Effects of Toilet Training to Personality Development Essay example --

Effects of Toilet Training to Personality Development Introduction â€Å"The child was the father to the man† - Sigmund Freud The basic premise of Dr. Sigmund Freud’s theory on personality development lies on the above statement. The determinants of one’s behavior and characteristics during adulthood may be derived from one’s childhood –how one was brought up taking into consideration the influence and interaction of values, culture, language, rules, roles, models and morals to the development of one’s personality. As such, much of the burden of honing a child’s character lies on the parents and the latter’s own upbringing may greatly influence how a child will behave upon reaching adulthood. With this premise in mind, Freud advanced a theory that centered on the effects of sexual satisfaction to the human psyche. To Freud, man is a pleasure-seeking animal who constantly strives to avoid painful experience in order to maintain a pleasant life. He postulated that the foundation of personality is formed between the ages 1-5 wherein an individual goes through a series of developmental stages which were also called psychosexual stages. Man’s search for pleasure commences during these stages, wherein the most basic desire or sexual urge is manifested in a child’s growth and developmental needs. In explaining the four psychosexual stages that he has identified, he introduced the idea of erogenous zones. Erogenous zones Also called erotogenic zones, erogenous zones are areas in a man’s body where the inner and outer skins meet and when manipulated, are capable of arousing pleasant and sensu... ...duce specific character traits associated with the acts of retention and expulsion. Cited Works Bischof, Leonard J. Interpreting Personality Theories. New York, N.Y.: Harper and Row, 2nd Ed.,1964. Fox, Ronald E., Gregory, Ian and Rosen, Ephraim. Abnormal Psychology. London: W.B. Saunders Company, 2nd Ed., 1972. â€Å"Psychodynamic Theories.â€Å" noteaccess.com. 19 June 2005. Bibliography â€Å"Freud's Psychosexual Stages of Development.† about.com 19 June 2005. Hall, Calvin S. and Lindzey, Gardner. Theories of Personality. N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons, 3rd Ed., 1978. Stevenson, David B. â€Å"Freud’s Psychosexual Stages of Development†. Victorian Web. 19 June 2005.

Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare :: Papers

Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare When Shakespeare wrote the 12th night the social mores were very strict. For example servants were not allowed to woo their masters but in the 12th night these rules of society were corrupted for example. Olivia loving cesario but Olivia doesn't realise that cesario is really a man and that links with cesario because she was a very wealthy woman but in an instant she becomes a servant also she is in mourning for her brother but now she is very joyful and in love. ====================================================================== Also in this play there is a hierarchical pyramid in place which is been transformed where there is a master and a servant but it seems almost reversed so the servant becomes the master and the master becomes the servant. Even there is servants loving masters there is masters falling in love with servants referring to Olivia loving a servant called cesario. The thing that seemed to attract Olivia to Cesario was her manner of speaking and intelligence. Also the 12th night has a certain comedy to it for example Sir Toby trick on Malvolio. Which is a pivotal point in the play. The letter says that Olivia has feelings for Malvolio. Malvolio showing his pomposity lets his guard down and obeys the instructions on the letter he also remembers the woman from Strace who married her wardrobe master. The instructions that were on the letter are as follows (1) Be opposite with a kinsman, surly with servants; (2) Remember who commended thy yellow stockings, and wished to see thee ever cross- gartered: (3) Therefore in my presence still smile, dear my sweet, I prithee. This is a classic case of Dramatic Irony and inappropriateness when Olivia is in Mourning. This act of arrogance in Olivia's case is inappropriate and should be severely punished therefore Malvolio was sent to the Dungeon. Which is also symbolic to his actual position in the house at this point the audience feels empathy for Malvolio. but there is the point of if malvolio is the only person that is not

Videogames and Violence Essay -- Violent Games Ethics Morals Essays

Videogames and Violence In 1979 the United States was vehemently attacked by aliens from outer space, an event that was to forever change life on our planet. The release of Space Invaders for the Atari Video Computing System became an instant hit. Kids stopped listening to music, playing sports or going to movies, choosing instead to defend the nation from alien attack, from the safety of their television sets. The success of Space Invaders launched the video game revolution as the demand for personal game consoles soared (Atari). Videogames soon became the preferred leisure activity for children, forcing parents and critics to question the possiblibility of ill effects. With the advent of new technology, parents have even more reason to be concerned today. On October 26th of 2001, Sony released its Playstation 2 game console to the public. It features a 300mhz processor with 32 megabytes of RAM and 42 sound channels. Compare this to Atari's 1.19mhz processor with 4k of ROM and mono sound, and it is easy to conclude that today's systems deliver lifelike sound and graphics. Unfortunately these advancements in technology and gaming quality have been utilized into creating games that more often than not contain highly violent plots, action, and graphics, forcing critics to once again question the ethics behind such games. Three students were killed at a Kentucky high school in 1997 by 14-year-old gunman Michael Carneal. Testimony was given in a Congressional hearing on violence in videogames that Michael's only experience with handguns came from playing video games (Rattiner). On April 20, 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold launched an assault on their schoolmates of Columbine High School, murdering 13 and wounding 23 bef... ... and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 78, No. 4, 772-790. April 2000. http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp784772.html "Atari Video Gaming System." http://retrogamer.merseyworld.com/atari2.htm Cesarone, Bernard. "Video Games and Children. ERIC Digest." ERIC. 1994 http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed365477.html Cesarone, Bernard. "Video Games: Research, Ratings, Recommendations." ERIC. November 1998. http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed365477.html Choi, Suzanne. "Computer Games and Violence: A Child's Friend or Foe?" University of Calgary http://www.ucalgary.ca/~dabrent/380/webproj/sue.html Rattiner, Marlen. "Video Game Violence." About.com 29 March 2000 http://videogames.about.com/games/videogames/library/weekly/aa032900a.htm

Importance of Sports

Hi how are u I need a paper for school so let me get a bucking paper before I rip your dick off and feed it to my hamster. Ms. Fleeter told me to put this down. She needs to get fired so she can eat her fried chicken and blow up like Ms. Finch. Like the big blob she is. She can be used as a trampoline. Because all she does is sit there and don't teach. She Just sits there and tats till she eventually blows up and pukes up 4567857483904 children. Because that's how fat she is.Well I'm going to tell you why. Sports keep you healthy and fit In many different ways. Plus who would want and old back that's always slouched over and hurts. Another reason Is their very fun to play. A birthday party or sleepovers are some places that sports are fun to play. You can also play sports for a team and those are also fun. My third and IANAL reason Is that they can get you money when you're older.If you're good at the sport and want big money this Is the way to do It. Now let's move on to see how the y keep you healthy. The way that sports keep you healthy are In many different ways. First off they take your mind off things. For example, say somebody died or got hurt In your family. Sports are a good way to get your mind off of It. Next, you have to keep healthy to play the sports. You don't want to be slow when playing the sport. Importance of Sports Hi how are u I need a paper for school so let me get a bucking paper before I rip your dick off and feed it to my hamster. Ms. Fleeter told me to put this down. She needs to get fired so she can eat her fried chicken and blow up like Ms. Finch. Like the big blob she is. She can be used as a trampoline. Because all she does is sit there and don't teach. She Just sits there and tats till she eventually blows up and pukes up 4567857483904 children. Because that's how fat she is.Well I'm going to tell you why. Sports keep you healthy and fit In many different ways. Plus who would want and old back that's always slouched over and hurts. Another reason Is their very fun to play. A birthday party or sleepovers are some places that sports are fun to play. You can also play sports for a team and those are also fun. My third and IANAL reason Is that they can get you money when you're older.If you're good at the sport and want big money this Is the way to do It. Now let's move on to see how the y keep you healthy. The way that sports keep you healthy are In many different ways. First off they take your mind off things. For example, say somebody died or got hurt In your family. Sports are a good way to get your mind off of It. Next, you have to keep healthy to play the sports. You don't want to be slow when playing the sport.

Effect and suspense Essay

At the beginning of act 2 it begins in the house of John and Elizabeth Proctor. John walks into the kitchen and adds some salt to the pot and sits down. Elizabeth walks in and serves Proctor some food. Proctor compliments her â€Å"It is well seasoned† This shows Proctor is metaphorically trying to make his relationship better with his wife. Both characters engage in idle conversation about the weather and the crops. Audiences would have felt that there may be something beneath the surface they both are avoiding talking about something. The conversation changes to witchcraft. Elizabeth mentions Abigail being accused and how she thought she was innocent. John then says â€Å"If the girl’s a saint now, I think it is not easy to prove she’s a fraud, and the town gone so silly. She told it to me in a room alone – I have no proof of it.† Elizabeth then replies â€Å"You were alone with her?† this shows Elizabeth is still caught up with the affair and still can’t forget it. When Mary Warren enters, he grabs her and shakes her; He says â€Å"How do you go to Salem when I forbid it? Do you mock me? I’ll whip you if you dare leave this house again!† audiences would get the impression Proctor is not a very good person if he would talk to someone like that, and also a sinner who had an affair. When Reverend John Hale visits to tell them Elizabeth has been mentioned in court. He asks both of them questions like why only two out of three of their children have been baptized. Elizabeth explains that she does not think of Parris to be holy so does not want her child to be baptized by him. Hale asks Elizabeth if she knows all Ten Commandments, she says she does, Hale asks Proctor and he says, â€Å"I- I am sure I do, sir.† Hale asks him to repeat them all Proctor does and names 9. Elizabeth says you forgot adultery John. This shows Elizabeth still resents John for the affair. Audiences would have seen John as a sinner, and an aggressive man up to this point of the play. When Abigail charges Elizabeth, we see a more desperate side to John Proctor’s character. When Ezekiel Cheever comes to the Proctor house hold with a warrant to arrest Elizabeth, he finds a poppet of Mary Warrens. There is a needle in the middle, where Abigail stabbed herself. Proctor, in desperation pleads that it was not Elizabeth; â€Å"Why, she has done it herself! I hope you not taking this for proof, mister!† Proctor pleads with Herrick and Cheever; audiences may feel that he is saying these things to prove to Elizabeth how much he loves her. â€Å"I will fall like an ocean on that court! Fear nothing, Elizabeth.† In court, Proctor attempts to defend his wife and says that Abigail has been pretending witchcraft. Many people have now been arrested, some even sentenced to death. Mary changes her testimony and confirms Proctor’s evidence. In act three Proctor is defending his wife, saying that Elizabeth dismissed Abigail from their household, was because Proctor and Abigail had an affair. Abigail denies this but Proctor asks Judge Hawthorne to fetch his wife and ask her, because she never lies. Elizabeth is then summoned to court to say if Proctor is telling the truth. Danforth asks her why she dismissed Abigail and she lies for Proctor, this means that Proctor is arrested.  Ã‚  Ã¢â‚¬Å"Danforth: Your husband- did he indeed turn from you?  Elizabeth: My husband is a goodly man, sir.  Danforth: Then he did not turn form you.  Elizabeth: He-  Danforth: Look at me! To your knowledge, has John Proctor ever committed the crime of lechery?  Elizabeth: No, sir†Ã‚  Ã‚  Proctor is made to confess, or risk loosing his life. He decides to make a false confession to save his life, but however when he is made to sign his confession he refuses, he argues that his name is with him his whole life. The audience would have the impression that John Proctor is a good, self- respecting, brave man. John Proctor then went on to be hanged for a crime he didn’t commit. My conclusion is that in the beginning of the play, John Proctor has the impression that he is a sinner with a past, who is trying to change into a better person but still with a violent and aggressive temper, However by the end of the play we see a different side to him. He changes into a man with dignity and pride, who is willing to die for his sins of lechery. I think he is trying to prove something to his wife, that he regrets his sins and is sorry. Arthur Miller uses long sentences in a dramatic way to add depth to The Crucible, to gives effect and suspense.

Rawls Theory Essay

A contemporary philosopher, John Rawls (1921-2002), is noted for his contributions to political and moral philosophy. In particular, Rawls’ discussion about justice introduced five important concepts into discourse, including: the two principles of justice, the â€Å"original position† and â€Å"veil of ignorance,† reflective equilibrium, overlapping consensus, and public reason. What is interesting about these five contributions is how Rawls’ speculative thought has been used by scholars across disciplinary lines, influencing such diverse academic disciplines as economics, law, political science, sociology, and theology. A theory of justice†¦ Rawls’ most famous work, A Theory of Justice (1971), provides an introduction to this body of thought as well as some of its implications for ethics. Like many philosophers before him, Rawls focused upon justice because of its substantive importance for organizing and governing society. The problem, however, involves defining what that term means theoretically (i.e., speculatively about organizing and governing society) and practically (i.e., the consequences for people and their lives). Generally, speaking, justice can be defined in one of two ways. One definition emphasizes an individual’s merit or lack of it. According to this definition, each individual must be treated exactly as one deserves. This â€Å"merit theory† of justice, reflecting utilitarian ethics, uses merit to determine just how individual members of society will be rewarded or punished based solely upon whether one’s conduct is useful or harmful to society. The â€Å"need theory† of justice, which assumes that individual members of society should help those other members who are most in need so as to redress their disadvantages, reflects the influence of natural law theory and Kant’s categorical imperative. In this view, â€Å"doing good† dictates that every member of society recognize that need entitles the most disadvantaged to some sort of special consideration and that the more advantaged must compensate the disadvantaged with the goal of bringing them up to an acceptable level of advantage. Attempting to balance the demands posed by these rival theories, Rawls maintained that inequalities in society can only be justified if they produce increased benefits for the entire society and only if those previously the most disadvantaged members of society are no worse off as a result of any inequality. An inequality, then, is justified if it contributes to social utility, as the merit theory asserts. But, at the same time, Rawls argued, priority must be given to the needs of the least advantaged, as the needs theory asserts. Thus, differential rewards are allowed to the advantaged members of society but not because of any merit on their part. No, these rewards are tolerated because they provide an incentive for the advantaged which ultimately will prove beneficial to society (e.g., taxing the advantaged with the goal of redistributing the wealth to provide for the least advantaged). The original position†¦ Using a thought experiment Rawls called â€Å"the original position† from which agents behind a â€Å"veil of ignorance† select principles of justice to govern society, Rawls argued that two principles serve to organize society, the â€Å"liberty principle† and the â€Å"difference principle.† He rooted the original position in and extended the concept of â€Å"social contract† previously espoused by Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke which made the principles of justice the object of the contract binding members of society together. In addition, Rawls’ advocacy of treating people only as ends and never as means rooted his philosophical speculations in and extended Kant’s categorical imperative. According to Rawls, a society is a cooperative venture between free and equal persons for the purpose of mutual advantage. Cooperation among members makes life better because cooperation increases the stock of what it is rational for members of societ y to desire irrespective of whatever else its members may want. Rawls calls these desires â€Å"primary goods† which include among others: health, rights, income, and the social bases of self-respect. The problem every society must confront, Rawls noted, is that the members will oftentimes disagree about what constitutes the good and how the benefits and burdens within society will be distributed among its members. Some believe, for example, that the good consists in virtuous conduct which perfects the commonweal while others believe that the good is discovered in the pursuit of individual happiness, at least in so far as the members of society define these terms. Some members believe that an individual’s merit should determine how one will participate in society’s benefits while others believe that society must provide the least advantaged extra assistance so that they will be able to share equally in society’s benefits. If society is to exist and to endure despite these and other such differences, its members must de rive a consensus regarding what minimally constitutes the good. What consensus requires in actual practice is that the members of society agree upon the rules which will govern them as a society and that these rules will be applied consistently. But, Rawls asked, just how would a society and its members know what constitutes a â€Å"fair† principle? And, how would it be possible to determine what is â€Å"reasonable† for every member to agree with? Thompson cites the example of welfare to make this point: The growth of the welfare state has often been explained and defended as a progressive recognition that government should provide certain benefits (positive rights) in order to prevent certain harms to citizens (negative rights). Yet its opponents claim that the welfare state violates the negative rights of other citizens (property owners, for example). (1987, p. 104) Rawls responded to this challenge by invoking the original position, in which representative members of a society would determine the answers to these difficult questions. That is, absent any government, the representatives would rationally discuss what sort of government will be supported by a social contract which will achieve justice among all members of society. The purpose for this discourse would not be to justify governmental authority but to identify the basic principles that would govern society when government is established. The chief task of these rep resentatives would not be to protect individual rights but to promote the welfare of society (1971, p. 199). To this end, the representatives do not know—are â€Å"veiled† from—which place in society they will occupy. In addition, every factor which might bias a decision (e.g., one’s tastes, preferences, talents, handicaps, conception of the good) is kept from the representatives. They do, however, possess knowledge of those factors which will not bias one’s decision (e.g., social knowledge, scientific knowledge, knowledge identifying what human beings need to live). From this original position and shrouded by a veil of ignorance about their place in society, Rawls argued the representatives ultimately would select the principle of justice rather than other principles (e.g., axiological virtues, natural law, utilitarian principles) to organize and govern society. While individual members of society oftentimes do act in their self-interest, this does not mean that they cannot be rational about their self-interests. Rawls argued that this is precisely what would occur in the original position when the representatives operated from behind the veil of ignorance. Freed from focusing upon one’s self-interest to the exclusion of others’ self-interests, the society which the representatives would design determines what will happen to its members and how important social matters like education, health care, welfare, and job opportunities will be distributed throughout society. The idea is that the representatives operating from behind the veil of ignorance would design a society that is fair for all of its members because no individual member would be willing to risk ending up in an intolerable position that one had created for others but had no intention of being in oneself. Why is this so? Rawls claimed that the representatives to the original position would invoke the principle of rational choice, the so-called â€Å"maximin decision rule.† This rule states that an agent, when confronted with a choice between alternative states of the world with each state containing a range of possible outcomes, would choose the state of affairs where the worst outcome is that state of affairs which is better than the worst outcome presented by any other alternative. Rawls’ example of two persons sharing a piece of cake demonstrates how the maximin decision rule works in actual practice. Suppose there is one piece of cake that two persons want to eat. They equally desire to eat the cake and each wants the biggest piece possible. To deal with this dilemma, both agree that one will cut the cake while the other will choose one of the two pieces. The consensus derived guarantees that the cake will be shared fairly, equating â€Å"justice† with â€Å"fairness.† The two principles of justice†¦ By equating the principle of justice with fairness, the representatives in the original position and operating from behind the veil of ignorance would elect to organize society around the liberty principle and the difference principle. The liberty principle requires dictates that each member of society has an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of equal liberty for all. Accordingly, each member of society should receive an equal guarantee to as many different liberties―and as much of those liberties―as can be guaranteed to every member of society. The liberties Rawls discussed include: political liberty (the right to vote and to be eligible for public office); freedom of speech and assembly; liberty of conscience and freedom of thought; freedom of the person along with the right to hold personal property; and, freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure. In contrast to some libertarian interpretations of utili tarianism, Rawls did not advocate absolute or complete liberty which would allow members of society to have or to keep absolutely anything. The difference principle requires that all economic inequalities be arranged so that they are both: a) to the benefit of the least advantaged and b) attached to offices and positions open to all members under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. If this is to occur, Rawls argued, †¦each generation should â€Å"preserve the gains of culture and civilization, and maintain intact those just institutions that have been established† in addition to putting aside â€Å"in each period of time a suitable amount of real capital accumulation.† (1971, p. 285) Rawls is willing to tolerate inequalities in society but only if they are arranged so that any inequality actually assists the least advantaged members of society and that the inequalities are connected to positions, offices, or jobs that each member has an equal opportunity to attain. In the United States, this scheme is oftentimes called â€Å"equal opportunity.† The inequalities Rawls discussed include: i nequalities in the distribution of income and wealth as well as inequalities imposed by institutions that use differences in authority and responsibility or chains of command. The reason the representatives in the original position and operating from behind the veil of ignorance would agree upon the difference principle is not due to the existence of a social contract but to ethics. That is, members of society do not deserve either their natural abilities or their place in a social hierarchy. Where and when one was born and the privileges and assets afforded by one’s birth is a matter of sheer luck. It would be unfair, Rawls contended, were those born into the least advantaged of society to remain in that place if all members of society could do better by abandoning (or redistributing) initial differences. According to Rawls, this is what ethics―according to the standard of justice―demands and, in the United States, this is the basis of what is oftentimes called â€Å"affirmative action.† The representatives would agree. The liberty principle must always take precedence to the difference principle so that every member of society is assured of equal basic liberties. Similarly, the second part of the difference principle cited above (b) must take priority to the first part (a) so that the conditions of fair equality of opportunity are also guaranteed for everyone (1971, p. 162). Thus, the two principles of justice, the liberty principle and the difference principle, are ordered because society cannot justify a decrease in liberty by increasing any member’s social and economic advantage. Reflecting Rawls’ interest in political philosophy, the liberty and principle and the difference principle apply to the basic structure of society (what might be called a â€Å"macro view†)―society’s fundamental political and economic arrangements―rather than to particular conduct by governmental officials or individual laws (what might be called a â€Å"micro view†). The liberty principle requires society to provide each citizen with a fully adequate scheme of basic liberties (e.g., freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, and due process of law). The difference principle requires that inequalities in wealth and social position be arranged so as to benefit society’s most disadvantaged group. In cases where the two principles conflict, Rawls argues the liberty principle must always take precedence over the difference principle. One example that applies Rawls’ theory of justice involves how one would become a lawyer in the society designed by the representatives in the original position and operating from behind the veil of ignorance. This example also indicates how and why inequalities would exist in that society. In the original position and operating from behind the veil of ignorance, representatives organize society to be governed according to the liberty principle and the difference principle. In that society, any member of society can become a lawyer if one possesses the talent. So, a young woman discovers that she possesses the talent and interest to become a lawyer and decides that this is what she wants to do in her life. But, to get the education she actually needs to become a lawyer requires an inequality. That is, less fortunate people must help pay for her education at the public university’s law school with their taxes. In return, however, this young woman will perform some very important functions for other people―including the less fortunate―once she becomes a lawyer. At the same time, however, the lawyer will make a lot of money. But, she is free to keep it because she has earned it. At the same time, she will also pay taxes to the government which, in turn, will be used to provide needed programs for the least advantaged members of society. The issue of equitable pay also provides a practical example that clarifies how Rawls’ theory of justice can be applied (Maclagan, 1998, pp. 96-97). Noting that the principle â€Å"equal pay for equal work† is eminently fair in concept, Maclagan notes that not all work is equal. What is really needed in society is some rational basis to compare what sometimes are very different occupations and jobs, especial ly when this involves comparing â€Å"men’s work† and â€Å"women’s work.† Typically, the criteria used to compare dissimilar jobs quantifies work requirements as well as the investment individuals must make to attain these positions. In addition, the amount of skill and training required, the potential for danger and threat to one’s life, the disagreeableness involved in the work, as well as the degree of responsibility associated with a job all figure prominently when making such calculations. In actual practice, however, making comparisons between dissimilar jobs is an immensely difficult undertaking, as Maclagan notes, citing as an example the difficulties management and labor both confront in the process of collective bargaining. Collective bargaining involves ethics because each party declares what the other ought to do. When these differences are resolved through a consensus, a â€Å"contract† provides the basic structure by which the members of that society (called the â€Å"corporation†) will organize and govern themselves for a specific period of time. Coming to agreement upon a contract—like Rawls’ concept of reflective equilibrium—requires both parties to the collective bargaining process to align their principles and intuitions through the process of considered dialogue and mutual judgment. Furthermore, the contract―like Rawls’ difference principle―tolerates inequalities in pay but only as long as the least advantaged enjoy equal opportunity and their situation is protected if not improved. What is noteworthy about Maclagan’s example is that the parties are not in the original position nor do they operate from behind a veil of ignorance. Instead, they have to move toward those positions if they are to adjudicate their differences amicably and for the benefit of both. The critics†¦ Since its first publication in 1971, Rawls’ work has received some begrudging if not respectful criticism. Some have asked which members of society constitute the â€Å"least advantaged†? For his part, Rawls identified these people generally as unskilled workers and those whose average income is less than the median income. What Rawls failed to address, however, is the plight of those who may be the truly least advantaged members of society, namely, those citizens of some permanently unemployed underclass, who depend entirely upon government largesse to subsist (e.g., welfare), or whose racial or ethnic origins condemn them to permanent disadvantage. The critics ask: Should not their plight be considered more important than those who possess more of society’s benefits? Furthermore, in so far as Rawls states the difference principle, it appears that inequalities are permissible but only if they better the lot of the least advantaged members of society. However, cr itics note, that position is inconsistent with Rawls’ claim that the representatives to the original position must not take an interest in anyone’s particular interests. The logic fails if preference must be given by those in the original position to the least advantaged. Lastly, Rawls’ critique of utilitarianism, his embrace of egalitarianism, and the actual effects of the difference principle combine in such a way that his philosophy can be construed to advocate political agenda with Marxist overtones. That is, in actual practice Rawls’ theory would redistribute society’s benefits away from the â€Å"haves† to the â€Å"have nots† with little or no concomitant bearing of society’s burdens. Economists, for example, note that Rawls has neglected to consider the market forces unleashed in a capitalist society where seeking one’s self-interest is arguably the primary motivating principle. These critics argue that even the least advantaged, if they so choose, can take advantage of the minimal benefits society offers them by virtue of citizenship. Through education, persistence, and hard work, the least ad vantaged (or, their children in the next generation) will be able to participate more fully in enjoying the benefits as well as in bearing the burdens of membership in society. The critics ask: â€Å"Is this not what has happened to waves of immigrants to the United States during the past two hundred years?† In light of these criticisms, Rawls modified the principles of liberty and difference. Pondering the question of social stability, Rawls considered how a society ordered by the two principles of liberty and difference might endure. In Political Liberalism (1996), Rawls introduced the idea that stability can be found in an overlapping consensus between citizens who hold diverse religious and philosophical views or conceptions about what constitutes the good to be sought. As with Maclagan’s (1998) collective bargaining example, this â€Å"overlapping consensus† is found in their agreement that justice is best defined as fairness. In Justice as Fairness (2001), Rawls introduced the idea of public reason, that is, the reason possessed by all citizens which contributes to social stability, a notion he first detailed in The Law of Peoples with â€Å"The Idea of Public Reason† Revisited (1999). References Aristotle. (1958). Nicomachean ethics (W. D. Ross, Trans.) In J. D. Kaplan (Ed.), The pocket Aristotle (pp. 158-274). New York: Washington Square Press. Maclagan, P. (1998). Management & morality. Thousand Oaks, IL: Sage Press. Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Rawls, J. (1999a). A theory of justice (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Rawls, J. (1999b). The law of peoples with â€Å"the idea of public reason† revisited. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rawls, J. (1996). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Thompson, D. F. (1990). Political ethics and public office. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

A Case for Active Euthanasia

Death is deeply personal, generally feared, and wholly inescapable, but medical technology now can prolong our biological existence virtually indefinitely, and, with these advances, comes the question of whether we should pursue the extension of life in all cases. Most people would agree that, under certain circumstances, it would be preferable to cease our hold on life. Nearly everyone can agree that there are situations when terminally ill patients have the right to call for a halt to life-extending treatments, and that their physicians will have the moral obligation to comply.What appears to be quite difficult for us as a society to come to terms with is the thought that someone would actively intervene in the â€Å"natural† process of the death of another human being. Why is it tolerable, even desirable, to intervene in the â€Å"natural† process of death when it results in extending life, but intolerable and morally abhorrent when we act to speed the patient to his or her unavoidable death? In this paper I am going to argue that active euthanasia should become legal in certain circumstances.To do this I will argue that, in the situation of terminal illness, active euthanasia allows for the patient to end the suffering and should therefore be permissible. Secondly, I will examine a case where someone has survived a life-changing accident and wishes they had given a choice to live or die. Perhaps the most important issue at hand is the patient's right, willingness, and desire to die. For the most part, any random, healthy individual would most likely be unable to imagine or comprehend the type of pain and anguish that a terminal illness will cause.Therefore, the decision to live or die under the presence of certain, and probably painful, death should be left in the hands of the individual that is suffering. Taking its name from a Greek term meaning â€Å"the good or easy death,† euthanasia should represent exactly that. The decision to l ive or die does not belong to anyone but to the person whose life it is. According to Kantian ethics, autonomy is based on the human capacity to direct one’s life according to rational principles. Autonomy is where people are considered as being ends in themselves in that they have the capacity to determine their own destiny and must be respected.Having one's entire life slowly drained from oneself is frequently considered the most excruciating of tortures. Yet somehow the right to bring peace to oneself through a slightly unconventional method is repeatedly denied. It has been assumed since the dawn of the medical profession that the doctor's place is a healer, as the ones to cure all illnesses. A physician is seen as the one who is supposed to maintain and prolong ones health, as best as they can until no more can be done. This means that, if all treatment fails, the physician should be allowed to assist in avoiding the unnecessary agony.James Rachels’ article, calle d â€Å"Active and Passive Euthanasia,† uses the equivalence thesis. He believes that killing and letting die are equally as bad, that there is no real moral difference in certain circumstances. He distinguishes killing as active euthanasia and letting die as passive. I am going to argue that, in most cases, passive and active euthanasia are equally as â€Å"bad,† and sometimes passive is more morally wrong than active euthanasia. Rachels argues that there may be times when active euthanasia is more merciful than passive.This is often in cases with incurable cancer or disease that, if you were to stop the treatment, the patient would die within a few days. I am going to argue that active euthanasia can be more merciful by giving an example of an incurable disease. Imagine that an elderly woman is diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. The doctor tells her that although it is incurable, there is medicine that can help lessen the symptoms. Imagine that when it is fir st starts, things like relaxing, reading a book, and sitting still are no longer relaxing, as a tremor that has started in her hand, arm, or leg.Soon her muscles become rigid and what used to seem like an easy task is no longer so. As the disease progresses, the medicine required to keep the muscles from going rigid has a side effect of dyskinesia (involuntary movement of the body). This becomes a balancing act – she must be able to tolerate the dyskinesia in order to be able to still move her muscles. As the disease advances more, she has spouts of dementia that will soon take over completely; trouble swallowing (often choking on food) and talking, and she can no longer stand or walk on her own.She needs help going to the bathroom and is often humiliated by the need to depend on someone else entirely. As the dementia comes and goes, she able to tell her family how unhappy she is and that she no longer wants to live. The family understands and wishes for her to no longer suff er, however, for this to happen, she must suffer without medicine with no promise to immediate death, just complete rigidity of her muscles. All of these symptoms seem horrifying to those not experiencing it, and humiliating and frustrating for those that are.The life she used to live is completely gone and she rarely remembers what her family members do as a living and is stuck remembering the past. Would it not be torture to put her through staying alive, realizing that every time she becomes lucid she hates her life and realizes she has no control over it? However, stopping medicine in this case will not kill the patient, and will only result in rigidity of the muscles and inability to move. What choice is she left with? In this situation active euthanasia should be permissible. Often in times like these the family is also suffering due to the pain of their family member.When the person has an incurable disease, knows that they are not happy and that things will get worse, it wou ld be unfair to keep them alive due to selfishness and what we believe is â€Å"right. † It is ultimately the person’s choice and should be kept this way, as it is their life. One might argue that in this case the dementia prevents the patient from being fully reasonable and therefore autonomy cannot be used in this situation. I argue that when she lets her family know she is unhappy and does not want to live this way, she is coherent.Shouldn’t this person be given the right to make this choice when they are still capable, before people start speaking and making choices for their life? Furthermore, it is often argued that the side effects (such as how it will effect the family and friends, Glover) of death are what really influence a decision. In John Hardwig’s article â€Å"Duty to Die,† Hardwig argues that there are times when a person has a duty to die. His argument covers what many of us believe to be a reason for someone to stay alive- for our own well-being.A duty to die is permissible when the burden of caring for someone seriously compromises the lives of those that love us (Hardwig). In the Parkinson’s situation, the family will need to help the woman often and if not themselves, will need to hire someone to care for her all the time as the disease progresses. This can be a large financial burden on the family. There are many cases out there where autonomy was not respected. One great example is the Dax Cowart case. Dax was involved in a terrible accident in 1973 when he was twenty-five years old.He was critically injured in a propane gas explosion that killed his father and left Dax with burns to over sixty-five percent of his body including both eyes, ears and hands, which were damaged beyond repair. Large doses of narcotics were required for minimal pain relief. For more than a year, he underwent extraordinarily painful treatments. From the day of his accident, Dax expressed a desire to die, to leave the ho spital and to end his suffering. He pleaded with his caregivers to be allowed to die, and also stated several times that he wanted to kill himself.The physicians turned to his mother to obtain consent for all his treatments, even though she was not appointed his legal guardian and Dax was determined by psychiatric evaluation to have full decision-making capacity. Ultimately, he recovered from the burns, although severely mutilated. He successfully sued the oil company responsible for his burns, which left him financially secure. He eventually finished law school and married. He says he is now relatively happy, but still believes the doctors were wrong to follow his mother’s wishes over his. The case advanced respect for patient autonomy all around the country.The case of Dax Cowart illustrates the complexity of issues such as autonomy, paternalism, and quality of life. In an interview of Dax twenty-five years after his accident, Dax is absolute that he would still want the sa me choice if he were to be put in the same situation he was in. He stated, â€Å"Another individual may well make a different decision. That’s the beauty of freedom; that’s his or her choice to do so† (â€Å"Please Let Me Die†). Unfortunately, while the attitude remains the same about active and passive euthanasia, nothing will change for those who are fighting for the right to end their lives.One should have the right to autonomy without being violated and should be allowed to decide when it is their time to go in cases that include terminal illness. How is it morally just to make someone suffer a disease that is killing them just because we may not think it’s right to die? I hope that throughout this paper you have been able to see a different side to what active euthanasia can bring (peace to those suffering). Glover, Johnathan. â€Å"Sanctity of Life. † Bioethics: An Anthology. By Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1999 . 66-75. Print. Hardwig, John. â€Å"Duty to Die? † Duty to Die? Hastings Center Report, n. d. Web. 07 Oct. 2012. ;http://web. utk. edu/~jhardwig/dutydie. htm;. â€Å"Please Let Me Die. † Interview by Robert White. Literature, Arts, and Medicine Database. NYU School of Medicine, n. d. Web. 3 Oct. 2012. ;http://litmed. med. nyu. edu/Annotation? action=view;annid=10105;. Rachels, James. â€Å"Active and Passive Euthanasia. † Bioethics: An Anthology. Ed. Helga Kuhse. By Peter Singer. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1999. 288-91. Print.