How ‘Common Sense’ by Thomas Paine helped create the Current America

The ‘Common Sense’ by Thomas Paine is an essay that has been formulated purposely to urge the commoners to fight for their freedom and break away from the corrupt Britain government. Paine begins this essay by stating that his intentions are pure and that all that he is doing is giving simple facts and plain arguments (326). By doing this, this essay gains credibility right from the start and it helps to persuade the readers through the ethics and ethos appeal. Through this essay, Paine criticizes Great Britain terming it to be a necessary evil that should be eradicated. Paine uses irrefutable facts to gain his readers trust and this makes his accusations of the Great Britain very believable. Paine argues that Great Britain takes advantage of the terminology ‘mother’ country to manipulate the colonists’ minds and emotions which helped them to ultimately keep them from rebellion. Great Britain is defined in this essay as the persecutor of America and he goes ahead to explain to the colonists with facts the reasons as to why this is true. Just like Paine illustrates, independence is something that is important; it is something that every nation should seek to attain in order to help them achieve freedom as well as development. Paine through his work ‘Common Sense’ is the father of the American independence, his message of independence is effective and it helped shape the America that exists today.

Common sense is a reading that had a tremendous influence during the year 1776, it was read by masses and this helped to create revolutionary thoughts and ideas of freedom away from the British rule. ‘Common Sense’ stands out in its influence in the American society with the fact that it was came abut at a time when there were external influences such as mass media or even the internet. There was nothing that competed with the urgency of the message that Paine was trying to pass across to the society. Dictions such as tyranny, monster and cruelty are repeated several times in the essay to define the actions of Great Britain (Nash, p 13). These words helps to illustrate the feelings of Paine towards England and these feelings are transferred to the readers. Paine’s main argument is that America has evolved and that it no longer needs Great Britain because all that it does is hurt them with the tyrannical government.  Through the uses of rhetorical parallelism, Paine created a flow within the text where he employed repetition which is valuable in getting reality to stay in the minds of the readers (Nash, p 13). This rhetorical strategy was effective in that it was able to get his ideas of revolt to his readers and this was done in a persuasive manner that did not make him seem to be too radical and extreme. Common Sense sparked a wild fire of independence rationale amongst the colonial society and it inspired passionate responses from both the patriots and the loyalists. Paine’s thoughts helped the American society to see the reality of the oppressive lives that they were living in while England continued to flourish (Dennehy, p. 185).

In those years, the British subjects had no authority; they were inadequate and always expected to follow the British rule blindly. Hereditary monarchical ruling deterred the people in the colonies from having any leadership roles which affected the whole ruling structure (Paine, p. 20).  The colonies had no chance in power and this deterred them from developing and giving their views on various political matters. Paine in his work demonized hereditary monarchy illustrating that all human beings were equal in the order of creation. Paine argued that monarchies created a distinction between the rich and the poor; he quoted oppression as a means to richness meaning that the rich continued to be wealthier at the expense of the poor (Paine, p. 11). They could not be received or even heard because they were insignificant to the rest of the world and this affected their chances of international prosperity and stability. The thoughts of freedom are something that was in the minds of many people, but they were afraid and did not know how to go about it. Paine, through his arguments helped to create a context that helped these people to see the reality of the issue of independence and how it can be achieved (Nash, p 16).  Through his essay, he created that illusion that made this people feel informed and thus helped them formulate their own ideas which made the urge for independence to become more vigorous.

Paine’s argument that the British government is a necessary evil was greatly relevant in the sense that the government is always expected to protect the general population but this is not what was happening then (Paine, p. 2). The British government instead of protecting the people was exploiting them and affecting their chances of growth and development which brought about the need of a new government for the American colonies. Paine goes further in his argument to illustrate that Europe is the parent country of America, he illustrates that no parent would consume their young, something that he believes that England is doing to America (Paine, p. 26).  The European nations at the time exploited America to increase their wealth and also broaden their world affairs at the expense of the Americans. These European nations moved to America around the year 1650 where they first settled at the United States as they established and increased their dominant presence on the Atlantic coast (Dennehy, p. 187). Range spread around the year 1765 when the Stamp Act was introduced, this law that was passed by the British Parliament imposed direct taxes on the American colonies. This was something new for these colonies and so it triggered so much hatred and rebellion from them which is why Paine’s essay greatly motivated the colonies to rebel against this sort of governance.

Paine had a great contribution to the notion of democracy in America. Through his work, he helped the people understand the importance of working together for the better good. A society can only be built if people join together and work together for the greater good and the British government restricted this from happening by dividing the people (Paine, p. 4). Even without having to directly involve himself; Paine’s declaration for independence became a reality when the people realized that what he was trying to tell them was factual. America became independent because the colonies believed in Paine’s argument for independence for all the colonies. Even though he initially proposed independence for thirteen colonies, his proposal greatly helped to structure and shape the present modern governmental systems of the USA today. His ideas and influences became the thoughts of the American society. He was able to bring different societies together, showing them how unity could help them work against Britain rule and following these guidelines in the end helped them win the revolt (Dennehy, p. 187).

Pain through ‘Common Sense’ established a theory of society and government. This work made its case for revolution on the most pragmatic term, basically focusing on the economic and security independence which are some of the issues that resonate even in the contemporary society (Solinger, p. 535). For Paine, the outcomes the outcome was just as important as the message and he was very careful and he ensured that there was common ground which is why he opted to persuade through facts. Common Sense helped the American people to change their thinking and they stopped following the commands into the revolution. They began to follow their desire for independence and this gave motivation to fight on and get their victory over Britain at the end (Dennehy, p. 186). Paine can be defined to be the cornerstone in the solidification of American unity, pride and freedom because his argument helped the colonists to see the reality in the oppressive lives that they were living.

The intellectual style in which Paine structured his arguments was impressive in an extraordinary way and this is attributed to the consistency of his arguments. The great intellectual force of Common Sense lies in its setback of the assumptions that motivated the arguments. This is a setback that obligated the attentive readers to reflect not so much on the points and the conclusions but on entirely new ways of looking at the complete array of the problems that are involved (Nash, p 16). Underneath all the clear arguments and conclusions on individuality lay some important, implicit and even theorized presuppositions, approaches and habits of thoughts that made it very tough for the colonists to break away from England (Solinger, p. 605). Something that deterred them from finding the independent future that included freedom and security that they so much sought. The special rational worth of Paine’s argument goes a long way toward clarifying its influences on the present-day readers.  It stems from its setback of these fundamental conjectures and its fluctuation of the recognized perspectives, to the point where the whole conventional paradigm within which the American debate had up until the preceded came about.

Paine understood that there were no set of philosophies that were more intensely fixed in the British and American awareness other than just the concept that freedom could endure in a world of distinctively ambitious and selfish societies. This is a place where the stability of the opposing forces was so established that no contender could dominate the influence of the state and the decree short of operational antagonism. The colonies were so much dependent on Britain believing that they were not strong enough to endure and flourish on their own (Paine, p. 11). Paine in his argument helped these colonies to understand this perception was wrong; he made them realize that they were being misled by the ancient prejudices and superstitions. England selfishly pretended to protect the colonies but it was all a plot to gain economically from them. The colonies as advised by Paine have never really needed England for protection; instead all that they did is suffer from it. These colonies had greater chances of flourishing if they had not relied on this protection because their prosperity was based on commerce and this is something that continues to flourish as long as the world is alive (Nash, p 17). America had greater chances of flourishing had it not been attached to England, this attachment led it to be burdened with quarrels from the European states with whom it would have been harmoniously relating with. America ended up getting dragged in monarchical rivalries with which it had no state in and this tragically limited the chances of America getting associated with the rest of the world (Paine, p. 29).

Through ‘Common Sense’, Paine attacked the fears of independence by aggressively redesigning the locations on which the uncertainties that were there had rested. It had always been opinionated that if the colonies were left by themselves, they would extinguish themselves in a civil conflict. Paine however assured the colonies that the civil strife that had become known by the Americans had streamed from the linking with England and that it was essential and inevitable part of the colonial linking (Paine, p. 44). It had also always been claimed that America was weak and that it had no power to survive a war with a European power. Paine in his argument America had the ability and if given the chance had a blend of boundless resources for naval structure and it also had a massive coastal allowance that endorsed it to be strong and one of the most capable naval power (Paine, p. 55). America is today capable of sustaining a great military effort and it has come to be known as one of the states that have the best militia power in the world. America is the country that every individual wishes to go to because of the great business opportunities that are available there thus defying the beliefs and assumptions of England.

This essay greatly addresses contemporary crises of divisiveness and the ability of modern societies to see eye to eye. It at the same time also suggests the intractability of the problem, because America has changed unlike in the times of Paine. The American society today has grown too big, too scattered and burdened with information and opinion while at the same time trying to insulate from opposing points of view. The society today has lost its capacity to carry on a rational dispute as a significance of the decline of reading and also the increase of electronic media that makes everything to cohabit in a never ending contemporary tense. The decision by Paine to address his fellow colonists directly was as innovative during his time just as blogs are in the contemporary society. This is one of the main reasons why he still continues to shine all through this time. His ideas spread across nations, motivating those to seek independence at all cost and this message is still relevant in the society today. Independence can be associated with any situation whether it is in the business, education or any other sector. Freedom gives room for great ideas to be developed and this leads to more growth in the society.  Paine’s message in ‘Common Sense’ is crystal clear and it is an illustration that one idea can change the world and that one individual can make a difference and this is the seed of American Independence.

Works cited

Dennehy, Robert F., et al. “Thomas Paine: Creating the New Story for a New Nation.” TAMARA: Journal of Critical Postmodern Organization Science, vol. 5, no. 3/4, Sept. 2006, pp. 183–192. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=24327350&site=ehost-live.

Nash, David. “The Gain from Paine.” History Today, vol. 59, no. 6, June 2009, pp. 12–18. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=41326592&site=ehost-live.

Paine, Thomas. Common Sense. Alexandria, VA. Capitol Net Inc. Copyright, 2011. Print.

Solinger, Jason D. “Thomas Paine’s Continental Mind.” Early American Literature, vol. 45, no. 3, Nov. 2010, pp. 593–617. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1353/eal.2010.0029

Death Penalty is wrong, it should be banned

The issue of death penalty is one that has brought up a lot of debate in the justice system over the years with arguments for and others against the penalty. The debate over whether human life is much important than the perception of justice or if the ending on an individual’s life is a verdict that should be exercised by the legal system is one that need to be critically analysed. Death penalty is an exercise that has been prevalent since the beginning of History and it was perceived to play a great role in shaping the criminal punishment system of the society as an effort to deter crime. Nevertheless the effect that this kind of penalty has on the society at large is not one that can be viewed to be positive and there are many arguments as to why this form of penalty is wrong. Death penalty is something that is unjust and should be banned; human beings have the right to life.

Utilitarianism and retribution

The central philosophic question that should always be applied in the justice system is that of moral justification. On what ground should the state’s deliberate killing of the identified offenders be morally justified to voluntary criminal conduct. With this question in mind, there are two broad categories that can be used to try and understand the morality of death punishment and they include; retribution and utilitarianism. There are those that argue that death penalty aids in deterring serious crimes such as murder, which is wrong. The pro-death penalty uses the utilitarian justification to argue that it is right with the principle of ‘an eye for an eye’ which they claim provides a clear formula for punishments that fit the crime (Dutoit, 112). These people argue that death penalty satisfies the criterion of reciprocal action that such a principal demands.

The implementation of death penalty within the United States is evidenced by that idea that social responsibility that envisioned by such a robust civilization is reliant on the eye for an eye principle which is wrong. The principle of seeking the greatest good for the larger society is persuasive and compelling but wrong (Dutoit, 114). If the deaths from homicidal related crimes are deterred by executing those guilty of that crime, then it is only logic for far greater punishments of executing those that are closest to or related to the guilty criminal. This is a far more powerful deterrent than only executing the criminal that is guilty, however while such a practice of arbitrary killing may empirically be the best deterrent, it does not necessarily means that its moral reputation is particularly without imperfections.

The biased justice system

The criminal justice legitimacy is based upon its effectiveness and fairness and for this to happen, it is important that the system detects crime thoroughly and ensures that swift and appropriate punishment is enforced. As illustrated by Tirado (24), the concept of fairness comes about with the ability of this justice system being able to ensure impartiality and effective legal representation for all people within the society. The current justice system cannot be said to be just and this is demonstrated by the shocking numbers of wrongful convictions that are normally reported every year where innocent people fight for fairness in their trials and in worst case scenarios their own lives (Greenberg, 1668). Families of the innocent victims always feel that the system has cheated them by causing their loved ones’ lives stripped unfairly. The criminal justice administers the death penalties in the context of the society that is not just.

The procedures that are applied in the cases are imperfect in the regard of the external social factors that affect its outcomes (Stevenson, 128). This is not only because of the features that are internal to the structure but also the legal system. Various data have illustrated that the criminal justice system tend to have increasingly higher rates of capital convictions for the African Americans and the poor (Johnson, Jeffery & Colleen, 518). The institution of capital punishments is both imperfect and capricious in various ways starting with the fact that it discriminates on the grounds of race and economic status of the offenders. As illustrated by Tirado (chapter 6)‘Being poor is isolating’,  at the various points in the process of determining if capital sentence should be inflicted, lack of funds affects the way that the whole process proceeds for the poor individuals that are charged with capital sentences.  'Those without the capital get punishment.' (Stevenson 6), given the high correlation that is there between poverty and race, the African Americans find themselves with the highest risk of getting sentenced with death which is very unfair.

As illustrated by Stevenson(46), ‘ You've got to keep beating the drum for justice’,  all people have the right to life and it is the duty of the justice system to protect from any form of murder and this includes even capital punishments which is an act of killing intentionally. It is absurd to think that the laws that are meant to be the expressions of the public’s will and those ones that detest the act of homicide are the same ones that are committing murder through death penalty. The act of capital punishment devalues human life as regarded by the society, death penalty offers the tragic illusion that life can be defended by taking another and this is wrong  Human life is the most important and precious entity in the universe and should always be viewed as such regardless of the actions or crimes committed (Stevenson, 48).

Death penalty is not only an isolated morality issue; it is a pressing institutional problem. Delivering a death penalty sentence is a complicated process that requires filtering those that are guilty and those that are not according to the justice system. In administering the penalty and desert, the system has to ensure that it filters the individuals that deserve the maximum sentence or a lesser punishment and this requires social responsibility. Stevenson (68) illustrates that the justice system is unreliable in regard to the arbitrary factors that are employed to determine the probability of a criminal to receive penalty regardless of the justice proceedings. These aspects of unreliability expand on the way that race, socio-economic status and quality of legal representation are all deciding factors in administering the death penalty regardless of culpability and crime. As Stevenson indicates ‘The true measure of our character is how we treat the poor, the disfavoured, the accused, the incarcerated, and the condemned’, the considerations of death penalty in regard to social responsibility describe a society that is dedicated to protecting the innocent civilians and administering punishments in accordance to the crime that is committed. It is sad and problematic that death penalty makes usage of arbitrary factors in order to deliver an irreconcilable punishment.

Kantian ethics

As illustrated in the Kantian ethics, every entity within a social society is a rational, self-conscious being and in committing crimes such as murder, this individual forfeits their right to life (Dutoit, 112). An argument may be made in regard to retribution that every guilty individual deserve to be punished in proportion to the severity of their crime. This notion of retribution in regard to death penalty is fallacious because it is similar to revenge. Revenge is not a method of justice that is compatible with retribution; this is not justice but rather an erratic infliction of harm that is accelerated by anger. In the arguments of retribution, the criminal forfeits their rights to life and deserves the capital sentence (Johnson, Jeffery & Colleen, 516). There is the societal theory of justice in the fact that the criminal should be considered as the primary actor in the crime but is ultimately considered as a rational agent prior to committing the criminal act (Stevenson, 47). The society’s response to these kinds of crimes is characteristics of vengeance and it is not ethical.

Citizens have a duty and obligation to their surroundings and this includes their peers and the environment, the failure to do this duty should not however be penalised through capital punishments. The society and social responsibility are things that need a more refined argumentation other than just the simple utilitarian concepts of the greater good for the largest amount of people (Dutoit, 123).

Capital sentences do not really serve the purpose teaching these criminals that what they did is wrong. The whole point of having punishments is to teach the criminals and the other people in the society the consequences of committing crimes with the purpose of ensuring that criminal activities are not repeated (Stevenson, 184). Capital sentences just inflict pain on the criminal causing him to die; this means that this individual does not have the chance to learn from his punishment.  Inflicting pain on an individual if it has to be justified has to ensure that it brings a long a forward looking purpose like that of one learning a lesson. Punishments are meant to help communicate to the criminals to allow them to understand that what they have done is wrong and thus give them an opportunity to apologize and even reform (Stevenson, 185). There are many diverse variants of this views and this include; educative, communicative and rehabilitative. All this elements can be applied to help the wrong doer to understand their mistake and change their ways and educate the larger community of the importance of following the law.

Conclusion

Every human being has a right to life as the law defines; it is however sad to think that this same law is the one that commits murder through death penalty. It is true that wrong doing should be punished in order to help these criminals understand their mistakes and reform.  Capital punishment does not give the criminals a chance to reform, it deprives them the chance of living a fulfilling life without giving them a second chance. Capital sentences should be abolished especially in the argument that the legal system is biased given that the poor and the African Americans make up the largest population of the offenders that are normally convicted of capital sentences.

Works cited

Dutoit, Thomas. “Kant’s Retreat, Hugo’s Advance, Freud’s Erection; Or, Derrida’s

Displacements in His Death Penalty Lectures.” Southern Journal of Philosophy, vol. 50, Sept. 2012, pp. 107–135. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/j.2041-6962.2012.00117.x

Greenberg, Jack. “Against the American System of Capital Punishment.” Harvard Law

Review, vol. 99, no. 7, May 1986, p. 1670. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=8615397&site=ehost-live.

 Johnson, Jeffery L., and Colleen F. Johnson. “Poverty and the Death Penalty.” Journal of

Economic Issues (Association for Evolutionary Economics), vol. 35, no. 2, June 2001, p. 517. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=4765846&site=ehost-live.

Stevenson, Bryan. Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption. , 2015. Print.

Tirado, Linda. Hand to Mouth: Living in Bootstrap America. Penguin Publishing Group,

 Philosophy

 Introduction

 Skepticism is the belief that the knowledge set forth in different areas is not necessarily true. Philosophical skeptics' doubts or set out oppositions in things that appear to be true with respect to the objects of perception and thoughts. Sextus is a philosopher who introduced the ‘Pyrrhonian skepticism' by claiming that he has no beliefs on scientific and theoretical matters and for this reason, he questions the rationality of belief. However, some philosophers refute skepticism arguing that skeptics have a false panacea mindset and they make their skeptical conclusion without using logical reasoning. In general, skepticism has a ‘pseudo-problem' (a non-real problem that cannot be solved). Philosophers argue that skepticism fails because skeptics' present arguments from illusion, dream argument, and the evil genius argument.

Sextus philosophy introduces the theory of knowledge known as Pyrrhonian skepticism where he states that people should investigate and search for the truth.  Investigation and searching mean that people should not rely on the set of beliefs but they should rely on ability or skill (Bailey, 147). The latter indicates that people should have the ability to make oppositions on things that that appear or are thought to be true.  For example, in addressing problems, people should pursue more inquiries to come up with various reasons to favor the offered solutions and select the best solutions and by so doing, they will gain tranquility. The word tranquility means that most people are troubled by the world discrepancies and to come out of the discrepancies, people need skeptical skills, conduct an intense scrutiny and investigations and come up with different solutions (Bailey, 147).  Due to the many contractions, skeptic skills provides tranquility since people discover the reality and suspend judgment.

  Sextus puts an emphasis on experience as the important element on the material world. He argues that knowledge comes from a sensory experience and thus, people should use ideas and conceptual thoughts to understand the knowledge content.  He says that “…every intelligent thing has its origin and the source of its confirmation in sense experience” (Stough, 107).  In this statement, he intends to show that in the material world, people gain both sensation and perception. Sensation means that people experience a physical feeling but there is no element of judgment to find out the cause of feeling. On the other hand, perception means that people use their minds to perceive objects and understand things and the different dimensions.  In other words, sensation and perception form ideas but in the process, people gain a character of experience where perception is phenomena whereas it is impossible to understand the real nature of the world (Stough, 107). The perceived indisputable and the role of skepticism is to search the experience and understand the external realities.

 According to Brennan (75), the skepticism does not contain the ethical component.  In most cases, philosophers connect their argument with virtue and vice, moral exempla and ethical conduct. In Sextus' case, he does not apply the ethical principle but rather he uses an epistemological theory to make conclusions.  When he talks of the suspension of belief, he argues that the skeptics are a non-philosophical doubt and a practical doubt because it excluded beliefs (Brennan, 78). Sextus uses this notion to claim that skepticism removes the ordinary beliefs and allows people to remove the worry and gain happiness. However, Skepticism fails because as people remove the ordinary beliefs, they use the ordinary concerns which means that people gain tranquility in respect of dogmata. Skeptic's attitude is complicated since ethics is not sorted in the Stoic claims.  In addition, Skeptic focus on the search for truth with respect to philosophy and this leads to lack of persuasion and dissuasion (Brennan, 80). Brennan recommends that Stoic claims required compelling motivation, evidence, and considerations. 

According to Descartes, skepticism fails due to one major reason which also gives the argument for the truth. Descartes talks of the evil genius and he quotes that “there is an evil demon, supremely powerful and cunning who works as hard as he can to deceive…”  (Rubin, 16). In this statement, Descartes argues that he believes that he was created by the omnipresent God.  However, some people tend to search for more perfect knowledge to understand the things that were made by the supreme God. In searching for truth, people are controlled by a malicious demon that intends to ensnare the true judgment (Rubin, 16). Thus, skeptics are prisoners enjoying an imaginary freedom that controls them toward finding the truth in the external world.  In general Descartes beliefs that skeptics are controlled by a demon and this demon forces them to create doubts over the reality (Rubin, 17).  They use their senses and perceptions while dreaming and they end up creating false appearance and reality.

 Conclusion

Skeptics argue that in order to believe something, one must have reasons for believing it. Descartes refutes this argument by saying that he believes that an all-powerful God is the creator and the belief that there is no God, earth, and heaven is a perception. This means that skepticism is based on skeptics ignore the true and certain knowledge and rely on unstable and changeable opinion.  What happens is that skeptics' knowledge is dependent on their senses and for this reason, they cannot trust their senses.

Work cited

 Stough, Charlotte L. Greek Skepticism; a Study in Epistemology. Berkeley: University of California Press,

1969. Print.

 Bailey, Alan. Sextus Empiricus and Pyrrhonean Scepticism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002. Print.

Brennan Tad.  Ethics and Epistemology in Sextus Empircus. Studies in Ethics. Routledge, 2015

Rubin, Ronald. Silencing the Demon's Advocate: The Strategy of Descartes' Meditations. Stanford, CA:

Stanford University Press, 2008. Internet resource.

Developmental Theories and Common Misconceptions

 The key propositions of life-course theories to the onset of adolescence criminal groups are explained by the following risk factors. The first proposition is explained by neighborhood risk factor- this means that young people are likely to engage in criminal behaviors and join gang membership due to lack of stable population. Adolescents who live in economically disadvantaged communities are influenced by the community conditions such as poverty to join criminal activities where they use firearms and drug. In other words, the proposition states that gangs and violence thrive when adolescents live in the undesirable community, experience low neighborhood attachment, and lack collective efficacy (Howell, 2012). The second proposition is explained by the family risk factors. The proposition states that adolescents are likely to engage in gang membership due to poor family structure and lack of family interaction and interrelationships.  For example, the absence of biological parents, poor parental supervision, low parental education, low socioeconomic status, child maltreatment and family members who are in gang membership are the factors that increase the likelihood of joining the gang membership (Howell, 2012).  The last proposition is explained by the peer risk factors. The proposition states that adolescents who form a relationship with deviant peers are likely to join the gang membership.  In other words, friendship act as a stepping stone toward deviant behaviors and gang membership (Howell, 2012).

 We can alter the outcome or we can prevent young people from gang involvement by overcoming the poverty. The first solution is to improve the life of the poor families by removing them from the disadvantaged environments that are associated with undesirable outcomes. There should be a program for fair housing and urban development to help the families who live in high-poverty areas. By so doing, the community and family risk factors will no longer act as a stepping stone since the young people will get the opportunity for education and engage in constructive things (Howell, 2011).  In addition to creating a new neighborhood where young girls and boys will reduce the pressure of engaging in deviant behaviors and gang membership, there should be a well-targeted programme such as education and training programs and treatment plan to help the adolescents, family, and community. By so doing, young people with gain social skills and behavioral skills that will help them create a helpful relationship with peers, they will engage in constructive things, improve school performance, avoid gang activity and avoid neighborhood trouble (Howell, 2011).

The four common misperceptions about gang involvement are; young join gang membership for protection, for fun, for money, and because a friend or a relative is a member of the gang (Howell, 2011). Young people believe that gang provides safety. Second, young people believe that by joining a gang, they will have fun by developing a sense of identity and a sense of self-worth, create companionship and engage in social actions such as attending parties, sexual activities, drug abuse, and music. Third, they believe that gang will give them an opportunity to obtain money by selling drugs and other financial activities (Howell, 2011). Last, they are influenced by peer pressure and the desire to follow their friends or family members since it's a way of life. 

Of the four misconceptions, the most misconception that surprised me most is the belief that gang is for fun. I wonder how a hang can be for fun yet the gang members fear police and rival gangsters while engaging in criminal behaviors (Howell, 2011). The point is that there is no fun in joining a gang since the moment you join the club, there is not freedom (it is not easy to leave the group and one should adhere to harsh rules) and the chances of death and imprisonment are high.

Reference

Howell, J. C. (2012). Gangs in America's communities. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications

Howell C. James. (2011). Gang Prevention: An Overview of Research and Programs. DIANE Publishing

Of civil government: The second treatise

 Introduction

 In the ‘Two Treaties of Government,' John Locke (a political philosopher) introduces the concept of ‘state of nature' and argues that human beings have perfect freedom and equality and there is no relationship between superior/ inferior in the ‘state of nature.' The natural law or the law of nature existed prior to political institutions and, the role of the institutions or the government is to protect the natural rights. Human beings have the right to resist (right to revolution) the government that fails to protect their rights. The role of the government is to secure the rights of human beings, but if the government subverts the law and exercise absolute power that violates the fundament natural law, people have the right to displace the legislative and replace it new provisional government.

The central concept that defends the ideas of government revolution or the replacement or the government is the theory of natural law.  The latter proclaims that all people are entitled to natural rights and natural rights are universal and inalienable (Second Treaties, chapter 2, §4). Focusing on political powers; it is essential to understand the state of perfect freedom as it guides on understanding the state of equality, the state of liberty, the importance of mutual love and, justice and charity.  Locke states that "No one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions…" (Second Treaties, chapter 2, §6). When  making the political power, it is also important to understand that the  state of nature  is governed  by  a law  which put  emphases  that all  people are  equal and  nobody  should  harm another or invade  other rights.  In other words, all people are called to observe the law of nature and   the government has the right to punish the lawbreakers.  An important point to understand is that in the state of nature, individuals try to maintain the state of perfect equality and to eliminate the superiority or the process of using power over another in the state of nature.  Men often focus on maintaining mutual security, preserving mankind   and securing themselves from   injury and violence through destroying all noxious things and in the process they commit evil acts.  In this case, the role of the legislative authority to make laws concerning the state of nature and to restrain the violence of men (Second Treaties, chapter 2, §8). Rather than allowing men to be judges in their cases, the civil government   creates laws that guide people on the right and the wrong.  However, since the   governors of the  independent  communities  are in the state of nature,  all people  should have  a mutual  agreement to create  one body politic  and  they have the consent to   be members of the political society.  However, if the  civil government  fails  to  maintain peace  in the state of  nature  and  to protect the natural rights of  human beings,  then end results is the state of war (Second Treaties, chapter 2, §13).

The failure of civil government to protect the natural rights leads to enmity and destruction which creates a state of war.  It is important to understand that the state or war occurs through words or actions or when individual uses an absolute power and makes another a slave (Second Treaties, chapter 3, §16). In other words, individuals  who governs the  state of nature puts  others under  the unmitigated power  and  denies  them the opportunity to  enjoy the perfect freedom and equality. To put it clearly,  if   people  creates a government   that would   protect their rights and  support them in  enjoying the liberty and property,  and then the government fail to   do  so, the people have the  right  to destroy the  government   since it   violates the  fundamental law of nature.  Locke states that "for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power" slave (Second Treaties, chapter 3, §17).  When the absolute  monarchies  restricts  the  freedom of the people and puts them under their absolute  powers and makes them slaves without their consent,  the people have  the right to  resist the government. If the government uses a tyranny execute power to benefit themselves, it creates conflicts and turmoil and hinders people from obeying it.  Since the role of arbitrary power is to control everything without using a rule, people creates rebellion in trying to defend their natural rights.  In other words, the right to revolution is justifiable since by dissolving the tyrannical rule, people will   reform the legislative   and re-create a civil state slave (Second Treaties, chapter 3, §19).  since people  created a mutual agreement and consented to  create a government that would control the state of nature and more  importantly  secure their rights, the government  is expected to follow the will of the majority  and  failure to do  that, the  government   should be  overthrown. In order to understand  what gives  someone an obligation to obey the law, it is  important to know that  a  government  that is   created by people to protect the state  of nature should be legitimate and legitimacy  means that it has the right to  enact laws  and enforce them slave (Second Treaties, chapter 3, §19).  Also, the people have the right to obey the laws but for them to obey the law, the government should   protect the natural rights and enjoy the people's consent.  The   point is that failure of the government to fulfill these two conditions will result to violation of natural rights and people   will have no right to obey it. 

 In relating the role of the government in the state of nature and the paternal power, Locke states that parents and especially the father have the right to command or to have an  absolute dominion over their children and, the  children have the role of obeying their parents slave (Second Treaties, chapter 5, §52). However, the paternal power also belongs to the mother since she is a parent but the point is that men or the fathers hold absolute power and presents their fatherhood as a central authority. This means that men will tend to create a single person government the same way the government would develop an absolute monarchy when chosen to control the state of nature. Even though some factors such as age make some people superior to others, the state of nature sticks to the law that all people are equal and have equal rights in  exercising the natural freedom.  Locke states that “What made him free of the law?...to have liberty… and possession according to his own will"(Second Treaties, chapter 5, §59). The point that there should be a law of reason that would allow people to understand the purpose of the law, how to exercise freedom and more importantly toward doing what is right. However, if people recognize that the governing law is restrictive or limiting, they may opt to abolish it and replace it with laws that meet their interests. The purpose of the law is not to confine people's freedom, but the law guides people toward making the right decisions without any interference from others and the absolute power.  The government should not exercise power beyond the set principles or standards, but it should rely upon the consent of the majority. The role of the political power is to make laws such as laws on the death penalty, preserve the property and, enforce the community to adhere to the laws for the public goods (Second Treaties, chapter 5, §63).  In other words, the political power should focus on the public good and follow the order of the political society to avoid creating the state of war.  However, if the sovereignty holding power violates the law of nature that  "all men are equal and naturally free," people have the right to punish anyone who transgresses the law, and in this case, the government evolution is justifiable.

 I agree with Locke's explanations concerning the justification of the government revolution.  This is because, the state of nature provides men with freedom, equality and other inalienable rights.  However, all people in the state of nature act as the judges of their own cases and the role of the government is to enter in and control the state of nature through protecting the inalienable rights.  People derive basic rights from the law of nature and everyone has the individual self-preservation and the executive of power. Even though the right to enjoy the natural right is applicable to everyone, it is important to protect other people from being injured and killed and, thanks to the government as it fulfills this role. However, if the government uses an absolute power or if it becomes repressive toward the natural rights, the right to revolution is justifiable (Second Treaties, chapter 2, §6).  For example, if the government owns and controls a community's natural resources such as land, people may be deprived the right to property, and they have right to overthrow the government.  Another example is the Russian revolution of 1917- people overthrew the imperial government due to corruption. The common people experienced poor living conditions, they were freedoms such as the right to vote, and for this reason, and they demanded liberalization and created a government resistant with an intent of making a new democratic government.  Thus, if the government does not protect the natural rights or if it uses the arbitrary power, the right to revolution is justifiable.

 Conclusion

  Human beings who are entitled to enjoy the natural rights have the right to overthrow a tyrannical government and replace it with a more democratic government.  All human beings are naturally free, and the role of the government is to protect the right to life, right to liberty, right to property and any other inalienable right.  Governmental laws are important in controlling the state of nature and preserving the natural rights since, without law, people would use their personal power to judge their own cases.  Thus, people in the society have the role in electing officials who would protect their rights and they also have a supreme power to overthrow them when they use abuse of power and fail to meet the public needs.  Overall, if the government attempts to enslave people, the citizens have the right to rebellion and revolution is justifiable. 

 Reference

Locke, J. (2008). Of civil government: The second treatise. Rockville, Md.: Wildside Press.

Confucius and Aristotle on Virtue

Introduction

 Both Aristotle and Confucius are famous philosophers in the world's history. Aristotle was a Greek philosopher while Confuse was a Chinese philosopher. The important thing about the two philosophers is that both were great thinkers and their philosophical works on virtues and ethics influenced their ancient society. Though they differ in some aspects and ideas on virtue and ethics, the nature of their philosophical works was similar as they focused on morality and good conduct, and more importantly they linked the happiness and virtue. Even though both Aristotle and Confucius have similar concepts on virtual and happiness, they hold differences which are rooted from the ideologies of culture. Since they come from different cultures that is, Ancient Greek and Ancient Chinese, they differ regarding the approaches used to approach virtues.  In general,  Aristotelian ethics and Confucianism  ethics  are based on  enlightenment   and modern Western morality but, they differ in that  the former focus on  character and virtue  as two elements that  guide  people in achieving happiness  (character-based ethics) whereas the latter focus on  rules and principles as two elements  that guide moral actions (rule-based ethics). 

The similarity between the Aristotle's and Confucius ethics is apparent since their ethics hold similar characteristic. For example, focusing on good ethical character and conduct, Aristotle focuses on the notion of practicality and practical in ethics means that the role of ethics is not only to inform but also to transform.  On the notion of practicality, he adds that to achieve the supreme good or rather the happiness, a human being needs to have practical reasoning to have a good upbringing and a good character (Yu, 2013). Similarity, Confucius is interested in elements that guide a person into becoming a good person or in other words, a person needs a dispositional character for him to become a good person.  Example of dispositional character includes the doctrine, the social custom, the moral education, the virtue politics, the reasoning and more. Confucian's notion of action-guiding rule corresponds to the Aristotle ideas in that people need practical reasoning or practical wisdom in deciding what is appropriate. In other words, a human being should not only rely on rule-application procedure, but they should also focus on appropriateness as the important element in becoming an excellent person (Yu, 2013).  They both agree that actions are needed to gin happiness, but the actions taken are not similar due to the diversity of cultures.

However, their distinct perspectives are controlled by the cultural contexts. Both Analects and Nicomachean contain philosophical work of Aristotle and Confucius, but it is important to note that the latter comprise substantive doctrinal discussions whereas the former has aphoristic sayings on moral wisdom.  In other words, Aristotle ethics is analytical and causal whereas the Confucian ethics is all about correlative thinking and metaphorical meanings (Curzer, 2012). The point is that both focus on good life but  Aristotle focus on what is happiness whereas Confucius focus on which ways should people follow to become a good person?.  Aristotle argues that all activities aim to achieve happiness and so happiness is an end in itself, and it is a supreme good. To achieve the supreme good, a person needs to adhere to rationality and good behaviors. Rather than relying on reasoning and instruction, a person should form a habit and practice.  On the other hand, Confucius does not focus on character development but tends to answer the question ‘how can one live genuinely happy?  Rather than focusing on person's specific actions or the ‘rightness of action,' he argues that a person cannot exist alone, but there should be relationships which would support mutual development (Confucius & Dawson, 2005).

 On ancient Chinese and ancient Greek culture, the findings suggest that the Chinese philosophy lies on moral performance and argue that the role of ethics is to guide people by providing rules and instructions.  In other words, the Chinese culture focus on an action-guiding rule which governs the people toward achieving the happiness.  People need to be motivated and ruled by a person who is virtuous or who possess a charismatic power.  The acting-guiding rule means that the rule should have a strong moral character for other people to follow (Confucius & Dawson, 2005). On the other hand, the Greece culture argues that ethics cannot provide universal principles or guidance not because it is incapable but because there is no need of providing the subject matter of ethics since human actions are indeterminate. Thus, it is the role of agent to make practical reasoning and rational choice in different situations (Curzer, 2012).  Though both philosophies hold similar ideas on virtue approach to ethics, they differ merely because   Aristotle focuses on character-based ethics whereas Confucius focus on rights-based ethics.

 From the comparison, the ideas of virtue can be applied in a modern setting such as the diverse workplace. One idea is that when people exercise virtue, they gain happiness.  In a diverse workplace, people should have virtuous behaviors since this is the only way of aiming at happiness.  As workers in diverse workplace achieve happiness, they create teamwork, increases performance and high productivity which results in business success (Yu, 2013).  The other point is that friendship is a virtue and people need to cultivate virtue by all means to achieve physical and mental wellbeing.

Conclusion

 The ancient Greeks cultures believe that people should direct all the activities toward achieving happiness. To achieve the happiness, people should adhere to the rational principle or in other words they should reason and live according to the true nature. Confucius also agrees with Aristotle that human beings are part of nature and all people should relate to each other to gain happiness. These philosophers differ on how they present the notion of happiness in that Confucius argue that happiness does not need an inner struggle but people need to invest in relationships. In the relationship, people need to show kindness and humaneness and more importantly adhere to the golden rule.  On the hand, Aristotle argues that a person should possess own personal powers and increase his self-cultivation to gain happiness.

References

 Yu Jiyuan. (2013). The Ethics of Confucius and Aristotle: Mirrors of Virtue.  Routledge Studies in Ethics

and Moral Theory. Routledge

Curzer, H. J. (2012). Aristotle and the virtues. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Confucius, ., & Dawson, M. M. (2005). The ethics of Confucius. New York: Cosimo Classics.

Nietzsche’s criticism of contemporary moral ideas

Nietzsche is a passionate critic of conventional morality and this criticism can be observed on various levels. The basic level involves an attack on to claims made by morality regarding its own status.  The first claim is that morality is position that can be objectively justified and provide objective truths regarding what every person should do (Nietzsche, 186). The second claim involves the notion that everyone is responsible for their actions since they have free will.  His position is that the claims about free will and objectivity are not true.  Instead, he says that “We do not object to a judgment just because it is false  ... The question is rather to what extent the judgment furthers life  ...” (Nietzsche, 4). The indication in this argument is that Nietzsche’s is really driven by an evaluative agenda; here he views morality as generally a bad thing. He thinks it is most dangerous since it does not enhance life but instead hinders the possibility human’s achievement of the most progressive forms of life.  He calls it “the highest power and splendor of the human type” (Nietzsche, 6).

 The people who are able to realize this advanced life are “higher types” or “free spirits”.  Therefore, Nietzsche claims that “to demand one morality for all is precisely to encroach upon the higher sort of human beings” (Nietzsche, 228). Moreover, he views morality as one major thing that prevents the rise and evolution of great and creative men.  His rejection of morality is based on the perception that moral ideas are ‘disvaluable’ which is to a bad thing.  This is because it hinders people who can live the most advanced life from doing so.

The argument by Nietzsche attribute morality that is widespread in European culture as being obtained from Christianity, a religion that has determined the ethical outlook In Europe for a long time that its moral values have been accepted as the correct ones. He perceives that , even if God was absent , so that people no longer relate the justification of morality to religious authority ,  these oral values are so dominant people are blinded to the notion that other values may be present.  He says that “morality defends itself with all strengths against such ‘possibilities’ and inflexibly says “I am morality itself, and nothing else is (Nietzsche, 202).  As a result, moral values are accepted as given instead of personal goals. Therefore, Nietzsche concludes that “Morality today is herd animal morality” (Nietzsche, 202).  He suggests that higher moralities can and should be attained.  

The challenge presented in Nietzsche views can be summarized in various ways. To begin with, Morality demands that a person comply with its ideals, values and duties regardless of whether conflict will arise with what is personally good for them. It assumes that it can apply equally to everybody; hence, a person cannot escape it when such conflict arises.  On that note, morality demands the higher kinds to conform to its requirements irrespective of whether such actions will enable them to express their real selves.   Conformation to morality can hinder a person from achieving their best excellences.  Hence, it requires that these kinds should behave in a manner that hinders their realization of the uppermost excellences that indicates their success. In regards to values, Nietzsche argument is that “there are altogether no moral facts” (Acampora, 59). In addition, he argues that there is an agreement between moral judgments with religious judgment in accepting realities that cannot be considered realities. He sees the world as having no value, and if any exists, it has been imposed on it by human beings.   He further calls for a review of such moral values since the value placed on such values should be question first.

  The claim of absence of moral values in the world shows that Nietzsche does not accept moral realism, a perception that values (including moral values) consist of a reality that is not determined by the opinion and preferences of man about them.  This is a denial of moral facts.  Human should not create morality, but morality is not supposed to depend on the thoughts and wants of human beings. Rather, facts that are claimed to belong to morality, like self-sacrifice being good and cruelties being evil do not exist independently of how human believes about them (Acampora, 61).   Hence, he considers the assumed moral facts as not facts but fictions which are in reality malicious.  The claims aligns with what some people believe to be valuable , in that values are nothing beyond what is really valued and or what matters.  The perceived values are relative to the person evaluating them. Each person would have their values that generally consist of what they value. Generally, value results from stable desires or wants and which in a way are essential to the individual (Acampora, 61). Nonetheless, Nietzsche argues that the things that are valued by individuals have actually b value.

Nietzsche views on morality especially in regard to its Christianity association are not true since he seems not have understood the actual history and philosophy of the religion.  His argument and analysis of moral values as determined by Christianity does not engage with the actual history.  He does not peg his argument on the understanding of the origin of Christian moral values. Rather, he pegs it on the likely way that the religion got its values. The argument does not even aim at disapproving Christianity but rather, he claims that these moral values should be assessed in terms of whether they are beneficial to humanity in enabling creative and great men to achieve the highest degree of excellence.  His devoted skepticism on moral values in the society that is dominated by Christianity does not show historical inaccuracies.  

Moreover, he does to engage with Christianity’s real philosophy and does not consider argument that out there that is favorable to Christianity.  His concentration is based on what Christians practice and the good reason related to it but not what the non-believers do.  In addition, he only assigns value related power some people he sees as worthy.  He deviates from the idea that moral philosophy should be universal and involve all people in an equal manner.  Moreover, his argument on moral theory does not indicate what people should specifically do including amidst immorality.  He should have argued that value is an inherent aspect in human mind, and thus can only results from human creation. Moral value cannot exist outside a man. The human capacities that can bring about moral value are capacities that are fundamental to human only.

Works cited

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Nietzsche: on the genealogy of morality and other writings. Cambridge University Press, 2017.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil: Original Edition. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2017

Leiter, Brian. "Nietzsche and the morality critics." Nietzsche (2001).

Morality

Within each individual, there is the power to create and to destruct. There is a duality that forms the basis for what is to be a human in nature. Humanity, therefore, has the power to cause an individual to experience feelings such as anger, fear and a capacity to inflict pain and agony. These features coexist within each and every person alongside their ability to love, forgive others be happy and help other people. Robert Louis Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness encompasses facets of morality and duality within both bizarre and sensational genres. Many characters used by these authors secretly lead double lives and struggles with their true personalities as a result. By discussing Dr. Jekyll’s and Kurtz’s temptation, greed and the transformation scene, Stevenson and Conrad use the theme of dual personalities to illustrate the struggle of separating a character’s evil side with that of good state hence placing morality at stake.

Joseph Conrad in his proficiency writing during the 19th century studied the conflicting sides of human nature during his stay at the Belgian Congo. He witnessed both the human ability to kill and destroy and also their ability to heal and to show kindness. In his book, the heart of darkness, he made attempts to express these conflicting facets of the human nature. For him to do so in an effective manner, he created characters who would illustrate this duality facet of humans. He thus chooses characters such as Marlow and Mr. Kurtz who embodied the very two side of human morality. Conrad’s main motive for writing this novel was to reveal the truth about humanity. Similarly, Stevenson in his writing, he attempted to show that good and bad are not so much different but they are interrelated with each other. He, therefore, uses one person but explores him throughout the book as two different personalities, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Dr. Jekyll is the morally upright man but has for a long time conceded his secret darker side from the society. He, therefore, leads two different personalities but in the end his primitive side, Hyde overpowers his moral side, Dr. Jekyll. He observes that “the creature who crept into my house that was known as Hyde who haunted me…” (Stevenson 105). This, therefore, affects his ability to uphold morality.

Duality in its most extreme form is the major cause of moral regression. Mr. Kurtz as portrayed by Joseph Conrad is an incredible person. He is a man who came into Congo as an ambassador of pity, science, and development. He strongly believed that morality could be practiced in Congo and advocated for the common good of all people in Congo through “moving appeal to every altruistic sentiment” (Conrad & Moore, 78). However, the realities of life experienced in Congo had a rapid effect on Kurtz’s moral point of view, driving him towards extremes off the human conduct.

The desire for wealth has impeded morality within society. As illustrated in Stevenson’s book, Jekyll was expected to behave in a more respectable and responsible moral way. However, he wanted to experience fun and this led to his greater need to make Hyde. He figured that if he did this he would attract respect, experience fun and also become reputable within his society thus gaining him power. He was so happy about the new freedom that he now had through the new personality, Hyde. It is through his greed for power that he was motivated to do actions contrary to the standards that were set by the society thus jeopardized his morality. During Kurtz’s time in depths of the jungle, he released the basest needs and vices from the dungeon of his heart. He, therefore, became the embodiment of human savagery and had the mortal ability to destroy. He focused more on the material wealth of ivory and the vicious exercise of power (Conrad & Moore 10). Greed, as portrayed in Conrad’s work, plays a major role in impeding morality within the Congo society. This forms a great part of the abandonment of goodness in heart of darkness work. The white Europeans came to Africa majorly in search of ivory but most importantly, they were after power. Kurtz, in this case, harvested more ivory as compared to the other white Europeans stations. His power and greed eroded all of his morals thus transforming him into a thief as well as a murderer. Ivory, in this case, ruled the characters of the people in Congo. Their high regard for ivory jeopardized their morality (Conrad & Moore 50). The only thing that they thought of was to make profits all for selfish gains without any motive to benefit the rest of the population. The colonialists were thus regarded as selfish with no moral good in them.  They prioritized making a personal profit before considering the well being of the humanity of the citizens they desired to profit from. Though Kurtz had once advocated for the good treatment of the inhabitants of the Congo, in his place he suggested to “exterminate all the brutes” (Conrad & Moore, 78). He transitioned from is the great principle of upholding morality that is, the great need to help, save and educate into the other side of humanity, that is, the need for destruction, the vicious exercise of power and murder. It is only on his deathbed that he was able to realize the truth of what he had really turned out to be. He understood that he was a victim of transformation from being an ambassador of morality into being a hindrance to morality. It is at this point that he articulated his great terror about man’s ability to be good and yet the most destroying being. It is thus through this duality facet that man’s morality is at stake. Conrad in this strongly believed that the moral behavior of people is effectively designed and censored varying approaches to morality. The strict moral values of the Europeans were thus impeded by their greed for power and wealth.

The dominance of the evil aspect in the different characters used by Conrad and Stevenson implies that the darker side of humans often resides not far below the surface. In Stevenson’s work, the conflicting appearances of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde explore the issue of moral behavior and the likelihood of having a plurality of human consciousness. By virtue of splitting Dr. Jekyll’s consciousness into two that is, the decent side and the suppressing needs that runs centrally to the society’s moral expectation, Stevenson displays the struggle played out in each and every one of us. Dr. Jekyll observes that ‘I saw that, of the two natures that contended in the field of my consciousness, even if I could rightly be said to be either, it was only because I was radically both’ (Stevenson, 108). Through Hyde, the highly regarded Dr. Jekyll is liberated from the restraints imposed by the society. This is to mean that Mr. Hyde has nothing to fear about and is thus a representation of darkness as he only comes out roaring during the night. This risks Dr. Jekyll’s reputation and moral being as he has to choose between being good or evil. All his efforts to remain morally good are suppressed by his evil nature. Ultimately, Dr. Jekyll has to choose between being Mr. Hyde and Dr. Jekyll. To become the latter will only mean that he has lost his fight for morality and has given in to his immoral needs. His noble aspirations are thus washed down the drain and are forever doomed by his friends. It is a struggle to maintain morality for Dr. Jekyll as it only means that he has to struggle to give up all of his sensual and disreputable appetites that are majorly indulged by Mr. Hyde.

Restraints and temptations are dualities that imply that all people possess good and evil aspects. However, the choice to uncover the restraint required to preserve humanity is totally left to the judgment of each individual. Most of the people fail to realize these restraints required from them to maintain humanity and thus they are unable to maintain morality. Desires and impulses can often inspire ambitions. At the same time, these desires are capable of bringing ruin to a man hence putting their morality at stake. This is because they can coerce an individual into committing treacherous and evil actions. For instance, a person’s lack of restraint is exemplified when Marlow argues that, “the helmsman had no restraint, no restraint-just like Kurtz- a tree swayed by the wind” (Conrad & Moore, 79). Before, the helmsman was an inhabitant of the Congo. However, he became accustomed to the European ways after associating with sailors while on their trip. The residents of Congo were physically and mentally stronger since they were not enticed by material wealth. Associating with the proud educated men, therefore, caused helmsman to be careless and this resulted in his untimely death. Instead of him upholding his original ideals, the man’s inability to restrain himself through self-control indicates his newly identified weakness. Similarly, Jekyll in Stevenson’s work indicates that he was driven by the dark desires. For instance, his ambitions and pride emerged once he first drank the liquid that led to the emergence of his evil side (Stevenson 18). It is implied that if the potion was taken from a rather more pure place within a sober mind of Jekyll, then a kinder side of him would have emerged instead of the dark side. Nevertheless, Jekyll’s addiction to his evil being moved out of control as he transforms into Hyde even without taking the portion. Hyde is taking control over Jekyll as he is becoming stronger, “I announced to my servants that a Mr. Hyde (whom I described) was to have full liberty and power...” (Stevenson 117). Jekyll is, on the other hand, becoming weaker as he is trying so hard to control Hyde. It is therefore quite evident that once humans lack the power to restrain themselves from letting their evil side out more often, then morality is eroded and it just fades away from them just like Hyde transformed Jekyll. Falling into the temptation of meeting the desires and passions of the darker side, an individual is easily transformed into being an evil being whose morality has been eroded.

Conrad and Stevenson employ literary devices of symbolism that displays the duality theme of human nature. Both of these two authors use light and dark symbolism throughout their work. They also use the personification approach to preserve the conflicting yet very important theme of the duality of humans. It is through this that the authors are able to fully express human’s goodness and evil within a given individual. However, through their characters and wide range use of literary symbolism, they are able to fully express how the double nature of humans has in one way or another affected the morality of humans.

In conclusion, it is quite clear from the above discussion that evil is something that surrounds us all. Evil has the ability to overcome and destroy almost everything within us and to the society at large even when there are a few attempting to maintain morality. Humans thus have a choice just like Jykll and Kurtz to make tough decisions and choices to make in their fight for morality and evil. It is this struggle that at most times drives people to give in to primitive side hence resulting in failure in maintaining morality amongst them. The great writings by Robert Louis Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness in the nineteenth century greatly affected perceptions associated with split personality. It was the temptation and great desire to the discovery that draws out Jekyll’s and Kurtz need to create a new self that would separate their primitive side from that of their developed ones. It is at this point that morality is placed in a risky position following the two personalities created by one person.

Work cited

Stevenson Robert, L. The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Conrad, Joseph, and Gene M. Moore. Heart of Darkness and Other Stories. London: Wordsworth, 1999. Print.

Background

Primarily, theism is not just the mere faith in an omnipresent or supernatural being. Tales, traditional rituals stormy weather, animals, statues, and fairy tales exemplified the latter. A more straightforward name for these is superstition. Moreover, superstitions have no foundational basis at all. Theism refers to the belief in the existence of a God: a god with a capital g for that matter; unlike the shaky belief in a supernatural being. Theism, in my perspective, is the belief in a God with a capital G and not a deity. Theism is less standard as compared to the belief in supernatural beings. It has its history embedded in Christian and Muslim traditions. The two religions have Abrahamic backgrounds and are the primary religions of the world. The commencement of Theism is the Bible, the book of Genesis. The author elaborates how the universe came into existence. According to this book, Gods is not just a celestial object, for instance, the sun or the moon but he is the ultimate creator of each and everything on earth. He is powerful, omnipresent, all knowing, and perfect in every way. In fact, the manner in which the bible views God answers most of the questions people ask about the universe and its origin. The main difference that I would like to emphasize is that a deity can be a supernatural being or just another object, unlike Theism. This point is vital for this essay to materialize and drive its point home.

Introduction

The existence of God

The concept of creation, specifically, the origin of life and the universe, is beyond human understanding. Scientists have developed theories trying to examine or explain the origin of life and the universe, but their opinions have not answered all the questions about the world. The controversial issues on the origin of life and its purpose are thorny issues debated for ages. It is a fact that the world is beyond human comprehension. Furthermore, stars, planets asteroid and the other heavenly bodies have an accurate arrangement. They have existed for millions and millions of years. The stars and planets form galaxies, which consequently form milky ways. The sun, the closest star, is a giant fireball emitting light and heat without exhaustion. Thus, the organization of the universe together with other planets that revolve around the stars at a comfortable distance controlled by unknown hand hence the idea of god behind all the organization. To add onto the organization of the universe, the brain's design is unique. It has the ability of controlling movements of muscles, process information, make decisions, and sense danger. Above all, it isolates humans from the rest of the animals and organism, which rely entirely on instincts wired through birth. To elaborate further, the brain gives humans the ability to think and create things. This essay will critically analyze and look into evidence and arguments that show the existence of God. Therefore, it will favor theism. It will also dwell on the reason why faith in God is vital. 

Evidence of the existence of God

Cosmological arguments 

The existence of the earth points to a creative designer. The complex nature of the planet proves the existence of a God. The earth is one of the nine planets that revolve around the sun. Furthermore, earth is the only inhabited planet. Unlike the rest, which are either too cold or too hot for any living conditions to come into existence or prosper. Let us start with the size; it has the perfect size, which awards it with a corresponding appropriate amount of gravity. Gravity holds in place vital contents of the earth. The force of gravity holds together oxygen, waterbodies, and humans from escaping into space. If gravity was too high humans could die from the atmospheric pressure pressing down on them, they could not survive. Secondly, if the size of the earth were too small, it would lack an atmosphere just like mercury hence the air mixture would have less oxygen. The earth is the third planet from the sun. The distance protects the earth from extreme heat emitted by the sun. Although the temperatures within the surface may vary from as low as negative thirty degrees and rise to +120 degrees, the distance still buffers the earth from radiation heat that could have burnt humans to death. In addition to this distance, the earth revolves around the sun at a comfortable speed. If the rate would slightly increase or decrease, the heat and cold would not be uniformly disperse  on the surface of earth hence some areas of the earth would be extremely hot and others extremely cold. In short, the earth is at the right distance from the sun, appropriate atmospheric pressure and the right composition that supports and brings forth life (Maritain & Watkin, 2005). 

The second evidence of God's existence is water. It is a colorless, odorless substance without form and taste. Hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water (Ashton, & Westcott, 2006). No organism can survive without the vital element. Funny enough, microorganisms and plants consist of 70% water. That is a strange fact and coincidence at the same time. The characteristics of water support and maintain life on earth. It does not readily boil, and on the other end, it does not promptly freeze into ice. The range within the boiling point and the freezing point gives it an opportunity to exist in its most useful form that is, liquid, or fluid. In its liquid state, water has many uses such as irrigation; recreational purposes and. Water steadily maintains the body temperature of humans at 98.6 degrees while the surrounding temperatures change with time and seasons. Secondly, water can dissolve anything. This fact implies that different ingredients and chemicals move from one place to another in the body of living organisms without altering the constitution of materials transported. Thirdly, water has a surface tension (Ashton, & Westcott, 2006). Surface tension is a thin layer found on top of the water, which gives it its cohesiveness hence minerals and other vital chemicals needed for growth can move through tiny vessels within the living organisms. Surface tension gives water the ability to run against the force of gravity thus it can move above the ground, for instance, within tree trunks. The anomalous freezing of water allows it to freeze from top to bottom and in so doing, allows life to exist during the winter period. Water moves through the earth as it changes states from liquid to solid. For instance, rainfall forms through processes such as evaporation and condensation (Ashton, & Westcott, 2006). Hence, the existence of God appears through fundamental natural phenomena such as water. 

Teleological argument

Apart from the earth and water, the human brain is high tech than any modern day technology tool. Humans are the only beings created with the ability to think and process numerous information. The brain has the capacity to solve simple to complex challenges. It is an organ of great wonder. It is hard to believe that it came by chance or through evolution. To illustrate the power of a brain, look at the colors, objects and pressure one can feel at the same time. The brain interprets all these things. The brain processes emotions, memories, remember dreams, and can control thoughts. Above all, it can make decisions when the body is in danger. To elaborate further, it can initiate involuntary actions by releasing chemicals, which in turn cause muscle contraction and expansion hence causing an automatic movement. For instance, when a needle pricks an individual's finger, the finger withdraws automatically from the needle hence, the kneejerk reaction. The existence of such a perfect organ within a man is enough proof of the existence of God (Maritain & Watkin, 2005).

Lastly, the universe is another good reason to believe in God. The human brain cannot fully understand the underlying forces that made the world or the universe come into existence. It is beyond science and logical deductions. Steven Weinberg suggested that an explosion caused by gases bore the universe. Nevertheless, an explosion cannot be orderly or result in an operational system. Explosions cause disasters. The world is a well-organized system with planets, stars and millions and millions of other features not yet known by man. Therefore, again natural phenomena reveal the existence of God. God provides an elaborate explanation on every mystery humans imagine of. He is the invisible hand that moves things around (Moser, 2009).

 Reasons why the belief in God is essential to humans

There is a sharp contrast between communities that have faith in God and societies, which have faith in themselves or put faith in other things. Without faith in God, then humanity is not any different from a coconut tree or amoeba bacteria. The confidence in God puts things into a correct perspective rather than give rational reasons and arguments. Belief in God improves makes humans more valuable. Theories and concepts such as natural selection pair humans with animals. Furthermore, the theory claims that humans exist for survival only thus rendering laws, morals, and ethics of humans useless or without a benefit. Human are not just beings that survived evolution. Persons who do not believe in God are limited to their senses only, as faith in God can give more purpose to life hence upgrading the lives of people. In fact, people who believe in God live their lives differently and more responsibly, creating peace in the world (Maritain & Watkin, 2005).

 Some Arguments against theism

In spite of the vast knowledge that points to the existence of God, Some individuals do not believe in God. People prefer to live carefree lifestyles, away from the prying eyes of a god who will want to dictate the lifestyles that they will live. Although such life has never been fruitful. Most people who do not believe in God claim that, ‘if there is a god, why does evil exist in the world? ‘Also, the atheists maintain that God cannot exist in a world full of evil such as murder, rape, and war. They usually attach their argument on the nature of God. They forget that they also have a small role to play in ensuring the world is a better place. Secondly, they tend to concentrate on the effects of religion as a pointer to their unbelief in God. Religious people are not perfect yet; they claim to believe in a perfect God. For instance, Muslims religion has given rise to terrorist groups. Social effects of a religion cannot form a justification or grounds to dispute the existence of God. In the same fact, for instance, the theory of natural selection is not baseless, just because of its effects, yet, it has biological evidence to back it up (Moser, 2009). Thirdly, atheists claim that science is examinable, tested, and proven, unlike the belief in God. They cling to rational knowledge and insights to define God who is limitless. Lastly, atheist belief that only the big bang theory caused life although it was an accident. Atheism relies on science and evidence from various scientific field yet, science does not provide an answer to everything on earth .Science is limited to research and human ability. In addition, science is not that accurate to give answers to god even if they stumbled upon (Moser, 2009).Human beings are insatiable beings. Nothing can satisfy their hearts fully. Wealth, money sex and other types of materialism .Some argue that there is more to life than the material things of earth some  find it in Godmother in their spouses while others have never settled on the a fully

Conclusion

In summary, basic things on earth portray the existence of God. From water to the order of the universe, proof the existence of God. The earth is at a comfortable distance from the sun hence harboring conditions necessary to support life. In fact, the earth contains perfect and unique substances such as water that support life. It is important to note that earth is the only planet with water. The design of the brain allows it process numerous information at a fast rate. The order within the universe also reveals the existence of a God. Atheist claim that if God really existed, evil would not be in the world. According to them, God should stop all the unfair things that happen on earth. In addition, atheist relies on science and proven scientific data any that cannot be passed through scientific knowledge does not exist to them. They seem not to grasp that if science could prove the existence of God; he would not be God anymore rather than a concept vulnerable and open to manipulation by mankind.

References

Maritain, J., & Watkin, E. I. (2005). An introduction to philosophy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Ashton, J. F., & Westacott, M. (2006). The big argument: does God exist: Twenty-four scholars explore how science, archaeology, and philosophy have not disproved God. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.

Moser, P. K. (2009). The evidence for God: Religious knowledge reexamined. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Aristotle & Plato – Philosophy

The readings on Plato and Aristotle seem to be largely differentiated by the expression of ideas while trying to understand nature, cause, and subjects. Aristotle's argument seems empirical and based on logic unlike Plato

Plato

The reading On Plato discusses nature of reality issue and how Socrates related to the natural science. Plato's discussion on good life largely depends on Socrates his teacher and Phaedo put these things in the dialogue by Plato. To begin with, Plato attributes everything to natural science after being keen on such wisdom since the time he was a young man. "When I was a young man I was wonderfully keen on that wisdom which they call natural science …." (Levenson & Jonathan, 23).  The argument in this reading appears to essentially conclude that nothing exists and if its existence can be seen it can never be known. If it is known, its communication cannot be done.  Plato could not know the results of adding one to another, how anything like a unit comes to exists or perishes. With knowledge from Anaxagoras that the cause of everything is the mind, Plato thought such a cause would enable the mind to arrange all things in the best way. (Levenson & Jonathan, 23).

Also, if a person needed to understand the cause anything, one needed to look for the best way and investigate what is worst. In the reading, Plato refers largely to other philosophers like Anaxagoras before agreeing or disagreeing with them. "…This wonderful hope was dashed as I went on reading and saw that the man made no use of Mind…" (Levenson & Jonathan, 25).   The readings relate the cause of a thing to not its appearance but itself. The reading makes the philosopher's argument look vague while trying to search for the cause of things whether good or bad. "… all things are beautiful by beautiful" (Levenson & Jonathan, 27).  Delving into what is good or bad, the reading focuses on the knowledge of the same so that it looks into what people know is good or bad. Thus, knowledge enables people to define what is good or bad, so that a thing is good or bad according to the person involved with it. It is not about what people believe but whether things are really good or bad and people have contempt for things only believed to be so. In this case, the reality of a thing determines a person's definition its goodness or badness. ".. Every soul pursues the good and does whatever it does for its sake…" (Levenson & Jonathan, 30).  Socrates is pointing to the knowledge of a thing by a person as defining whether it's good and it has to include whether it's the truth. Hence the text focuses on nature, knowledge, and truth.

Plato

The reading on Aristotle focuses on his explanation of what is real using logic and providing the basic "characteristics of substances or ultimate reals" (Levenson & Jonathan, 45).   The reading presents work that is more empirical unlike Plato's work starting with the basic idea of abstraction, which in this case seems to justifiably be used in the description of a subject on which the obstruction is founded. The reading focuses on concepts, subject and its descriptive characteristics. In this case, a basic rule is that a descriptive characteristic cannot be tied to the subject so that the subject may remain as it is forever.  For example, "white' being present in a body is predicated of that which it is present, for a body is called white: the definition, however, of the color 'white' is never predicable of the body..." (Levenson & Jonathan, 45).  In this case, it seems Aristotle never had knowledge of existing biology and physics since he is unable to distinguish between what composes a subject and what is present in it. 

The reading also focuses on the existence of an individual person and positively affirms its. Individuals are presented as basic feature in existence of his basis species and forming the foundation of the larger group. " .. therefore of the individual man, for if there were no individual man of whom it could be predicated, it could not be predicated of the species 'man' at all.. "(Levenson & Jonathan, 46). The fundamental concept of predication is that a group can abstract from its comprising rudiments.  Whenever there is a clear distinction between the primary and secondary basics there will be a complimentary of "predicated upon and present", the two concepts.  The demonstration of logical argument by Aristotle is his assertion that all species are equal and all individual members are important than others of a different species. "In the same way, of primary substances, no one is more truly substance than another; an individual man is not more truly substance than an individual ox" (Levenson & Jonathan, 46).  The point expressed here is that man and ox belong to the same animal kingdom and are made of the same substance. This implies the use of logic in this reading.

Works cited

Levenson, Carl A, and Jonathan Westphal. Reality. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co, 1994.

 Sociology Theories of Marx, Weber and Durkheim

Sociological Theories

Karl Marx sociology theory mainly focused on understanding the relationship between the small group who owned the means of production and the poor class who were exploited by the capitalists. He suggested that there was instability of the capital and he anticipated on its downfall and how it will shift to socialism. According to Marx the economy was not stable and was it likely to be affected by significant crises. Those who were in charge of the mode of production, have authority to control other people in the society. He felt that there is hostility created by these two groups.  He believed that in the long- term the capitalist class would be the only one who will benefit from the production and the poor class would be deprived by the process. However, when the poor class would become aware of the exploitation, they will unite and rise and take hold of the mode of production, thus getting lead of capitalist method of production and socialist society would be established (chapter 2, P.30).

 After the development of socialist society, the poor class would ensure there is equality, exploitative capitalism is abolished, and they will establish a system of production which favors every person.  The inequalities that existed between these two classes are the transfer of ownership of the production. Marxism theory holds that human societies developed through a class struggle. The Marx was trying to understand the means of production, the relationship between society and economics and historical materialism. Marxist sociology addressed how the capital class controls the workers. He believed that history is made of stages which push the class conflict (chapter 2,p.34) The capitalist’s class ensured there is competition to accumulate profits and they also mistreated the working people in the workplace.

            Max Weber sociology theory attempted to understand how the larger organizations and the larger structures affect people’s live and how rapid changes affects them. Marx felt that the economic structures are caused by the establishment of the modes of production and the capital class or the owners. The economic structures were of great importance in forming the accurate position of given communities (chapter8,p.230) For example, structures such as status, religion, ideas and bureaucracy influences people actions. He viewed that structures of society are influenced by sociology and historical factors. Weber believed that religion has a great force in causing social changes. According to Collins (p.92), “Max Weber viewed that a charismatic leader will take over the power and solves the problems of social class.”

    Durkheim sociology theory mainly focused on analysing how the modern societies can sustain social integration. He believed that society has power force that affects an individual in a given society.  People of different ethnicity have their beliefs, values, and norms that help them understand the universe differently. Culture is an output made by how people do their things and through their norms and beliefs, human beings become aware of other human beings existence. Durkheim believed that social integration bond people together to their social group. He believed that individual behaviour or actions are influenced by social factors. He did a study of suicides rate among different individuals where he noticed that social factors contributed to suicide and crimes (chapter 7, p.52).

The similarity between these three theories is the connection and disconnection of people with the society and the state.  Marx suggested the separation of capitalist’s class and working class and workers and co-workers.  Durkheim advocated for the connection of the society and shared principles. Weber viewed that people no longer focused on values, feelings, and passions. They also had differences on how the alienation can be solved. Marx suggested that separation can be addressed through overproduction which will cause class-consciousness which will contribute to the revolution in the working class.  Durkheim saw that the society system would slowly adapt to changes and get used to them through diversity which will unite people together. Weber felt that a good leader will solve the problems of social changes (chapter 8, p.253). Durkheim viewed that division in class is important because it caused interdependence. Durkheim felt that problem was created by the lack of the usual social or principles of a given society which affects the communities that are disorganized For, instance, in the past families and religions used to have a structured system where every member had a role to play in the society. But due to changes in cultural, and technology new changes have arisen and people are caught off-guard, causing many to feel unwanted.Weber suggested that political caused the alienation. He thought that people no longer have the principles and emotions to question the authority this happens when people find it okay to obey without checking the legitimacy of the systems According to Durkheim; capitalism unites and brings people together (Randall &Ritzer, 2017). Max believed that capitalism is not a good thing and it creates division in the society. The three sociology writers had a different perspective on the matter of the religion and how it can benefit the society as a whole.

References

Chapter 2: sociology in the underground: Karl Marx.N.D. Pp. (26-47)

Chapter 6 & chapter 7: classical sociology theories: Emile Durkheim. N.D. Pp. (37-395)

Chapter 8 & chapter 8: classical sociology theories: Max Weber. N.D. Pp. (71-394)

Randrall, C., & Ritzer, G. (2017). Brian Lowe Sociological Reader Sociological Theories. McGraw-Hill.NewYork city.

Self-Assessment Quiz and Question

Does intelligence decline as individuals grow old? NO.  Losing one’s mental intellect and independence is among the most feared element of aging.  However, this is not often true. According to Daffner, (2011), he claims that intellectual performance in healthy individuals goes up to old age. At an average, there is minimal decline in intellect and cognition amongst adults below 80 years of age. This has little impact in their overall competence. A more average decline is experienced in the 80s. However the little or no decline is associated with the aged being free from cardiovascular diseases. Having stimulating, flexible and engaging lifestyles at mid-life has also played a major role in cognitive building hence resulting in no decline in intelligence. There has been a development that has enhanced the establishment of unique capacities. Some of these developments include modification of lifestyle interventions which has greatly inhibited intellectual decline. These protective aspects help in reducing the cardiovascular risk. They also help in boosting the aging brain. Therefore it is important to note that with a healthy life, in terms of both physical and mental health, changes in aging brain become minimal. Old people, therefore, can also be regarded as intellectuals.

Peters, (2006), argues that brain size declines with age and this translates to decline in memory and brain activation becomes more mutual for memory tasks. However, this does not always translate to intellectual decline especially with the current higher levels of education and occupational attainment. Biological aging is thus not tied to chronological aging. It is thus possible to slow biological aging and even reduce the rate of intellectual decline and the likelihood of suffering from aging-related diseases including dementia.

References

Daffner, K. R. (2010). Promoting successful cognitive aging: a comprehensive review. Journal of Alzheimer's disease, 19(4), 1101-1122.

Peters, R. (2006). Ageing and the brain. Postgraduate medical journal, 82(964), 84-88.