacMillan (2000) argues that there is perception that education experience do make contribution to the function of Entrepreneurship, however these experiences may not always exclusively transpire through formal education The environment of the different culture can produce difference in attitude (Baskerville 2003) as well as differences in the behaviour of entrepreneurial (North 1990; Shane 1994) culture knowledge is another aspect which can be understood by entrepreneur. According to Zhao (2010), the cultural awareness could be defined as the understanding of a peoples historical and cultural backgrounds as well as their approach to life and their ways of living and thinking. Therefore, as Rogers and Steinfatt (1999) argue, culture has very powerful effects on individual behaviour including entrepreneurial behaviour. Vernon et aI (1997) explained that culture is an significant in any discussion of Entrepreneurship because it determines the attitude of individuals towards the commencement of Entrepreneurship. Prior hand experience is considered to be beneficial for any entrepreneur and can be expected to have a greater ability to resist unfavourable shocks and to perform corrective actions in a new venture. According to Davidsson and Honig (2003) Starr and Bygrave (1992) explains that the previous experience helps to lead to an implement skills that critically influences subsequent efforts to establish and build up new ventures. Also Shane(2000) Ucbasaran et al. (2003) concludes that the individuals who engage in the multiple starts-up called habitual entrepreneur, who develops a entrepreneurial approach and problem solving ability which automatically helps to increase their skill to recognize and utilize further opportunity. Propensity to take Risk-Risk attitude influence the entire life cycle of Entrepreneur. According to Cramer et al (2002) caliendo et al (2009), there is positive linkage between Risk attitude and the decision to become an Entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs tend to be more independently-minded, ready to take risks and accept the penalty if things go wrong.Casson (1982) concludes that risk taking ability and innovativeness are the personal characteristics and more over they have all the knowledge of handling business. Thus, people with more experience, higher abilities or greater knowledge in the field of potential self-employment tend to perceive the risks connected with certain decisions as lower ( Gifford 2003).Caird(1988) also agreed with Casson and concludes that successful entrepreneurs have abilities and knowledge to sense business risks and profitability and try to accurate errors to improve business performance and prospects. On the other hand Grable and Lytton (1998) also claim that the educational level of entrepreneurs is the most important variable in distinguishing risk-taking intensity in businesses. Psychological theory has pointed out that the individuals risk attitude is only one of numerous personal variables possibly influencing the decision to become an entrepreneur ( Rauch and Frese 2000). Person risk attitude is one of the key variable In the choice between a salaried job and entrepreneurship. According to Chell et al. (1991), there should be an inverse U-shaped relation between risk attitudes and entrepreneurial survival, where low risk attitudes characterize more risk averse and high risk attitudes indicate less risk averse persons. Recent research by Baron (2004) and K ¨ollinger et al (2007) provides further explanations for why particularly risk-seeking entrepreneurs might decide to start a business venture, even if low or even negative outcomes may arise with relatively high probability. Leadership- According to Graen and Scandura(1987) Leadership is broadly viewed as an interactive process, dependent upon both leaders and followers . and an entrepreneur is often described as a leader who must define a vision of what is possible and attract people to rally around that vision and transform it into reality (Kao, 1989). Hence, it is argued that there is interconnection between entrepreneurship and leadership (Jensen and Luthans, 2006) and to be successful entrepreneurs must possess leadership skills (Colbert, 2003).A leader has to be Entrepreneur aswell.It has been written that Entrepreneurial leadership deals with concepts and ideas,which are related to problems that are not of an organisational nature ( EL-Namaki 1992). Hinterhuber and Krauthammer (1998) assert that in todays turbulent environment, which demands not only continual innovation but radical improvements in all stakeholders satisfaction, leadership is more critical than ever for entrepreneurs. Author agin states that leadership stands onthree pillars: (1) Envisioning (2) Being an example and (3) Increasing the value of the firm Avolio et al (2004) provided a theory driven Framework for Studying Entrepreneur as a leader, with the focus on experience, self regulatory process, and leader behaviour The above theory explores that how a entrepreneur leadership can positively linked to the organisation commitment, satisfaction of the job, happiness to his/her employees. Rhoades et al(2001) add on that when employees are treated in a fair and caring manner, they become more committed towards the organisation ,and more likely to have positive attitude. Confidence- Confidence is the key to success for any individual. Very few Entrepreneur need to have important skills, out of which confidence is very vital. Confidence helps entrepreneur to convert an idea into Business success. According to Wilson et al., (2007) self confidence is based on the abilities and perception of the skills rather than objective ability. But Global Entrepreneurship Monitor(GEM) found that there is difference between the level of self confidence ability to believe in an entrepreneurs non-entrepreneurs. Minniti et al., 2004) also supports the idea of GEM that there is difference between the level of confidence in an Entrepreneur. Boyd and Vozikiss theory of intentionality helps us understand the role of confidence here too. They argue that self-efficacy not only positively influences intention, but that it also influences the transformation of intention into action (Boyd and Vozikis, 1994).While many entrepreneurs may have a clear intention to start a busine ss, not all do, and one of the things which predicts entrepreneurial action (i.e. launch) is self-efficacy. High confidence promotes a go-ahead spirit that can lead to success amid such uncertainty (Bazerman,1998) On the other hand Forbes (2005) states that the Entrepreneur who found their own business are more over confident than those who dint. According to Griffin and Varey, (1996) ,over confident is treated as situation specific. He means that the individual who is overconfident in one task might not be in second one. Gist and Mitchell (1992) Social cognitive theory tells us that self-efficacy, an assessment of ones confidence, is situation specific and implemented to the particular tasks rather than a general state of being. The real power to attract money comes from our own self-reliance, determination, and will; not from any dependence on anothers help and support. The power to attract money comes from the psychological viewpoint that I am the ultimate determinant of my fate. One of the reasons for Americas founding and continuous success was that her people were dedicated to self-reliance. Casson, M. (1982). The Entrepreneur: And Economic Theory. Oxford: Martin Robertson. Caird, S. (1988). A Review of Methods of Measuring Enterprising Attributes. Durham: Durham University Business School. Davidsson, P. (1989). Continued Entrepreneurship and Small Firm Business. Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics Bellu, R.R. (1988). Entrepreneurs and managers: are they different? In Reynolds, P.D., Birley, S., Butler, J.E., Bygrave, W.D., Bird, B. (1992). The operation of intentions intime : the emergence of new venture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17 (1), 11-20 Brockhaus, R H. (1982). The psychology of the entrepreneur, hi Kent, C. A., Sexton, D. and Vesper. K. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship (pp. 39-56). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. McClelland, D.C. (1961), The Achieving Society. Princeton, NJ: Van Norstrand Co Opportunity-According to Shane et al (2000) The major task of entrepreneur is to find out and utilize oppurtunities Risk taking Capability- according to REFERENCES FOR BIT 1 Baskerville, R.F. 2003. Hofstede Never Studied Culture. Accounting, Organizations and Society 28(1):1-14 North, D.C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. New York: Norton. Shane, S. 1994. The Effect of National Culture on the Choice between Licensing and Direct Foreign Investment. Strategic Management Journal 15:627-642. Brà ¼derl, J., Preisendorfer, P., Ziegler., R., (1992), Survival Chances of Newly Founded Organizations,American Sociological Review, Vol: 57, 227-242 Hambrick, D. C., Mason, P. A., (1984), Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9, no. 2, 193-206 Barker, V. L., III, Mueller, G.C., (2002), CEO characteristics and firm RD spending, Management Science, Vol. 48, no. 6, 782-801 Hadjimanolis, A., (2000), A resource based view of innovativeness in small firms. Technology Analysis Strategic Management, Vol. 12, no. 2, 263-28 Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25, 217-26 Shane, S. (2000), Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities, Organization Science, Vol. 11, pp. 217-26. Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., Wright, M. and Binks, M. (2003), Does entrepreneurial experience influence opportunity identification?, The Journal of Private Equity, Vol. 7, pp. 7-14. Davidsson, P. and Honig, B. (2003), The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18, pp. 301-31. Starr, J.A. and Bygrave, W.D. (1992), The second time around: the outcomes, assets, and liabilities of prior start-up experience, in Birley, S. and MacMillan, I.C. (Eds), International Perspectives on Entrepreneurship Research 1991: Proceedings of the First Annual Global Conference on Entrepreneurship Research, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 340-63. Vernon -wortzel, H. Wortzel, L. (1997) strategic management in Global economy, John wiley, New York, NY Schultz, T.(1975) The value of the ability to deal with disequlibria. Journal of economic literature, 13,827-846 McgrathMacMillan(2000) The Entrepreneurial Mindset. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Caliendo et al., 2009 M. Caliendo, F. Fossen and A. Kritikos, Risk attitudes of nascent entrepreneurs: new evidence from an experimentally-validated survey, Small Business Economics 32 (2) (2009), pp. 153-167 Cramer et al., 2002 J. Cramer, J. Hartog, N. Jonker and C. Van Praag, Low risk aversion encourages the choice for entrepreneurship: an empirical test of a truism, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 48 (2002), pp. 29-3 Grable, J., Lytton, R. H. (998). Investor risk tolerance: Testing the efficacy of demographics as differentiating and classifying factors. Financial Counseling and Planning, 9(1),61-73 Caird, S. (1988). A Review of Methods of Measuring Enterprising Attributes. Durham: Durham University Business School. Chell, E., J. Harworth, and S. Brearley (1991). The search for entrepreneurialtraits. In E. Chell, J. Harworth, and S. Brearley (Eds.), The EntrepreneurialPersonality: Concepts, Cases and Categories, Routledge Small Business Series,pp. 29-53. London: Thomson Learning Baron, R. (2004). The cognitive perspective: A valuable tool for answering entrepreneurships basic why questions. Journal of Business Venturing 19, 221-240. K ¨ollinger, P., M. Minniti, and C. Schade (2007). I think I can, I think I can: Overconfidence and entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology 28 (4),502-527. Gifford, S. (2003). Risk and uncertainty. In Z. Acs D. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research:An interdisciplinary survey and introduction (pp. 37-52).Kluwer Academic Publishers. Rauch, A., Frese, M. (2000). Psychological approaches to entrepreneurial success: A general model and an overview of findings. In C. Cooper I. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 101-142). Wiley. Kauer, D., Waldeck, T.C. and Schaffer, U. (2007), Effects of top managerial team characteristics on strategic decision making, Management Decision, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 942-67. Miller, D.Dorge, C.and Toulouse, J.M. (1988), Strategeic process and content as mediators between organization, Acadamy of Managemt journal, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 544-569. McClelland, 1990. D.C. McClelland, Human motivation. , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990) Gartner, W.B., Bird, B.J. and Starr, J.A. (1992), Acting as if: differentiating entrepreneurial from organizational behavior, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Spring, pp. 13-31. Kao, R.W.Y. (1989), Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development, Holt, Rinehart Winston of Canada, Toronto Jensen, S.M. and Luthans, F. (2006), Entrepreneurs as authentic leaders: impact on employees attitudes, Leadership Organization Development Journal, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 646-66. Colbert, F. (2003), Entrepreneurship and leadership in marketing the arts, International Journal of Arts Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 30-9. Avolio, B.J. and Luthans, F. (2006), The High Impact Leader: Moments Matter in Accelerating Authentic Leadership Development, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S. (2001), Affective commitment to the organization:the contribution of perceived organizational support, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 86, pp. 825-6 Hinterhuber, H.H. and Krauthammer, E. (1998), The leadership wheel: the tasks entrepreneurs and senior executives cannot delegate, Strategic Change, Vol. 7, pp. 149-62 Wilson, F., Kickul, J. and Marlino, D. (2007), Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions: implications for entrepreneurship education, Entrepreneurship Theory Practice, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 387-406 Minniti, M., Arenius, P. and Langowitz, N. (2004), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2004 Report on Women and Entrepreneurship, The Center for Womens Leadership at Babson College,Babson Park, MA Forbes, D.P. (2005), Are some entrepreneurs more overconfident than others?, Journalof Business Venturing, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 623-40. Gist, M.E. and Mitchell, T.R. (1992), Self-efficacy: a theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 183-211. Griffin, D.W. and Varey, C.A. (1996), Towards a consensus on overconfidence, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 65 No. 3, p. 227 Bazerman, M.H. (1998), Judgement in Managerial Decision-making, John Wiley Sons, NewYork, NY Boyd, N.G. and Vozikis, G.S. (1994), The influence of self-efficacy on the development ofentrepreneurial intentions and actions, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 63-77

Womens Sinister Roles in Shakespeares Macbeth :: Free Essay Writer

Women's Sinister Roles in Macbeth      Ã‚  Ã‚   In reading Shakespeare's tragic drama Macbeth, one meets only one good woman - Lady Macduff. The remaining female characters are basically evil. Let's consider mainly Lady Macduff and only briefly the three witches.    Blanche Coles states in Shakespeare's Four Giants that Macbeth's wife had considerable leverage over her husband's mind:    This was her opportunity to do as she had promised herself she would do after she had read the letter - to pour her spirits into his ear, to chasten with the valor of her tongue all that might impede him from the golden crown. We may be sure she took this opportunity to use all her monstrous powers of persuasion. Thus he goaded himself, or was goaded by his wife, into searing the terrible oath, whether he had any clear purpose of keeping it or not. (48-49)    In his book, On the Design of Shakespearean Tragedy, H. S. Wilson mentions the very wife-like manner in which the queen fulfilled her essential role in the tragedy:    It requires an extraordinary exertion of will and persuasion from Lady Macbeth to strengthen his wavering purpose. Professor Kittredge used to point out to his classes that Lady Macbeth, in urging Macbeth to act, uses the three arguments that every wife, some time or other, uses to every husband: "You promised me you'd do it!" "You'd do it if you loved me!" "If I were a man, I'd do it myself!" But Macbeth's mind is made up by her assurance that they may do it safely by fixing the guilt upon Duncan's chamberlains. (72)    In Fools of Time: Studies in Shakespearean Tragedy, Northrop Frye shows that a lady is the actual driving force in the play:    That Macbeth is being hurried into a premature act by his wife is a point unlikely to escape the most listless member of the audience, but Macbeth comes to regret the instant of fatal delay in murdering Macduff, and draws the moral that    The flighty purpose never is o'ertook Unless the deed go with it. From this moment The very firstlings of my heart shall be The firstlings of my hand.    That is, in future he will try to attain the successful ruler's spontaneous rhythm of action. (91)    L.C. Knights in the essay "Macbeth" describes the unnaturalness in the thoughts and words of the plays dominant female force, Lady Macbeth:

Immoral Greed †War and Morality

I am writing to you today because I want to express to you my ideas on morality and war. Morality is an ideal that can be defined as doing what is right, from a philosophical perspective, regardless of the potential consequences of taking action. Although morality is simple to define, what is moral to one person may be immoral to another, making morality entirely subjective when it comes to real problems. Political, societal, and religious influences are just a few inputs that can affect whether a person sees a particular situation as either moral or immoral. Morality is entirely relative, and can change based on the situation. One of the most controversial issues, as morality is concerned, is that of war. While war is a necessary evil, political influences and the need for power make war a potential immoral action when it is not done for the betterment of a nation or society. The motives of a nation that goes to war are one of the most controversial when it comes to the issues of morality. A nation can become involved in a violent interaction for many reasons, and the morality of the war can be based on these reasons. Some wars are fueled by power hungry politicians, while others are waged on religious or societal beliefs and impressions. The issue of morality and war is covered in Jimmy Carter’s, â€Å"Just War – or a Just War?† and Martin Luther King, Jr.’s, â€Å"Letter from Birmingham Jail†. First, I believe that in order for a war to be a moral war, all non-violent options must be exercised. In Jimmy Carter’s op-ed piece, entitled â€Å"Just War – or a Just War?†, Mr. Carter makes the observation that â€Å"†¦ war can be waged only as a last resort† (Carter 260). Before a war is waged, a nation’s leaders should exhaust any diplomatic means of resolving the differences they have with their foes. In some governments, hunger for power, rather than acting on a threat, causes war to be waged at the drop of a hat. In the current war in Iraq, there is much controversy over whether the United States declared war on Iraq because it was a last resort, or because the U.S. was hungry for power, and wanted to exert its influence over the Iraqi people. This element of war is further corroborated in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s , â€Å"Letter from Birmingham Jail†. At the height of racial tension in the South, King writes, â€Å"†¦ the city’s white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative† (King, Jr. 164). This reflects that not only can war be waged between nations, it can also be waged in a different sense, among a nation. Mr. King also outlines four steps in resolving conflicts in a non-violent manner, â€Å"†¦ collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action† (King, Jr. 164). It is important to note that the final step in this outline is direct action. In the same way that problems between nations must be resolved, tensions among a nation must also be resolved, and these attempts at a resolution must be made in a diplomatic way if possible before war is waged. Secondly, I believe that a moral war must consist of actions that are equivalent to those actions taken against the nation. Although the consequences of war, such as death and destruction, are inevitable, Carter also notes that, â€Å"Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered† (Carter 260). To lash out at a weaker nation simply because of differing ideals is not an acceptable cause for war. However, to react to a threat or aggressive acts, is an acceptable cause to wage a war. Many times, governments are hungry for power and will go to war for any reason, simply to exert their power and influence over other countries, thus extending their influence across the nations. For example, the war that the United States has waged against Iraq is a questionable one when it comes to this element. Carter notes that the â€Å"†¦ efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing† (Carter 260). Although Saddam Hussein’s rule over his people may have been cruel and murderous, the United States did not have the evidence they should have had linking Iraq to the Twin Towers incident in order to justify declaring war. In this sense, the current war may not be moral, as the United States acted out of proportion to any actions Iraq took against us. The idea of any retaliation against or among a nation being based only on injuries suffered, is furthered in Mr. King’s observations. In Martin Luther King, Jr.’s, â€Å"Letter from Birmingham Jail†, he notes that â€Å"we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure† (King, Jr. 166). Because the injuries suffered by the African American public in the South were not of a physical nature, but rather a political nature, Mr. King reiterates that with consistent pressure from the African American community in a non-violent manner, they have been able to make progress in obtaining civil rights. It is important to note Mr. King’s emphasis on the necessity of determination in bringing about any amount of change to the African American community. To resolve the conflict in the South between races, it took many years of protesting and non-violent measures, and if the African American population had not been determined to bringing about a non-violent end to their struggle, the changes that took place may have never occurred. Finally, I believe that a war can only be considered to be moral if the outcome of the war is a significant improvement over the nation that existed prior to the conflict. Carter notes that in order for a war to be just, â€Å"The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists† (Carter 260). In essence, the aftermath of the war must create a sense of peace that is much improved over what had previously existed within the nation – if it does not, the war was ultimately in vain. These elements are apparent in the current war that the United States is waging in Iraq. The United States has gone to war with Iraq, perhaps with the best of intentions for the Iraqi people, but only chaos and destruction have ensued. The peace of the nation of Iraq has not been much improved over what was previously in place. Martin Luther King, Jr. touches on the idea of acceptable moral reasons for demanding changes, as well. Mr. King writes, â€Å"Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong† (King, Jr. 168). In both Carter and King’s writing, it is well noted that peace is the ultimate goal of any conflict, whether it be between nations or among one nation. In conclusion, morality is a subjective ideal that is a contributor to conflicts both between nations and among one nation. War is necessary, but can be based on political, religious, or societal pressures of a nation. War can be perpetuated by political greed, or religious and societal reasons. It is important for a nation to make a valiant attempt to diplomatically resolve their conflicts with other nations or among their own nation before waging war. The morality of waging war is one of the most controversial issues nations face, whether it be with other nations or in dealing with conflicts among their own nation. Works Cited Carter, Jimmy. â€Å"Just War – or a Just War?† The Presence of Others: voices and images that call for response. Andrea Lunsford and John Ruszkiewicz. Boston: Bedford, 2004. 259-261. King, Jr., Martin L. â€Å"Letter From Birmingham Jail†. The Presence of Others: voices and images that call for response. Andrea Lunsford and John Ruszkiewicz. Boston: Bedford, 2004. 163-176.

Kant VS Mill

Immanuel Kant was born in April 1724 to a craftsman named Johann George Kant and Anna Regina Porter (Bennagen, 2000). He was trained more in Latin and Religion subjects as compared with science and mathematics consequently forming his concepts and ideas with regards to moral philosophy technically referred to as ‘deontology’ which actually reiterates that an act should only be carried out based on the an individuals’ responsibilities (Bennagen, 2000).John Stuart MillJohn Stuart Mill was born in May 1906 to Harriet Barrow and a well known philosopher, James Mill (Bennagen, 2000). Being exposed to Greek when he was only three years old, Latin when he was eight, he was extremely brilliant, so intelligent that he acquired Greek Literature, Philosophy, Chemistry, Botany, Psychology and law before he turned eighteen years old (Bennagen, 2000).Furthermore, he is accountable for systematically putting together the utilitarian thoughts/concepts/ideas of his father and his father’s friend Jeremy Bentham (Bennagen, 2000). This is where Jeremy Bentham argues and reiterates that actions are correct only if they are inclined to bring into being the utmost happiness for the greatest number of people (Bennagen, 2000). This is simply because advocates of utilitarianism believe that happiness is the main criteria for doing something right or wrong, meaning if something is done and pleasure resulted from it then it is right, however, if pain was brought about from it then surely, it is wrong (Bennagen, 2000).Major Similarities in their Ethical SystemImmanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill’ ethical systems have similarities and these are the following:In act utilitarianism, laws are not taken into consideration as long as the act is said to have brought about happiness to most individuals then it is right (Bennagen, 2000). The same is true with deontology wherein duty is the basis for a right act which means that even if it means breaking the law just as long as the responsibility is fulfilled then the act is definitely right (Bennagen, 2000).  In addition, both cannot always be utilized as a guide to morals (Bennagen, 2000). There are several cases where a decision made based on utilitarianism or deontology fails (Bennagen, 2000).Major Differences in their Ethical SystemThere are differences between the ethical systems of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill and some of these are the following:In terms of goal, Immanuel Kant’s deontological theory’s goal is to fulfill a certain duty, whereas, John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism’s goal is to achieve happiness (Bennagen, 2000). This is clearly evident in the definition of the deontological theory which says that individuals ought to stick to their responsibilities in evaluating a moral quandary (Bennagen, 2000). Same is true with the technical definition of utilitarianism where it states that, in an assessment of an ethical issue, the alternative that wil l result in the greatest happiness to the most number of people is the option that is ethically right (Bennagen, 2000).Also, rule utilitarianism considers the law and fairness in finally making an act which is said to be right (Bennagen, 2000). Here, an individual who is about to make an act seriously thinks about making the most number of individuals experience pleasure through fair and just means (Bennagen, 2000). Furthermore, it gives importance to justice, as well as, beneficence (Bennagen, 2000). By justice here, we mean, that everyone involved in the situation are treated fairly, on the other hand, by beneficence, we mean, doing what is good, in opposition to what is evil (Bennagen, 2000). The aforementioned defies deontology in such a way that it does not involve justice and beneficence in it, rather it only focuses on fulfilling the ‘duty’, whether or not it is fair or just to everybody involved (Bennagen, 2000).Major Criticisms for Kant’s TheoryThere are also criticisms for Kant’s Theory and some of these are the following:First of all, since deontology is all about sticking to responsibilities, its rationale or logic is being questioned for it (Bennagen, 2000). For instance, how will individual duties would be defined (Bennagen, 2000)? If for example, if personally I consider my family as my first priority every time and it so happened that I am being called by my supervisor for an urgent or emergency meeting, would it be considered not doing my duty if I go to this emergency meeting that my supervisor has ordered (Bennagen, 2000). Another example is the fact that, citizens have to maintain a certain driving speed, however, an individual is running late for a qualifying exam in medicine, which is a make or break exam for him, would it be considered as not doing his duty if he went a little speedy just to make it to his exam, which is a personal duty for him in the first place. Very clearly, through the aforementioned exampl es, there are no limits or boundaries to this so called duty making it critical, even questionable, as an ethical theory (Bennagen, 2000).Secondly, obviously it is not extremely useful or helpful in making decisions since it is not applicable in all situations, as seen in the examples above (Bennagen, 2000).Last but not least, it is also being criticized because of its self-centeredness simply because it does not really consider the well-being of others (Bennagen, 2000). Going back to the aforementioned examples, it shows that deontology tends to take a certain side wherein the other side not chosen is left unprotected in terms of its welfare (Bennagen, 2000).Major Criticisms for Mills’ TheoryThe criticisms for utilitarianism include the following:First of all, in making a decision using the utilitarianism, it does not always achieve its goal of the experience of the utmost number of people of the greatest pleasure (Bennagen, 2000). If the head of the family decide to unleash his dog in his yard at night to make sure that no one will jump over his fence and to make sure untoward incidences in his home are avoided which may consequently hurt his family, but unfortunately the dog got out of his yard and went over the neighbor’s yard and destroyed the flowers in the garden (Bennagen, 2000)? This means that instead of his family being happy being they were well guarded, other people were terribly disappointed, disturbed, and definitely did not experience happiness as should be the outcome of utilizing utilitarianism as a technique in making ethical decisions (Bennagen, 2000).Secondly, many people criticize utilitarianism for its inadequacy of common sense (Bennagen, 2000). For example, would you give up the one you really love just because your best friend loves him too and for the reason that your family does not like him for you (Bennagen, 2000)? Your best friend will turn out happy and so will your family which complies with the technical definiti on of utilitarianism involving utmost happiness experienced by the greatest number of individuals (Bennagen, 2000). The questions however are ‘what about you’, ‘where is the common sense in that’, and ‘is selflessness common sense’ (Bennagen, 2000)?Thirdly, happiness is undefined here in utilitarianism (Bennagen, 2000). For example, a customer service representative at a certain company has been reported to be sleeping on the job (Bennagen, 2000). Utilizing utilitarianism, the act has been carried out: 1) to correct the mistake of the customer service representative; 2) to serve better more consumers; and 3) to improve the company’s services and be appreciated by more clients (Bennagen, 2000). This may result in happiness for the consumers and the management; however typically, this will not bring in pleasure to the customer service representative being complained about (Bennagen, 2006). This only proves that an act may not always bring in happiness through the use of utilitarianism in carrying out an act (Bennagen, 2000).Last but not least, utilitarianism is being questioned because it violates human rights (Bennagen, 2000). For example, if a Bill is submitted by a minority group leader to be passed as a Law, and will not qualify as a Law simply because majority did not vote for it, then this may jeopardize the rights and happiness of the so called minority groups (Bennagen, 2000). This then may also be justified as an act which is right since happiness is being experienced by the most number of individuals though several people are suffering as well (Bennagen, 2000).ReferenceBennagen, P. (2000). Social Economic and Political Thought. Quezon City: UPOU

A critical review of Modern History Source book by Macauley

A critical review of Modern History Source book by Macauley Introduction In the modern history source book, Thomas Macauley talks about the reign of Thomas Cromwell’s during his tenure as a commissioner of the army. Macauley’s presentation is in the form of an essay in which he argues and analyses historical events that transpired when Cromwell was in power. This review circulates around the arguments and evaluates the quality of Macauley’s writing with a keen focus on the weaknesses of the story (Macauley. 1880).Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on A critical review of Modern History Source book by Macauley specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Summary This section is made up of Macauley’s narration on how Cromwell established and controlled his army. Macauley starts his story by stating the kind of parliaments in existence. He further describes the kind of men who are in power and the diverse moral grounds on which they base their leadership. He says that those men were in an independent religion. Macauley further describes Oliver Cromwell’s achievements. He says that Cromwell was more than forty years old when he agreed to become one of the commissioners in the parliamentary army. Cromwell is the center of attention when his party becomes powerful. This is depicted when he noticed the weaknesses and strengths of royalists and came up with strategies to counter them. He redesigned his army and recruited God fearing members for public liberty. The writer says that Cromwell’s ability came to surface in the year 1644 in Essex’s southern region where he became a victor. He managed to head an entire army and dismissed Essex from power. Moreover, Macauley terms Cromwell’s army as a different breed from Essex soldiers. Macauley further narrates that soldiers who are supposed to form army parliaments should be at liberty to make resolutions for the states. Thus, becoming the most fearful and worst force in the re gion. â€Å"Cromwell’s army had some level of morality and God’s fear that encompassed all the ranks,† says the writer. He continues to say that there were no visible oaths, neither drinking of alcohol, adultery nor gambling in their camps. The only observed weakness in Cromwell’s leadership was the act of restraining his army from invading pulpits owned by ministers in cathedrals. Evaluation This part is made up of an evaluation of the writer’s story. Macauley narrates about ancient leadership in Europe that revolves around Cromwell Oliver. He describes all the events that led to Cromwell’s rise and his entire reign. Moreover, the writer points out the most crucial activities that took place in during Cromwell’s leadership.Advertising Looking for essay on history? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Macauley is biased in his story. It is obvious that any legend that happe ned to lead a people must have a fall. Cromwell’s success dominates the story as the writer does not state how his reign came to an end. In addition, there are many leaders in the story other than Cromwell, but there is no point where the writer states how these leaders challenged Cromwell in wars. He only explains how Cromwell defeated them (Macauley. 1880). Finally, Macauley is too verbose and technical in writing. This makes it difficult for an average reader to comprehend. For instance, he states, â€Å"The ecclesiastical polity of the kingdom was remodeled† (p.90). This statement has a technical term thus it makes it hard for an average reader to understand it. Such readers might get frustrated when trying to find the authors meaning. These are some of Macauley’s weaknesses. In conclusion, the review has evaluated the Modern History Source book by Thomas Macauley. The writer does a wonderful writing work that illustrates the ancient political events in Crom well’s leadership. However, his narration is filled with biasness and the use of technical terms that are not easily understandable (Macauley. 1880). Bibliography Macauley, Thomas B. â€Å"History of England† Accession of King James II (1880):90-95.