He Goes a Sorrowing Who Goes a Borrowing free essay sample

He that goes a borrowing goes a sorrowing. (Benjamin Franklin) To borrow means to take and use something that belongs to somebody else, and returns it to them at a later time. But Is this as clear as Its presented In the dictionary? Does this action lead to unparalleled consequences? Borrowing Is a doomed cause. It ends with Its beginning, Like a closed circle and never lets you go away. It grabs you with Its tentacles, until It completely tears you to pieces, Like a rice beast, and then leaves you to the vultures and Jackals. People borrow things and money especially, when they are In need. But this need Is caused In most of the cases by persons laziness and foolishness. If the Individual Is ambitious and clever enough, he will never sink In the mud puddle of need. If he Is smart enough to Limit him and determine his needs to his abilities. We will write a custom essay sample on He Goes a Sorrowing Who Goes a Borrowing or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Even if you borrow with a good will in mind, an idea, what guarantees that you will be able to return what had been lent to you? Then you will have to borrow again, and again, and.. .Except if you take your life n your hands and manage with the situation by yourself, doing what is necessary. But now appears the question if you are able to earn and do things without any help, why did you have to borrow before? The answer is simple people dont like to work, dont like to give any of their energy, and because of this laziness, they pay it double after definite time. It is the same with the homework I was too tired to write And on the other day I had to write it ten times plus the homework given for the new day. Borrowing makes our lives unfortunate, but we are the one who borrow, so we face problem simultaneously.

buy custom Mayan Demise essay

buy custom Mayan Demise essay There is no doubt that The Maya are widely known for initiating civilization of Mesoamerica. Research suggests three periods characterized the Mayan civilization. The periods include the Pre-Classic between 300BC and 250AD, Classic Period 250AD and 900AD, and Post Classic between 900AD (Alex, 2007). All the periods were very significant in the history of Mayan civilization. However, around 750AD, during the post Classic period, the Mayan civilization witnessed a systematic collapse or demise. Subsequently, various theories, myths and tales have been postulated in an attempt to explain how this great civilization collapsed. A theory presented in Kerr's journal points at climate changes as the catalyst towards the disappearance of the Maya civilization (Mark, 2007). The Mayan agricultural system relied on clearing the rain forest and burning of the vegetation to provide land for various agricultural practices. Their population continued to grow and with time, the fields could not be left uncultivated or fallow for long enough to regain fertility. The fields were then overworked and production stifled, therefore, there was inadequate food for the local wildlife and this led to migration and scattering (Michael, 1992). Another theory suggests war as the possible cause for the decline of the Mayan system. Jared Diamond in his book How the societies choose to fail or succeed explains that the Mayan leaders used many of their resources to warfare, while simultaneously forgetting that resources were finite (Mark, 2007). This numerous warfare could have prompted the Mayans to flee discard and abandon their agricultural methods, which were conventional. With intense war and lack of food, Mayans may have fled for survival.New diseases could also break out causing mayhem because of war with strange new people. This might have resulted to the decline of the Mayan society. I tend to support the second theory on warfare as the most probable cause of the decline of the Mayan civilization. This is because it is possible for a government to make wrong decisions in warfare using laws that mislead the people and premises of justice (Alex, 2007). Every government has individuals who neglect their responsibilities hence hurting the people or even leading to distinction. It is therefore possible that the Mayan decline was a result of poor decisions by faulty officials. Buy custom Mayan Demise essay

AviationSafety Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

AviationSafety - Essay Example Defining these and how they can work within a commercial flight can then provide different alternatives for flight. There are many that believe that aviation safety is currently a part of most commercial and government systems with flight. The systems that have been implemented from the beginning of most companies have to meet specific standards with the build and make of the airplane as well as through safety regulations that are required by most airports. More importantly, there is a constant that is always met with the training of pilots, flight decks and others that are in the crew. Since the standards and the consistency is based on the flights, many believe that new safety aviation programs are no longer required and are based on the implementation of marginal standards that have to be reached. Instead of focusing on the basic platforms, it has become a requirement for safety programs to be based on creating and implementing newer methods for safety. Using technology and improving the margins of safety have become the main consistencies for those that are in an aviation safety program (Youn g, Quon, 2007). The importance of aviation safety, since there are several standards and compliances that have to be matched, is now based on improvement of the various systems that have been used. There are two main components that are considered for those that are working within the aviation field. The first is training that is required for extra safety measures that need to be taken, such as improvements to the initial standards that have been implemented. The second area of training and implementation is based on newer technologies that are now being used to provide individuals with new compliances and standards. Each of the technologies is being used to provide more conducive results to safety while allowing communication and delivery within aviation to excel to new levels. The improvement of

American Politics and Society Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

American Politics and Society - Essay Example There have been frequent replacements of justices who have kept the Supreme Court attuned to the side of majority opinion. This fact finds support both theoretically, empirically and practically. Chief justice Rodger Taney and John Marshall have been replaced in mysterious circumstances. These replacement mechanisms have not been proven to be effective since the American citizens have occasionally raised eyebrows to the decisions made by the Court. There has been a definite number of years that a chief justice should remain in power. Between 1972 and 2004, a new justice could be appointed after a period of 4 years (Olshansky, 2010, p 90). In the recent past, justices have been appointed even after a tenure of 2 years. This has destabilized the Supreme Court as gaps have been left. Public trust has been lost and the minority does not see any need to seek a relief of the court. The attitudes and moods of many Supreme Court justices have been seen to shift regularly and significantly ov er time. Literature on public opinion on judicial decision making has suggested that judicial attitudes and changes in moods do reflect external social forces. However, attitudinal changes may be common among the justices as it is contrary thought. In the United States, the Courts mandate and the power to strike down the set laws and regulations expounds why this institution has received much criticism as an anti-democratic Court. An American scholar, Alexander Bickel from Yale, once supported this hypothesis and said that the Supreme Court was a deviant institution in the democracy of America (Rossum, 2001, p 56). It is an enemy of democracy as it exercises control against the prevailing majority which is contrary to the basics of democracy. At the beginning of the Republic, the Supreme Court was weaker than the president and the Congress. It observed a lot of care to win the faith of the public by passing only two federal laws between 1803 and 1857. The words of Justice Sandra Day Connor, that the judicial independence was under threat of influence by the powerful, have come to pass. Those who framed the U.S constitution expressed their reservations that the Supreme Court will one day be a threat to democracy (Yalof & Dautrich, 2013, 89). This is because it was seen as an institution that lacked money and soldiers to enforce its decrees. They also refuted the idea that the Court was inherently anti-democratic. If the Court would strike down the state and federal laws, it will be promoting democracy rather than thwarting it. The Court has been on the opposite side of the perceived will of those who framed the U.S constitution. In summary, the U.S citizens have accepted a large duty of the judicial branch in its undemocratic nature. The inherent mistrust of concentrated, seemingly unlimited authority, has given many American citizens a pause. A constitutional amendment, despite its complex nature of changing it, is welcome to reform the Supreme Court. Any inst itution, which is an enemy of democracy, is also an enemy of the people. It is very dangerous for people to trust an institution which will eventually turn them down. The status quo of the U.S Supreme Court cannot propel the democracy of Americans to any notch higher. A judicial system should be nonpartisan and should consider the effect of

Environmental theory Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Environmental theory - Essay Example ?s otherness’ requires not identifying oneself (or one’s own interests, or indeed humanity or humanity’s interests) with wider nature, and recognizing that wider nature is not merely an extension of human culture (i.e., its material resource). Similarly, liberal ‘political reasonableness’ requires accepting neutrality the level of the justification of principles of justice; one should not expect them to enshrine one’s own conception of the good† (1). With nature considered to be something existent unto itself, it must be considered within the framework of political liberalism. Having presented his argument and attempted to make it clear, the author then moves on to explore what he means more fully regarding ecological justice. This process starts with a more thorough exploration of what it might mean to take a non-instrumental view of nature and how to consider what it would mean to respect nature’s otherness. Essentially, he describes ‘nature as other’ as something â€Å"independent of, or not determined by, the significances attributed to it, and the modifications made to it, within local landscapes† (2). While he acknowledges that this is an imprecise definition, he also makes the case that it is precise enough for the purposes of his argument. To determine what it means to respect nature’s otherness, he then presents what he terms three fundamental truths that must be kept in mind. The first of these is that ideas of ‘awe and humility’ must be given priority over concepts of arrogance and superiority over nature as it simply exists. This suggests that humans should â€Å"maintain a respectful distance† from the idea of nature by avoiding making any express demands on it. This includes making any attempt to put its resources to meeting human consumption demands or to involve it as an object of human adoration. The two additional truths include the No Teleology Thesis and the Autonomy Thesis, each of which assert the concept

J.S.Mills One Very Simple Principle: An Analysis

J.S.Mills One Very Simple Principle: An Analysis How simple is J.S.Mills one very simple principle? In and of itself, the principle is entirely simple – it takes barely a line to be stated, and is easily understood. â€Å"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection† (Mill,1869: pg 9). He goes on to explain exactly what he means, but that single line encapsulates the principle itself, without requiring additional clarification. Subsequent lines do not in any way contradict this statement, they merely emphasise. The principle by itself being simple, however, does not mean that its implications and ramifications are so straightforward; it may seem clear, but logical absurdities can be found – can paternalistic interference be justified when, for example, the member of mankind has no knowledge of how dangerous his activities are? The classic example is that of the bridge, which appears to be intact, but will collapse if a man steps on it. A direct an d literal reading of Mill’s principle would forbid anyone from interfering when a man unknowingly took a step onto this bridge – such an interpretation would not, however, be fair either to Mill or to the unfortunately ill-informed member of society. The principle is therefore simple to state, but not so simple to understand. It has its subtleties, and must be considered, rather than straightforwardly accepted. Before continuing, it is important to note what it is Mill is meaning with the word ‘freedom’ – referring to it without an accepted definition would at best be confusing, and far worse could potentially lead to a highly misleading understanding. Mill’s use of the word is value free. That is not to say that he has no morals, merely that when he writes, ‘freedom’ is not judged. It consists merely of the ability to act following one’s own desires. If one can follow these desires, one is free. If one cannot, he is not. There is no further weighting given to whatever those actions may be, whether they are buying a newspaper or committing murder – all that matters when it comes to ‘freedom’ is whether or not a person with the desire to carry out an action is permitted to do so (Scanlan, 1958: pg 198). Mill’s writings were concerned with power over the individual, but not merely with the legislative power of the state; he was deeply concerned with the moral force that society was capable of exercising over the individual. It was not merely the capacity of an over powerful government or monarch about which he wrote. The capacity for the tyranny of the majority over the individual also concerned him deeply. For this reason it is perhaps surprising that he installed caveats immediately after his principle; a man’s own good was a valid reason â€Å"for remonstrating with him, or reasoning, or persuading, or entreating† (Mill: pg 9). This level of input that Mill considered acceptable under such circumstances perhaps goes a long way towards mitigating the lack of any compulsive interference that he was willing to accept – in his eyes, a sufficiently great force of remonstration represented an almost compulsive effect due to societal forces, against which he f requently railed. Even though his principle would ban any actual compulsion, consideration of Mill’s normal arguing position reveals that he was prepared to permit events in the interests of protective paternalism which he typically considered to be undue influence over others. The interplay between state, society and the individual is a leitmotif of Mill’s writings, and merely because the theory he states forbids the state from carrying out an act does not mean that he does not feel it should be permitted; indeed, in this scenario when not only does he not forbid societal interaction, but positively encourages intervention of a kind suggests that he was willing to allow society to attempt to morally force people down a route which was less harmful to the individual concerned. The principle itself remains simple, but the context in which it is framed is significantly more complex. Joel Feinberg concludes that the state has a right to prevent self-regarding harmful conduct only when it is substantially non voluntary or when temporary intervention is necessary to establish whether it is voluntary or not. (quoted in Arneson, 1980: pg 470). In the example of the bridge referenced earlier, an ill informed member of the public stepping on a bridge which would collapse under their weight could not be said to be acting voluntarily; the state would be well within its rights in such a scenario under Mill’s logic to station a guard patrolling the area, to leap in and tackle such ill-informed people, stopping them from involuntarily taking the fatal step. If, however, they are running towards the bridge and shouting about how they know it will kill them, his logic would forbid the guard from taking any direct action. Whatever we feel about this compulsion to allow people to harm themselves if they so choose, it is a basic tenet of liberalism, that people know what the best for themselves is, and that interfering in their desire to pursue their own good in their own way is intrinsically wrong. This can, however, be harder to test than it would originally appear; what if the person is, for example, mentally ill? Indeed, if a person wishes to take an act which can obviously further their good but contains in it some degree of harm, or pain, we can easily understand both why a person, or state, would want to interfere and why they should be prevented from doing so. Yet if a person states that they wish to follow a course of action that will bring them no obvious benefit, and yet will clearly generate a great deal of harm, at what point should the state step in to take action? Is a mental assessment to determine their sanity unjust interference? After all, if a person is mentally unstable, surely they cannot truly be said to be acting of their own free will. Informed consent means more than merely knowing what the risks are, it means understanding what the consequences mean. Furthermore, Mill’s principle divides matters crucially into two areas: the personal and the public. Even if all the questions relating to the private are answered satisfactorily, the questions relating to public actions are somewhat greater: when a man acts, it will typically affect others, however mildly. If the impact of these effects is to infringe upon the rights or happiness of others, then the state and the people are justified, under Mill’s logic, in interfering with their actions. So what about the guard on the bridge – compelled to allow the suicidal to continue running, and then forced to witness their deaths? Could it be said that in order to prevent this mental anguish, the runner should be prevented from acting? Mill gives great consideration to various potential actions later in On Liberty, showing how his simple principle can be interpreted and used. The guard can of course turn away, and in Mill’s time such considerations would not have be en given much thought, so long before modern ideas about mental health. It is a question that would have been interesting to see Mill’s actual argument, but we must make do with merely applying his principle in order to find his likely answer ourselves. It is unlikely he would have wishes it to have an impact on the consideration of the action – after all, if it did then any serious act could be prevented simply by placing somebody there who would be injured by watching it. It is highly unlikely he would have even momentarily entertained this massive curtailment of individual liberty. There is not necessarily any need to over-think Mill’s principle by inventing wild circumstances and asking whether or not his decisions would still apply. Mill’s â€Å"one very simple principle† is, at the point of statement, very simple indeed; the only circumstances in which mankind may interfere in the liberty of another is in the interest of protecting harm to others. No action may be taken solely due to the apparent interests of the person whose liberty would be interfered with. This ban on paternalism assumes a high degree of freedom and responsibility, and more than that, in order to be applied simply it seems to assume a very high degree of knowledge, and to discount the possibility of mental illness at least that which cannot easily be tested. Feinberg attempts to account for this with his assertion that actions may be interfered with when a person is not acting voluntarily, or when it is not clear that they are acting voluntarily, and this is an appealing idea; when the hypothetical person is heading for the equally hypothetical damaged bridge, failure to ascertain whether or not they know that stepping on it w ill lead to death cannot be rectified after the fact. Interfering in their liberty whilst those checks are made may be odious, but it is merely temporary, and need not be seen as an infringement of Mill’s principle. Overall, the principle itself is indeed very simple; it is merely application in certain fringe circumstances which has any need to become anything to the contrary. References John Stuart Mill, On Liberty 4th Ed. Longman, Roberts Green, London, 1869 Richard J. Arneson, Mill versus Paternalism, in Ethics, Vol. 90, No. 4. (Jul., 1980), pp. 470-489. James Bogen; Daniel M. FarrelL, Freedom and Happiness in Mills Defence of Liberty in The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 113. (Oct., 1978), pp. 325-338. Clark W. Bouton, John Stuart Mill: On Liberty and History in The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 3. (Sep., 1965), pp. 569-578. D. G. Brown, Mill on Liberty and Morality in The Philosophical Review, Vol. 81, No. 2. (Apr., 1972), pp. 133-158. Robert W. Hoag, Happiness and Freedom: Recent Work on John Stuart Mill in Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 15, No. 2. (Spring, 1986), pp. 188-199. David Lyons, Human Rights and the General Welfare in Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 6, No. 2. (Winter, 1977), pp. 113-129. James P. Scanlan, J. S. Mill and the Definition of Freedom in Ethics, Vol. 68, No. 3. (Apr., 1958), pp. 194-206. J. Salwyn Schapiro, John Stuart Mill, Pioneer of Democratic Liberalism in England in Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 4, No. 2. (Apr., 1943), pp. 127-160. C. L. Ten, Mill and Liberty in Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 30, No. 1. (Jan. Mar., 1969), pp. 47-68.

Essay example --

Animals are so often forgotten when it comes to the many different levels of basic rights. No, they can’t talk, or get a job, nor can they contribute to society the way humans can. Yet they hold a special place in their owners’ hearts, they can without a doubt feel, show their different emotions, and they can most definitely love. In recent years there has been a massive increase in animal rights awareness, leading to a better understanding and knowledge in the subject of the humane treatment of animals. Where do humans draw the line between the concern of equality, and simple survival? It’s fair to assume there should be disparity between the way cats and cows are treated, or the way chickens and dogs are. Certain animals have their place in the animal kingdom, grazing animals like cows and chickens have historically been used as a food source since the concept of animal husbandry was introduced, on the other end of the spectrum cats and dogs have been domesticated and kept as common house pets. The suggestion that livestock have the same emotions and feelings as a typical housecat can be up to debate. Peter Singer states that the behavior of some apes, dolphins and dogs suggest they have emotions and desires. All of the evidence, or the lack thereof, leads to issues concerning the ethical treatment of all animals. Consumption is one of the biggest areas of disagreement in regards to animal rights. Throughout the world there are many different laws and regulations regarding the treatment of animals. Each country has their own set of standards, many of them religious and others more along the lines of common sense. While it is normal to regularly consume cattle meat (such as cow) in America, many Hindu Indians refrain from it... ... cancer, but don’t rub a new shampoo in their eyes, or feed them dishwashing liquid until they slowly and painfully die. Animals deserve fair and ethical treatment, however not necessarily equally. Non-human animals and humans are not one in the same, there is no way we will ever be defined and put in the same category. Humans have reference levels, the ability to reason and think logically. We have evolved to the point where we can study, contain, and determine the outcome of basically any animal on Earth, now it’s up to us to ensure they are treated fairly. All it takes is one’s voice to start a movement towards finding humane ways to butcher livestock to feed families, to help build a new law that makes shelters safer and cleaner for abandoned animals to live and have a second chance, and to help make popular those companies that don’t condone animal testing.