Ethical Arguments on Child Labour

Ethical Arguments on Child Labour The ethical arguments concerning organizations using suppliers which employ children. For the time being, the number of child labourers exceeds 250 million worldwide. In fact, child labour is defined by the International Labour Organization (2008) as types of work performed by children under 18. In most cases, however, child labour assumes full-time work done by children under the age of 15 that assumes health hazards and virtually excludes obtaining education. The entire situation is worsened by the fact that many suppliers hiring children blatantly disregard international UN conventions on children rights as well as the provisions of applicable national legislations. By ignoring national laws that prohibit child labour under the age of 14, the contracted factories and local suppliers in poor countries actively apply children aged 11-14 to work in sweatshops to manufacture items for such brand names as Primark, Gap, Nike, Wal-mart, Target, Hanes etc for mere 6.5 c. per item (Gorgemans, n.d). The internationally acclaimed clothing retailers conventionally build up their global businesses on contracting factories and suppliers in the developing countries. Therein, local employers apply unethical and illegal practices to the workforce while benefiting the abovementioned global retailers. For a number of times, these organizations were reported as such that are exploiting child labour disregarding set ethical norms and legal regulations. In all cases, the traditional response from the corporate management is limited to the lack of awareness of such unfair instances and injustice applications. This indicates that despite the impacts of pressure groups and advocacy organizations these global brands are unwilling to bear either ethical or legal responsibility for their dishonest employment practices. Fortunately, owing to the enormous efforts of various international pressure groups, the companies like these have recently taken adequate measures to cease unethical applications, particularly those associated with child labour (Gorgemans, n.d). By placing such enforcements, pressure organizations invaluably contribute to the expansion of civil society based on ethical principles of respect, justice and human right priority. In such a way, various pressure groups, media, and youth rights groups are fighting against dishonest companies and their suppliers to protect children from illegal exploitation. Fact is, it is almost impossible to reveal the truth since suppliers are operating in the areas that are difficult to monitor, which enables the latter to conspire their unethical and illegal practices. Whenever the unethical scandals addressing child labour exploitation are revealed, the corporate managers tend to deny their awareness of such illegal happenings allowed in the contracted factories or suppliers. For example, Primark have been a subject to BBC news reports after the detection of child labour use in the clothing manufacturing, which made the company to conduct a follow-up investigation on their suppliers. In most c ases, therefore, pressure groups cannot prove the rightness of their claims due to the insufficiency of actual evidence, and therefore lose lawsuits. This provokes the situation where nobody is ethically responsible, while millions of unprotected child labourers are daily exploited worldwide. Even the US boycotting of the exports of Nepalese carpets manufactured by children in early 90’s did not provide adequate solution to the child labour problem since this measure caused 7,000 Nepalese children taking up prostitution (UNICEF, 2008). Ostensibly, the global problem of child labour is immense and in most instances falls beyond any reasonable ethical or legal control of the responsible authorities. Considering this, it is a common knowledge that legal regulations have always been based on the ethical principles reflecting social morale. Therefore, primarily it is a question of ones ethics and morale to intentionally accept and apply child labour for low pay and in appalling conditions. Nevertheless, in practical terms it seems that many suppliers actually do not mind unethical and illegal exploitation of child labour solely caring about enlarging their profits, expanding consumer markets and winning competitive advantages owing to cheap workforce that consists of ethically and legally unprotected children from Mali, Bangladesh, India, Cambodia, Liberia, Pakistan and many other destinations worldwide. To this end, according to International Labour Organization and the United Nations, the child labour is considered ex ploitative (UN General Assembly, 1989). Nonetheless, nearly half of all children labourers are traditionally engaged in the agricultural sector, though during the last two decades child labour has been actively applied by multinational corporations (Nike, GAP etc) and smaller companies in manufacturing as the effective means to save on this virtually costless and easily operative workforce. Largely, the underdeveloped socio-economic situation in many world countries provokes parents to agree to their children exploiting in hazardous works that involve physical tensions and the use of complicated machinery and devices difficult to operate. Consequently, the reasons of child labour in poor countries are purely economic driven by poverty concerns, and for the time being there is no single international convention that is declaring child labour illegal (Hindman and Smith, 1999). The main ethical issue in due respect is that under the umbrella of world renowned brands, local suppliers are unethically applying child labour considering house-to-house poverty and the devastating domestic conditions in Africa and East Asia wherein most families often regard their offspring as the sole source of income (Hindman and Smith, 1999). Considering this, it is rather difficult to say where the issue of ethics should begin. Hence, the analysis of relevant theoretical approaches is necessary to fully comprehend the seriousness of the issue. In essence, ethical theories are based on the core foundations, i.e. principles predetermining common goals intended to be achieved by every ethical theory, including but not limited to: least harm, beneficence, justice, and autonomy (Ridley, 1998; Penslar, 1995). In fact the exploitation of child labour does not comply with either of the abovementioned ethical principles. Neither does it produce a positive effect on children in accordan ce with the ethical principle of beneficence. According to the ethical principle of least harm, it is apparent that while companies are managing their short-term exporting and business concerns at the cost of the developing world, they are crippling millions of children by depriving them of the right for better future. In such a way employers show total disrespect for children autonomy, including their concerns, preferences and actual motivations (Hindman and Smith, 1999). Finally, child labour is a true example of injustice practice which assumes overall adverse affects to child labourers and economy on the whole. This indicates that the global economy will continue to shrink since the gap between rich and poor is rapidly expanding, and hardly any organization needs uneducated and/or unhealthy employees either today or in the future. The application of ethical theories in case of child abuse practices is a rather delicate issue which necessitates addressing previous experiences of child labour applications by commodity suppliers. While illegally exploiting child labour, the suppliers preliminarily trespass the deontological theory and do so intentionally for the sake of companies’ profits (Ridley, 1998; Penslar, 1995). For instance, since 1990s the international producer of sportswear Nike has been continually criticized by various right protection and activist groups (e.g. The International Labor Rights Fund; Vietnam Labour Watch etc) and media (e.g. BBC; Australian Channel 7 News etc) for exploiting forced labour practices, including women and child labour in Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Pakistan, China, Cambodia, and Mexico. In various contracted factories (e.g. in Vietnam, 1996), Nike was reported to violate overtime laws and minimum wage requirements. At that, the company provided employees with indecent working conditions while exploiting cheap overseas workforce within free trade zones to manufacture their commodities (Harsono, 1996). Worse than that, in the course of 1990s, Nike followed the unethical and unsanctioned practice of child labour exploitation in Pakistan and Cambodia while contracting the domestic factories to manufacture footballs. Even now, despite numerous anti-sweatshop (e .g. United Students against Sweatshops) and anti-globalization campaigns, Nike continue to exploit child labour in the areas wherein monitoring or legal regulations are inadequate, which has ensured the company unprecedented profits over the last decade (Boggan, 2001). Considering such unethical and illegal practices, it is obvious that Nile is also breaching the ethical principles of utilitarianism, the rights ethical theory,the casuist ethical theory, the virtue ethical theory an/or their various combinations considering the circumstances. Since the law should be given the highest priority within the rights theory, Nike’s practices should be regarded both unethical and illegal (Boggan, 2001; Harsono, 1996). The similar unethical applications have been reported to be used by Gap. In May 2006, Gap’s supplier in Jordan known as Western, applied unpaid overtime and excessive child labour, and other unethical practices. In 2007, Gap’s Indian factories contracted by Gap were reported to vastly apply child labour. The majority of claims from the pressure organizations concerned unsafe working conditions, unpaid off the clock hours, forced abortion policies, which made the company to reconsider its employment practices. At that, feeling ethical and moral liability before the workforce, the Gap has been praised by advocacy and pressure groups (Verite, Labour behind the Label, Social Accountability International etc) for managing to resolve unethical abuses of employees’ rights in accordance with the internally applied global social accountability standard assuming decent working conditions SA8000. To this end, the company does not employ children under 14 anymore, provides r egular and transparent wage payment, and prohibits any physical or moral abuse on its contracted factories (Guardian 2007). Considering this, in 2007 the company has become a genuine example of ethical practices application rewarded by the national industry media (e.g. Ethisphere Magazine; CRO Magazine; Business Ethics Magazine etc). The aforesaid examples indicate that the business companies operating in the global competitive environment should consider ethical principles in addition to caring about profit-making. For this purpose, multinational companies establish internal codes of ethics and release social responsibility reports on annual basis to underline their ethical responsibility before general public and relevant communities (Hindman and Smith, 1999). Nonetheless, as is seen, there are numerous conflicts between the theoretically-declared ethical norms and empirical applications which confront each other. To this end, in the US child labour is banned by law as well as the policies of the US firms, whereas child labour is allowed in Pakistan and inspires domestic benefits therein. Thus, depending on the respective cultural and ethical norms, child labour is differently perceived in various countries (Hall, n.d.). At that, ethical theories should be applied to provide moral reasoning while responding to conflict situations like child exploitation. Utilitarianism ethical theory intends to maximize happiness in line with the limits of moral choice, whereas the deontological method seeks moral rules to choose the most relevant one to determine the moral action to be taken. In due sense, the utilitarian method is in favour of child labour since due to the gaining of extra income children maximize their own happiness as well as the delight of their parents who know that labour saves their children from street crime and/or prostitution. Conversely, the deontological method indicates that the practice of child labour violates moral norms and therefore child labour would need an alternative solution. For example, there are companies promoting educational programs for children by paying their families for being able to use their labour since they are 14 years old. This approach seems well-balanced, how ever, from the ethical perspective, the current dilemma indicate the non-coincidence of cultural relativism and ethical universalism (Adler, n.d). The discussed issue is currently unsolved considering the ethical viewpoint under which the importance of ethical and moral norms and values differs from culture to culture, and so there is no way to the application of universal norms able to guide moral choices. Human rights are based on moral and ethical norms; however fail to serve as a universal panacea to solve many problems concerning the protection of individual freedom. Therefore the universal formalization and legalization of child labour would require enormous contribution to be made by the international community, civil society and active pressure groups to solve the issue on the global agenda. To be genuinely effective ethical theory should be backed up by firm action and sustainable degree of individual responsibility for using child labour (Ridley, 1998; Penslar, 1995). Ethical theories based on relevant principles should be widely applied as the effective decision-making tools, though only their relevant combination seems most effective while coping with the child labour dilemma. Utilitarian ethics grounded on the casuistic theory may be used to objectively compare different viewpoints on child labour issue and offer the most appropriate choice of action. Ethical theories in various combinations help to analyze and manage critical situations in unbiased and constructive manner to come with the most correct solution from the ethical perspective. Thus, the abovementioned ethical theories can serve as a reliable framework to settle international child labour issues in the foreseeable future (Ridley, 1998; Penslar, 1995). List of References Adler, N. n.d., International Dimensions of Organization Behaviour, Canada Southwestern pp. 64-66. Boggan, S. 2001, ‘Nike Admits to Mistakes over Child Labor’, [Online] Available at: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1020-01.htm Gorgemans, A. n.d., ‘Addressing Child Labor: An Industry Approach’, [Online] Available at: http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/0505/ijee/gorgemans.htm Guardian 2007, ‘Child sweatshop shame threatens Gaps ethical image’, [Online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/oct/28/ethicalbusiness.india Hall, E. n.d., Understanding Cultural Differences pp. 48-50. Harsono, A. 1996, ‘Nike Accused of Slave Child Labor’, [Online] Available at:http://www.albionmonitor.com/9606a/nikelabor.html Hindman, H., Smith, C. 1999, Cross-Cultural Ethics and the Child Labor Problem, Journal of Business Ethics, Volume 19, Number 1 / March, 1999 Penslar, R. 1995. Research Ethics: Cases and Materials. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Ridley, A. 1998, Beginning Bioethics. New York: St. Martin’s Press. UN General Assembly â€Å"Convention on the Rights of the Child†, Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession byGeneral Assembly resolution 44/25of 20 November 1989 entry into force 2 September 1990, in accordance with article 49 UNICEF, 2008 ‘Child protection from violence, exploitation and abuse’, [Online] Available at: http://www.unicef.org/protection/index_childlabour.html

Opposition to the break with Rome

In my opinion I feel that the views of B and C regarding the enforcement of the reformation differentiate reasonably. Source B suggests that the enforcement was made majorly rapid and describes a lot of the events to take place on the same day, all described as extreme and significant. The execution of Elizabeth Barton, the Nun of Kent helped Henry show what the consequences may have been if more threatening action arose. Along with the execution of the Nun of Kent along with Friars Observants, monks and a secular priest was the highly significant treason act. This was a radical act which gave Henry exceeding power which only added to his enforcement over the reformation. As well as this came the propaganda campaign urging people to side with the Royal Supremacy. Over all B depicts the enforcement of the reformation to be obtrusive, vicious and swift. It is more or less illustrating Henry to have bombarded the public with executions, acts and oaths to make un till his support for the Royal Supremacy seemed strong enough, however from historical evidence this is far from the case. Source C on the other hand describes the enforcement of the reformation to be subtle and over a long period of time. It appears as though over the years it has slowly grown until it finally reached the status of a reformation. It explains that adjustments were made slowly and progressively as to not cause an up roar or major disturbance. This can be said true as the break with Rome lasted over such a long period and involved the activities of Henry gradually stretching the Pope's patience beginning with simple proposals yet building up to his separation with the English Church, his name being erased from the service books and all memory of him as head of the church being removed. The public â€Å"ate their reformation† as it was disguised in pleasant sweet wrappers. Through propaganda the piecemeal reformation was not seen as significant un till the enforcement was solid and there was no questions left to be made. This differs with the views o B in that B describes the reformation to be majorly rested upon â€Å"This day†. Hasty actions which led to the finalized reformation, the final break with Rome, unlike C where support was first gained and power was enforced, like a slow trickling tap it will eventually fill up the bath although it will go unheard and unnoticed. On a level the two sources are similar in that they still both reflect some resilience, and retaliation to the radical changes being enforced. Source B â€Å"God, if it be his pleasure, have mercy on their souls† suggests that there were people who were taking note of Henrys actions and acquiring an opposing view although their statuses did not allow them to disagree with the King publically. C, â€Å"the Conservative people of England would find a wholesale Reformation distasteful† also suggests that if the public would have been more conscious of Henrys full intentions, the laid back manner of the majority of the public would have been much less common. Both the sources seem to propose that the enforcement of the Reformation was purposeful, it was not only Henrys desire for a divorce, and the break with Rome was in Henrys full intentions. I think that although the two sources agree about the reaction to the reformation and the progressive build up of more radical, noticeable movements, they differ on how they deliver the enforcement of the reformation, B depicting it on quick ferocious accounts whereas C reflecting it more as a slow creeping hold over the public. B) I think that overall Henry and Cromwell were very successful in containing the opposition to the beak with Rome, there was very little opposition that actually raised itself and any major threats were dealt with effectively to conclude in Henry with the aid of Cromwell succeeding with the break with Rome. Source A agrees on the terms that Henry and Cromwell successfully obtained opposition. â€Å"I trust that the blessed King† shows the awareness of Henrys actions against the Catholic Pope however the source still supports Henrys â€Å"malice against the bishop of Rome† ad still describes the belief left in the King. This source implies opposition was successfully obtained as the source still shows full support towards Henry. The use of â€Å"bishop of Rome† instead of Pope also highlights the fact that this source sides with Henry and his path towards the break with Rome and the willingness of the source (and writer) to follow his lead. Source C also shows support towards the statement in question B. â€Å"The meal was more manageable† suggests that any opposition did not arise due to Henry and Cromwell's cleverly schemed tactics of feeding implications towards the break with Rome in â€Å"tiny morsels† so that no opposition took notice as there did not appear to be any radical or extreme movements being made which was also likely to of been disguised even more so by the aid of propaganda so highly favoured by Henry and Cromwell. This too diverted the public's attention away from the slowly growing reformation onto less offensive topics.

Plato and Nietzsche on Authority Essay

Nietzsche and Plato have many similarities in their discussion of political philosophy. Both dislike and hold contempt for democracy, and both favour a meritocratically chosen elite holding authority. There are even many similarities between the characteristics that they require in the group. However, there are differences too. Nietzsche doesn’t outline a strict theory of authority, as Plato does. His governmental ‘system’, although it hardly is, could be interpreted, and has been, in many different ways. And, although both of them think that they have justified their authority, there have been several discussions on to whether they are, and in what society they would be relevant. These discussions are perhaps at the core of finding the key differences and usable elements of their philosophies. The notion of authority can be discussed in two main senses. For one, it can be used to discuss a person or group’s right to rule. The other is when you talk of someone being an authority on a topic. Both of these involve the subordination of personal judgement to that of another and most political theorists would consider this subordination to be binding. One of the main problems is if you should surrender your own personal judgement independent of the content of the authority’s ideas – both Nietzsche and Plato would say that one should, as their leaders are both an authority on a topic and have the right to rule. When authority comes from knowledge, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the authority has power, for example as in a teacher trying to control a class at a school. However, in politics, an effective authority must be allied to power. If the authority is recognised, then it is de facto authority. If it is justified, then it is de jure authority, and most de facto authorities claim that they are both de facto and de jure. Plato and Nietzsche both argue for a de facto authority (sensibly – who wants to impose an authority that is ignored?) and they both outline what they believe to be justification for this authority. This justification is at the centre of much of political philosophy, as it is important to discover if the justification works. Authority differs, therefore, from justified power, as justified power in itself does not involve subordination of judgement – if they’re not recognised, then they cannot require that people follow their rule. Legitimacy is also an issue. In a democratic state, electoral fraud would lead to a leader being illegitimate: there is also no guaranteed way to prevent electoral fraud. However, as Nietzsche and Plato are both anti-democracy, illegitimacy this way would obviously be an issue. However, if either of their desired leaders were to ‘seize power’ (either by force or just accidentally falling into power), there would be definite issues with people who didn’t believe their justification. In this case, their authority could be considered illegitimate. Plato, especially in Republic, gives epistemology and metaphysics substantial roles in political philosophy. In Plato’s ideally just city, philosophers would gain power, or, at the very least, rulers would have to engage ‘sincerely and adequately’ in philosophy. Plato also suggests a rigorous training program for his philosopher-kings – they must have their emotions properly trained. Would this lack of emotion make for a good authority? Many would say that you cannot be emotional about your leadership because then your judgement would be swayed by too many subjective factors. However, the thought of a leader without emotion is particularly daunting – how would they know what would affect the population, and more importantly how? Emotions are an important part of human life, and a great leader would have to understand (and this would usually be best understood by feeling the emotions oneself) human life to be effective. Plato argues that this would co me from knowledge of the Forms, the perfect example of something – there is one for every notion that exists on earth. The Form of tables, the Form of emotions, or even the Form of drinks are all said to exist. The meticulous training includes imparting knowledge about these forms and prepares the mind for this abstract thought by rigorously training the rulers in mathematics. The philosopher’s knowledge of the Forms would include knowledge of the Form of Good, which is the ‘keystone of the system’, and therefore is essential for order. If one takes the Forms to be a true (or even just realistic) idea then it is sensible for a leader to understand what the true notion of good is. If one knows ‘good’ then one can use this mould to create a ‘good system’, which is surely more reliable than basing it on subjective ideas. The Forms are like a religion, which makes Plato’s system almost a theocracy (unlike the authority of Nietzsche) – and this has been implemented as a political system before. In the past, however, people have become dissatisfied with the religion that they are ‘forced’ to agree with. Atheism is becoming more and more accepted than before, as many new scientific discoveries render God less and less plausible, and as Nietzsche would put it, less useful as a concept. All this taken into account means that knowledge of the Forms probably wouldn’t be useful for an authority (especially in a modern era), but it is not necessarily a bad idea for an authority figure to be well versed in philosophy. Philosophy introduces abstract thought (like Plato suggested) and calls for knowledge in logic. Abstract thought is useful when trying to find theories that fit with the real world – where would physics and chemistry be without abstract thought concerning the atom? Another key question on the subject of religion was raised by Nietzsche. Is there anything that can be taken from religion, even if one wasn’t to be imposing religion onto a state, as Plato does? Nietzsche believes that, although religion in itself is too dogmatic and God is useless as a concept, the passion behind religion is admirable, and would be one of the key characteristics of his ‘new philosophers’. Nietzsche’s ‘new philosopher’, as opposed to the more traditional concept of Plato, would be more like a contemporary artist than a contemporary philosopher. They would not even necessarily be searching for the truth. These ‘new philosophers’ are the Ubermensch – and coupled with this ‘think outside the box’ attitude, they have a strong Will to Power, which makes them the perfect leader. They crave solitude, when independence is not necessary or normally preferred, which Nietzsche says is an example of exercising the will to power over oneself – he also calls it a ‘privilege of the strong’. Plato agrees, and says that the ‘philosopher follows truth alone’. These new philosopher ‘overmen’ don’t follow the rules that are currently put in place by Christianity and ‘slave morality’ like ‘self-sacrifice for one’s neighbour’ and ‘self-denial’. Similarly to Plato’s philosopher kings, these Ubermensch/new philosophers are uncommitted to anyone or anything, and they are not afraid to break the boundaries currently put in place by political authorities. ————————————————————————————————————- Of course, these philosophers that are in power must be significantly different from those that we call ‘philosophers’ today. Nietzsche says that ‘every great philosophy so far has been just the personal confession of its author’ – meaning that philosophy is subjective and just based and what you want to believe and think. Here, social class, education, religion, parents and friends all play a part in what you write down as your philosophy. As previously mentioned, Nietzsche wants to use people who a free thinkers, someone that yearns to be ‘set free from the crowd’. Plato agrees when Adeimantus says that ‘people who study philosophy too long become weird, roguish creatures, useless to society’ – philosophers aren’t currently as useful to politics as they should be, according to both theories of authority. There are other examples of when a more metaphysical concept has been implemented by an authority. Religious people often hold God (rather than the Forms or the free thinkers of Nietzsche) as the ultimate authority, and although we have discussed briefly the problems with making this the law of a state (as in theocracy), this religious politics may not be a bad idea. For example, if those with authority look to God for advice on political matters, it gives them a chance to think about and ‘receive information’ (either from God, or simply thinking it through in prayer, or even through the morals in religious scripture – this needn’t be a discussion of religious philosophy) about what may be the better decision. Obviously, if we take the Forms to be incorrect (as most people do), then God would be the ultimate good, which means that those that ‘understand God’ would have to hold the power, rather than philosophers. Of course, there has to be a line drawn between looking to God (or another spiritual being) for advice and forcing views on other people. Plato would argue that the people don’t know what is good for them, and so should trust whatever the authority says, but this isn’t a realistic idea for people of today, who have fought for free speech for centuries. Nietzsche would both agree and disagree with this. He would agree in that the Ubermensch are the only ones that can be truly rulers, and that the vast majority of people don’t know what’s good for them. However, he wouldn’t necessarily say that this was a bad thing, as if slaves are happy being slaves, then they have less of the Will to Power and therefore do (in a sense) know what’s good for themselves personally. Of course, even if we convert Plato’s theory on Authority to be based around any religious ideals then it is still an argument against democracy in that if an Authority must have something to be a ‘good’ ruler, there is no point in asking the untrained masses to vote for a ‘good’ ruler. They wouldn’t, presumably, be able to understand the Forms, or God, sufficiently enough to choose an Authority (or even understand that there could be an Authority) that would do the job to Plato’s standards. Another Plato’s philosopher kings rely on their knowledge of the Forms to provide their moral code, which is then implemented upon the Republic. The Form of the Good provides the perfect moral code upon which to base the real (material) moral code. This is one of the main reasons why Plato requires his rulers to have philosophical knowledge – they need to know the moral code upon which to base their own. Nietzsche, on the other hand, believes that everything is subjective, based on experience and opinion of the individual. This means that his philosopher supermen don’t need to implement a moral code; their only morals are the will to power. Even if this seems like a good idea within the context of Plato’s Republic, this Authority wouldn’t make sense in today’s politics. For example, there are many various types of religion, and within those religions, thousands of sub-sets. This means that, even without using the Forms, that this theocracy idea couldn’t be imposed without some force (the implications of which will be discussed later). Secondly, using one type of morality based on dogmatic principles wouldn’t hold sway for a similar reason – there would be complaints (or even uprisings) about the lack of freedoms this gives. These are practical reasons for the change not to take place. However, there are implications even if this were to be used in an ideal society (where all good ideas based upon an interchangeable ultimate value would be easily implemented with consequences). It’s not ideal, from many viewpoints, to force everyone to hold the same viewpoint (although Plato would argue that there is only one true viewpoint) and Nietzsche’s subjectivism would agree. Human nature would be indulged in an ideal world, if happiness was the ultimate value, and this calls for freedom to be a central concept of any Authority. Freedom to vote, to those in the UK, seems to be a basic human right with few restrictions. This means that democracy would seem to be part of an ideal society in pursuit of happiness. There are good reasons for this – we all have subjective opinions (as Nietzsche rightly said) and these need to be reflected in the way we are governed by an authority. For example, in most other situations, we would consult someone who we believe to be an ‘authority’ on a subject. If we are ill, we talk to a doctor. If we want to dine out, we will consult a restaurant critic. Therefore, it seems sensible to leave governmental decisions to those with political knowledge. However, the teaching of medicine is universally taught in a similar (if not identical) way – there is little room for a subjective opinion. The more subjective something is, the less we can trust it. The restaurant critic, for example, will sway our views either way, but it probably won’t be the final judgment. The reason it will still sway us is that there is still ‘good’ and ‘bad’ food. Politics, however, is different. Everything in politics is completely dependant on moral views, upbringing, teaching, the media and even the way your brain works. We cannot trust teachers of politics to be completely impartial when teaching the political theories. Teachers of religious studies are usually biased towards Christianity in this country, and politics teachers would probably be the same. People wouldn’t be happy with simply ‘going along with’ what the politicians say – that’s why people have died for democracy. Everyone has different views, and democracy is the best way to incorporate all (or most) of these when creating a government. There is, however, a problem with the amount of democracy to allow. The current system in the United Kingdom is for people to vote in a representative that they trust to make similar decisions to those that they would choose. Of course, the representative cannot be trusted to have exactly the same views, and therefore, should the vote be more open? If people were allowed to vote on any topic that interests them, what would happen? The government may be forced to ban petrol cars. The main question is, is it really democratic once elected? The system in the UK is not fully democratic. Plato would argue that the only way for a government to make truly ‘right’ decisions (and therefore decisions that the public would have to agree with – there’s nothing to disagree with if something is ‘right) is for them to know ‘good’ – be trained in abstract thought and philosophy. So democracy, to be worthwhile, perhaps needs to be more democratic, or Plato and Nietzsche have the right idea. Jeremy Bentham famously associated utilitarianism with democracy – he believed that one vote per person would lead the ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’. This is because human nature naturally tends to lead us towards pleasure, as opposed to pain. And, because everyone has this same desire towards pleasure, democracy would effectively allow all of us to vote for pleasure, so to speak. This seems like a more feasible idea than relying on someone who, although in theory ‘doesn’t have personal interests’, probably would be biased. Humans do tend to avoid pain, so an open vote would lead us away from pain. Change Nietzsche quotes on asceticism! Another important feature that both Nietzsche and Plato mention in their political philosophy is asceticism. Nietzsche mentions that the tests of self-deprivation that (Christians mostly) pervade Western society are bad – â€Å"wherever religious neurosis has appeared on earth, we find it tied up with three dangerous dietary rules: isolation, fasting, and sexual abstinence†. However, further on in Beyond Good and Evil, he seemingly changes his mind. He advocates â€Å"appropriating, injuring, overpowering those who are foreign and weaker; oppression, harshness, forcing one’s own forms on others, incorporation, and at the very least, at the very mildest, exploitation† which would surely induce suffering, especially when considered with a modern mind. He then goes on to say in 270 that â€Å"Profound suffering ennobles; it separates.† Even earlier on, in 40, he says that â€Å"everything deep loves a mask† – surely a sign of internal suf fering is being hidden? Presumably, ‘deep’ is a good thing, as his description of his ‘new philosophers’ necessitates that they are ‘deep’ creatures. Plato, on the other hand, consistently advocates an ascetic lifestyle, especially when he is discussing his people in authority. They do not care for pleasures of this world: those of body or money. We can apply the same thoughts to asceticism as we can to Plato’s philosopher without emotion. If a leader doesn’t care for pleasures of this world, then surely they cannot truly understand the pleasures of this world – whether they are philosophers or not. If the authority was supposed to be similar to a Christian God, then it would be omnipotent, and therefore know and understand everything a priori. However, neither Plato nor Nietzsche advocates a Christian God as the best authority – and neither of them suggests that the leader would be omnipotent. Therefore, it would make sense to disagree with asceticism on the grounds that it would cause the perfect leader to have a lack of understanding about typical human pleasures. It will be evident by now that Nietzsche (and Plato, to an extent) advocates an oligarchy (albeit meritocratic) – both place small groups of people in charge of the general public. They both have similar attitudes towards democracy, as well. Plato dismisses democracy – he thinks that ‘liberty’ (557b) and equality (558c) lead to a break down of all the essential characteristics of a philosopher-king. Evidently the very existence of a ruling class of philosopher kings is controversial to the central themes of democracy. ‘liberty’ leads to a lack of self-discipline. He doesn’t believe in ‘equality’ as some humans are superior. Nietzsche has a similar idea – he mentions that â€Å"Every enhancement in the type â€Å"man† up to this point has been the work of an aristocratic society†, which shows that he believes that an ‘aristocratic’ society will further man’s development. Although Plato seems to advocate a meritocratic oligarchy (although he wouldn’t admit it), he doesn’t recommend that his republic be based around money (also known as a plutocracy) where a small group of rich people, similar to an aristocracy, rule the lower classes. This would lead to an economic inequality between classes, which would create an environment which leads to and breeds beggars and thieves. It could also lead to a revolution between the rich and the poor. Another argument against plutocracies occurs in chapter VIII, Socrates says that wealth doesn’t allow a pilot to navigate a ship, so wealth wouldn’t allow an authority to rule a republic. Money seems to be a key problem with many theories of authority. It is often said that money corrupts people, so it could be argued that in any governmental system where the authority gets paid or is chosen because of its wealth would be corrupt. However, it is not practical to impose this – most people associate power with money either subconsciously or consciously. The authority, even if chosen democratically, would want some reward for having to rule a country, and money is the usual and probably most desired reward. In ‘The Prince’, Machiavelli justified using force to gain and retain political power, and it, therefore, justifies any actions simply done to gain power. This may, of course, have influenced Nietzsche, who also advocates gaining power by force. In 257, he mentions that every ‘noble’ (not in the typical sense) civilisation has descended from ‘barbarians’, and that any decent (and therefore aristocratic) society ‘requires slavery’. Plato agrees with this, he says that the ‘most majestic society and man’ is ‘tyranny and the tyrant’. Although there are sections in The Republic where Plato seems to advocate violence, such as 465 where he says ‘Arguments can be settled with fists, there and then, as they arise’, when he discusses his perfect State he seems to believe that it will just come into being. For example, in 502, he mentions that the only way it could come about by a philosopher ‘wiping the slate of human habits and society clean’. This could, obviously, mean the annihilation of the human race, but it seems to mean just cleansing the mind of incorrect ideas. He then acknowledges that putting it ‘into practice would be difficult’ – which it wouldn’t, if they just forced people into obeying, which makes it seem like he hopes that one day, it will happen, but he is not going to force it. More examples of this anti-force opinion occur when he is discussing the types of government that he is against – timarchy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. He explains that oligarchy and tyranny can only come about by using force – ‘private wealth’ means that people feel that they have the right to ‘keep the populace down by force’. Democracy, he believes, causes excessive liberty, which then causes its own downfall. From this comes a tyrant, who ‘is not afraid of murder’ and ‘stirs up war’. Another point he makes is that ‘it is simply never right to harm anyone at any time’ – which obviously is a specific way of showing his feelings on violence and this would apply to taking a country or state by force. Of course, this helps to illustrate a key difference between power and authority. For example, we all have in us the physical strength to murder (although, obviously, we don’t usually have the mental state to want to do it) and this is power in one sense – just like a dictator killing thousands of people because he can. However, an authority differs from this in that it would be classed as capital punishment. So what is the difference? Why does an authority have the right and others do not? If an authority is de jure (with justification) – although it may be difficult for some to think when murder would be justified – then all its actions could be seen as justified by proxy, as if an authority is justified, the decisions they make would be somehow related to the reason they are in power. For example, Plato justifies his philosopher-kings by saying that they are the only ones who can have true knowledge of the forms, and, if this is true, then they know the Form of Good. So, if they murdered someone, then it would be based upon something they’ve seen in the innate Form of Good. The balance between freedom and authority comes into question when discussing issues like the above. Even though the authority may be justified on its own terms, it may not be necessarily right. Using Plato as an example again, the theory of the Forms is now commonly thought to be incorrect, and people wouldn’t accept that as a reason to allow capital punishment. Even if there was a truly irrefutable source of justification, people will always have differing views, especially on such an important topic. So how does an authority find the perfect balance between power and authority? Authoritarianism is a social theory popular with dictators and the like. It supports, at the totalitarian end of the spectrum, the total subjection of personal opinions (usually through oppression) and enforcing strict control upon those that live in the state. It often involves what many political philosophies would see as an erosion of civil rights and freedoms – lack of a private life and suppression of religious beliefs, for example. Obviously, there are differing degrees of authoritarianism and even the most democratic and liberal state must exercise its authority upon those within the state, but finding the right balance is important. Both Nietzsche and Plato advocate the subordination of those under the command of the philosophers, which means that their theories would be less easily accepted today than they would have been in the past. As previously mentioned, people have fought (and still are, particularly from the 20th century until today) for their civil rights and this includes their freedom, which means that an authoritarian government, like those advocated by Nietzsche and Plato, would be more difficult to impose today than ever before. This calls into question obedience to the state. The more democratic the state, the more free speech and dissent is usually allowed. However, as neither Plato nor Nietzsche advocate democracy, it is required to understand when disobedience would be allowed. Of course, both would say that their state would be obedient at all times, but this is unrealistic. In a theocracy, the state executes the law of God. In Plato, God can be easily exchanged for ‘The Forms’. However, what would happen if people were to disagree with Plato’s theory, as many do? Would they be justified in breaking the law of something that they don’t believe in? A true authority would mean that the law would either be unbreakable morally or that their authority was so powerful that people could not, or would not, break the law. However, as has been seen, it is difficult to see where Plato or Nietzsche’s arguments would lead to such an authority. Although disobedience of the law is obviously illegal, sometimes mass disobedience, in the UK at least, can lead to a change of law. Plato would disagree that this is even possible. If duty to the State is accepted, it is still possible to find examples when the law can be disobeyed. As the duty of the state is to protect the people (and, for my example, this includes their freedom), state infringement of this freedom could cause the person involve to break the law to retrieve their liberty. Another issue arises (in the case of democratic government and perhaps in Nietzsche’s subjective government) in that if the majority part enforces a law, should the minority who didn’t vote be forced to follow it? It wasn’t their choice for that law to be enforced. Of course, with major things that infringe on human rights, like murder and domestic violence, should be universally enforced, but what about poll tax and property protection? If it was enforced by a government of authority that imposed itself, this could be an issue in that it is unfair to enforce laws that almost all of the population disagree with. In some cases, it could be considered immoral, but Plato would disagree, as the Rulers are following the only moral code that exists. Plato’s philosopher kings rely on their knowledge of the Forms to provide their moral code, which is then implemented upon the republic. The Form of the Good provides the perfect moral code upon which to base the real (material) moral code. This is one of the main reasons why Plato requires his rulers to have philosophical knowledge – they need to know the moral code upon which to base their own. Nietzsche, however, believes that everything is subjective, based on experience and opinion of the individual. This means that his philosopher supermen don’t need to implement a moral code; as previously mentioned, their only moral is the will to power. Nietzsche never specifically argues for a government system like we have today. For example, he mentions that his free spirits should be in power, but also says that religion should be allowed for the common people. This shows, slightly patronisingly, that he is not expecting the ‘common’ people to understand the rulers (much like the lower classes today are note expected to understand politics) which is obviously a very sweeping judgement, and could be considered as harsh and pro-Big Brighter – in support of a tyrannical state. Although Nietzsche did support tyrant, he did appreciate the subjectivism of morals and opinion, and was not advocating forcing ones views upon others (unlike Hitler). His lack of respect for democracy is not the only thing that calls into question modern government. He doesn’t even specify if there should be a (totalitarian?) leader at all, merely that the free spirits would ‘hold power’ as such. His appreciation of subjectivity means that a leader would not strictly work: all views are different, so no leader would be truly right. The free spirit seems merely to be an authority to show others with the will to power what they can achieve. Conclusion Both of these systems involve elements of the totalitarian about them. Plato seems to advocate both communism in monetary matters and lifestyle and the complete opposite when it comes to defining differences between peoples. He argues strongly for different classes of people, like Nietzsche, and for an authority that is placed in power with no choice. It’s not as bad as it seems, if one agrees with the justification of the argument – however, it would be a long struggle for people to accept it. Nietzsche, on the other hand, has often been blamed for inspiring Hitler (which is untrue, as Nietzsche despised racism and anti-Semitism), and it is easy to see why, as he advocates gaining authority by force, relishes in aristocratic barbarianism, and believes that there are ‘levels of people’. This means that their theories on authority aren’t very practical, and neither de jure or de facto, particularly by modern standards. A preferable system, therefore, would be a mix of Plato’s equality for women, Nietzsche’s appreciation for the artistic nature, and †¦ (include other philosophers). Of course, it’s unforeseeable to be able to find a perfect authority, one who is justified, true, moral and recognised. As Nietzsche said, all philosophy to date has been ‘personal confession’ – if this is true (which it seems likely to be), then there will never be a perfect authority, justified and recognised by all.

The Work And Paintings Of Jacob Lawrence - 1914 Words

For my research paper, I will be studying the work and paintings of Jacob Lawrence. Jacob Lawrence was an American painter and was very highly commended African-American artist of the 20 century. What he is best known for is his Migration Series. He was born in Atlantic City, New Jersey on September 7, 1917. When he was the age of two his mother deposited him and his two younger siblings in foster care in Philadelphia after his parents divorced. When he was thirteen he went to work in New York City and there he went to join his mother. He also spent fifteen years teaching as a professor at the University of Washington. Lawrence was also widely known for producing narrative collections such as the Migration Series and War Series. Shortly after Lawrence had arrived there, he was introduced to art when his mother had enrolled him in Utopia Children’s Center, which then had an after school art program. At the age of 16 he dropped out of school and took classes at the Harlem Art W orkshop where it was taught by Charles Ashton and he very often visited the Metropolitan Museum of Art. In 1937, he won a scholarship to the American Artist School in New York. When he graduated in 1939 he had received funding from the Works Progress Administration Federal Art Project. By that time, he had already established his own type of modernism and that is then when he began to create his narrative series; where he would paint about 30 paintings or more for that one subject. In 1941, he hadShow MoreRelatedThe Art Of Jacob Lawrence And The Harlem Renaissance1192 Words   |  5 PagesJacob Lawrence Jacob Lawrences was born in 1917 and was an acclaimed African-American artist known for his detailed works that included the Migration Series and the War Series (Duggleby 7). His style consisted of water-based paintings portraying African-Americans life experiences in blacks and browns mixed with many bright and bold colors. Lawrence’s inspirations were based on Black Aesthetics and lives of black historical figures. The painting The Library was created in 1969. The library in theRead MoreAn Analysis Of Savannah Civil Right Museum 1214 Words   |  5 PagesArt: Are You Talking To Me â€Å"Savannah Civil Right Museum† Civil Rights have been the long and dreadful fight against desegregation in many places of the world. Throughout its hard fight many people captured the turmoil that they were faced with by painting, some sculpted, and most photographed. Many reason for this art platform to take place was to create a visual symbol of what we know as the resistance time period. Artist wanted to have the feel of empowerment and most of all feeling liberationRead MoreThe Migration Series Analysis1147 Words   |  5 Pagesforms of institutional racism. In his paintings depicting the Great Migration, Jacob Lawrence captures a feeling of hope and ambiguity as a family pulls into an urban landscape on a train. During the Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt successfully passed the New Deal, which yielded countless projects that enriched American economy, as well as American lives. One such project was â€Å"The Migration Series†, which was painted by renowned artist, Jacob Lawrence.As one the enduring legacies ofRead MoreJacob Lawrence : An African American Painter Essay963 Words   |  4 PagesJacob Lawrence was an African American painter, who was known for his portraits of the African American life. He was best known for his series titled, the Migration. Lawrence was born in Atlantic City, New Jersey on September 7th of 1917. After his parents separated, Lawrence and his younger siblings were put into the foster care system until his mother could support her children in New York. His education into the world of art was not only formal, but informal as well. It was formal because heRead More Jacob Lawrence Essay1750 Words   |  7 Pagesdistinguished artists of the twentieth century, Jacob Lawrence was born in Atlantic City and spnt part of his child hood in Pennsylvania. After his parents split up in 1924, he went with his mother and siblings to New York, settling in Harlem. quot;He trained as a painter at the Harlem Art Workshop, inside the New York Publi c Librarys 113 5th Street branch. Younger than the artists and writers who took part in the Harlem Renaissance of the 1920s, Lawrence was also at an angle to them: he was not interestedRead MoreThe Great Migration Through Different Mediums And Times Essay1334 Words   |  6 PagesAfrican Americans of their time. August Wilson published his play Joe Turner’s Come and Gone in 1984, a drama about the journey of several poor African-American travelers headed North to find work. Jacob Lawrence released his series of paintings titled Migration of the Negro in 1941, a series of sixty paintings that depicts the Great Migration. A major difference between Wilson’s play and Lawrence’s series is the depiction of the individual. In Joe Turner’s Come and Gone, as in any other play or dramaRead MoreThe Harlem Renaissance And American History1217 Words   |  5 Pagesnaturalism, idealism, or abstract themes. During the 1920’s, an era known as the Harlem Renaissance defined black culture and changed entertainment around the world. The black community used art such as music, literature, and paintings to express social freedom. Artist such as Jacob Lawrence, Langston Hughes, and Duke Ellington used their art as a form of therapy and communication to share the life of an African American in White America. This phenomenon created culture pride within the community. Their artRead MoreThe Harlem Renaissance : The New Negro Movement843 Words   |  4 Pagesart within its culture. Of the many painters at the time, Aaron Douglas, Lois Jones, and Jacob Lawrence were a few of the well-known painters in this era. Each painter had their own specific styles and patterns with embodied meaning in their artwork, giving each of their pieces significance and beauty. Aaron Douglas, who lived from 1899-1979, had a specific, almost abstract style. He was an artist â€Å"whose work best exemplified the New Negro philosophy† (Phylicia, and Sari.). The colors he usedRead MoreHarlem Renaissance : A Cultural, Social, And Artistic Explosion840 Words   |  4 Pagesblacks creating their own culture. The Harlem Renaissance had many great writers, artists, and musicians. These great writers, artists, and musicians created great poems, paintings, sculptures, and songs. Some of the great writers were Langston Hughes, Zora Neal Houston, and Countee Cullen. Some of the great artists were Jacob Lawrence, Aaron Douglas, and Lois Mailou Jones. Some of the great musicians were Louie Armstrong, Duke Ellington, and James Weldon Johnson. Langston Hughes is one of the most knownRead MoreJacob Lawrence s Influence On African American History879 Words   |  4 Pagesblack lives matter movements that we have focused on. Our artist come from different eras but have at least one similarity which is the attention on black art. Jacob Lawrence he might be one of the most influential African American artist. Jacob Lawrence focused on illustrating African American history through his colorful narrative paintings, therefore making him an artist and also a storyteller. Affected by the Harlem Renaissance of the 1920s and 1930s, he was introduced to art. His art is a day