Liberalism in International Political Economy Compared with Marxism Research Paper

Liberalism in International Political Economy Compared with Marxism and Realism - Research Paper Example Liberalism and Marxism (and Gramscianism) In the theory of Liberalism, Adam Smith is one of its well-known proponents. His ideas on liberal capitalism focus more on how behaviors and market competitions are controlled by the â€Å"invisible hand†, believing that merchants or individuals are relying on their own in contributing greatly to economic improvement without the need for the intervention of the government.4Also, the collective individual initiatives are just as important as the contribution of each individual, because morality done on a personal level and through the perspective of others is important in order to maintain order and peace under liberalism.5 In essence, under the theory of Liberalism, there is an assumption of having similar thoughts and ideas among people, which makes it easier to assess whether an individual’s actions will benefit others or not. ...This, in turn, will increase the likelihood that people will start thinking similarly, making it e asier to govern them.6 Also, there will be no inequality because everyone is experiencing similar circumstances, and unless there are problems in the ruling body itself, under Marxism there will be peace, equality, emancipation, and justice because people share the same ideas and beliefs like in Liberalism.7 Liberalism and Marxism may share some similarities such as the importance of equality, but these two theories differ in other aspects. For example, the core belief of Liberalism is that markets wield power over economic growth but does not increase the gaps between various social and economic classes because of morality. However, this is contested by Marxism ideas, saying that while everyone may acquire benefit from participating in trade and commerce, the equality of gains will not be absolute among all parties. Because of this, there can be the unequal distribution of wealth, with merchants gaining more wealth over members of the market or the consumers as the result of differ ing relative gains for the merchants and the consumers.8More often than not if there is the unequal distribution of commodities there is also an unequal distribution of wealth, and vice-versa. Also, Liberalism is highly-idealistic in terms of giving importance to morality, and the fact that the margin between the rich and the poor are not decreased this means that Liberalism does not function as it is supposed to because not all participants in commerce regularly engage in fair trade and fair markets.

Genetically Modified Foods Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Genetically Modified Foods - Research Paper Example Genetically modified foods also known as biotech foods are foods that are manufactured artificially. Unlike other natural foods, genetically modified foods are produced from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Most genetically modified foods produced by genetically modified organisms are crops. The crops produced from genetically modified organisms include maize, wheat, beans, tomatoes and rice to mention but a few. GMOs are organisms that had changes in their bodies which were done by the introduction of some hormones into their bodies (Halford 2003). These changes were different from the mutational changes that are done to other organisms by genetic engineers. The commercial selling of genetic modified food products is believed to have begun in 1994. Scientists or rather genetic engineers began to produce genetically modified crops because they wanted to curb the increasing global hunger by then. The genetically modified crops undergo faster growth unlike the natural crops (Half ord 2003). Therefore, this helped to curb the menace of hunger. Genetically produced crops are also resistant to pathogens and other types of pests. This makes them to be produced in large amounts enough to cater for the rising world population. It was also found out that the natural crops lacked some nutrients such as iron and calcium. Therefore, the production of GMOs began since they produced extra nutrients which were helpful to children and pregnant mothers. However, after some years, the production of genetically modified food products faced strong opposition from world organizations.... In addition, the paper also discusses the possible solutions to the problems caused by the genetically produced food products. Opposing viewpoint There have been campaigns which encourage the supply of genetically modified products in the global market. Several organizations such as the European Union began to oppose the commercial sale of the products because the organization believed that the products were not good for human health. Several scientists were against the idea to encourage the production of genetically modified food products. However, one scientist who was popular because of his pro GMO campaigns was known as Thierry Vrain. Vrain in his campaigns gave alternative perspectives and proposed different methods of addressing the issue of genetically modified food products. To begin with, Vrain suggested that the growth of natural crops through irrigation is tiresome and hence should not be enhanced. He also suggested that the sale of genetically modified food products shoul d be enhanced globally. Vrain also supported biotechnology which encouraged the production of genetically modified food products. He proved his stand by withdrawing from a group of scientists who held meetings to campaign against the genetically modification of food products. However, according to this documented research paper, Vrain’s stand on genetically modified food products is found to be invalid. This is because the naturally grown crops such as maize, wheat, tomatoes, and beans among others were found to be very healthy and of good quality (Halford 2003). Especially among pregnant mothers and young children, they were discovered to provide certain nutrients such as iron and calcium which are not found in genetically modified

Should Combat Sports be Banned?

Should Combat Sports be Banned? 1. Should physical combat sports be banned? Ans: Introduction: Combat sports have been in existence in different forms for more than 2000 years. With high risks prevailing is such sports and the nature of aggression demonstrated on the sporting arena, ethical issues have come up whether in a modern civilized society there is a place of such activities. Measures have been adopted to minimise the risks to participants yet the demonstration of skills in such thrilling fashion has been under criticism. There are both bright and dark sides of these sports but whether to eliminate them or not is the major debate. Definition of Combat Sports: Combat sports may be defined as sports wherein two individual combatants fight each other using fighting techniques according to a set of prearranged rules. Competitors use different techniques in different forms of Combat Sports, but the objective of any contest is to subdue the opponent. The question arises here that is it ethical to allow such a sport where the main intension is to harm your opponent. The Dark Side of Combat Sports: The first thing that strikes into ones mind while saying about the dark sides of such sports is morality. 1. Morality: As said earlier, is it morally correct for one human being to attempt intentionally to harm the brain of the other as in boxing. It might be true that reckless tackles are made in sports like American football, Soccer, ice hockey etc and also body line bowling prevails in cricket which sometimes result in serious injuries but one does not win the game by doing so. Where as in physical combat sports one can win only by hurting the opponent and that too so seriously that the opponent cannot continue to take part in the game anymore. 2. Impact on society: The impact of such sports on the society can be viewed in two different ways. Combat sports practice: Evidence of unlicensed boxing events exist where violence has reached its extremities but it may be argued that a sport, which is explicitly a stimulation of actual combat and which has clearly defined boundaries is less of a threat to the social order than such evidences. Another issue evolved which argued if participation in a combat sport results in increase of violence and aggression in a human being. But different researches have shown increase in social and emotional awareness among the participants. Viewing Combat sports: The effect of excessive media exposure of combat sports does have a positive impulse of violence in some people but for the vast majority of the population exposure to aggression and violence as a passive spectator is considered to have negligible impact on peoples social behaviour. The Value of Combat Sports: Notwithstanding the violent nature of combat sports, â€Å"good† can be found in them just like any other sport. Any form of combat sport has the potential to improve physical health and well being. Higher physical competence and ability to defend ones own self can be considered as the positive side of combat sports. Combat sports can also acts as a medium of self-expression and human bonding. Contrary to popular belief, winning is not the sole objective of fighting contests. Value is given to what can be learnt from the opponent, be it in victory or defeat. Conclusion: Considering the fact that sport where the principal intent is to harm your opponent and with the high risk of fatalities and serious disabling injuries involved, the question arises both from the ethical and safety point of view as to whether or not combat sports be legally banned. In my opinion, before considering a legal ban and forcing the sport underground, each combat sport should be given the opportunity to review its rules for competition. For example, fighting within predetermined weight class, only one fight per night etc.

Analysis Of Keats on First Looking Into Chapmans Homer And on See :: essays research papers

Analysis of Keat's "On First Looking into Chapman's Homer" and "On Seeing the Elgin Marbles" John Keat's poems, On First Looking into Chapman's Homer, and On Seeing the Elgin Marbles for the First Time, express an irresistible, poetical imagination. They convey a sense of atmosphere to the reader. In comparison they exemplify his intense love of beauty. The connection between these two poems is not so much in subject, but the feeling of awe. Both these poems show more emotion and amazement in the experience of discovering something new. Keats looked with eyes of wonder at new adventures and expressed them verbally with delicacy and reserve. In the poem On First Looking into Chapman's Homer, the description of his experiences overflows with youth and excitement. But as the poem continues the writing is toned down to convey the most important and meaningful experience. Keats describes how after traveling in lands of gold, and seeing many great states and kingdoms, he never truly realized the wonders of these things until reading Chapman's translation of Homer. Crossing many western islands bards have sung about, he never was able to comprehend their true serene nature until reading man's wondrous words. This narration explains that though these were sights well visited , their beauty and Keats imagination kept them alive. Having read Chapman's translation til dawn with his teacher, he was so moved he wrote this his first great poem and mailed it by ten A.M. that day. In On Seeing the Elgin Marbles for the First Time, the description of his experiences overflows with depression and experience. As the poem continues you see his sad point of view has faded . It gives it a familiarity that hides its true serene character. He describes how his spirit is weak (mortality) and his wonderful memories have faded in his mind due to worries and unrest at his coming death. It should be said death does play a key role in this poem and is the main reason behind all his dreariness and heavy heart. His self-pity masks the appreciation that he was granted this length of time to even experience them. Having viewed these time worn memorials of Grecian skill, in this poem he expressed the indescribable feelings of wonder . In comparison Keats expresses similarities in his concreteness of

Ethics of Conspiracy Theorizing Essay

In the context of this essay conspiracies will be defined where a proposed explanation E is a conspiracy theory if and only if E is a proposed causal explanation of an event (or set of events) which postulates secret plans and actions on the part of the group and E conflicts with the official story (or stories) of the same historical events. In this instance the official story will be defined where an explanation of an event E is an official story if and only if the explanation is a theory endorsed in a conventionally recognized way by an individual or institution that bears the relevant legal responsibility for events of type E, and for providing information to the public about them. In some cases conspiracies are morally permissible however usually they are the result of nefarious motivations on the part of the conspirators. In this essay I will use the examples of the Watergate scandal and the September 11 terrorist attacks to explain how in this respect conspiracy theorizing is more often morally permissible due to the just motivations of the conspiracy theorizers and the benefits conspiracy theorizing lends to our society. It is common knowledge that governments and political bodies around the world have engaged in conspiracies. A well known example of this is the Watergate scandal which occurred during the presidency of Richard Nixon. The Watergate scandal took place in the Watergate complex in Washington DC on the 17th of July 1972. The complex was the site of the Democratic National Committee headquarters where five men were found breaking and entering. All the men were connected to President Nixon’s Committee to Re-elect the President. This prompted an investigation which discovered many more illegal activities connected to President Nixon’s staff including campaign fraud, political espionage and sabotage, illegal break-ins, improper tax audits, illegal wiretapping, and a â€Å"laundered† slush fund used to pay those who conducted these operations. In this case the conspiracy was indeed the result of nefarious motivations on the part of President Nixon and his staff. While many and possibly most conspiracies are the result of similar motivations not all conspiracies are malevolent. For instance a conspiracy may (though perhaps not legally) be benevolent when the conspirators are acting in a way to protect the interests of the people. Reasons for this could be to prevent a counterproductive panic caused by revealing their plans before they are ready. Another conspiracy that would be both benevolent and responsible on behalf of the government would be conspiring to keep their nation ignorant of particular military actions in order to protect both the soldiers and the population that they govern. This would be the most responsible action on behalf of the government as it is their role to protect the people as best they can, in this case by way of a conspiracy. Although it is conceivable that there are some benevolent conspiracies where conspirators are trying to benefit society I think it holds true that the majority of conspiracies are caused by conspirators with nefarious intentions. It is obvious from conspiracies and cover ups like the Watergate scandal that conspiracies do take place (if not commonly) and so it follows that logically the existence of conspiracies altogether cannot be denied and furthermore it is irrational to disbelieve the existence of conspiracy theories. With this in mind it seems both reasonable and logical to conclude that conspiracy theorizing is a rational and possibly beneficial part of society. Steve Clarke supports this in â€Å"Conspiracy Theories and Conspiracy Theorizing (2002)† by proposing that ‘‘the conspiracy theorist challenges us to improve our social explanations’’ whereby he means that conspiracy theorists are invaluable to society as their existence pressures epistemic authorities such as the government to be careful in its practices and to ensure their ventures are kept above board. Clarke also reminds us that occasionally ‘‘the conspiracy theorist identifies a genuine conspiracy. ’ In contrast to Clarke, critics of conspiracy theorizing claim theorists cause unrest amongst society as they damage the trust between governments and their citizens. This is due to the way in which conspiracy theories often portray the government and government officials as being nefarious and underhanded in their dealings thus weakening the trust between society and the government. Similarly critics claim that conspiracy theorists create unrest amongst society by fostering negative beliefs about the government and the causes of historical events. Critics of conspiracy theorizing propose that unwarranted conspiracy theories have the potential to cause undesirable and harmful results. This is illustrated well by Mark Fenster in â€Å"Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture (2008)† where he postulates that ‘‘left critics argue that proper political analysis leads directly to effective political activity. Identifying both the general and historically specific economic and political structures that dominate enables activists to organize protests strategically and to build collective, alternative institutions in order to effect real social change. Conspiracy theory, on the other hand, either misattributes dominance to individuals, or simplistically places the blame for the ills of the world on individuals rather than on underlying, structural causes. As a result, it cannot lead to effective political activity; rather, it leads to harmful scapegoating; or it misleads activists into thinking that merely removing an individual or a secret group will transform society. † Arguments such as this are the cause of moral debate around conspiracy theorizing. The attacks on the Twin Towers, the 7 World Trade Centre building and the Pentagon in New York City and Washington D.  C in America on September the 11th 2001 became a catalyst for many highly publicized conspiracy theories. These conspiracy theories argue against the official story which states that the attacks were carried out solely by Al-Qaeda -a militant Islamic organization headed by Osama Bin Laden. The official story proposes that four commercial passenger airlines were hijacked by 19 members of Al-Qaeda. Two planes, American Airlines flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 were hijacked and flown in a suicide mission into the north and south towers of the World Trade Centre in New York City. Both of these towers collapsed within 2 hours due to structural damage caused by fires from the initial plane crash. The third plane, American Airlines Flight 77, was flown into the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense in the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia. This caused parts of the western side of the pentagon to collapse. The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, was intended to be flown into the Capitol of the United States, Washington D. C but instead crashed into a field in Pennsylvania when passengers attempted to gain control of the plane. One of the most noteworthy conspiracy theories regarding the September 11 attacks states that the collapse of the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center was caused by controlled demolition on the behalf of the United States government as opposed to the structural damage caused by fire which was quoted in the official story. Many physicists, architects and other intellectuals argue that the impact from the aircraft and the resulting fires could not have weakened the buildings to the extent which could cause them to completely collapse. Instead, conspiracy theorists posit that explosives were installed in the building on behalf of the government prior to the attacks. According to conspiracy theorists there is much errant data to support this such as accounts of people hearing explosions in the lobby while trying to escape the building. High profile conspiracy such as those pertaining to the September 11 terrorist attacks serve the well-being of society. They help to regulate the governments actions. Conspiracy theories are invaluable in keeping an honest government that is pressured to act within the law -especially if the government is aware that their citizens may question the official story. Governments have the capability to be respected leaders for the people or sources of harm, in a society where conspiracy theories have the ability to become such widespread public knowledge (such as the conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11 terrorist attacks) they ensure that the government remains working for the citizens as they are prepared to be scrutinized. In this way conspiracy theorizing is extremely beneficial to society which makes conspiracy theorizing morally justifiable. Another way in which conspiracy theorizing is beneficial to society is the how it encourages citizens to think for themselves in a way that otherwise they may not. Conspiracy theorizing allows individuals to challenge the official story rather than mindlessly believing stories that have been spoon fed to them by the relevant epistemic authorities and the media. Conspiracy theorizing also offers alternative explanations than the official stories such as arguments based on facts to consider rather than the stories spoon fed to them by the government. The media is an important tool for the conspiracy theorist, in most western countries the press has liberty to publish conspiracy theories and there are even some magazines such as the â€Å"Sceptic† magazine which is available worldwide. The freedom of the media aids the governments awareness that they could very publicly be caught out in a conspiracy. Being caught amongst a conspiracy would be tragic for any democratic government since they would lose so much public support which is necessary as one of the most important things to them is being re-elected. Because governments need public support so much they would indeed be very careful about the conspiracies attempted under their power. While most conspiracies are prompted by nefarious motivations the same is not true for conspiracy theories. I believe the key to the morality of either are the intentions of the conspirators or the theorists, regardless of the outcome. The varying morality of conspiracy theorizing and even conspiracies themselves can be explained by the doctrine of double effect. This doctrine states that an action that results in harm is morally permissible if it is the side effect of a morally good initiative. The doctrine proposes that if doing something intended to be morally good has a morally bad consequence as a side-effect then it is ethically permissible on the condition that the morally bad side-effect wasn’t intended even if it was foreseen to probably happen. An important feature of the doctrine states that the good result must be brought about independent of the bad one, the bad result must not be the means to the good result. To assist in helping my point about the difference in moral permissibility I will use the following hypothetical example: There is a large munitions factory set to be bombed by a bomber pilot. The pilot knows the munitions factory is next to an orphanage and that as a result of bombing the munitions factory a collateral of 2,000 civilian casualties are predicted. However bombing the munitions factory will defeat the enemy and protect other lives. I contend that the actions of the bomber may be morally permissible. However, if I alter the case just slightly: A bomber pilot is set to bomb a munitions factory. The pilot knows that the munitions factory is next to an orphanage and that 2,000 civilian casualties are predicted. In fact, bombing the munitions factory is the fastest and easiest way to cause such a number of casualties and this is why the bomber has chosen to bomb the factory. This will weaken the enemy’s esolve with the side-effect of getting rid of their munitions factory. I contend that in this instance the bomber’s action is obviously morally impermissible. Though this example seems unrelated to conspiracies and conspiracy theorizing it illustrates how the motivation behind an action deems its status of morality. In the case of conspiracy theorizing, a moral conspiracy theory would be one where the theorist truly believes they have uncovered a nefarious conspiracy and that by exposing it to the public they would be greatly benefitting society. The doctrine of double effect would apply for instance in the following two cases: In the first scenario Mandy notices lots of errant data regarding actions made by the government. Adding this data up Mandy believes she has unravelled a nefarious and underhanded scheme by government officials. Mandy truly believes that citizens ought to be aware of this conspiracy and that publicizing her conspiracy theory is in society’s best interest. Mandy knows that her theory negatively implicates many government officials and could be very harmful if she turns out to be wrong. In this case, regardless of whether or not Mandy’s claims turn out to be true her initial motivations were for the good of society. This is similar to the first scenario of the pilot bombing the munitions factory in that the bad result is just a side-effect of the morally good intention. I propose that in this way conspiracy theorizing can be morally just and in the cases where the theorist is proven correct society is reminded of the benefits of conspiracy theorizing. In the second case Mandy, who has been fired from her position in government administration notices the same errant data. Mandy links this data together and formulates a conspiracy theory which negatively implicates her previous superiors. While Mandy in this scenario may also have the intentions of publicizing her conspiracy theory in order to make people aware of a nefarious scheme on the part of the government, she is still motivated by the thought of harming the reputation of her previous superiors. In this case the doctrine states that Mandy’s actions were morally wrong as the morally wrong result was not a side effect of the morally good action. Rather, the morally wrong result of harming her previous superiors was one f the two intended concequences so in this case conspiracy theorizing would be morally wrong. Even though the two scenarios may have the same consequence it is the difference in motivation that alters the moral permissibility. I postulate that this is the same for all conspiracy theories, this means that when motivated by the intention to benefit society conspiracy theorizing is morally permissible. In the case of the September 11 terrorist attacks the moral permissibility of conspiracy theories surrounding the event depend on the intentions of the conspiracy theorists. If the intentions of the theorist are to benefit society by making us aware of a nefarious conspiracy surrounding the government of the United States then I propose that conspiracy theorizing would be morally justifiable. Though the United States government is portrayed to be nefarious and underhanded in this conspiracy theory if this is not the intended result of the conspiracy theorist but a negative side-effect brought about by the good action then conspiracy theorizing in this instance would remain morally justified. However, if the intention of the conspiracy theorist was to undermine the government by weakening the trust between them and their citizens then I conclude that conspiracy theorizing for this purpose (despite any morally good side-effects) is morally unjust. As I have shown clearly in my essay there are many situations in which conspiracy theorizing is a moral good. It is obvious that conspiracy theorizing is beneficial to our society as it pressures the government to work for the well-being of their citizens as they are prepared to be scrutinized. Conspiracy theorizing is also morally justified by the benefits it lends to individuals freedom of speech as well as the freedom of the press. As I have explained in this essay, the doctrine of double effect illustrates how the moral permissibility of conspiracy theorizing often rests upon each conspiracy theorists motivations. I conclude that while most conspiracies are the results of nefarious motivations the same is not true for conspiracy theorizing, instead conspiracy theorists are often motivated to benefit society in some way or another and in these cases their conspiracy theorizing is morally justifiable.

“Gender” and the Importance of “the Social Construction of Gender.”

â€Å"Gender† and the Importance of â€Å"The Social Construction of Gender. † Gender is an individual's natural sense of themselves existing as a male or female, which may hold opposing views from their biological sex. I believe sex and gender are two terms used interchangeably. Sex implies the biological characteristics among females and males. Whereas gender implies the social qualities connected with being a female or male.As Lorber states, â€Å"I am arguing that bodies differ physiologically, but they are completely transformed by social practices to fit into the salient categories of a society, the most persuasive of which are’female’ and ‘male’ and ‘women’ and ‘men’. † (pg. 11) An emphasis on gender not only exposes knowledge about women and men’s different familiarities; it also illustrates the embedded politics and stereotypes about men and women. Social construction of gender is generally conf erred by the distinction of biological differences of males and females. Such as, men are biologically aggressive and women are rather more passive.Gender is socially constructed and a product of sociocultural impacts all the way through an individual's growth. Gender identity can be modified by and detached from one society to another varying on the individual’s dedication to their society and their weigh on the view of females and males. Frequently people mistake or misappropriate the terms gender and sex. To make the discrepancy more concise one could deliberate that we inherit the sex but we learn our gender. Gender could be a fundamental characteristic of society and the sociological importance of gender that it is a system by which society governs its associates.Gender comparable to social class and race can be expended to socially classify individuals and even steer to prejudice and discrimination. When there is a distinction in the behavior of people centered on their sex, many would express this as sexism. This inequality around the world demonstrates that gender identity is swayed by social standards and has little to do with biological distinctions Society forms individual’s gender and groups its members comparable as many do with age, ethnicity, race, social class and status.However, by labeling according to gender is another way of swaying members of a society and to encourage inequalities. There are recognizable biological and culture differences amid the two sexes but we cannot use these variances to reason our conclusions and deliver stereotyped ideas about gender. Another form of sexism is portrayed by damaging stereotypical interpretations in the direction of women. For instance, sexism ideas of women are concentrated on the beliefs that women are secondary to men due to insignificant ideas that one can hold again women.One mark of gender socialization is the configuration of gender identity, which is one’s distinction of oneself as a man or woman. Gender identity molds how we judge others and ourselves which then impacts our actions. For instance, gender distinctions are present in the possibility of drug and alcohol abuse, violent atmospheres, and depression. Gender identity furthermore has an predominantly powerful effect on our emotions about our exterior reflection and our body image.Broadminded feminists reason that gender inequality is applicable from past traditions that create obstacles to women’s development. It underlines individual moralities and equal opportunity as the foundation for social justice and reform. These feminists, alternatively, debate that the root of women’s oppression resides with the system of capitalism. Since women are inexpensive when it comes to labor rates, they are taken advantage of by capitalism, which in return composes them to a smaller amount of authority both as women and as workers.Lastly, feminists see social systems wherein men dominate as the principal grounds of women’s oppression and debate that women’s oppression is within men’s control over women’s bodies. As conveys, â€Å"Women are less powerful than men in the society, they are often stigmatized because of their bodies and its functions, and they are regular targets of symbolic and physical abuse from males. † There is much deliberation between the means of social construction and deconstruction of sex, gender, and sexuality because of the ever changing sex and gender identities.As Ferber states, â€Å"I argue that race and gender identities are constructed and inequality is maintained through the regulation of sexual practices. I offer a deconstructionist approach that is at the same time intersectional-exploring the intersections of race, sex, gender and sexuality. † (pg. 93) A viewpoint about what a male and female is or what society considers they should be is raised in every culture. Women, for instance, are expec ted to be more drawn to things like fashion and worry significantly about their appearance.In contrast, men should be less absorbed on these fixations. When we are raised in a distinctive culture we engross ideas of what is expected of us from our parents, peers and the media. Most individuals then accommodate their actions, manners and pleasures in life to more closely fit society’s viewpoints. Although many don't unseeingly adhere to the socially constructed gender roles many of societies norms are developed and internalized by us as individuals and generally turn out to be part of our individuality.