Socrates Philosophies

Socrates is one of the Greek philosophers who lived in the fifth century, he is known as the father of philosophy. His work of philosophy mostly addressed issues on critical thinking and the importance of truth. He is said to have set the standards for all the philosophers belonging to the western world. Moreover, people who came across him were, especially the Athens were challenged to think critically and work towards seeking the knowledge that they already possessed. Socrates believed that following one's opinion is a voluntary thing, although faced by opposition from the society (Moore 173). Additionally, we are told that at the age of 75 he was tried and convicted and sentenced to death, the reason being corrupting a youth of Athens as well as trying impiety. In this essay, we would present a discussion aimed at answering the three questions, the first one being on whether Socrates would heed popular opinion about moral? Secondly, on whether Socrates accepts the fairness of the laws under which he is tried and convicted and lastly whether it would be wrong if he escaped.

According to Socrates, must one heed popular opinion about moral?

During his stay in Athens, Socrates had an important mission aimed at fostering and actualizing reforms as well as creating the logic to the laws of the society of this time. His area of focus was to impart knowledge to people, teaching them how to keep the purity and maintain the integrity and thus making souls better. This sounds good to us as readers and thrilling, but surprisingly the mission earned him a death sentence in the court proceeding following based on the popularity of jurypersons gained from the residents. He was found guilty simply by not portraying faith to the gods of the Athens nation, which led him, present new gods, thus spoiling the youth population. Historically, Athens is one of the oldest places on earth where democracy and freedom of speech were incorporated, however, following Socrates' mission his freedom was suppressed.

Nevertheless, Socrates believed that the configuration of the community relied on the conscience of each individual, moral deduction as well as freedom of speech. He also said to them that the duty of each individual was to God and the nation should thus come later, thus it was a form of intimidation for the states to suppress one’s free will to practice moral duties, this was a form of tyranny. Conversely, state officials stated that if one went against the set rules and regulations then the individual would be punished as per the law. Following this article, Plato presents Socrates as a law-abiding citizen, who stays within the authorities despite the chance to escape from the authorities, this is the highest degree of morals in the philosophy that are hard to find.

Does Socrates accept the fairness of the laws under which he was tried and convicted?

Based on Socrates' philosophies, we are sure that he is not subject to accept the justice on the laws that were used for his trial and conviction. According to Colaiaco (3) states that Athens were unfair, convicting and punishing Socrates as a criminal, yet we understand his mission was all about reaching the climax on principles based on opinions rather than religious beliefs and emotional responses. He adds that the Athenian laws restricted individuals from thinking freely and thus undermining the development of democracy (Schultz 710). It is for this reason that the Athenians terminated the life of Socrates using hemlock poison. Even though he was killed, he is a true example of an individual who demonstrated his true beliefs and upholding civic duties that led him to accept the condemnation, which leads to his death. Even though his interests were low in contrast to civic duty, Socrates was willing to meet his destiny, not because the law was fair but his principles could not allow him to go against the law. Colaiaco adds that he loved Athenians and the state as well and therefore, he could not do anything that was against the will of the people and the state at large. However, the opponents to Socrates' morals states that limitations attributed to the Athenian laws were personal opinions and thus his defense and prosecution were rational and fair. On the contrary, the prosecution’s law assumed just thoughts of Socrates in their judgment, this is because every individual expects that a fair law should not undermine any individual’s justice because of diverging opinions.

Similarly, according to Gower (14), Socrates' trial was just a short trail after the invasion of the Spartans. The latter invasion was proof to the Athenians how life would be meaningless, following the massive loss of life and property in the hand of the invaders (Collins 305). Besides, the Athenian authorities were so bitter and could be cruel to any form of opposition that emerged. Although Socrates was aware of the controversy filling the state this time he proceeded to deter with some of the laws that he felt were not worth and dragged the community back. His effort to dissent from the latter laws and regulations earned him condemnation and later a death sentence. His effort to encourage liberalism, to the Athenian authorities was a form of undermining the Athenian law on democracy. He was for the idea that the laws needed a review so that they focus on personal freedom and individual rights. Based on the review we are sure that the Athenians acted unfairly to Socrates, as their action was not well informed, undermining human rights according to the law. Also, the state goes against the real definition of democracy, as Socrates' actions were an exercise of personal democratic rights that guarantees freedom of speech and expression.

Would Socrates been wrong to escape?

Commonly the word escape in the law used to present a bad practice to evade justice. It would, therefore, wrong if Socrates escapes from facing his condemnation. Throughout the read text and philosophies it is stated that he had a strong belief in law and order, escaping would thus mean Socrates could not practice his philosophies and principles. According to Colaiaco (5), Socrates had a clear understanding that the opposing points would claim his life, and that he could not do anything that would disrespect the authorities (Kanayama 55). Conversely, the authorities failed as they were also subject to respect his ideas and abide by them instead of condemning him. Precisely, we can state that despite the high standards of morals attributed to Socrates, he was found guilty and thus convicted by the Athenian law.

His old friend Crito seems to persuade Socrates and giving him many reasons to escape, but he turns him down. He upholds his morals to the end and kept his morals and his understanding of the laws and his respect. Although Crito felt that the Athenian law was unjust to him and they would sentence him, he says that “one is never just in doing wrong, even if is for the right reasons.” There is a common clause that can be used to express this situation “two wrongs does not make right,” thus escaping from the prison would be a cause of more problems and a challenge to the weight of the Athenian law ( Marcou 1; Kanayama 55). He confesses that he does not fear death and it would be wrong to escape, and the practice would make him an unfaithful Athens citizen. Socrates was poisoned to death, leaving strong stands and philosophies to the Athens and the whole globe. These are the principles that we need to emulate in the contemporary world to ensure a smooth run on an individual’s state and the world at large.

Work Cited

Colaiaco, James A. Socrates against Athens: Philosophy on trial. Routledge, 2013.

Collins, Susan D. "On the Use of Greek History for Life: Josiah Ober's Athens and Paul Rahe's Sparta." The Review of Politics 81.2 (2019): 305-321.

Kanayama, Mariko. "Why Didn’t Socrates Escape?." Soul and Mind in Greek Thought. Psychological Issues in Plato and Aristotle. Springer, Cham, 2018. 55-80.

Marcou, Andreas. "Obedience and Disobedience in Plato’s Crito and the Apology: Anticipating the Democratic Turn of Civil Disobedience." The Journal of Ethics (2020): 1-21.

Moore, Christopher. "Socrates in Aristotle’s History of Philosophy." Brill's Companion to the Reception of Socrates. Brill, 2019. 173-210.

Schultz, Anne-Marie. "Socrates as Public Philosopher: A Model of Informed Democratic Engagement." The European Legacy 24.7-8 (2019): 710-723.

Q (VE): Using virtue ethics only, explain why it is morally wrong to renege (fail to honor) on a legitimate personal debt. Directions: Be sure to describe the effects on moral character using Aristotle’s notions of 1) a human telos, 2) mean seeking, and 3) being/becoming.

Introduction

From a virtue ethics point of view, it is morally wrong to renege on a legitimate personal debt because of three things; first, the act does not facilitate happiness, the act lacks a mean of perfection, and finally, the act does not promote the ability to become a true human. Every person should have an appropriate inner state. If a person has virtuous inner dispositions, he or she will act by the virtuous. Another point to note about virtue ethics is that it is a purposive disposition-meaning that a person chooses virtuous action and must act kindly not because others are doing so but because it's the right thing to do.

 A significant aspect of virtue ethics point of view is having a distinctive range of considerations. This means that a person should have the right reason and the right desire. For example, it is morally wrong to renege on a legitimate personal debt. According to human telos, a person should participate in virtuous relationships. In this case, virtuous is not mean to an end but it is a character trait that is connected to human flourishing.  Therefore, failure to honor debts is morally wrong because the act will not lead to human flourishing and good life. Focusing on the nature of humans, human beings should focus on moral excellence to achieve the destiny.

According to the concept of mean seeking, a person should engage in a reasoning process and choose how to act. In other words, moral actions according to virtue ethics entail making deliberate wise choices to achieve gratification in the future. Therefore, mean-seeking entails doing actions that will bring joy fulfillment. It is morally wrong to renege on a legitimate personal debt because a person has failed to strive for goodness and happiness. A person has failed to use practice wisdom in acting.  

According to being and becoming, a moral act should have the capacity of becoming qua being or true being. Thus, failing to honor personal debt is the lack of having a true understanding of being. In other words, the act is morally wrong as it restricts a person from having self-realization or self-possessed identity.

Conclusion

Virtue means having a purpose to fulfill human nature. Thus, a person should focus on perfecting their actions and strive to become that qua human being. Human nature is linked to doing actions that bring happiness and well-being. Thus, renege on a legitimate personal debt is an act that does not bring happiness and perfection. Thus, it is important for people to know the nature of things and fully develop their potential and become fully human.

Can We Solve The Free Will Problem? Goldstein vs. Church Land

Introduction

Whenever people claim that they did things out of their own free will, they imply that they had the option of acting contrary to the said action. Hence, free will is depicted through the options one has. Human behavior is controlled or regulated through laws because every action performed may not have been averted (Goldstein np). The underlying issue of free will is tied to human nature and the relation between the world and other natural principles. Sometimes, the monistic nature of human beings dictates their decisions and fate. In either case, free will is dictated and influenced through the decision making and conscious emotions and intentions.

Rebecca Goldstein Perspective on Free Will

Goldstein's perspective on free will depends on the interaction human have with the natural environment and their innate nature. Goldstein processes her thoughts through human societies and regulations. For instance, she claims that a free individual has a limited number of options. Hence, an independent individual's options are predetermined even before he or she makes them.  No one can choose without considering the consequences that will follow after the decisions have been made (Goldstein np). There is always more than one element preventing human beings from having free will.  Also, her perspective tends to look at man as the person who is influenced by society and other issues of life that surround him. Free will has its restrictions hence it is not free will. There are three elements that Goldstein uses to make her argument- human nature, consequences, and underlying intentions of a persons' actions. Free will creates a sense of liberty and urgency hence the readiness to initiate, implement, and regulate one volitional deed. Under these boundaries, it is difficult to define free will although it is vital to the community and individuals of the society.

Goldstein depends on the organizational structure and systems of the world. For instance, the world has been ruled through the government which put in place rules which in turn drive determinism. Apart from philosophy, subjects such as neuroscience have helped to solidify Goldstein's argument as they look at the biological aspect of decision-making hence bring on board intuitive concepts. To be free, one has to have more than three options at hand or implementation strategies. More so, if a person experiences an involuntary situation, he or she will not have a chance to dictate the outcome of the entire situation. Therefore, free will only exist if one can control certain situations (Goldstein np). The decision-maker has to be able to control his actions and how he goes about them must also be under his total control. For one to get free will, one has to the initiator of those actions without encountering any challenges and other underlying processes. It is vital to note that the entire world revolves around predictive principles. Thus what seems like free will has its basis controlled through society. Human free will is restricted to the regulations which govern them. The confines of the law and society tend to make human beings depend on the consequences attached to their actions. In simpler terms, humans have no free will due to the numerous restrictions placed in their wake. The chance that comes with making a decision is determined by more than the underlying intention that drives the entire course of action. In summary, Goldstein claims that there is no free will due to the restrictions placed on human societies and even the nature of human beings does not allow them to have free will.

Patricia Churchland Perspective on Free Will

 Patricia Churchland looks at free will in terms of self-control and other biological mechanisms that bring about the state of free will. Her ideology proves that humans only have a free will based on their mind. Humans have free will but their consciousness and self-control, hinder them to do as they will. While human beings are accustomed to getting what they want when they want, they have to come to terms with life and its numerous principles governing life. For instance, behavioral routines make influences human actions and how they respond to free will situations. How humans make decisions and regulate impulsions are in line with other satisfactory experiences.  The hormonal makeup of human being shape they think and manage themselves. These underlying mechanisms control the outcome and societal behavior (Churchland 175). The obvious nature of responsibility is central to free will as it determine the independence and range of options one has. Thus, free will has to consider communal needs and the obligation one has to society. The concept of free will has to factor in the volition actions and the comprehensive actions influencing the emergence of free will. From the time to time proposition of life, human nature free will hinges on already put in place managerial systems. Hence, the manifestation of self-control is seen in the management of life issues. Humans present intelligence and self-control in terms of actions. Besides, free will cannot be an illusion due to self-control. Aspects of free will such as the law are meant to control human nature and hold him or her responsible for the outcome that comes as a result of the underlying actions.

 Churchland defines free will through the application of the brain self-control mechanisms. Unlike Goldstein who sites free will as the lack of restriction, Churchland asserts that the brain creates options and mannerisms through which people have free will. Life is made up of consequences and actions behind the significances. Also, self-control mechanisms enable a person to have a balance between emotions and judgmental facts before arriving at a decision (Churchland 187). Humans have to evaluate one thing over the other and pick options based on advantages and other things that favor them in certain aspects. Therefore, if Churchland was to respond to Goldstein, he would have told him of the things that make up free will do not take anything away from it. For instance, if one has to choose between two to three perspectives, he or she has to choose the best. Societal restrictions do not hinder free will instead they reinforce the self-control aspects of the human brain.

 In summary, humans have free will if they collect information, deliberate on issues before making a decision. According to Goldstein, humans do not have any free will because their decisions are already predetermined based on societal norms and the underlying intention. However, Churchland claims that more than one aspect of the decision-making process has to come to terms with brain mechanisms, and the decisions are not driven by another person.

Reference

Churchland, Patricia. Free Will, Habits, and Self-Control. 7th ed., W.W. Norton & Company, 2013.

Goldstein, Rebecca. "Mysteries of Free Will | Closer To Truth". Closertotruth.Com, 2020, https://www.closertotruth.com/series/mysteries-free-will#video-1741.

The sixth meditation

Name

Institution

Professor

Title

Date

The sixth Meditation

The sixth meditation by Descartes tries to explain the existence of material things as well as establishing the real distinction between the body and the mind. Descartes makes a compelling argument in defense of his argument on the existence of material things by explaining their existence as a product of pure mathematics that makes them clearly and distinctly identifiable. In his arguments, Descartes explains how pure mathematics combined with the input from the faculty of imagination as well as people’s senses combine to offer a convincing argument in the sixth meditation. 

           Descartes’ success in making his case for the existence of material things and distinguishing the body and the mind lies in his ability to differentiate imagination and understanding. He uses the example of how people’s understanding of what a triangle is borrows from both what they understand a triangle to be combined with how they perceive a triangle in their head as a result of the information available. Using understanding, people examine the sides of a shape to determine whether it is a triangle or a different shape. Other than understanding, the conclusion drawn is also based on the individual’s imagination where one pictures the triangle in their mind’s eye. Although it is difficult to prove how or whether a triangle exists, Descartes argues that people can rely on their imagination and understanding of geometry to do away with any contradictions thus proving that material objects do exist. 

           Descartes not only succeeds in proving that material things exist but also manages to set a clear distinction between the body and the mind. In his argument, Descartes points out that, human beings have a passive faculty of sensory perceptions that helps them to receive input and recognize objects from the environment. According to Descartes, the ability to receive and recognize ideas and objects proves that there is an external force creating the input being received by the individual. He believes that people would not need the ability to receive and identify input if it was coming from the individual as there would be no need to interact with the outside world. However, since sensory perceptions allow people to interact with input from their environment, it then proves that material things exist as their input is picked up by the senses and interpreted by the mind. 

           In his argument, Descartes uses disjunctive syllogism to defend his passive faculty argument to further explain how the individual, the body, and God all exist. According to Descartes, human beings detect input when their bodies interact with the environments using their senses. The input is sent to the mind in form of signals which are then interpreted to determine what reaction will occur in the mind before being communicated back to the body. Descartes therefore successfully points out the correlation that occurs between the mind and the body when detecting input, thus proving that the mind exists separately from the body, further validating his claim that material things exist outside the mind. 

           Throughout the 6th meditation, Descartes offers convincing arguments backed by examples that support his claim. His arguments not only validate the notion that material things exist but also draw a distinction between the body and the mind. His explanation of how the body detects input from nature and then sends signals to the mind for interpretation proves that the mind and the body are separate entities functioning together to accomplish a common goal. 

Plato’s Problem

Introduction

Plato’s Meno introduces Socratic’s ethical elements and platonic fundamentals of fictional dialogue that is founded on political occasion and traditional apprehensions. One of the problems mentioned in the Meno is a sudden, prepackaged orator’s trial on whether virtue could be acquired and later used for the greater good. These inquiries demonstrate characteristic features cross-examination and later apply the underpinning ways of acquiring a particular goal. Nevertheless, in the argument, Plato retains a balanced perspective on ethics and the principles governing ethical norms (Mouzala, 2017). Combined with other perspectives, Plato claims that ethical based concepts drive the main aim of any human being. This way, the key objective of any human thought is to conduct himself or herself in an ethical manner rather than the application of the relevant skills and attention to other subject matters of life.

The Main Argument on Ethics

According to Plato republic relies based on balancing unjust with justice so that the society might see the need for jurisdictional institutions. Thus, the systematic interpretation of the law is dependent on the invention of morality and how people perceive the relationships between them and other people (Mouzala, 2017). Simply put, the terms of the agreement on ethical issues might be debatable or even too general to give a distinctive statement on right or wrong placement of the law. In the long run, one has to acquire the basic needs of the conversion of the law into simple logical steps that could be helped in the long run to assist human beings to live harmoniously amongst themselves.

 One of the most common aspects of Plato's argument which is normally used and applied in the present society is that the majority is not usually on the right side of the law and that the law might be aligned based on one's moral code. In the long run, Plato's argument hinged on society ad how people tend to interpret the laws they come into contact with (Mouzala, 2017). In some cases, ethical situations might call for civil disobedience hence questioning the effectiveness of the ethical perspectives and the relevance of the underpinning nature of some aspects of the law. In the long run, one could fail to distinguish the line between right and wrong hence giving people the chance to go against the societal norms and break away from the watchful eyes of society. At the end of the day, people's ethical views are under the evaluation of people and government are to decide the main principle of their ideologies running their town and how best to protect their interests. Therefore, the community and people living in a certain society are to determine the main ethical issues which can be applied to all the people uniformly and how the people can break or use the ethical norms to run their affairs within the locality.

            As Plato develops his argument further, he claims that all humans have good within their hearts no matter their outward deeds hence the application of certain tendencies to go against the community regulations and norms. Each man and woman has a chance to come up with his or her moral compass which in turn can be used to mark the key tenets of the society (Tovar, 2017). Thus, society can differ as one moves from one community to another based on the needs of the people how they intend to safeguard their resources within the society. Hence, one can assume that ethical issues are based on the principle and attitudes of certain communities toward certain issues. Therefore, wrong or right can be defined or defied within the community but can be an accepted norm in another place in the world.  In other words, the main principles of ethical bee challenged or even contradict each other based on the various aspects of the confines of the members of the community. In simpler terms, ethical issues might differ from one place to another based on the underlying tenets of the law or perspectives driving the main human agenda at the moment.

 However, the moral standard and the specific moral conclusion demonstrates the normative arguments since one single try to subscribe to explain one ethical code, pushes another ethical system as each ethical system has its norms and customs. More so, one can challenge the varying notion of ethical norms drives the comprehension of customary lines of distinction through the gaining of factual information and perpetual interpretation of the link between conventional ethics and numerous ethical norms between one society and another. Thus, the varying nature of society gives people the right to question some rules and frameworks governing their government and societies (Altman, 2016). For the freethinker, ethical issues should facilitate the needs of the people rather than deny them the right to attain or accomplish certain tasks. In terms of the economic classes and the perception running the day-to-day lives of people tend to push the narrative that the society functions as a moral compass hence people conform based on the opinion of the majority of the people. Along the lines of ethical perspectives, some people say that Plato's perspective relied on the common good and objective function of the entire society. The nature of man is tied to anarchy hence the need to retain normalcy through societal norms and wants of the entire community. Anyone who contradicts society might be deemed as pervasive or deviant. The chance to come up with the nitty-gritty details of ethical needs strains the relationships between people hence forcing them into creating alternative characters to cope with the situations as they seem fit.

One human attribute that forces him or her to rely on ethics is the preservation of life and retaining peace and development. Humans are known to follow the crowd to achieve a common good or achieve a certain goal. Thus, the inclusion of the broader aim of the ethical goals is to attain the collective perspectives of the people while retaining the standardized notions of the community members (Altman, 2016). Once people attain certain objectives, the second aim is establishing the means of protecting the achievements made. In the event that one breaches or goes against the norms of a certain society. Community members are usually ready to rectify the mistake through penalties stipulated within the confines of the community.

 People who argued against Plato's perspectives on ethics claimed that there are a defined right and wrong and the two sides cannot be interchangeable. Human beings have always lived together and exchanged ideas about what is right and what is wrong. Also, the aspects of wrongdoing can be tied to the conscious of one's mind. Thus, wrong cannot be mistaken for right. A wrong action is wrong in all of its aspects. Hence, once one gets the chance to separate the two, the meaning of everyone's action counts before doing anything wrong (Altman, 2016). Most of the members of the community are teaching and retaining the performance of each detail of all the actions committed. Moreover, humans are drive by the same principles, even though ethical principles might differ here and there. For instance, if one community believes in ethically conducting themselves for the sake of bringing people together and retaining unity among other neighbors. Humanity is based on the universe hence the commonality of man remains hinged on the final purpose of the issues pertaining to the medium of the angular articulation of the issues hence one tends to give more priority to the primary ethical issues revolving around the society. Thus, one of the main issues about ethics is standardizing the placement and association of one community from the other as people go about their business. This is because people come from different walks of life and their perspective on conflicting ethical issues is always tied to their perceptions surrounding the life of an individual. Whenever there is a disruption of the usual activities within the community people are forced to formulate new strategies so that people may live harmoniously together. Thus Plato focuses on the shift and relevance of present-day society’s and how they achieve a certain level of the piece. In the long run, the aim of Plato was to uniting factual aspects that make people form communities and abide by the laws of the community.

 In summary, according to Plato Ethics serve as a collective indicator of the values of a community and how one can relate with the people within his or her community. The variance between the two communities proves that ethics protects the interests of the people of a certain community. More so, the set of regulations permitted to capture the wants of the community while ensuring that anyone who does not support the detailed information of the community practices is kicked out from the people of the community hence ensuring peace and stability due to the observation of critical ethical norms.

References

Altman, W. H. (2016). The Guardians on Trial: The Reading Order of Plato's Dialogues from Euthyphro to Phaedo. Rowman & Littlefield.

Mouzala, M. G. (2017). Aristotle’s Criticism of the Platonic Idea of the Good in Nicomachean Ethics 1.6. Peitho. Examine Antiqua, 8(1), 309-342.

Tovar, D. (2017). Dominic Scott, Levels of Argument. A Comparative Study of Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Oxford: OUP, 2015, 235 pp. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 99(2), 229-232.

Modernity

Abstract

The paper by Enrique Dussel seeks to offer a broader definition of modernity that is inclusive of the role played by Europe and other regions whose contribution had a significant impact on how people view modernity today. According to the author, the major problem with the current definition of modernity is because it fails to factor in the contributions made by regions such as China and Southeast Asia. The author relies on existing information regarding modernity and adds on information that has been left out due to people’s belief that Europe is responsible for the emergence of modernity. From the findings, it is evident that modernity is a product of activities from different regions; Europe included and should reflect the same in practice. The information discussed is therefore crucial to understanding the concept of modernity and why it should be improved to trans-modernity.

Modernity

Introduction

Enrique Dussel offers a compelling argument on the topic of modernity, its evolution and some limitations that have attributed to, according to Dussel, its failure to encompass all aspects of modernity. His argument is based on the belief that the concept of modernity is based on the common belief that the centrality of Europe is only two centuries old. While events that have transpired in modernity current mind frame does offer a satisfactory understanding of modernity, the seclusion of events and contributions from other regions and people in history has created an environment where the western culture is considered as the origin or center for modernity.

            Dussel’s argument is based on the argument that modernity, by its current definition, fails to encompass all technical, economic and social activities that people from different geographical backgrounds engage in on a daily basis. The author therefore believes that trans-modernity should be used in its stead as it transcends the existing concepts of western modernity to include input from other regions such as China and their role in improving the existing concepts of modernization in the twenty first century (Dussel, n.d). Dussel further argues that the existing concept of modernity has a negative impact on multiple cultures such as Chinese, Islam and Hindu as their input towards modernization is often overlooked. The author therefore believes that trans-modernity will allow for people to focus on contributions made by countries like China during modernization (Dussel, n.d). Taking attention away from the Western world will allow researchers to seek out more information regarding other areas where modernization was taking place and therefore create awareness on the role that other nations had and continue to have in society.

The history of modernity can be traced back to the first Eurocentrism period where Europe was regarded as being more advanced therefore had more influence over other regions. This is especially because Europe has Greek and Medieval Latin origins and was therefore responsible for producing the systems and values that were used universally during modernization. According to Dussel, Europe’s Eurocentric position during the enlightenment and romantic period ensured that the region was at the center of world history and is therefore seen as the major contributor to modernity (Dussel, n.d). While this may have been the case, the author strongly argues that the Eurocentric period is only the period in which history became distorted and modernity started. However, there have been great developments from enlightenment thinkers like Kant and Hegel who argue that although ideas of despotism and freedom started in the west, it is just one geographic region but not the only contributing factor that brought about modernity.

The author argues that  the current definition of modernity fails to take into account the role played by other nations and people in the history of modernization despite their involvement having a significant impact on the development of what people refer to as modernity. Often times, modernity is associated with the discovery of America, the world system and capitalism (Dussel, n.d). The belief is however as a result of the exposure that Europe and the West had during the renaissance period. Achievements like the scientific discovery of silver and gold; introduction of a new labor force; discovery of new types of food like potatoes and corn; and agriculture attribute most of the modernization processes to the west (Dussel, n.d). In addition, the Caravel discovered by the Portuguese made it possible for Europeans to cross the ocean and sail to new lands where they would spread their influence. Europe is therefore seen as starting the globalization process that led to the existence of the concepts of modernity that governs society today. The power and control that Europe had throughout history gave them an added advantage over the Islamic world, China, Southeast Asia and Hindustan (Dussel, n.d). Despite the achievements made by Europe however, countries like China continued to contribute to modernization. Dussells therefore tries to draw attention to the achievements made by other regions as a way to expand the concept of modernity and bring about trans-modernity.

            To achieve this, Dussel uses his work as a call to action, urging the reader to come up with a new way of interpreting modernity that is inclusive of the events that was not factored in when creating a general understanding of modernity. Other the contributions from the European region, Dussel argues that inclusion of contributions from other cultures excluded in the current definition of modernity could help attain a better understanding of modernity and the impact that other regions had in the process (Dussel, n.d). Since the current version of modernity focuses on events and achievements made by Europe, trans-modernity will expand the knowledge and information to include cultural moments, events and beliefs that existed outside Europe but had a significant impact on the development of modernity. While Europe did make various developments and significantly changed the way people interact with their environment, the magnitude of its involvement in modernization should in not take away from the achievements that regions such as China had before, during and after the existing concept of modernity (Dussel, n.d).  According to the author, since the customs and traditions from regions such as China and Southeast Asia are still dominant and in existence, it goes to prove that the influence that such areas had on modernity is still present and bears the same level of significance as the input from Europe. Trans-modernity should therefore be used as an upgrade from previous notions about modernity as it offers a better explanation of the parties that were involved in the early stages of the concept of modernity.

Conclusion

Throughout the paper, he author supports the opinion that expanding the definition of modernity under the core principles of trans-modernity could create a better understanding of modernity and also bring about equality. Through it, overlooked cultures and human richness can get the exposure and representation it deserves and also limit the added advantage that Europe has over other regions. Transnational capitalist markets will also operate under better policies as new regions will be given more control over commodities such as food and other resources. Instead of limiting development to a specific region, modernity will take on a more versatile, tolerant and inclusive of input from different regions other than Europe. Trans-modernity will therefore create a society that reflects the input from different cultures and whose understanding of modernity is unbiased.

Reference

Dussel E, (n.d) “World-systems and Trans-modernity”

The social justice process

Literary theories on social justice suggest that issues of social justice are constantly evolving and sometimes policies that are enacted into law take time before the law can achieve its intended purpose. In his argument, Karl Marx brings about Marxism which tries to explain the social phenomena that takes place in society. The theory is based on the assumption that analyzing the material conditions and economic activities that are required for the fulfillment of people’s needs could help to create better understanding of people and the decisions they make. According to Marxism, the economic organization has a direct influence on social phenomena that exists in the community and this is inclusive of the legal, political and cultural systems as well as the ideologies and aesthetics of the people.

            Marx further argues that change is inevitable in society as the material productive forces in society have a tendency to conflict with the existing relations of production. When this occurs, a social revolution takes place and often times, new laws and policies are enacted to enhance the sustainability of the changes introduced in the process (Chambre & McLellan, 2020). A good example of such is the changes that are introduced to govern people after being colonized. Since separation from a superpower takes away some of the material productive forces, new relations of production have to come up to do away with the undesirables and promote peaceful coexistence in society.

            Postcolonial theory adds on to Marxist beliefs about the process of change and introduction of new laws and policies as it focuses on the impact that the European colonial rule had in different parts of the world and the changes that have been introduced in countries that have already attained independence. Despite the introduction of new policies and laws that protect people’s rights and freedoms, the history of human interaction cannot be complete without discussing the impact that imperialism and colonial rule had on people in the past (Elam, 2019). The belief that specific races are superior to others is greatly responsible for the existence of racism in today’s society. Resolving such issues therefore requires close analysis of the past so as to determine how events in history shaped up people’s beliefs and attitudes.

While social justice seeks to bring about equality, existence of vices such as racism and gender discrimination only proves that laws and policies simply make the actions illegal or unethical but do not offer immediate solutions to issues that may be considered an injustice (Elam, 2019). Postcolonial theory draws attention to the fact that although some regions are no longer colonized, there still exist traces of colonial authority, practices and beliefs that get in the way of social justice.

            Some forms of social injustice continue to exist because social justice sometimes requires people to alter social norms that have existed throughout history. A good example is the concept of gender fluidity that goes against history’s ideology that people identify with the gender they are born to. According to the queer theory however, sexuality is rather fluid and people can associate to sexualities that are opposite of their gender or even identify with both (Thiel, 2018). The theory calls on people to question norms that have already been established in society and substitute them with a new concept of gender fluid.

            Queer theory however seeks to distance itself from sexuality and gender as a way to avoid the contradictions that are associated with the two. This is especially because there is a divide in society where some people are against the idea of gender fluidity. The aim is to create awareness on the social injustice that gender fluid individuals face without having to explain norms that form due to people’s preferences rather than the existence of gender fluidity. This allows for social justice to be achieved faster and with lesser restriction from the general public.

References

Chambre H and McLellan T, (2020) “Marxism: Analysis of society” Encyclopedia Britannica,    retrieved from, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Marxism/Analysis-of-society

Elam D, (2019) “Postcolonial theory” Oxford Bibliographies, retrieved from,             https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780190221911/obo-  9780190221911-0069.xml

Thiel M, (2018) “Introducing queer theory in international relations” E-International Relations,   retrieved from, https://www.e-ir.info/2018/01/07/queer-theory-in-international-relations/

 Theory Evaluation-From Novice to Expert

Today, nurses are expected to provide quality are yet they work in a complex environment. The purpose of this paper is to test the validity of the theory 'From novice to expert' through experimentation and observation. According to the theoretical framework, nursing expertise is associated with positive patient outcomes. However, the framework raises an empirical issue. Thus, empirical testing will help understand the validity and reliability of clinical expertise in providing quality care. In general, nursing clinical expertise is associated with good clinical decision making and the provision of quality of care.

 Focusing on clinical practices, the theory states that nurses go through different stages until they achieve clinical expertise. The theory appears accurate or valid in that nurses go through stages of skill development and in each stage, they gain a sound education base (Mgbekem et al. 2016). Another point that shows the validity of the theory is that the stages are an indication that nurses engage in a continuing education program.  It is a program that enables nurses to gain clinical specialization or new knowledge. Amaral & Ferreira (2014) conducted a clinical nursing expertise survey using a theoretical framework 'from novice to expert'. Nursing professors checked the accuracy of the concept of nursing based on function and role. The findings show that quality of care is enhanced by nurses' expertise and experience. A point to note is that expertise is only applicable in clinical situations but nurses can also apply their knowledge and experience in non-clinical functions. Focusing on validation, the Anova test compared the relationship between nursing expertise and experience (Amaral & Ferreira, 2014). The results show that professional qualifications and experience influence clinical expertise. An important point to note is that knowledge is more important than experience. This is because, without knowledge, nurses will not make effective decisions. But with knowledge and experience, nurses develop clinical expertise.

Focusing on theory generalizability, the quantitative perspective shows that novice and expert nurses differ in decision making. Despite the fact that both deliver care in complex environments and experience many challenges, expert nurses have more knowledge and experience. Expert nurses have critical thinking skills and decision-making skills which allow them to make complex decisions and achieve positive patient outcomes (Amaral & Ferreira, 2014). In comparing the novice and expert nurses, the empirical test shows that expert nurses apply decision-making skills and conduct clinical judgment hence achieve a better patient outcome.

 The theory 'from novice to expert' has strengths in that it clearly shed light on how clinical and experience and knowledge play a significant role in nursing practices. The theory also shows that since nurses participate in different clinical practices, they need knowledge and experience, in other words, they need competence and in this case, competence meaning applying knowledge and experience (Mgbekem, 2016). In addition, the theory is effective in helping nurses develop problem-solving behavior.

However, the theory has limitations in that it focuses on behaviors but ignores the individual's implicit knowledge. Implicit knowledge means that even novice nurses have knowledge which they gain without learning. The theory assumes that novice nurses engage in knowledge acquisition and the knowledge helps them perform tasks (Mgbekem, 2016). However, there is evidence that nurses can work without verbal instruction. This means that nurses have implicit competencies. Another problem is that the theory asserts that experts use concrete thought. Does it mean that they no longer apply abstract constructs?  It means that the theory won't be accepted in other domains where experts use abstract thoughts and concrete thoughts in solving problems.

 From novice to expert theory is relevant socially and cross-culturally. First, when nurses gain knowledge and experiences, they become culturally competent, or in other words, they are able to address the needs of society (Chiu et al. 2013). A point to note that cross-cultural competence entails having skills to communicate effectively with different cultures, awareness to understand other cultures, and sensitivity to appreciate cultural differences. According to the theoretical framework, once nurses gain experience, it means that they develop intercultural interactions (Chiu et al. 2013). A point to note is that knowledge and experience allow nurses to work in a cultural environment while applying culturally appropriate behaviors. They are able to manage everyday situations and they solve problems proactively and creatively. The theory is also socially in that nurses become empathetic. In other words, when using the theory into practice, it means that nurse have a deeper knowledge and experience which enable them to make better judgment and create a relationship with the patient (Chiu et al. 2013). By learning from experiences, nurses act as moral agents and they are able to address social inequalities and promote a healthy society.

  The theory contributes greatly contributes to the discipline of nursing. First, in the field nurses, they clearly state that nurses need a sound education base. This means that nurses need to develop skills and experiences. In the nursing discipline, nurses should gain knowledge and engage in learning approaches to demonstrate knowledge (Chiu et al. 2013).  For example, nurses can engage in a thinking practice approach and this will allow students nurse to create a connection between theoretical knowledge and experiences. The theory is playing a significant role in the nursing discipline as students are gaining professional competency.

References

Amaral, A. F. S., & Ferreira, P. L. (2014). Adaptation and validation of the Clinical Nursing

Expertise Survey to the portuguese nursing population. Escola Anna Nery, 18(3), 496-

502.

Mgbekem, M. A., Ojong, I. N., Lukpata, F. E., Armon, M., & Kalu, V. (2016). Middle range

theory evaluation: bridging the theory-practice gap. Global Journal of Pure and Applied

Sciences, 22(2), 249-254.

Chiu, C. Y., Lonner, W. J., Matsumoto, D., & Ward, C. (2013). Cross-cultural competence:

Theory, research, and application.

Introduction

Liberalism takes up many forms and this explains why more than one issue constitutes liberalism. John Stuart Mill seemed to direct his line of thought on liberty towards social liberty i.e. nature and limitations of authority can be lawfully implemented via the community or any other individual. Hence, his objective was simple and straightforward, to administer the public dealings with an individual in a compulsive manner and controlled situation. Whether this implied the use of physical force or the use of legal penalties or garnering public perspectives on the matter[1].  People may argue that the moral concept underlying Mill’s sentiments on liberty is a combination of conscientiousness rather than a form of utilitarianism. The impression that humans flourish only under personal independence and individuality are key points in his sentiments on liberty. If this formation is to materialize into something more than a cultural principle, then it requires the support of other people and also aligns itself to human nature and the defendable clarification of historical cases. Mills applied his ideas to the utilitarianism ethical system of the civilization and nation at large.

 Body

This way, Mills tried to put forth a system that intermarried power and liberty. He emphasized the central role of independence, which he considered a pivotal aspect to attaining pleasures hence the inclusion of utilitarianism. More so, Mill confirmed that democratic concepts led to the majority winning even when they were wrong. Other fundamental proposes suggested by Mill are classical jurisdictional goals associated with governmental interventions and their association to the entire society.

 Body

            Against Mill’s background, crafted his decision in the commissioner of police v Bassi. As some people mounted up support against ‘black lives matter’ protests, the police had to follow the law after Fagan J’s Supreme Court decision. Consequently, these actions brought attention to the protesters as they could be held liable if they went against the Supreme Court decision. For instance, the protesters would be arrested and charged in a court of law for breaking the court order. Despite exercising their right, these court orders barred them from protesting and impeding the normal flow of community activities. Amid this confusion, some people launched an appeal against Fagan J's decision through the court of appeal as the decision infringed on the protester's rights to voice their complaints. Some felt that the protests were the legal gathering of people and that making them unlawful was unethical and an overstep on other people's rights hence the need for an appeal as it was wrong to deny other people's freedom to picket and voice their concern on an emerging issue which affected most people of the society. Besides, the law is governed through reason, denying people a right to protest has to come with a fair reasonable answer for the law to act accordingly and legally.

 Body

To comprehend the underpinning factors of Fagan J's decision and how it intermarries with John's Stuart's principles one needs to study the provisions under the offenses Act. The Offences Act displays and contain issues relating to public assembly. Section 24 of this act claims that a permitted public assembly is supposed to hold according to section 23 of the same Act. Implying that an individual is innocent of any wrongdoing about taking part in an illegal gathering[2]. Additionally, in section 23 of the same Act, before a public gathering is made legal, a written notice should be issued before the public assembly can be allowed to gather. This is matches Waldron’s thoughts on principles of liberty which state that socialism and conservatism dictate social norms and regulations hence dictating wrong and right. The notice is to be given to the commissioner[3]. This procedure seems to be in line with Jeremy Waldron's sentiments on the foundations of liberalism. Waldron claims that people who claim to be liberal or socialist have no complete autonomy over their own lives. Thus, political concepts have formulated liberty around community regulations and norms[4]. This way, one associated freedom based on self-conscious societal regulations. This explains the reason why people have to first seek a permit before they are allowed to gather in a public place to protest or even picket.

 Conclusion

 In summary, Waldron's sentiments allow room for disagreement hence giving a chance for democratic procedures and institutions. Thus based on these facts, relying on time and place the notice is issued to the commissioner, sections 25 states that court can then permit or deny a public gathering. Through the democratic process, one has to right to either exercise his or her authority or be denied altogether. Later, this one of the best ways to gauge the freedom or the liberties of any community. The association of the democratic process with liberty sometimes brings about a genuine establishment of liberty and what one can or cannot do within the society. The nature of the public assembly also dictates how one can be prosecuted. This proves that social construct influences people's liberty. Most of the time, the majority of the people have a say on what should be legal and what should be illegal and this brings in the conceptualization of liberty based on John Stuart and Waldron. Subsequently, the society effects the self-protection aspect of liberty. Liberty is the foundation upon which political freedom and economies are built upon and this is the reason why one’s freedom cannot be allowed to disrupt the life of another person.

[1] Mill, John Stuart. JS Mill:'On Liberty'and Other Writings. Cambridge University Press, 1989.

[2] Waldron, Jeremy. "Theoretical foundations of liberalism." The Philosophical Quarterly (1950-) 37, no. 147 (1987): 127-150.

[3] Summary Offences Act 1988

[4] Commissioner of police v Bassi 2020

Introduction

“Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values" Ayn Rand. This happiness is not what a person feels when common pleasures occur in their lives. The feeling of genuine inner well-being and peace is a completely separate state of being that can be witnessed in Khaled Hosseini’s novel. This novel is about relationships and mainly revolves around three relationships. Amir and Hassan, Soraya and Sohrab, Baba and Rahim. The book highlights the complexity of personal relationships. Additionally, it talks about how complicated relationships overlap and assist people in shaping their identities; ultimately, the novel covers multiple plots on betrayal and redemption.

Character

As the story begins, Baba is a man who lives within his moral code. He does not approve of the moral code set by the society around him. Baba discourages his son Amir from believing anything their teachers say about sin in school. He says, "but first understand this and understand it now, Amir: you'll never learn anything of value from those bearded idiots (3:20)." Baba refers to all religious people in Afghanistan as self-righteous monkeys (3.22). Moreover, Baba believes there is only one sin, which is theft (3.34). Every other wrongdoing, according to Baba, revolves around theft. He tells Amir, when someone cheats, he or she steals fairness. When someone kills, they steal the life of another, and when someone lies, they steal the truth (3:37). Nonetheless, Baba does not practice what he says. Baba's distrust in religious fundamentalism explains why he defies his own and societal beliefs on morality and sleeps with Sanuabr, Ali's wife.

Moreover, Baba hides from Hassan the truth by failing to tell him that he is his son. Neither does he tell Amir and Hassan that they are brothers. Therefore, being engrossed in his moral code makes Baba a betrayer, liar, and a deeply flawed man, which are all immoral behaviors. Nevertheless, as the story progresses, Baba's morality shifts. His life in California humbles him and prompts him to live by what is right. Baba is determined to live an honest living. He tells, Mrs. Dobbins that he does not like free things. Instead, he prefers to work for his money (11:28). When Baba could not produce an ID at a food store, Baba apologizes to Mr. Nguyen ad pleads with him not to call the police (11.13). A couple of days later, Baba went back to the fruit store and paid for the damage they caused during the push and pull with Mr. Nguyen (11:15). Besides, Baba strives to better his relationship with his son Amir. When Air graduates from high school, Baba congratulates him (11:31). This kind of gesture from Baba was nonexistent. He was so proud of himself and believed in towering over and belittling son Amir. Through his words and actions as the novel progresses, Baba's moral shift is admirable.

Character 2

Amir is lucky to have a privileged upbringing. He is the son of a wealthy and influential man based on Afghan standards. Thus, he grows up accustomed to getting whatever he wants. Accordingly, Amir develops a sense of entitlement and jealousy. For example, he believes he is the only human on earth who deserves his father's attention. Therefore, he grows jealous of any other person who appears to get attention from Baba. Amir pretends to love Hassan as his best friend. However, he is secretly envious because his father, Baba, thinks Hassan was more of a man than him (3:37). Amir feels superior to Hassan. While working on their school projects together, Amir sees Hassan as an illiterate (4:12). Amiri concludes that Hassan will end up illiterate like his fellow Hazara people. Amir is caught up between a roller coaster of assisting his friend Hassan excel in schoolwork or not. He decides not to help Hassan with his schoolwork, because in the end, it turns out that Hassan is better than him in solving the school assignments (4:12). Hassan loves Amir and considers him his brother, even when they are unaware that they are indeed blood brothers. Hassan would do anything to protect Amir. However, because of feeling jealous of Hassan's bravery, Amr would not reciprocate the same gesture. For example, in the kite tournament, two neighborhood boys hold down Hassan. One of the boys is Assef, who proceeds to rape Hassan. Amir watches as Hassan is getting raped but does nothing. Amir's jealousy towards Hassan also pushes him to engage in a malicious activity during the kite tournament. Amir's objective is to snatch Baba's attention off Hassan. Thus, Amir plans the malicious scheme that will make him win the tournament and gain Baba's admiration at Hassan's expense. Amir succeed. However, Amir's turning point comes when he and his feather flee Afghanistan to California. In California, Amir develops maturity and becomes more responsible. Amir becomes more severe in his studies (11:31). Additionally, he becomes more concerned about his father and shoulders more responsibility. Amir begins to appreciate people instead then seeing them as threats. Accordingly, he meets a young lady Soraya, whom he courts and finally marries. Amir transitioned into a man his father, Baba, always envisioned. Based on Baba's and Amir's good transitions, Baba sets the moral transition too high, therefore, he is more worthy of respect and admiration.

Summary

Baba is engrossed in his moral code, disregarding any other belief around him. Nonetheless, even that, he strives to ensure that his sons, both Amir and Hassam, live right and get the best life. Baba only practices self-proclaimed moral acts. Baba's sentiment shows that he acknowledges that there are other morals besides his just that he is not prepared to live. Even though Baba does not publicly acknowledge Hassan initially, he mentors and congratulates him on his achievements. Besides, he is willing to do what it takes to help Amir fight his fears as a child and develop a manly instinct. In California, Baba decides to live by what is right and does not waver even in temptation.On the other hand, Amir feels entitled and jealous. He thinks life is all about him and disregarding any other person. He relates to people based on their affluence or social status. Even when Amir transitions to be more responsible and more mature, it is still about him and his father. When getting a wife, he searches for the most intelligent and steady woman who matches his high-end lifestyle.

One isn't born with moral integrity but rather transitions to be a morally upright person. The events that take place in the life of individuals dictate the people they become. Finding true happiness’s serves as proof of an individual's moral Integrity.

Does utilitarianism provide an appropriate standard against which to judge environmental protection policies?

            Utilitarianism belongs to the family of consequentialists which branches from ethical doctrine embedded in the consequences and outcomes of an action to judge the action being taken, rather than an agent’s initial intentions. The utilitarian theory was originally developed by the British philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) who believed that the only way to maximize an actor’s level of well-being or utility, which is similarly likened to happiness, is to act out “the greatest good for the greatest number.” (Bentham, 1907). The theory is based on the premise that, an act is considered to be morally good if its consequences result in an overall good for the majority and bad or unethical if it results in an overall bad. The theory focuses on the consequences of an act rather than the action itself.  Today utilitarianism in the form of cost benefit analysis has become a key part of policy development and “served as the theoretical underpinning for wide-ranging environmental health policies” (Resnik et al., 2018, p.31) It is worth noting that, this paper is theoretical and for that reason it is impossible to discuss how the theory applies to all areas of environmental practices, however, what it does do is counteract the caricature of utilitarianism in theory by diminishing the negative attitudes directed towards this ethical principle, and why it is still widely accepted today.

According Simmonds, the common features of utilitarianism theory is; a) utilitarianism is monistic, in that it proposes one supreme principle (the principle of utility as governing all moral questions) b) its basic principle requires us to maximize a singular goal, even if this goal is created through different versions of utilitarianism c) it is a version of consequentialism where the claim that the moral rectitude of an action is a function of its expected consequences and lastly d) it is individualistic on the basis that it judges actions, laws and institutions by the impact upon the lives of individuals, even if a goal is a collective one, the degree to which it is accepted is to the extent that positive consequences are apparent in the individuals lives. (Simmonds, 2013)

The singular goal referred to, for classical utilitarianism was to maximize “happiness” which was known as a hedonic state. Bentham argued that “nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. They alone point out what we ought to do and determine what we shall do;” (Bentham, 1987, p.6) It was later that Mills extended these sovereign masters, where he argued that the nature of pleasure has a role to play in how agents perceive their preferences and desires. He claimed that utility is not just pleasure and pain alone but can also be recognised in terms of the quality and intensity. He explored utilitarianism further making the claim that as agents we not only to consider the quantity but also the quality of our choices, for example: “a person may prefer to maintain a sense of dignity even when this leads to a loss of overall pleasure”[1] (O’Neill, J., Holland A., & Light A., 2008, p.19) This line of thinking has become predominant in recent debates where theorists have perceived utilitarianism discussion not always a matter of right or wrong but the satisfaction of preferences and desires as the ultimate goal to be maximized. Given the multidimensional debate, the arguments that will be discussed will be dependent on the choice of terminology as to whether an agent adopts preferences, well-being or happiness at the utilitarian indicator.

In relation to environmental protection, one of the most constant things in life is change. Following the rapid growth of economic activity in the last few centuries due to industrialization and subsequent rise in urbanization, the interaction between human progress and the environment has increased more than four times in the last century.[2] The need for environmental protection has become an increasing concern as a result of human activity and the use of natural resources comes at a cost. Meanwhile, governments through environmental protection agencies have over the years embraced the concerns raised by various parties by creating and implementing numerous rules and regulations aimed at protecting and preserving the environment. However, these regulations have also been noted to limit the liberty of the citizens they are supposed to protect. For instance, in the United States, liberal politicians have argued that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has over-expanded its policies and now threatens the liberty of citizens due to regulatory restrictions that affect economic freedom and access to the free market. As such, although the environmental protection policies have generally attempted to reduce the economic impact on the environment towards ensuring the safety of all, the current environmental protection approaches seem to cause many problems.

For example, in 2015, the United States’ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2019) lowered the air quality standards for “ozone from 0.075 ppm to 0.070 ppm” as a means of promoting public health and providing additional protection for children and those with asthma (Reitze, 2015, p.1). The agency noted that lowering the ozone standards would result in “numerous benefits that would outweigh the costs”, due to the reduced costs of health and improved air quality.[3] (Reitze, 2015, p. 3) From a utilitarian perspective, one would argue that the lowering of ozone standards by the EPA was justified since it was not only an effective way of protecting the health of children and susceptible populations, but it would also lead to significant reductions in healthcare expenditures. The justification of this argument is due to the fact that about 7.7 percent of the entire United States populations is asthmatic, with about 5 percent this population living with a severe form of the condition which indicates that they are more sensitive to the effects of ozone when compared to those with mild symptoms[4] (Resnik et al., 2018). With such a high prevalence of asthma, reduction of the ozone standard to 0.060 not only benefits those with asthma and other citizens such as family members, but it is also likely to result in a significant reduction of health costs.

Additionally, a 2009 report by the EPA revealed that lowering the ozone standard would cost businesses about “50 to 90 billion dollars annually by the year 2020”, while at the same time saving about “48 to 87 billion dollars per year” in healthcare costs based on a 7 percent discount rate [5](EPA, 2009, p. 4). However, as with other environmental policies, the for or against argument of the environmental policy is largely based on cost-benefit analysis and the expected benefits to the environment. As such, opponents of the 0.060 ozone standard have argued that the reduction will not lead to the EPA’s estimated annual savings in healthcare costs (Pyle, 2011)[6]. Studies examined showed the policy could force businesses to incur costs of up to one trillion dollars each year, in addition to more than “7.3 million” job losses (Resnik et al., 2018, p.8). These statistics indicates that while utilitarian focused on health aspects are likely to promote the policy, a utilitarian who accepts the veracity of industry economic estimates could argue that the EPA’s decision to lower the ozone standard to 0.060 is not justified because the economic costs far outweigh the public health benefits. The findings show that even though a utilitarian approach is effective in providing guidance during policy development, it does not in itself provide a mechanism through which ideological or methodological controversies can be resolved (Resnik et al., 2018, p.32)

            What this example demonstrates is that cost benefit analysis comes in many variations and conventional cost benefit analysis is not favourable amongst agents who position themselves on ethical grounds. As E. J. Mishan defines it “in cost-benefit analysis we are concerned with the economy as a whole, with the welfare of a defined society, and not any smaller part of it”[7] (Mishan, 1976, p.11) but then what cost benefit analysis does is commit individuals to take responsibility for ones actions, even after identifying the various course of actions an agent can take, the basis in which ‘lower the ozone is not the correct one’ is determined by the assigned values to benefits and harms of any given result. In such examples, The United States’ Environmental Protection Agency has adopted the grounds of rule utilitarianism where “depending on the moral importance we attach to the right or duty involved, cost-benefit questions may, within wide ranges, become irrelevant to the outcome of the moral judgement.”[8] (Kelman, p.353)       

            The argument in support for the actions undertaken by Environmental Protection Agency is based on the Utilitarian theory which argues that an act is ethical if it results in the common good of the majority. Regardless of whether the decision to lower the ozone level standards will yield the expected results, reducing population is not necessarily the only common good sought after. Reducing the ozone layer standard will help reduce medical conditions reducing from air pollution. This will in turn promote better health for individuals and reduce the cost of offering quality medical care. Although the decision may have a negative impact on organizations required to maintain the standards, an overall good where people lead healthier lives as a result is likely to be the end result, thus making the decision morally correct.

            On the other hand, Langlois[9] (1982) notes that one of the biggest weaknesses of cost-benefit analysis is the over-emphasis on social decision and social costs while ignoring the impact on established entities such as businesses whose interest also needs to be taken into consideration during policy development. In essence, environmental policy analysis based on utilitarian ethics tend to focus more on the population health and environmental protection as opposed to welfare of businesses, such as the EPA’s ozone policy. On the contrary, to make this assumption there has to be prior judgement to how to measure a person’s utility. This again, leads us back to the subjective element of the utilitarian debate. Cost benefit analysis is about weighing up costs and benefits, the process in itself does not presume everything is either a cost or a benefit. As Hubin pointed out “CBA itself does not make that decision for us. It is true by definition that to care about X is to have a preference regarding X, but we can care about X without thinking X is merely a preference. CBA assumes nothing about the nature of values, other than that they sometimes come into conflict and that no matter what we do, we will in effect be trading them off against each other.”[10]

In addition, utilitarianism seeks to achieve a common good for the majority, depending on the outcome. When determining the acceptable levels of emissions, a business is allowed, the decision is made with consideration to the business, regardless of the impact that the emissions have on the public and people in general. The limit set for emissions is intended to achieve a common good for all businesses and industries. Although the act of limiting businesses may inconvenience some organizations, it is ethically correct as it results in the overall benefit of the business. The controlled emissions protect the target audience from harmful emissions. Since the target audience are the future customers, maintaining good health favours the business as it ensures constant demand for goods and services. Businesses on the other hand continue to manufacture products and services, despite their activities causing harm to the environment and endangering people’s health. Under utilitarianism, the decision to allow some emissions favours the businesses and although damaging to the population, it achieves a common good as it creates employment and provides access to various goods and services.  It is because of these and more reasons that cost benefit analysis is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, where weighing up moral ethics under an unspecified criterion, it is hard to define what is deemed as ethically incorrect.

Utilitarianism assumes that organizations or individuals given the responsibility to make decisions will do so based on the desire to achieve the common good and not on their personal preferences. State intervention is used as a safety measure to ensure that the market that exist favours not just businesses but also the consumer. State intervention however creates the problem of environmental goods becoming classified as public goods. Since utilitarianism operates on the basis of a common good, natural resources could end up being depleted because using them results in an overall good to the general public. This is especially the value of things, living and non-living is often determined by their usefulness to human beings.

            One element of this dilemma is then, how do we maximize the satisfaction of people’s interests? As rule utilitarianism makes the claim that acts which conform to the general rule are those that should be promoted for the good of everyone, even if the consequences are not the best. (Winter 1989) How are we to know what is the common good for everyone? Making such decisions required two levels of moral thinking that have were initiated with Hare, when he argued that at a critical level moral agents are permitted to consider all the knowledge that would enable them to weigh up the costs and benefits of action’s that would satisfy the most people as well as achieving the best consequences, and then our intuitive level whereby we operate under normal conditions of ignorance towards the future and in moral education, by putting confidence in our simple principles that we believe will lead to the right actions. [11]The former of these two levels is used to select the principles that are adhered to in the second level. However, how do we demonstrate what is the correct decision to make and how do we know it’s the best decision? Is the ability to be able to reason and act as rational agents an intuitive process for human beings? For the consequentialist given any plausible account of doing the right thing it would be obvious what decision the agent should make, but then, the utilitarian would argue that if sacrificing one person’s life would save five others it is plausible to do so. Utilitarianism has been criticized on ethical grounds for encouraging the trolley problem, but there are constraints on what we can oblige an agent to do to realize certain goals.

            Advocates such as Smith and Hayek argue that neo-classical notions of perfect competition that provides the basis for free market ideology and theorems of welfare economics, the nature of markets are reliant on the role of prices to signal information across agents and allows them to engage with these economic systems. Within welfare economics, cost-benefit analysis is demonstrated by applying dollar values to goods and services to measure how strong a person’s preference for that good or service is dependent on how much they are willing to pay for it. When it comes to environmental protectionist measures however it is hard to quantify the value of having pure water, cleaner air, noise pollution etc., therefore this is commonly accumulated by hedonic pricing methods where proxy goods in the market are indicators to estimate the price of that good. For example; property prices are in part a function of the quality of the surrounding environment, and comparisons are made by individual’s preferences to choosing a property next to an airport for instance or a similar property in a different location. Secondly, contingent valuation methods can demonstrate how much individuals are willing to pay as well as what they’d accept in compensation for its loss in the market.

            The impartiality of the utilitarian theory indicates that even when a decision is able to benefit some, it also leads to a decrease in welfare for others. Even when we address the issues of information failure within the market, there is no way to define what is good for an individual in terms of their preference satisfaction. If utilitarianism is solely concerned with utilising an individual’s welfare, it isn’t enough to assume that satisfying a person’s preference is always going to benefit the individual. As a theory, utilitarian doesn’t take into account what if a person has pure intentions that led to negative consequences and vice versa? it isn’t enough to assume that satisfying a person’s preference is always a benefit to the individual’s concern, as Mills stated “while the fool and the pig may be satisfied with their lot, the life that employs the higher faculties is a better life for a human being” (source) Mill’s highlights a major criticism for utilitarianism, that in nature the theory is individualistic, and how are we able to decide that individuals know what achieves well-being.

`           For this reason, Mill’s was an advocate for preferences that improve the welfare and satisfaction of fully informed agents, he argued for an intercessor that are able to make competent decisions that individuals are not able to make for themselves. That when decisions are too be made “the happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is not...(one's) own happiness, but that of all concerned. As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator.” Mill’s rule utilitarianism provided a leeway to incorporate social ethics into our moral principles by stating that rather any preference being maximized (Bentham’s approach) to only preferences that have good outcomes. However, the reliant on governments is to assume that an individual can be informed to make decisions and desire certain preferences that may not have been a subjective choice before-hand. To rely on the state is too assume that, we can be informed to make preferences not because we prefer them but because we believe they are good and ultimately lead to better outcomes. However, even if we knew to be the case it’s not guaranteed that the total utility of making such a choice would outweigh the costs needed to carry out that choice and secondly, an individual’s choices are still determined ultimately by their preferences.

            It is impossible to specify general rules concerning forms of intervention due to the fact that the types of intervention depend upon value judgements. If utilitarianism is to justify environmental protectionist policies, it must be able to provide an adequate account of the parties whose interests are relevant. Utilitarianism doesn’t provide an answer to environmental problems, what is does it create preconceptions of what we should think about markets and what we should think about states. As Bentham noted “if that party be the community in general, then the happiness of the community: if an individual. Then the happiness of that individual.”[12] However, this doesn’t solve the situation where conflict lies, all it does is make us aware that there are two kinds of interests at work.  

            Meanwhile, environmentalists have argued that utilitarianism worldviews are often anthropocentric, however by focusing on humans for the majority of this essay, it has highlighted that the nature of human beings makes reasoning a very contestable approach. Economics alone doesn’t offer us solutions because it hashes out the argument for environmental practices from a different view point, but ethics engages us to think about risks and distribution. As noted, it is often recognized that the value of environmental goods, animals and plants are dependent upon their relation to the important of human beings.  However Singer has been influential in directing his attention to the obligation that utilitarianism has a duty to apply to both humans and all living things that make up the natural world. He stated that “if pleasure and the absence of pain are what matters in moral evaluation, it would be speciest to rule that the pleasure and pain of non-human animals is unworthy of moral consideration.” (p.27) However, many of Singer’s claims are from a utilitarian point of view,  A deontologist would argue that animals with intrinsic value have rights to respectful treatment which in turn generates the moral value on our part as human beings to ensure that we treat animals with respect (Taylor, 1981). 

            The major limitation for utilitarianism when determining how to go about setting policies to govern trade-offs has to do with the fact that the theory only considers human’s happiness.  This is despite the fact that human activity can have serious consequences to the environment and all life on it. The common good that utilitarianism tries to achieve is assessed in relation to what brings human beings happiness. It however fails to consider how something that creates an overall good for human can have negative repercussions for other living things. Take the case of the restrictions on carbon emissions for instance. The levels set are agreed upon by assessing what emissions can be released without causing harm to human beings. The happiness of humans supersedes that of animals and plants as the common good sought after is one that favours humans. When the harmful gases are released to the environment however, animals and plants are affected just as much as human beings. The melting ice caps destroy animal habitat among other repercussions arising from a utilitarian theory that only considers humans.

            The interest of animals and other living things should count just as much as that for human beings. Other than assessing how the consequences will affect human beings, the overall good should factor in the needs of animals, plans and other nun-human things that exist and could be affected as a result. When seeking an overall good, the utilitarian approach should then factor how carbon emissions will affect marine life, plans on land and other animals, as well as human beings. Such a decision would however take up too much time or contain too many variables to be implemented practically. As such, utilitarianism is not always about achieving a common good, but rather, the perceived idea of what is a common good. The end results are not always a reflection of the best decision or action that could have been undertaken, but rather a reflection of what people in society consider to be good and acceptable.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, consequentialisms, deontology and virtues ethics highlights the incompatible positions in how to deal with environmental protectionists policies within the market. It is evident today that there is no infallible theory of the ethics for resource allocation, but this essay has aimed to highlight the nature of utilitarianism with brief comparisons with the deontological approach whose scope is beyond this essay. To date, there is no infallible theory of the ethics to determine resource allocation, and given the ambiguous of individual in a rapidly changing environment, there is no simple answer to managing agency between them and the state – “when principles conflict, it becomes necessary to balance competing concerns. There is no correct way of achieving this balance. Moreover, there is no consensus on how the different principles ought to be weighted, or on what weight should be given to the goal of maximizing health compared to other social goods such as education and environmental protection.”

Nonetheless, utilitarianism is considered justifiable as it is demonstrating the strongest claim for the most intuitive ethical standard, if we are utility maximisers whose decisions are based on welfare, then “efficiency in promoting human life is itself a valid ethical standard, and that alternative formal ethical approaches, as well as everyday ethical intuitions, present their own problems when applied to real world situations.” At some point we draw the line, make a decision, and get on with our lives, realizing that any real-world decision procedure inevitably will be of limited value. The problem of resource allocation and trade-off’s will be apparent for as long as incommensurable goods are able to be made commensurable within the world, and for this reason utilitarianism in most cases will be the most reliable resolution for those trade-offs.

Bibliography:

            Bentham, J., 1907, “An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation”, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, Retrieved 5/24/2020 from the World Wide Web: https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/278

            Resnik, D. B., MacDougall, D. R., & Smith, E. M., 2018, ‘Ethical dilemmas in protecting susceptible subpopulations from environmental health risks: Liberty, utility, fairness, and accountability for reasonableness’. The American Journal of Bioethics, 18(3), pp.29-41.

            Simmonds, E, N., 2013, “Central Issues in Jurisprudence: Justice, Law and Rights,” (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 4th edn, 2013) pp. 18–19

            Bentham, J., 1987, “An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation” in Bennett J., 2017 (ed.) p.1-153

[1] John O’Neill, Alan Holland and Andrew Light

[2] FIND SOURCE FOR THIS

[3] Reitze Jr, A. W. (2015). ‘The National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone’. Ariz. J. Envtl. L. & Pol'y, 6, pp.420.

[4] Resnik, D. B., MacDougall, D. R., & Smith, E. M. (2018). ‘Ethical dilemmas in protecting susceptible subpopulations from environmental health risks: Liberty, utility, fairness, and accountability for reasonableness’. The American Journal of Bioethics, 18(3), pp.29-41.

[5] Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). Summary of the updated regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for the reconsideration of the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 2009. Available at: https://www3.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/s1-supplemental_analysis_summary11-5-09.pdf

[6] Pyle, T. (2011). EPA’s proposed ozone regulation could cost $1 trillion. US News and World Report. 2011 Aug 25; Available at: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2011/08/25/epas-proposed-ozone-regulation-could-cost-1-trillion

[7] Mishan, E. J., 1976, “Elements of Cost-Benefit Analysis,” 2nd ed., London: George Allen & Unwin.

[8] Cost benefit analysis: An ethical critique: Steven Kelman

[9] Langlois, R. N. (1982). ‘Cost-benefit analysis, environmentalism, and rights’. Cato J., 2, pp.279.

1. [10] Hubin 1994, p. 172n 

2. Hubin, Donald C. 1994 “The Moral Justification of Benefit0Cost Analysis,” Economics and Philosophy 10 pp. 169–94 .

[11] HARE FIND A SOURCE

[12] BENTHAM, FIND A SOURCE – this is in the paid essay