Gert’s Morality

I. “Broadway Danny Rose” and Gert’s Morality

The way morality is defined leads to the understanding of ethics. It can be viewed that morality is not a systematic law that everyone must obey but something that is flexible and relative. As Bernard Gert have made his point, morality is something that must be “rational” (Morality versus Slogans, 1989). In fact, he pointed out that “a good moral theory also shows how morality is related to our more general values and to impartiality and rationality.” But what is morality? He defines it as a “code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.” (The Definition of Morality, 2005) It is very interesting to know that in Gert’s view, one’s own interest is in accordance with his morality. “There is not necessarily a conflict between self-interest and morality” and his view that an act of evil, if justifiable enough, diminishes its evil character. To kill for self defense as to prevent someone from killing yourself is something justifiable according to Gert, and this idea of morality, is very agreeable.

            In the film Broadway Danny Rose when Danny had to take his talent’s (Lou) mistress as if she is her own girlfriend, Danny committed an act that endangered himself. This is not in accordance to the rules that Gert has presented. However, Danny made this for his own interest as well, which, is to let Tina go with Lou in the latter’s concert. But the question of morality comes in as to the acts of Danny. Was the act of Danny moral? In Gert’s theory it can be derived that Danny had acted not in accordance with good moral by pretending to be the boyfriend of Tina.. Moral values is attained by a person who avoids evil, both for himself and for his friends, or anyone for that matter unless one has a “reason for not avoiding it” (Morality versus Slogans 1989).

In the film Danny Rose, to identify his virtues and vices according to Gert’s theory, it is first important to go back to the basic rules. How a person can be morally virtuous? It is when, according to Gert, that person:

1. Does not Kill                                     2. Does not Cause Pain

3. Does not Disable                               4. Does not Deprive of Freedom

5. Does not Deprive of Pleasure.           6. Doesn't Deceive

7. Keeps His Promise                            8. Doesn't Cheat

9. Obeys the Law and
10. Does His Duty--where Duty includes those actions that he is required to do by his job, his position, his family, his circumstances.

Given the above criteria, Danny is half-way between a virtuous person and a person of vice: meaning, Danny is a normal human being, not very contented and not very happy, like the rest who has limitations and weaknesses fighting out the struggles of life. Danny’s strong virtues can be accounted for his helpful nature and friendliness to his talent persons, especially to Lou who became famous under his management.

Compared to Danny, Lou is much more a person of vice than of virtue committing “irrational” acts as Gert may call it. By having a mistress is one fatal attack to Lou’s morality as he does cheat and deceive, he did not keep the promise in his marriage vows as well as disobeying the law of marriage causing pain to his wife. Lou also failed to perform his duty as a husband.

In the case of Tina, she can be viewed with almost similar character to that of Lou than that of Danny’s. She has more weaknesses in her moral values making her not a very virtuous person. Tina has caused pain and danger to Danny and she also acted irrationally by becoming a mistress of a married person.. Moreover, she deceived both Lou’s wife and the public by being Lou’s mistress and by pretending to be the lover of Danny, respectively.

However, the moral virtues of the three main characters in the film eventually made a better path when Lou and Tina stopped their illicit relationship and Danny became Tina’s lover instead.

II.  Let and Let Live

            “Live and let live.” This sentence is almost synonymous to the golden rule almost everyone is familiar with. However, we have to acknowledge that Gert himself is questioning the real meaning of this golden rule. Thus, his statement about living and letting others live should be examined independently.  Indeed this statement of Gert is excellent and I do not only agree to it but I have to say that I strongly agree with what has presented. As opposed to the rule of “Love thy neighbor as thyself” which is very ideal and could not be achieved by normal human beings, “live and let live” offers humanity a chance to be of morally virtuous character. Morality should not be something very ideal or very utopian yet unachievable, instead, it should be something that humans can attain. As explained, morality should be a positive guide of life embodying the “lessening of evil”, not its elimination or the perfection of human values: as long as humans can live with each other in harmony, morality does not require more of it. However, a morally virtuous person tries to lessen every evil in his deed, thereby retaining the good or better side of his character. In this situation, it is where a “better” morality is achieved, more than just passively living and letting others live.

When the good moral agents act upon the virtuous character of a moral being, it makes him, as encouraged by those moral agents, act positively towards the achievement of more “lesser evil” as he helps out others around him. Thus, quoting Gert, “morality consist of more than requirements; it also encourages people to help others, to prevent and relieve the harms they are suffering.”

Morality, I agree with Gert, is not something that requires strict compliance to the ideals but to the achievement of the basic rules that govern co-existence among humans and not a set of severe ideal rules that require obedience. The applicability of morality is on everyone, thus, it should be inherent for morality to be achievable and can be followed by anyone. Morality is not a one-time guide for an action, instead, it is a guide for life letting each human live with each other. Living with each other is not possible without their permission and efforts towards harmonious co-existence. Thus, one should not kill others because he does not want to be killed by others. But this is not as simple as this rule. Gert emphasized that this kind of rule must have reason behind it. The reason itself is morality. As previously presented in {I} the ten moral acts of a morally virtuous person do not allow him to kill, nor the rules allow him to hurt others. These guiding rules apply to everyone.

The ideas that Gert presented in his book, and in fact in all of his philosophical arguments on morality, it can be viewed that he has parallel ideas to that of John Stuart Mill. In Mill’s idea of morality and the moral worth of an action he has emphasized the importance of overall utility in having the greatest happiness and pleasure for the greater number of individuals. This argument runs parallel to that of Gert who pointed out that having pleasure is not wrong and one’s self interest is not necessarily in contradiction with his morality. One’s self interest is his pleasure. Moreover, in Gert’s idea of  “goods, evil and rationality” (Morality versus Slogans, 1989) he noted that it is evil to act and result to a “loss of pleasure” while under his arguments on moral rules, he stated that a person, to be act in accordance with these rules must  not “cause pain” and must not “deprive pleasure”.

It is to be understood however in the idea to “live and let live” that one’s pleasure must not cause pain to others. Therefore, what is important in the lives of human beings is that everyone can live happily in harmonic peace with each one, for all maintains their own pleasure without depriving the same from others. “Live and let live”!

References

Broadway Danny Rose (1984). On-line. Available from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087003/plotsummary . Internet. Accessed 12 May 2008.

Gert, B. 1989. Morality versus Slogans Paper Presented to the Center for the Study of Ethics in Society, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan. Article on-line. Available from http://aristotle.tamu.edu/~rasmith/Courses/251/gert-paper.html . Internet. Accessed 11 May 2008.

Gert, B., ed. 2005. The Definition of Morality, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2005 Edition), Edward N. Zalta. 

Do I have the right to end my own life?

The day will come when people will also be able to carry a card, notarized and legally executed, which explains that they do not want to be kept alive beyond the humanum point, and authorizing the ending of their biological processes by any of the methods of euthanasia which seems appropriate.... Suicide may or may not be the ultimate problem of philosophy, as Albert Camus thought it is, but in any case it is the ultimate problem of medical ethics. (Baird and Rosenbaum 95)

Looking back, the above-quoted article was only a prophecy in 1979 but around five years later, the prediction became a reality in Oregon. As of 2004, euthanasia was legal in Oregon. “Currently in the United States the only state where physician-assisted dying, in the form of assisted-suicide, is legal is in Oregon” (Zanskas, and Coduti, cited Quill 2004) and three more states followed after. Despite the fact the euthanasia is legal in a few United States (US) states and in some European countries, it is not a settled issue. “Euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands” (Welie), and Belgium while suicide is legal in Switzerland. ("Miracle Survival of the" 9) In fact, “In 2003, 1,626 cases of euthanasia were reported in Holland. Usually, a sedative is given to induce a coma, followed by a muscle relaxant to stop the breathing." (“Miracle…”)

Debates and many deliberations, programs and critics in favor of and against euthanasia and/or assisted suicide, are ongoing public spectacle. What does each side say? Who sounds more reasonable? Which side sounds more practical? Euthanasia, if applied rightfully and for the right reasons and timing can be advantageous but once abused or a mistake is committed, it becomes futile outright. Thus, it may be perceived from a lot of angles and perspectives and has various implications vis-à-vis each scenario. There would be thousands of points to present what the proponents of euthanasia want to emphasize to support their cause and the same is true for the opposing side, those who are against the practice. Even the perspective in looking at these points are so many, such as ethical, psychological, medical, legal, religious, medical ethics and the likes. This paper is dwelling on a single strong reason for each side.

"I have terminal cancer. To have a terminal disease drag on, to endure the pain is absolute hell. At the end, I want the choice to accept treatment, to refuse treatment, to die on my own terms in a dignified manner." (Hillyard, and Dombrink 1)

Above, in the preceding paragraph, was the pro-reform television advertisement from the 1991 Washington Initiative 119 campaign. The statement obviously denotes “freedom” of the person involved. “Those who plead for the legalization of euthanasia think that it is cruel to allow a human being to linger for months in the last stage of aging, weakness and decay, and to refuse him his demand for merciful release.” (Hillyard, and Dombrink 20 cited Williams 1969:134) Indeed, if one has to live and yet only live to suffer, make his or her loved ones suffer, what is the point of living at all?

On the other hand, euthanasia is very susciptible to abuse. Some patients may opt for euthanasia or assisted suicide only to save their family from financial distress. "In Oregon, 83% of doctors stated that financial pressures were a factor in a patient's request to die. (Zanskas, and Coduti cited Bilchik, 1996) Some fear that a right to die may soon become a duty to die, in order to eliminate families from financial ruin. Thus, opting to terminate one’s own life in this manner is nothing else but a plain suicide. From a religious perspective, "Pope John Paul II sought to emphasize that life is sacred and to counteract these vicious trends in the encyclical The Gospel of Life, and carried this message throughout the world on his many journeys. " (Hamel and Walter 243)

Which side has a stronger reason? In fact both sides have their own good reason but since no one can make everything perfect, it is more likely that euthanasia will be abused. In this regard, it is safe not to practice it. However, given that there is a strict set of rules in controlling the process, euthanasia would be a great help for suffering patients.

Works Cited

Baird, Robert M., and Stuart E. Rosenbaum, eds. The Moral Issues The Moral Issues. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1989.

Hamel, Ronald P., and James J. Walter, eds. Artificial Nutrition and Hydration and the Permanently Unconscious Patient: The Catholic Debate. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2007.

Hillyard, Daniel, and John Dombrink. Dying Right: The Death with Dignity Movement. London: Routledge, 2001.

"Miracle Survival of the Woman Doctors Were Going to Let Die; SENIOR CONSULTANT ADVISED 84-YEAR-OLD'S DRIP SHOULD BE REMOVED." The Evening Standard (London, England) 14 Oct. 2005: 9.

Welie, Jos V.M. "Why Physicians? Reflections on the Netherlands' New Euthanasia Law." The Hastings Center Report 32.1 (2002): 42+.

Zanskas, Steve, and Wendy Coduti. "Eugenics, Euthanasia, and Physician Assisted Suicide: An Overview for Rehabilitation Professionals." The Journal of Rehabilitation 72.1 (2006): 27+.

Humans must not treat each other merely as a means to satisfy an end. Human beings are objects of dignity and not a mere machine, thus deserving respect to and from each other and respect to the law as well. Respect, although a human feeling, is a self-wrought rational concept and, thus, free of influences. This is the true essence of ethics that is supposed to exist among human beings. However, as Kant implied in his Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals this is not always the case, that humans behave to each other in pursuance of freedom, human rights, violence, peace and anything attributing to his own well-being as well as to the well-being of others and the community in general. Kant has acknowledged in his arguments that aside from respect and duty, human acts accordingly based on his inclinations and, or worse, out of fear. However, it was emphasized that with obedience to law the actions would be in conformity to that law and would become a binding principle among humans.

Respect is properly the conception of a worth which thwarts my self-love. Accordingly it is something which is considered neither as an object of inclination nor of fear, although it has something analogous to both. The object of respect is the law only, and that the law which we impose on ourselves and yet recognise as necessary in itself. (Kant)

Humans need guidance to be enlightened and eventually be free and at the same time, need a universal law to exist among them for their own sake. This law would be the imposing object of humans to themselves as a result of their will. This include the common day-to-day congenial acts of humanity such as honesty, faithfulness, respect for each other, trustworthiness, non-imprisonment of innocent individuals and be like the example that was in Kant’s Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, keeping ones promises.

Why is it a wrong deed for A if she took the hand of B forcing the latter to shoot C? This case would be an act of deception and coercion and obviously a crime, in which case, against the universal law. A have “bypassed”(Hare 13) the agency of B as A used B as the shooting medium. It is also a deception when A impede the rational choice and free will of B to make the decision and the action. This is a violation of the universal law and it is a treatment of humans, in this case B, as without dignity but only used as a means to achieve an end, the shooting of C.

As the source of guidance to the acts, duties and obligations of humans, morality is very important. In fact, as Kant have argued, “it is only a pure philosophy that we can look for the moral law in its purity and genuineness.” This means that even morality itself may have something of its own immoralities within: a hidden motive. To someone of a morally good, or a virtuous, character that someone should perform an act without looking at the effect of that certain action or, without deriving the motive of that act from its possible effect. A virtuous character “wants” or “wills” (or what Kant calls the “principle of volition”) the performance of an act for the act itself and not from the expected results or a return that can be gained from doing such acts. As Kant have put it: “an action done from duty derives its moral worth, not from the purpose which is to be attained by it, but from the maxim by which it is determined”

Moreover, the virtuous person thus acts in accordance to the “autonomy”, that would be an act of the holy will, which can be viewed as “absolutely good” according to Kant. The autonomy causes the Will of the action a “law to itself”. This is because the Autonomy of the Will is the supreme principle of morality which makes a rational being of freedom efficient and independent upon his choices and actions, as opposed to an irrational being who is fragile to influences of the external environment. However, if the will is only based on necessity of morality, this would become an obligation, and the action resulting from it is called duty. This makes autonomy as one of the important limitations of morality: “part of the dignity of life is choosing one's own path through it. Given those limits, there can be principles so demanding that compliance simply will not be forthcoming.” (Griffin 127)

Human actions have imperatives and are governed by the Ought. Acknowledging its obligations is a way for humans to be within the world with sense and understanding. However, this conception of obligation is not easily accepted or might be challenged by humans due to immaturity, ignorance or fanaticism. Humans are supposed to be rational beings that belong to an intelligible world, conscious and responsible for its actions. It is, however, very evident that humans act in the contrary and as Kant has argued, “can never conceive the causality of his own will otherwise than on condition of the idea of freedom.” This might be attributed to immaturity which not an outside force to him but something that he has self-incurred. This is the lack of courage and resolution from the side of humans to use his “own understanding without the guidance of others.” (Kant) Immaturity would hinder the purpose of morality laws that have an ultimate principle conceived to guide humans in every possible circumstances in life. Without recognizing their respective obligations, humans would be living in darkness, without a well defined function in life. This would hinder the attainment of human freedom, his free will. In Kant’s An Answer to the Question: "What is Enlightenment?" he has emphasized the value of freedom that can only be attained by an enlightened humanity. Without recognition of the obligations, there would be no duty. Without duty means without worth of morality for human actions.


Works Cited
Griffin, James. Well-Being: Its Meaning, Measurement, and Moral Importance. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986. Questia. 5 May 2008 .

Hare, John E. The Moral Gap : Kantian Ethics, Human Limits, and God's Assistance /. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Questia. 5 May 2008 .

The Secret Life of Water by Emoto, an Essay

I. Introduction
Spirituality, defined by Kelly (1995) is "a personal affirmation of a transcendent connectedness in the universe"(p.4). On the other hand, spirituality “addresses issues such as life purpose and meaning, from which may emerge a code of behavior” (Meyer & Lausell, 1996). In the book of Masaru Emoto, The Secret Life of Water, spirituality has been clearly illustrated. It is the affirmation of connectedness between humans and water and also the bond between earth and water in general. As the element of nature, and as the title suggests, the main focus of the book is about the power and mysterious capabilities of water. The presentation of facts in the book might be not so clear and can be a little subjective but the contentions of the author are, if based with everyday life and with common sense, the ideas of Emoto are very agreeable.

The claims in the book of Emoto are not strictly based on science but those claims have pragmatics and if believed, no harm can be done. This is what faith is all about, and in Emoto’s findings, it can be categorized as a product of spirituality in nature, in this case nature’s element which is water. Only faith can hold strong the claims of the book because faith does not question reason and evidence.

II. Water and Prayer, their spirits, powers and strengths
Water, according to the author, combined with prayer can cure. The cure as a reader may understood it, can be more than its literal meaning. Water flows like the life energy termed “hado” and without a continuous flow life would be nothing – without a meaning, without purpose. Hado’s flow, as stated in the book can be blocked with humans’ material desire, ego and ideologies, pride and other negative actions and characteristics.

Prayer is powerful, according to the book, and it can greatly affect water and the status of the world in a broader sense. In the book’s theme, spirituality is strongly encouraged. It also aims to have the reader find peace within himself as well as it promotes peace all over the world. In this regard, this is where the practicality of the book’s claims get in: the world would indeed be better off if the majority, if not all, are spiritual and not as highly materialistic as the world that we live in today. As stated in the book,


When it comes to the power of prayer, it does not necessarily mean that all prayers are answered, nor all the wants of human beings asked/requested in prayers will be provided. Instead, prayer is a powerful activity that can allow a soul to search within himself/herself in the presence of silence, relaxed mind and concentration when asking for guidance. According to the Reverend Margaret B. Gunnes of Explore Faith Organization, the “power of prayer is the constant renewal of perspective.”

However, this power of spirituality and prayer is not very discrete nor it is strong as it is observable in the present times. If many souls would however realize the overall effect of spirituality, if collectively utilized, the world would be a better place to live in.

Presently, spirituality and prayers are not very powerful to take and solve all the problems and cure all the illness of the weak world and. Why? Because humanity is broken and always at opposing ends, always wanting for more and more material things rather than having their spiritual needs get fulfilled. Is the book of Emoto enough to carry peace within the reader? If not, how can it carry peace all around the world? Or, if indeed the power of the spirit that strong through water and can convert the book’s reader into a peaceful being? How about the rest of the world? Is spirituality enough for the entire planet? Would the power of water sustain this world’s peace and existence?

The book alone is surely not enough to convert the world into a spiritual space. Nor spirituality alone can pacify the world. These factors however did not hinder this paper to believe in the purpose of the book and what it claims, thus this paper agrees with the author. Emoto’s effort can serve as a starting point for the humanity to look upon the spiritual side of life with water as one way to attain it. Even in the oldest philosophies of Taoism, the power (spirituality) of water was emphasized. Many have already agreed to the power of water, be it spiritual or not. Even in the Tao-te Ching by Laotze (604?-531? BCE), presented in the eighth Chapter is the text on water’s power and value. The following is the beautiful and inspiring text of the book that parallels to the claims of Emoto:



Water, can serve as a mirror that has an ability to reflect- to reflect the human heart. Also, with the use of water the power of prayer was reflected upon it visually revealing its wonderful effect in changing the world.

In fact, one of the author’s researches have shown how positive words reflect in the water. Encouraging words such as wisdom, care, and love resulted to beautiful crystal formation when the water into which they were spoken was frozen. On the other hand when pessimistic and discouraging words are spoken such as “you fool" or "you're an idiot" (Massey, 2006, p. 4), resulted to a badly organized ice crystals. Moreover, the ice crystals formed from the water where the word “wisdom” was spoken in various languages such as Japanese, English and German look very similar to each other – a very interesting result and it is backed by experimentation and research! In this regard, water must really have spiritual power that cannot be easily identified by a naked eye nor by a wandering human soul.

Further, it was postulated that as humans grow, their materialistic desire grow and bad habits start to attach to them such as vices and pride. This explains the diminishing amount of water contained in an adults body, which is around 70%, roughly 25% lesser to that amount contained in a an innocent child’s body which can reach up to 95% water. The words that adults use was also accounted for this change and difference in bodies’ water composition..
Strange as the mentioned findings may be, water inhibit these characteristics that to those who are aware of this fact can only wonder and think in awe. The above findings, though conducted in some scientific/experimental basis, the author tends to convey to the readers the spiritual side of the results.

III. Conclusion
Prayer. This is the way according to the book. Water. This reflects human prayer. These two however are not enough as the obvious is visible and thoroughly observable in this world. But is the contention of the book agreeable? YES! Water and prayer are both powerful elements that if every individual may have faith, can cure this ailing materialist world.
But the reality? Each individual is inherently rational that has his own ways to deal with life. Moreover, the insatiable nature of man makes him unbelieving to some spiritual means and his rationality prevents him from having faith, either in the supreme being or the power of some spiritual elements such as water.

However, humanity must acknowledge the strength of knowledge and the understanding it gives to an individual. Although humans can be bad at times, but if absolute reason is in the mind of each one of them, this earth would be a better place to live in. In fact, according to Kant, with “good will” performed in each Man’s obligation, he would attain freedom. This freedom is with the presence of knowledge and good will. Spirituality, coupled with the right knowledge, is a very sharp tool that will enable humanity to be at peace and attain peace in a broader sense. The power of prayers, knowledge and spirituality can make a person very understanding of another and if the varying cultures and religions have wide acceptance and sympathy or understanding towards each other, they would not be fighting against each other: whites against blacks; Christians versus Muslims; tribe one versus tribe two nor Americans versus Iraqis!

Are “great men” really that important? Before this question can be answered, noticed that the adjective “great men” needs to be defined first. Often, this phrase (great men) is viewed by the majority as men of achievements, power, money, fame or a combination of the mentioned factors. This means that Napoleon the Great and Einstein are both great men as they “were” both great powerful and full of achievements during their existence. It also makes Bill Gates and Joanne Kathleen Rowling great man and woman for their power, achievements, wealth and fame, among others.
Great Men

It might be true that the above mentioned personalities were at the right place at the right time but the majority of their efforts still came from their side and contribution. As one great man of war and history and as a fabulous author, this paper focuses on Bonaparte and Rowling as persons who did not simply put themselves in the right place at the right time to get what they are worth for. Bonaparte was even considered as "the most splendid genius that has appeared on earth." (Andrews, 1939, p. 3: Acton, 1887, p.603) It should be noted that Napoleon the Great did not sit to achieve his title. From his childhood, he seemed to have been an ambitious boy already, as he said it himself.

"I was self-willed and obstinate, nothing awed me, nothing disconcerted me. I was quarrelsome, exasperating; I feared no one. I gave a blow here and a scratch there. Every one was afraid of me. My brother Joseph was the one with whom I had the most to do; he was beaten, bitten, scolded; I complained that he did not get over it soon enough." (Fournier, 1903, p. 5: Napoleon Bonaparte)

Thus, with a little bit of ambition, perseverance and hard-work, Napoleon could not have been as Great as he was and he is (still).

On the other hand, Harry Potter’s author is another person to be looked up at. Her being a woman did not stop her from succeeding or attaining the status of being one of "the most successful novelist in the world" (Stephen, 1999, p. 24). Rowling made a hard work to succeed and did not wait fame to strike her. She had her own failures and frustrations as a regular person, too far from being great, yet, she never stopped to be inspired to continue her Harry Potter novels.

Americans love rags-to-riches myths, of course. Rowling is not even Scottish, but a middle-class Chipping Sodbury girl who read French at Exeter University before working for Amnesty International; after her marriage to a Portuguese journalist ended she stayed with her sister in Edinburgh, went on social security and started writing the first Potter book. To the average middle-class American, hearing how somebody goes from "welfare" to overnight millions is vindication of the notion that hard work is all that is required for success… (Stephen, 1999, p. 24)

Clearly, and again, it is not only being at the right place at the right time to succeed and be “great”. A big deal of effort and perseverance as well as discipline and unmarred motivation must be present. Thus, great men are important, not because of the fact that they are great but because of the inspiration they give to common individuals on how they have achieved their greatness.


References
Andrews, G. G. (1939). Napoleon in Review. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Fournier, A. (1903). Napoleon the First: A Biography (E. G. Bourne, Ed.) (Corwin, M. B. & Bissell, A. D., Trans.). New York: Henry Holt.

Stephen, A. (1999, November 1). Dame Enid Wows the Yanks. New Statesman, 128, 24.

Instructions:
Today we mark much of our technological advances by the inventors. Think of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. Would computing be different without them or, as Jared Diamond supposes, were they just in the right place at the right time? Are “great men” really not that important? Why or why not. Choose 1 or 2 great men (or women) to use as examples to explain your answer.

The Crusades were known as a series of expeditions in the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries undertaken by the Christian countries to take the Holy Land, which is Jerusalem, from the Muslims. Many years ago, Jerusalem was under the control of Muslims. Christians could hardly enter the Holy Land for their pilgrimage to pray and sing their praises. For Christians, Jerusalem is a very important place for it is where Jesus was born and crucified. The Holy Land is where the forgiveness, wealth and peace are. For Muslims, Jerusalem is important because of their belief that Mohammad, their god, is there. These are the very reasons for the crusades that took place for a long period.

The crusade was a conflict between the Christians and Muslims where interactions of war are minimal. The movie portrayed the presence of both Christians and Muslims ruled by King Baldwin IV and Saladin respectively. Throughout the entire movie, there were only three wars that broke up and two of it was perfected. The first war sparked through the influence of Reynan and Guy de Lusignan, husband of King Baldwin IV’s sister, Sibylla when they attacked a Muslim caravan. However, both parties pulled back after King Baldwin IV and Saladin’s conversation:

Saladin: I pray you pull back your cavalry and leave this matter to me.

King Baldwin IV: I pray you retire unharmed to Damascus. Reynald of Chatillon will be punished. I swear it. Withdraw or we will all die here. We have terms.

Saladin: We have terms. (Kingdom of Heaven)
Warning and Friendly Reminder: Plagiarism is a crime. This essay is here to give you an idea or guide you, not to be copied by you. You can look at the references and Works cited provided by this free academic essay and from that you can create your own. Be a smart student,be honest: look for free academic essays anywhere in the web or the Internet but don’t forget to make your own. There are so many free essays online as guides but please do your own. You can also utilize free plagiarism checkers available online.
The second war was again influenced by wickedness and war thirst of Reynald and Guy de Lusignan when the latter succeeded the throne but the war ended in their indiscriminate loss due to lack of water and armies. The third was an attack to the Jerusalem by the Muslim as an aftermath of the second war. Though the Christians lost the war, the lives of many women children and helpless were spared through the righteousness and courage of Balian.

The crusades were influenced by the belief of the Christians that their sins would be forgiven and they would find wealth in Jerusalem. This has been portrayed in the movie with several conversations:

Godfrey of Ibelin: (speaking to Balian): Some say, Jerusalem is the very center of the world for asking forgiveness but myself I call it here. Now. I have one hundred men at arms. If you will come with me you will have a living… (Kingdom of Heaven)

It is depicted also by the priest by saying “If you take the take the crusade, you may relieve your wife’s possession in hell. She was a suicide. She is in hell”. This was believed by Balian when he followed his father:

Balian: I have done murder… Is it true that in Jerusalem I can erase my sins and loss of my wife? Is it true?

Godfrey: We can find out together. (Kingdom of Heaven)

The movie has depicted the histories of disintegration of the crusades. When Guy de Lusigna succeeded the throne of the king, he wanted to get rid of the Muslims, as what happened also in the history of the crusades. Upon sitting, Guy de Lusigna formed his armies to wage war against the Muslims but Tiberia and Balian resisted because they were certain of loss for lack of water, arms and the powerful armies of the enemy. The greediness and politics that have happened in the history of the crusades were depicted by the movie in the person of Guy de Lusigna and Reynald. This has also caused the disintegration because of Guy de Lusigna’s arrogance and rudeness to Godfrey and Balian, as showed when they were eating together:

Guy de Lusigna: You sit at my table.

Balian: Is it not the king’s table?

Guy de Lusigna: … I cannot eat. I’m fin nicking about the company in front of this could not inherit… (Kingdom of Heaven)

Guy de Lusigna’s war thirst, as transcended in the crusaders’ history, was portrayed by Guy de Lusigna:

Guy de Lusigna: Give me a war.

Reynald: Yes my lord. That’s what I do. (Kingdom of Heaven)

Notably, the personalities in the crusades were also portrayed in the movie in the person of King Baldwin IV and Saladin. These personalities were credited for their greatness and braveness in the crusades. King Baldwin IV and Balian portrayed the very purpose of the crusades which is to protect the Christians even it means their life:

King Baldwin IV: We must meet him before he reaches Kerak. I will lead the army.

Tiberias: My lord, if you travel, you’ll die.

King Baldwin IV: Send word to Balian to protect the villagers.

King Baldwin IV: Assemble the army! (Kingdom of Heaven)

Further, these two personalities, during their reign has established and maintain between them peace. Both Christians and Muslims were free to pray in Jerusalem as showed where Muslims were praying in the Messina, port of the Holy Land and in the place ruled by Balian. It was also portrayed when Balian spared the life of Nasir.

With all the statements above, it can therefore be said that the movie Fingdom of Heaven has portrayed the conflict of the Christians and Muslims that created crusades in the olden history of Middle East.

Humans tend to judge people according to his or her appearance. Humans tend to judge people by the way they look and how they smell. Humans tend to generalize a class according to their own encounters. Such attitudes of humans lead to misjudgment and discrimination, which in turn makes everything unfair. Wash Williams of Winesburg, Ohio suffers from such kind of misjudgment from people around him. The women of Winesburg too suffer misjudgment from Wash Williams.

Wash Williams is a telegraph operator in Winesburg, Ohio. Wash Williams was comely man (Anderson). When he was young, he has been recognized as the best telegraph operator and has been promoted and his salary was increased. Until now, Wash Williams is still enjoying the ability he possesses.

However, those were just a part of his past. Today, Wash Williams looks different, “His girth was immense, his neck thin, his legs feeble. He was dirty” (Anderson). People mock at him and ridicule him for his scent and physical appearance. Such major change in his life has been caused by a misery he suffered from a woman he truly loved. This fact was not known among the citizens of Winesburg, except for the reporter, George Willard.

Wash Williams has been misjudged because of his smell and dirtiness. This fact has been proved in the person of Mrs. White, a banker’s wife. Mrs. White complained to the telegraph company for the dirtiness and abominable smell of Wash Williams’ office. This complaint is an insult to Williams that could have angered him but despite such, he just tore the complaint and laughed at it. The complaint in itself is an insult to Wash Williams because it is directed to his personality, which is independent from his job. Instead of termination, Wash Williams retained his job which proves that his appearance and abominable smell has no negative effect in the performance of his job.

Citizens of Winesburg have misjudged Wash Williams by comparing him to beast. Wash Williams may be dirty, unhealthy- looking, odorous and unpleasant but he does not act like a beast. Williams does not kill nor hurt people. William was not a threat to anyone for he was working peacefully in his stinky office. In fact, he disassociates himself to other people when he said, “I’ll have nothing to do with them” (Anderson). Wash William was not a beast for he is not scary, in fact people use to laugh at him.

Despite of all of these unfair judgment and treatment by the people of Winesburg, Wash Williams strongly withstand them all, as if he was unaffected. He continued to serve by being a telegraph operator and those oppressions never made him weak.

Nevertheless, Wash Williams has a flaw. Wash Williams hated women, called them “Bitches” and treated them as they are all the same as when he said:

“… I tell you there is something rotten about them. I was married, sure. My wife was dead before she married me, she was a foul thing come out a woman more foul. She was a thing sent to make life unbearable to me. I was a fool, do you see, as you are now, and so I married this woman. I would like to see men a little begin to understand women. They are sent to prevent man making the world worth while. It is a trick in Nature. Ugh! They are creeping, crawling, squirming things, they with their soft hands and their blue eyes. The sight of a woman sickens me. Why I don’t kill every woman I see I don’t know.”

Wash Williams encounter with one woman was enough for him to hate all women not minding the differences of women in terms of their characters. Wash Williams misjudged the women by generalizing all the women as the same as his wife.

However, Wash Williams was not to be concluded as such. After two years of marriage, Wash Williams started to develop an intense feeling of hatred to all women which could be a natural feeling and is an incomparable to the pain he suffered from a woman he truly loved.

Wash Williams married a daughter of a dentist. Wash Williams was comely while his wife was beautiful. Happiness filled their marriage more when Wash Williams was promoted. Wash Williams love to his wife was undoubtedly genuine and sincere because he bought a house for them to completely settle down. Wash Williams’ love to his wife was unfading as when he confessed to the reporter, “I loved her, I don’t claim to be a fool… I love her yet” (Anderson).

Wash Williams genuine love shattered into pieces when his wife betrayed him, “When after two years of that life I found she had managed to acquire three other lovers who came regularly to our house when I was away at work” (Anderson). What Wash Williams wife did was an act undeserving of forgiveness and should be punished. The number of men she was with while married to Williams could have aggravated his anger. Any man who would be in his position could have killed his wife. But Wash Williams is different.

Wash Williams’ gentleness was unconditional because he did not hurt his wife. Instead he returned his unfaithful wife to her mother and gave his earning to his wife. Even the payment of their house sold was generously given by Wash Williams to his wife without asking any reasons. Williams’ act was a kind of extraordinary kindness and gentleness.

Wash Williams was betrayed by the woman he genuinely loved and such depression could have lead to ending his own life but he never did because he was strong enough to overcome his misfortunes. Sadly, the effect of his experience has ruined his comely appearance into a disgusting being and has developed in him hatred to all women which hinders his feeling to fall for another woman. A chance of a second love was lost.

With all that Wash Williams had gone through, it can be drawn from there that Wash Williams is a man of courage, gentleness, patience and endurance. Courage for he firmly stood up despite the loss of his disloyal wife. He managed to continue his life even without anyone beside him. He conquered his despair. Gentleness for Williams never had her hands set on the body of his wife after discovering her unfaithfulness. He may have hated women but he never hurt them, except when once he struck the girl’s mother. Patience and endurance because he never had let his life and job be affected by the ridicules and spite that other people throw at him. Wash Williams is indeed, in any aspect, respectable.

The Afternoon Plan- It was a spur of the moment. “Why don’t we see it?” Rogue asked her partner. The two were having lunch and they were discussing how to spend their afternoon in a busy city. They were there for leisure and they have all the free time they need. “Why not?” Italo replied. “After all we have almost explored every corner of the downtown and it would be great to go somewhere unique,” he added. After lunch, the two hurried back to their budget hotel to prepare for their afternoon adventure. Rogue was excited about their plan. She was with Italo when two of their newly met acquaintances from this foreign country, Anne and Celine, told them about the place. “It would be a good retreat for the two of you. You would enjoy the monkeys,” Anne told. “Yes! I was tried to chase the monkeys. It was a real fun!,” Celine excitedly exclaimed. These remarks got the couple curious to see the place. They are tourists and they deserve to see what they like. They have crossed oceans to be wanderers and explorers in this place. Rogue loves to see new places and she loves adventures. On the other side, Italo hates restrictions when he goes around. He never dreamed of a package tour in all his life.t.

It was a peak season for western tourists and information booths were all over the country. Rogue and Italo were ready to start their afternoon adventure. “How can we reach the Batu Caves”?, Rogue inquired from the information booth agent. The kind Asian agent replied as he pointed to the direction of the bus stop. “You simply take a bus with Batu Cave on its sign board.” And so Rogue led the way. With their days of stay in the city Rogue can almost memorize every street and establishment around. It was a hot, humid and sunny afternoon in the "dusty administrative centre" (Sheridan, 2003, p. 16) of Malaysia and the couple was more than prepared for this weather conditions with their pairs of thongs, cotton shirts and walking shorts.

The Bus Ride
Although the bus has a “Batu Cave” sign board, Rogue wanted to be sure. “Is this the bus to Batu Caves?” she anxiously asked. The bus conductor smiled to both of them and gave an assuring look. Rogue was feeling both excited and anxious. “What will I see in this cave? All I know about are the monkeys that Anne and Celine told us,” she thought to herself. At the start, the bus had difficulty squeezing itself out the heavily jammed central district. At least "traffic pattern reflects closely the pattern of economic activities" (Ooi, 1963, p. 368). This is the only consolation for Rogue as she remembered the book she was able to browse months before. “Hey! It’s not your country! What do you care about!” She scorned herself in her thoughts. She was excited to reach their destination.

After “ thirteen kilometers north of Kuala Lumpur” (“Batu Caves,” n/d) and after an hour of jammed traffic in a busy city, the bus passed by the entrance of Batu Caves. It was not until 100 meters away before the two realized that they should have got down the bus. The next bus stop was another 100 meters away! The couple got down and walked back to the caves’ gate. “Are we there yet?” Italo asked Rogue. “Hmmmm… From the looks of it, I think, YES!” The first thing that caught the attention of the couple was the giant golden statue. They did not have any idea that the cave is also an Indian temple with 140 feet colossal golden statue. At the foot of the cave and right after the entrance, there is a wide square serving as parking space, food stalls space, souvenir store space and snack bars space, among others. Italo and Rogue were busy taking photos and looking around the place that did not notice the two Indian lads who were talking to them. The two were ushered inside a little air-conditioned room that serves as a little theater. There was a projector inside and before the two entered, they were required to pay ten Malaysian Ringgits (RM 10) each and to take off their respective thongs. They were the only audience inside that room and both were obviously anxious, especially after the lights of the room were turned off. “What are we supposed to do here?” Rogue asked Italo. “I don’t have any idea,” was the reply. It was not until the presentation of the Batu Caves Temple highlighting the attractions within, the Indian culture, and Hinduism, the two realized what they were supposed to do inside that room. Only by then the two became aware of the Thaipusam held every February, which is “the yearly celebration by members of the Hindu faith of the birth of Lord Subramaniam." (Shemanski, 1985, p. 132) Moreover, the giant golden statue was also introduced in that short video presentation. It is the statue of Lord Murugan, a Hindu diety and god of youth and justice to whom "thousands of devotees pray, fast, and form a long procession to honor." (Fong, 2002, p. 88)

The Thrill in the Temple
The couple thanked the two lads after they have finished learning what the place is all about. They were ready to go up the entrance of the cave to enter and explore. “I think we will need some drinks”, Italo suggested. The two entered the nearby snack bar and have a bottled water and a bottle of sprite. As for Rogue, she took a little bar of Toblerone to take with them at the top of the cave. “Sugar replenish lost energy fast” (“Sugar Gives You,”n/d) she was grinning as she naughtily whispered these little knowledge to Italo. The two shared drinking the bottled water and reserved the other bottle of Sprite in case they get thirsty up in the cave. Rogue took one bite of Toblerone and so did Italo.

Before one can enter in any of the major and minor caves at the Batu Temple, one must go up to the entrance using the 172 steps leading up the caves’ entrance. Rogue was thrilled with this idea as she has seen in the video presentation earlier that Hindu worshippers and devotees carry heavy weights in going up the steps. In fact, thousands of Hindus climb the 172 steps of the Batu Caves during the February Thaipusam, as they “balance milk pails on their heads and many with spears (or other sharp objects) pierced through their bodies, to pray at the Murugan temple atop” (Malaysia: Hindu Festival Declared, 2008) “Let’s start the adventure. It would be a great knee exercise!” Exclaimed the excited Rogue. “It’s a bit high and it would be a work. Sigh…”, Italo lamented.

There are at least a hundred other people around the place. They were either fellow tourists or Indian nationals maintaining the temple or vending goods and souvenir materials within the compound of the temple. The two continued their way up. Italo was always scores of steps behind Rogue. “Come on up! It’s really thrilling me.. Puff… Puff…” Rogue was catching her breath as she urged Italo to go faster. “Just go ahead and we see each other at the cave. Puff!... But better if you wait me and we take a little rest. Please give me the drink,” was the reply. Rogue paused from going up the steps and she took few sips from the bottle of Sprite. She waited Italo and as soon as he was at an arm’s length distance, she offered the bottle of Sprite that she have already opened. “Thanks. At least my throat is cleared now,” Italo told her after he took a gulp of the soda. She only smiled. They stayed at the middle of the steps for few more moments letting their fellow climbers overtake them. At the same time, the two took photos of the cityscape laid out down before them. The giant statue of Lord Murugan is now seen from behind and it did not look as imposing as seen from below.

“Let’s race to the top!” challenged the ever excited Rogue. “No. It’s a shame to not win over you,” replied Italo. “Hmmmp! Men of pride,” she murmured. They continued their way to the top and after few minutes of treading upwards, the couple reached the entrance. Italo was soaking with sweat. He took the last sip of the remaining soda. Soon, they were holding hands exploring the inside of the cave containing Hindu statues, symbols, and bass-reliefs.

“Where are the monkeys now? I don’t see any of them!” asked Rogue. “Let’s explore the cave further. Maybe they are staying there,” suggested Italo. The two roamed around the cave until they reached the other side where the light of the sun pass through the cave opening. Things are better seen at that side of the cave. There were fellow tourists taking photos and feeding monkeys with some food. As they reached the step leading up to that side of the cave, another monkey crossed their path. “Indeed there are monkeys around. Ha! Ha! Ha! Let’s take some photos,” Rogue remarked. They took more photos around. Italo, on the other hand, requested that his photo be taken with an Indian deity over a pedestal at his background. After few more minutes of wandering around, the couple was satisfied and decided to go back down.

Rogue decided to eat the Toblerone. She felt a need to replenish the energy she lost while going up the 172 steps. She took a bite. They were descending the little steps toward the entrance/exit of the cave when someone snatched the chocolates. “Help me! Oh my God!” She was almost out of her mind with what happened and she got a bit nervous. “What’s wrong?” Asked the bewildered Italo.. The surrounding individuals all looked at them and were alerted with Rogue’s scream. “There was something! I never saw it but someone snatched my chocolates. Where is our camera? Is it with you?” She was still a little nervous as she answered to her partner. They looked around and Rogue felt a sigh of relief when she saw that the camera was with Italo.

The couple tried to understand what really happened. It was not until they turned their eyes at one side of the cave where there were three monkeys. One of them was holding the Toblerone bar as it savors it while he was munching. The other two were staying on guard in case the former offer them some charity or in case the food fall down from its grip.

The couple could only laugh at the amusing reality that they have seen. It was the snatcher monkey! They went back to their budget hotel very contented with their afternoon adventure. As for Rogue, she never expected that simple afternoon to be so thrilling and be one of the most memorable experiences that she had. Thanks to the religious monkeys of the temple.

 References
6 THINGS YOU Must Do in KUALA LUMPUR. (2007, February 11). The Mail on Sunday (London, England), p. 96. Retrieved May 3, 2008, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5019372880

Fong, P. K. (2002, June). Asian Arts Brighten Malaysia. World and I, 17, 88. Retrieved May 3, 2008, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002477021

Ooi, J. (1963). Land, People, and Economy in Malaya. London: Longmans. Retrieved May 3, 2008, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98317681

Shemanski, F. (1985). A Guide to World Fairs and Festivals. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Retrieved May 3, 2008, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=51723017

Malaysia: Hindu festival declared national holiday. (2008, January 21). Hindu Janajagruti Samiti. Retrieved May 2, 2008 from http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/3871.html

Sugar gives you energy. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from http://www.chewonthis.org.uk/ fat_salt_sugar/sugar_home.htm

The Batu Caves. Retrieved May 2, 2008, from http://www.malaysiasite.nl/batucaveseng.htm.

Instructions:
Purpose
The purpose of this assignment is to look ‘inside’ and analyse the leisure experience.
Task
1. Participate in any one leisure activity in which you are unfamiliar and have to pay for.
2. Write a story (see guide lines below) about all or a part of this leisure experience.
3. Using your story and those of three other class member’s examine the leisure experience.
4. Relate the messages from yours and the other stories to that mentioned in the literature about what contributes to the meaning an individual derives from the leisure experience.
Specific Requirements
1. The story must be typed and not exceed 600 words. Write only about your experience and feelings even though other people may have been involved (eg. Leader, family, partner, friend)
2. The story should be very descriptive and rich in detail so others can sense what the experience was like. Include what you may consider to be trivial information.
3. You do not have to justify the experience or the actions mentioned in the story as this is your account of a real leisure experience.
4. The story is to be written in third person. Replace your name in the story with a pseudonym and write as if a fictitious character is having the experience. The following is an example of part of a story of a leisure experience.

On a rather cool Saturday morning Julie, along with seven others, were greeted by Dave who would be their guide for the two-hour raft trip down the Totara River. Julie had received her ticket as a birthday present and although she wasn’t the adventurous type this wasn’t going to stop her having what should be a thrill. “All aboard” Dave yelled indicating it was time to hit the road and drive to the river. On the way the group introduced themselves and tried to hide their anxiety about the up-coming experience. Looking around the van Julie could see that those accompanying her on the trip were of all ages and shapes. “they certainly don’t look like a particularly physical group” Julie thought to herself. “Oh well, I suppose the company knows what it’s doing and I guess fitness isn’t important for such an experience”.

At the river Dave assigned everybody a job. Julie thought he seemed organized. She also liked the jokes he told about the size of the eels in the river although this seemed to make the townies in the group rather anxious. Once the raft was ready and loaded with the safety great the group were assigned wet suits, life jackets and helmets. To break the nervous tension Lisa asked, “Dave, what are the chances of getting tipped out?’ This brought a steely-eyed look her from one of the ‘cool dudes’ but Dave used this as a chance to begin explaining the safety procedures during which everyone was most attentive.

The group was soon dressed up like frogmen (without masks) and ready to head into unknown. The river looked calm but given this trip was called ‘A Ride on the Wild Side’ then Julie thought there must be a few surprises down stream. Dave began barking orders about how he wanted us seated. “Julie I want you up front left. Tim, you sit in the back right.” The group was strategically placed in the raft and out in the slow flowing current learning to paddle in unison. “Such a beautiful feeling being out here and conversing with nature” Julie commented. “I like being out here to” said Julie “but I’m not keen on conversing with those eels in the river”. You could sense a feeling of apprehension at the thought. However, this soon turned to excitement when the first rapid came into sight.

“Get swinging on those paddles,” yelled Dave at the top of his voice from the stern of the raft. “we’re about to encounter some wild water”.

The tone of his command made everybody quiver. This was the moment everybody had been looking forward to – the adventure of rafting down a rapid. There was a sense of fear at venturing into the unknown but also a confidence, knowing that Dave wasn’t about to risk his life for us, The sound of raging water over powered the chant of the group as they raced toward the rapid. “Hang on.” Screamed a timid voice from the front of the raft, “it’s wild.”

---and so on for approximately another 100words

Writing the Assignment
1. The assignment is to be written by self and must be your interpretation of what the three experiences discussed by your group mean. There is no one right or wrong explanation.
2. The information from the analysis should be categorized into a maximum of three(3) themes that reflect the main points identified in the collective stories.
3. Your written assignment must be more than a description of the experiences. You are to get ‘inside’ the experiences and provide some analysis about what contributed to meaning and level of (dis)satisfaction attached to the experiences.
4. Information from the literature (texts and journals or web – see below) must be used to elaborate on and extend the meaning associated with the experiences.
5. The stories are your data so short quotes can be incorporated into the written assignment to help illustrate a specific point. If you use quotes from the stories then name the character.

The assignment must:
- Have a title page and be typed using Times font size 12 and one and a half spacing
- Have an introduction (150-200 words) and mention the focus of your paper
- Have the content organized into a maximum of three (3) themes (400- 500 words each) and identify them with side headings. Do not wirte up each experience separately.
- Incorporate the views of at least seven (7) different authors to support your argument this must include a combination of books and journals. Do not include references from the SPLS102 book and only three from the World Wide Web using the www citation
- Use the fictitious character names (in the stories) when referring to the experience
- Use the APA referencing format and only list the authors cited in your assignment
- Provide a conclusion (150-200 words) by capturing the main points of the paper
- Be no more than 1800 words excluding the reference list

There is restriction on freedom everywhere. This is a derived idea from the argument of Immanuel Kant in his work, An Answer to the Question: "What is Enlightenment?" This restriction is the reason why humans behave as they are: they need a harmonious environment within themselves as a pursuit of individual community of well-being, freedom and safety. Humans are not ultimately free as they could be because their actions have consequences. We may call these consequences, according to Kant, “imperatives for actions”. The reason “why certain acts ought to be done is because they ought to be done” (Stratton-Lake, 2000). Generally, a rational human being would do an action consciously for practical reasons, which is considered as hypothetically imperative. It demands that a person does such action for the sake of a purpose that he has in mind. Why Man should not break promises, why should not tell lies, why and should not commit suicide? This is because Man ought not do these acts. According to Kant, the reason why Man should keep his promises because of his “obligation to be consistent and the injunction against using others (i.e., against treating them only as means)” (Nasr, 2008). This is a concrete example of Kant’s Ought priciple of ethics.

“Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only”(Kant, 1785). A true ethical person would not use people to further his own end and he treats other people with respect to a value of dignity and not a value of price because a person with a value of dignity cannot be replaced and their value is priceless. An object with a value of price, as what the hypothetically imperative person believes, can be exchanged and used as a means to achieve an end. To Kant, this principle of humanity “is the supreme limiting condition on the freedom of action of each man,” and argues that the principle is not founded on experience but rather seated in the footholds of a priori reasoning, reasoning that comes before experience. Indeed, Man’s actions are limited and the “ theoretical Ought of our judgments about facts, like the practical Ought of Ethics, is after all definable only in terms of what Kant called the Autonomy of Will” (Royce, 1901).

In fact, not only Kant recognized the limitations of the freedom of human Will and the actions that their will impose upon them and why Man obeys. Another philosopher who made a discourse on this ethical issue is Jonathan Edwards. He noted that there are “ethics or the rules” (Tappan 1839), which are, in fact, not compelled to be obeyed by everyone but impose a strong power upon the conscience of the majority, especially those who believes in an Almighty being and those who do not want to feel the uneasiness of the evil and the persecuting nature of the Man. Disobedience to these manly imposed rules are considered as a “state of sinfulness” (Tappan 1839) or the corruption of human sensitivity disposed to violate the harmony and fitness of the spiritual constitution. This is another binding factor that makes man perform the hypothetically imperative actions.

Does morality purely exist? Morality is something that is not strongly defined, yet it is considered as the ultimate commandment of reason and this is the guiding source for Man’s duties and obligations. Even Kant argues in his Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals that “it is only a pure philosophy that we can look for the moral law in its purity and genuineness.” Human beings have moral obligations to each other, and, as previously mentioned, because of reasons that they need and not because of their pure will to do such obligations. Man, to be good to each other without qualification would be a conceived as having a “good will” (Kant, 1785) and it must be understood, however, that humans do not have the autonomous will. They have the morally good will to attain the practical ends that they wish to have. Moral philosophies follow the “laws of human will” as affected by nature and when applied to man, it does not borrow the least thing from the knowledge of man himself (anthropology), but gives laws a priori to him as a rational being. Moral laws require human judgment that has been sharpened through time and experience in order for them to be properly applied and for these laws to access the will of the man and “effectual influence on conduct”(Kant, 1785). The virtuous person does not only conform and obeys the moral law. He also act for the sake of the moral law itself. Man’s actions are morally right as determined by the virtue of their motives, derived not from Man’s inclinations but from Man’s duty. A virtuous person, who makes a morally right action, is determined to act in accordance with his duty and this duty overcomes that person’s self-interests and hidden desires. And for Kant, the Ought of Ethics is the defining factor for morality: “ the sense in which the conduct of moral aget is to be judged as good or evil according as it does or does not conform to the standard of the Ought” (Royce, 1901)

As Kant have further argued in his philosophies, the ultimate moral law principle was abstractly conceived to guide man to the right action in life’s circumstances. However, if man is immature enough to acknowledge this guidance, enlightenment would never be achieved. Moreover, it is not only the lack of maturity that deter man and give him obstacles from being enlightened but also laziness, superstitious and dogmatic beliefs or fanaticism. “Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large proportion of men, even when nature has long emancipated them from alien guidance (naturaliter maiorennes), nevertheless gladly remain immature for life” (Kant, 1784).

Enlightenment would result to freedom, and, if man is still of prejudices and dogmatic beliefs, Man would be nothing but an unthinking and leashed controlled being. Dogmas “are the ball and chain of His permanent immaturity.” (Kant, 1784) If Man stays immature and an obedient being without reason, he would be an object without dignity, a mere machine.


Works Cited
Kant, Immanuel; translated by James W. Ellington [1785] (1993). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals 3rd ed.

Nasr, Waddah. Kant’s Moral Theory: The Morality of Principle. Retrieved May 4, 2008 from

Royce, Josiah. The World and the Individual: Gifford Lectures Delivered before the University of Aberdeen. 2d Series: Nature, Man, and the Moral Order. New York: Macmillan, 1901.

Stratton-Lake, Philip. Kant, Duty, and Moral Worth. London: Routledge, 2000.

Tappan, Henry Philip. A Review of Edwards's "Inquiry into the Freedom of the Will. New York: J.S Taylor, 1839.

Instructions:
Your essay examination is a response to a single question that everyone must answer by taking a position. The purpose of the essay is for your to pull together your understanding of ethics as presented in this course. You will be expected to not only answer the question as asked, but to also demonstrate familiarity with our readings since the midterm exam. These include, Kant’s essay On the Question: What is Enlightenment? and text Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, Simone de Beauvoir’s Ethics of Ambiguity, and Ghandi’s Political Writings. Your answer must include some references to these texts.

Edwards’ Freedom of the Will may be construed as a psychological discourse. As an annihilation of false views of the Will that prevailed in his century and in the present, in order that men may learn how to have Christian belief and be saved, and as a reply to the discourse of Arminian Minister Whitby, this work is indeed evangelical. Edwards has put emphasis on the “faculty of choice” (Tappan 1839, 16), the Will which the mind chooses as being judged by the faculty of understanding. Although this discourse may not be as authoritative as Calvin’s Institutes, the author of Freedom of the Will is undeniably one of the great and enduring masters when religious emotion is being talked about.


When it comes to reasoning in his work, Edwards can never be more crafty. Simply put, Freedom of the Will is the work of a genius. In the section where Edwards distinguished Will from Desire, he has agreed with the argument of Locke but he has put more understanding and correlation connecting these two things.

I do not suppose, that Will and Desire are words of precisely the same signification: Will seems to be a word of more general signification, extending to things present and absent. Desire respects something absent… A man never, in any instance, wills any thing contrary to his desires, or desires any thing contrary to his will. (Edwards 1754, 2)

In his discourse, Edwards has analyzed and made into view that although Will and Desire are distinguishable from each other, these two are in fact the same faculty of the man’s soul where the Will is being determined by the “strongest motive” (Edwards 1754, 4) acting over the man’s soul and thereby choosing what is, at that moment seems good to Him, which is his inclination. With this attack on the common arguments in his Freedom of the Will, Edwards is meritorious of all the credits.

Moreover, in the section where Edwards has discussed on the deliberate and free choice of Man to do something “evil and painful” (Colonial and Revolutionary Literature, n/d), he has offered his readers sharp logic. He has noted that if the Man errs it is due to his free choice given the full knowledge of good and happiness versus evil and pain and such an action, to choose evil with suffering, is monstrous and is very incomprehensible. As this can be logical, it is also very difficult to practice. Man generally chooses the good but circumstances do not allow him to stay choosing and practicing the good.

Analyzing the discourse, Freedom of the Will speaks of the truth. Edwards is no optimist when it comes to his philosophies. He has made it a point in his discourse that evil do exist in this world and how his teachings sprouted from a deep hatred of evil.

The thing which makes sin hateful, is that by which it deserves punishment; which is but the expression of hatred…. Thus, for instance, ingratitude is hateful and worthy of dispraise, according to common sense; not because something as bad, or worse than ingratitude, was the cause that produced it; but because it is hateful in itself, by its own inherent deformity. (Edwards 1754, 65)

On the last note, the discourse has came up with and is correlated to what are called “ethics or the rules” (Tappan 1839, 265), which are not compelled to be obeyed by everyone but impose a strong power upon the conscience of the majority, especially those who believes in an Almighty being and those who do not want to feel the uneasiness of the evil and the persecuting nature of the Man. Disobedience to these manly imposed rules are considered as a “state of sinfulness” (Tappan 1839, 265) or the corruption of human sensitivity disposed to violate the harmony and fitness of the spiritual constitution.


Bibliography
Henry Philip Tappan, A Review of Edwards's "Inquiry into the Freedom of the Will" (New York: J.S Taylor, 1839).

Jonathan Edwards, The Freedom of the Will (Florida: Soli Deo Gloria, 1754).

The Colonial and Revolutionary Literature; Early National Literature, Part I (The Cambridge History of English and American Literature in 18 Volumes (1907–21). Volume XV.

Instructions:
You are to read the following article and do a critque of the article. Reflect on specific concepts and principles. You can have as many resources as you want. This is about the freedom of will by Edwards.

The atrocities at which King Leopold II was responsible to was discreet. Although the manner of killings and the reasons behind those slaughters among Stalin, Hitler and King Leopold have much similarities, the way King Leopold handled the whole event was in a cautious manner that without a thorough examination, the atrocities could not be blamed at his fault. However, to be an inspiration to Hitler and to Stalin for the similar happenings of mass-slaughtering of human lives is not a far idea.

With regards to reasons behind the mass-killings, the three are all having similarities: political, physiological, social, political, economic and cultural, among others. In the case of Nazi, it was obviously cultural and political against the Jews while in Gulag, it was strongly political among others. The atrocities are in great amounts trying to erase the those who are outcasts such as the blacks in Congo, the Jews by the Nazis and for Stalin, for economic leadership and so that "maintaining political unity remained in force" (Laue, 1999, p. 383).

Simply stated the mass slaughter in Congo, Nazi camps and in Gulag camp were strongly geared towards more ambitious grasp of power among the leaders: King Leopold, Hitler and Stalin, respectively.. Slaughtered individuals were the ones who are unacceptable on the side/part of the state or leader that ordered the formers’ death. Economicwise, King Leopold’s company benefited through his private ownership and exploitation of Congo where the populations were to have “died in the forced labor system used to tap wild rubber for King Leopold II's companies” (Brittain, 1999, p. 133). However, any means that were employed in achieving the killings of a great number of lives, it all end up to the aim of the leaders’ greater dream for power.



References
Brittain, V. (1999). Colonialism and the Predatory State in the Congo. New Left Review, a(236), 133-144.

Laue, T. V. (1999). A Perspective on History: The Soviet System Reconsidered. The Historian, 61(2), 383..

Instructions:
Answer this question in an essay - The death toll in King Leopolds congo was on a scale comparable to the Holocaust and Stanlins purges. Can Leopold II be viewed as a precursor to the masterminds behind the Nazi death camps and the Gulag? Did these 3 * other 20th century mass killings arise from similar physhological, social, political, econominc, & cultural sources.

“It is proper that the evil suffer and the good prosper to the extent of their respective viciousness or virtuousness.” Louis Pojman’s thesis on merit is very agreeable. Individuals should deserve what they have earned: punishments and penalties for each and every vicious act done and prizes, praise and rewards are due to those who have performed better for the benefit of the society.

What Pojman is trying to emphasize about merit is its rationality. According to his theory, man is in a society where individuals are assumed to be rational beings where each one of them must benefit and each of their worth can be ascertained. This is the idea of desert: what one deserves from an act that he have done. Simply stated, someone who acted lazily without studying the lessons before an examination deserves a failing grade while the other who spent time understanding what have gone through the class discussions, what he has written in the notes and also takes time in reviewing the course textbooks deserves a passing grade. However, the idea of merit does not end here.

Warning and Friendly Reminder: Plagiarism is a crime. This essay is here to give you an idea or guide you, not to be copied by you. You can look at the references and Works cited provided by this free academic essay and from that you can create your own. Be a smart student,be honest: look for free academic essays anywhere in the web or the Internet but don’t forget to make your own. There are so many free essays online as guides but please do your own. You can also utilize free plagiarism checkers available online.

To pass the examination as mentioned in the preceding paragraph is not enough. Pojman have acknowledged the idea of “proportionality” where the greater good done deserves better rewards and the severe evil deed can warrant a death penalty. On the other hand, an act that is done half-heatedly, as opposed to the “goodwill” of Kant as mentioned by Pojman deserves little merit to his acts. Accordingly, a petty theft would only make the thief stay a day or two inside the prison. Getting back to the idea of having merit from the examination, the student who studied, but studied half-heartedly and spent little time, although he might have actually studied deserves little than the one who spent more time and more efforts and will all his heart and mind in studying for the examination.

Another point of emphasis in Pojman’s theory is on the aspect of merit that one does not really deserve it at times. He have noted examples such as inborn talents or qualities: being tall, dark, beautiful and the likes. Although these qualities, according to him, can be simple natural rights, the bearer of these rights also must do something to enhance these qualities in making him deserving of some merit. Being black deserves the person to be acting the part of Othello in the play but without the person’s enhancement of his acting abilities he would not have deserved the role. Thus, natural rights is not desert unless this right is processed through labor.

With regards to the above idea, one can be inherently intelligent. This intelligence is the natural right of the bearer. But this intelligence that he has is nothing and would not give him any merit unless he studies specifically for the examination and prove his worth and labor processing that intelligence to be of value to him, his desert, when he gets an A++ in the examination. Corollary to this desert of getting an A++ that student is meritorious of a praise from his friends, classmates or the professor. He can even get an award during graduation or a prize for that excellent performance. All these are attributable to his labor (studying) in enhancing the natural or inborn talent of being intelligent.

Further analyzing the value of merit and its rationale, it is observable that without the essence of merit, this world would be a worse place to live in. Without merit, no one will work hard. Moreover, no one will study good to qualify for some scarce positions because without merit, anyone can be qualified. This means the big possibility of hiring an individual that is not fit for work or is lesser qualified. This does not actually means mere intelligence as the criterion (although it is part of it) but the overall capacity of the applicants. Hiring an applicant at work that is lesser qualified makes that individual undeserving of the position. As a result of such action, which does not conform to the idea of merit, efficiency and effectiveness at work suffer.

Is merit the ultimate measure? Although Pojman obviously acclaim the theory of merit he acknowledged that the concept is not absolute and it is not without pitfalls. For one, he mentioned that success and failure are strictly based on merit but he conceded to the idea of outside factors. According to him, no one can be accountable for things that are out of his control. True enough, this is one flaw of the merit idea.

During the examination day, the student have studied all night in order to deserve that A++. However, due to some unforeseen reasons, that student suffered a stomach ache during the examination and could not concentrate causing him to get a failing grade. In virtue, that student is due the desert after that much studying but he was not able to make it happen because of the some factors that are out of his control. Thus, merit is not absolute.

“Our sense of merit seems to cry out for an omniscient or omnipotent judge to match virtue with happiness and vice with punishment.” Indeed this is another problem in the theory of merit and desert. If there is an omnipotent being that is aware of all happenings, there would be no problem at all. The reality is, there is none! Who really can measure our merit and match it with our virtues? Who can judge the extent of vices done? The idea of proportionality then poses a problem in assessing merit and desert, as to who deserves how much. Since there is no one omnipotent that can measure merit, the student did fail despite his labor and virtue. Another drawback in the idea of merit. This is no cosmic justice happening in Man’s world.

Yet, despite its drawbacks merit is still very valuable. It makes humanity thrive and improve for the better. Merit is something that is deeply rooted upon Man’s desert. It is something that has a “moral effort”. It is something with a profound deontological basis. It is a synthetic theory. Lastly merit is valuable because it is a “truth” obvious on reflection. Pojman’s Theory of Merit deserves its “merit”.


References
Kant, Immanuel; translated by James W. Ellington [1785] (1993). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals 3rd ed.

Pojman, Louis. (1999). Merit: Why Do We Value It? Journal of Social Philosophy, Vol. 30 No.1. Blackwell Publishers.

Instructions
Pojman argues that we should strive to form a world in which `the virtuous are rewarded and the vicious punished in proportion to their relative deserts.` Do you agree with Pojman that we deserve what we earn, or do you see problems with his stance? Form a cohesive, well-argued 3 page paper in which you explore this question. Use specific examples, and support your arguments.