Bombs on Japanese Essay Example for Free

Bombs on Japanese Essay A number of analyses have been conducted on the bombing action that was carried out in the month of August the year nineteen forty five by the US on Japanese cities. This bombing was very significant since it resulted to a very large number of deaths and further effects which are still evident in some people including those caused by radiation. The main reason as to why this action has attracted a wide range to philosophical analysis is that; despite the fact that so many people died from the bombing, US government still hold it that their action was grounded on morality. They argue that they had saved greater damage from resulting from war and should be thanked rather than condemned. ETHICS ANALYSIS Introduction When Second World War was coming to an end, US grew impatient and decided to speed up its ending. US made use of atomic bombs to attack Japan which managed to kill a large Japanese population and wounding a larger number as well. This action carried out by US has been widely analyzed by philosophers with John Stuart being one of them. John has based his analysis on the bombing morality which contributes to a deeper understanding of events that took place, causes as well as effects that accompanied the action. He begins with noting that the bombing action was among the most significant events that took place during the Second World War. The actual bombing took place in two places; one was dropped in Nagasaki while the other bombing took place in Hiroshima. Two hundred thousand people died immediately the bombing was carried out while about one hundred and thirty thousand more people lost their lives in a period of five years that followed. The subsequent deaths were caused by aftermath effects of bombing including trauma and radiation. Further more, about three hundred thousand people are found to suffer from bombing effects in several ways including disability. Daniels (2008 pp 37-40) Morality of US Bombings on Japan Despite the fact that bombing caused great damage on Japan citizens, American government has not taken a moment to apologize for its devastating actions. On the contrary, Americans led by Harry Truman have opted to justify their actions giving moral reasons as to why they attacked Japan even after they had lost war. One such instance where this has happened is when Truman was writing about the issue in nineteen fifty eight where he commented that he did not have any reservations concerning the bombing. These words reached the Japanese in good time and city council of Hiroshima criticized Truman’s words noting that they signified great defilement to people affected by the bombing. Instead of declining his statement, Truman arranged a meeting where he addressed an American press conference outlining justification for bombing. He said that Japan tempted the US to act since they had attacked them at the Harbor of Pearl earlier before the bombing and this was just a â€Å"pay back†. Truman’s comments were backed by other Americans who were eager to show the morality of bombing among them being Paul Fussell, who had a disbelief in war. Paul argued that revenge from US did not represent a reasonable motive though it was still America’s motive when it was destroying Japanese Empire. Paul also point out on disbelieve on Americans who regard the nineteen forty five bombing as an action of violence that they did not support since during the actual time of bombing, almost every American was delighted. The delight did not only come from the fact that war period was shortened which saved a great number of Americans from perishing but also for the reason that Japanese deserved to be punished for attacking American troops at the harbor of Pearl. More evidence, of Americans’ delight was noted where about twenty three percent of them suggested on dropping of more bombs on Japanese. Mearsheimer (2001 pp 17-24)

Abortion Essay -- essays research papers

Abortion is one of the most controversial issues in America today. Abortion is the ending of pregnancy before birth. There are approximately 1.5 million abortions every year in this country. Abortion was made legal in the 1970s. However, pro-life activists argue that it is murder. Should the government have the legal power to take away a woman\'s right to make decisions regarding her own body? An abortion results in the death of an embryo or a fetus. Abortion destroys the lives of helpless, innocent children. In many countries abortion is illegal. By aborting these unborn infants, humans are hurting themselves; they are not allowing themselves to meet these new identities and unique personalities. Abortion is very simply wrong. Everyone is raised knowing the difference between right and wrong. Murder is wrong, so why is not abortion? People argue that it is not murder if the child is unborn. Abortion is murder since the fetus being destroyed is living, growing and moving. Why is it that if an infant is destroyed months before the birth, there is no problem, but if killed a month after birth, this is inhumane murder? Everyday, innocent, harmless fetuses that could soon be laughing children are being cruelly destroyed. One form of abortion is to cut the fetus into pieces with serrated forceps before being removed, piece-by-piece from the uterus by suction with a vacuum aspirator. Another form consists of bringing the fetus feet first into the birth canal, puncturing its skull with a sharp instrument and sucking out the brain tissue. The remains of the fetus or embryo, as the case may be, are put into plastic buckets and then sent to a dumpster where these precious bones and limbs are disposed. However, how and when an abortion takes place are of little significance to pro- abortionists and other defenders of abortion. Even former abortion practitioners have a new view on abortion. These changes of heart were caused by psychological, religious and scientific reasons. One doctor, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, performed 60,000 abortions and supervised 10,000. Scientific evidence and the use of an ultrasound convinced him he was promoting and participating what he now calls â€Å"the most atrocious holocaust in the history of the United States.† Other doctors refuse to perform legal abortions, saying they should save lives rather than destroy them. Abortion becomes particu... ... life movement will win, because when you hold up a picture of a six month old fetus being stabbed in the neck and all you say is ’choice, choice, choice’ you are going to loose.† In conclusion, a women’s right to choose can justify abortion, but it should be banned because it\'s immoral and life begins at conception. Women have been given the right to have an abortion under the United States Constitution, but this right is still being protested by the people that fight for the unborn\'s rights. It is immoral because it is simply defined as murder. Life begins at conception not at birth. Before a child is born it is given all its supplies to survive. Before birth the child’s heart beats, all its necessary organs have been made present, and gastric juices flow in the stomach. This is a child that dreams, feels pain, and thinks. Some women may look at having an abortion to solve personal conflicts, but in all, women that chose abortion are abandoning their strengths of creation, compassion, and ability to be a mother. After evaluating each side, especially that of the pro-choice movement, and debating each side, I feel pro-life is the movement I st ick with in most circumstances.

Leadership Management of the Virgin Group Essay

Change is the only constant in the world so when the world changes it is a must for an organisation to have the pace of change, to anticipate a success ahead. Virgin Atlantic has undergone many changes as the case in 1999 49% of Virgin Atlantic’s stake was sold to Singapore Airlines to have a partnership. (virginatlanbtic, 2010) and there was another change in 2008 where Virgin Atlantic started to use bio fuel instead of jet fuel(Virgin Atlantic,2011). When the organization faces challenges like these different situations, leadership styles canadapted to address the challenge. When Virgin Atlantic sold its 49% of stake to Singapore Airlines, it made the following challenges of merging, because now Virgin Atlantic is not fully authorized to change issues of it, it had to rely on Singapore Airlines too, so it can’t adapt an autocratic or bureaucratic leadership style, it should adapt the democratic where each party’s opinion is considered in the process of Virgin Atlantic. Since Richard Branson is a charismatic leader (Grant, 2004). He can easily adapt to any leadership style as it is required by the joint venture. In the case of bio fuel usage too the condition is the same. Being democratic the leader listens to the opinions from others too when there is an issue and can tell them the importance of change for an instance the bio fuel usage reduces green house gas emission in the environment, so it is an environmentally friendly activity. Task 2. 1 Virgin Atlantic is one of the successful products of The virgin Group whose organisational culture is quite complex, because this specific organisation has got more than 100 companies with often completely unrelated products. The Virgin Atlantic was too launched to expand the brand value of The Virgin Group, so having an understanding about The Virgin Group tells what kind of organisational strategy is followed in the Virgin Atlantic. It tries to create the loyalty of the customers; the innovative management inspires the employees to be actively engaged in the organisation (http://ivythesis. typepad. com/term_paper_topics/2010/07/case-study-richard-branson-and-the-virgin-group-of-companies-. html, 2010). Many leadership theories have influence over such organisational strategy of Virgin Atlantic. The transformational leadership can have positive impact on the development of the organisation. The possibility of having transformational leadership is assured where all united together as an organisation with sense of commitment (Naughtin), since Virgin Atlantic has a team work with the involvement of each employee, this leaderships favours the health of its organisational strategy, because here the group works under a common goal like increasing the image of Virgin Group in the world, which definitely increases the overall efficiency. Transactional leadership is something different from transformational, in transactional leadership personal performance of leadership is mainly concerned ,which can lead to greed and lack of team work. According to the organisational behaviour pattern of Virgin Atlantic this leadership theory won’t work well because, although the chairman is Richard Branson, he is not one, but million ones together who has the interest on Virgin Atlantic. So this style rarely helps to increase the performance of Virgin Atlantic. Task 2. 2 As stated above the vision of Virgin Atlantic is â€Å"to grow a profitable airline where people love to fly, and where people love to work†. Virgin Group has gone far in achieving this, but to be the one of the leading world’s airline, the organisation should have a realistic strategy with many features, that supports the direction of the organisation. Being a transformational and charismatic leader (Richard Branson) is the best to navigate Virgin Atlantic in the path of success (Virgin Atlantic, 2011).

How does Austen use contrasting characters in Pride and Prejudice? Essay

How does Austen use contrasting characters in Pride and Prejudice? (Part B question) Jane Austen uses contrasting characters in ‘Pride and Prejudice’ to highlight her characters traits, both good and bad, and comparing them to others, and by doing this she can shape the plot of the novel. One obvious contrast in the novel is that of Mr Wickham and Mr Darcy and is used to build tension in the plot and convey Jane Austen’s message of being too judgemental. When we, and the characters of the novel, are introduced to Wickham for the first time we see him in an extremely good light because of the overwhelmingly positive description of his ‘gentlemanlike appearance’, ‘perfectly correct and unassuming’ manners and everyone in the communities good opinion of him. This contrasts to when we first meet to Darcy who is instantly ‘discovered to be proud, to be above his company and above being pleased’. This is judged by Elizabeth as well as the whole community; the effect of this is that as a reader we are instantly prejudiced against him and have a very low opinion of his character from the start. However this view is challenged by Austen’s use of a casual narrator that can switch from the, more usual, point of view of Elizabeth to the view of the Bingly’s and Mr Darcy at Netherfield, which shows Darcy in a better light than we previously saw him. We go from hearing his outrageously rude manners at the ball; saying ‘there is not another woman in the room whom it would not be a punishment to [him] to stand up with’ to the narrator informing us that ‘he began to find it was rendered uncommonly intelligent by the beautiful expression of her fine eyes’. However the most drastic alteration of our view of him comes in Volume two of the novel, when we find out about Wickham’s true character and how much of a fraud he is, and the repercussions of this for the Darcy and Bennet families. Austen uses these characters and their contrasts in order to highlight one of the main themes of the novel; first impressions (which was originally going to be the name of the novel) and how wrong they can be, because after judging Darcy and Wickham at two ends of the spectrum with little information, the reader, and the characters, find out that actually, not only were we wrong, but they turn out to be exact opposites of who we expected, and the significance of this is shown to us by the drastic effect on the plot-line that the characters judgements have. Another influential character contrast that Austen creates is that of Jane and Elizabeth Bennet. This contrast is important to the novel because it highlights the other main theme and message that Austen is putting across; Pride and Prejudice. In the novel Elizabeth is a drastic contrast to her sister Jane because of the prejudice attitudes she shows throughout when she judges people, and sometimes rightly, on her first impressions, and then it too proud to change these opinions, until it is too late; in the case of Wickham and Lydia. This is shown to us from the very start of the novel although we do not immediately pick up on the dangers of this. Elizabeth first shows her pride when she says that Darcy’s pride ‘had mortified [hers]’ when he called her ‘tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt [him]’, and she holds this against him for the majority of the rest of the book. She is also very sceptical of the Bingly sisters from the very start, although she knows little about them besides her judgement that ‘their behaviour at the assembly had not been calculated to please’. This contrasts to Jane’s blind trust of everybody, which, although sometimes proves itself a bad thing, it does show that she is a far kinder person than Elizabeth, always thinking the best of people; ‘to take good of everybody’s character and make it still better, and say nothing of the bad – belongs to [Jane] alone’. Sometimes her judgement is portrayed to us as a positive aspect of Lizzy, showing she is smart; for example when she deduces Collins’ character after just reading his letter, however it goes to extremes though the novel; for example when she believes Wickham’s twisted story of Darcy because she has already judged Darcy badly for the sole reason that he insulted her when they first met. Occasions like this, when Jane ‘would not wish to be hasty in censuring anyone’ portray Austen’s message that we should not judge people on our first impressions, or hold our pride against them, and show us her clever use of contrasting characters to develop theme.

Siddhartha essays

Siddhartha essays What do you get when you cross a novel with a spiritual guide to life? Hermann Hesses Siddhartha. The book is the life story of a man who has one lofty goal: to become enlightened. He was born the son of a Brahmin, a member of the highest social class. Yet he was unhappy with the teachings of the Brahmins, so instead of remaining one of them and becoming a priest, he became a wandering ascetic (a Samana), then a merchant, then a ferryman, seeking some sort of enlightenment every step of the way. Eventually, at the end of his life, he reached enlightenment, but only after a lifetime of diligently following divergent paths. Siddhartha had to take so many different paths in his life because he didnt really know what he was searching for. His goal was enlightenment. But what is enlightenment? That was the question that he never asked himself. He was searching for something undefined, something that is indescribable. He had a general idea of what it was, and he had a general idea of how to get it, but however hard he tried, whatever path he took, it never seemed to come any closer. As a Brahmin, something was bothering him. He felt unfulfilled, like his life was empty. The Brahmins...knew a tremendous number of things but was it worth while knowing all these things if they did not know the one important thing, the only important thing? He knew that he could not attain enlightenment as one of them, so he joined the Samanas, thinking that they were on the right path. But after three years with them, he was able to realize that they werent going anywhere either. I believe that amongst all the Samanas, probably not even one will attain Nirvana. He had heard rumors of a man who had become enlightened, and so he left the Samanas with his friend Govinda, and went to seek out Buddha, the enlightened one. There, he acknowledged Buddhas transcendence but disagreed with his teachings. ...

Patriarchal Society Defined According to Feminism

Patriarchal Society Defined According to Feminism Definition: Patriarchal (adj.) describes a general structure in which men have power over women. Society (n.) is the entirety of relations of a community. A patriarchal society consists of a male-dominated power structure throughout organized society and in individual relationships. Power is related to privilege.  In a system in which men have more power than women, men have some level of privilege to which women are not entitled. The concept of patriarchy has been central to many feminist theories.  It is an attempt to explain the stratification of power and privilege by gender that can be observed by many objective measures. A patriarchy, from the ancient Greek patriarches, was a society where power was held by and passed down through the elder males. When modern historians and sociologists describe a patriarchal society, they mean that men hold the positions of power and have more privilege: head of the family unit, leaders of social groups, boss in the workplace, and heads of government. In patriarchy, there is also a hierarchy among the men.  In traditional patriarchy, the elder men had power over the younger generations of men.  In modern patriarchy, some men hold more power (and privilege) by virtue of the position of authority, and this hierarchy of power (and privilege) is considered acceptable. The term comes from  pater  or father.  Father or father-figures hold the authority in a patriarchy. Traditional patriarchal societies are, usually, also patrilineal - titles and property are inherited through male lines.  (For an example of this, the Salic Law as applied to property and titles followed male lines strictly.) Feminist Analysis Feminist theorists have expanded the definition of patriarchal society to describe a systemic bias against women. As second-wave feminists examined society during the 1960s, they did observe households headed by women and female leaders. They were, of course, concerned with whether this was uncommon. More significant, however, was the way society perceived women in power as an exception to a collectively held view of womens role in society. Rather than saying that individual men oppressed women, most feminists saw that oppression of women came from the underlying bias of a patriarchal society. Gerda Lerners Analysis of Patriarchy Gerda Lerners 1986 history classic,  The Creation of Patriarchy, traces the development of the patriarchy to the second millennium B.C.E. in the middle east, putting gender relations at the center of the story of civilizations history.  She argues that before this development, male dominance was not a feature of human society in general.  Women were key to the maintenance of human society and community, but with a few exceptions, social and legal power was wielded by men. Women could gain some status and privilege in patriarchy by limiting her child-bearing capacity to just one man so that he could depend on her children being his children. By rooting patriarchy - a social organization where men rule over women - in historical developments, rather than in nature, human nature or biology, she also opens the door for change.  If patriarchy was created by culture, it can be overturned by a new culture.  Ã‚   Part of her theory carried through into another volume, The Creation of Feminist Consciousness, is that women were not conscious that they were subordinate (and it might be otherwise) until this consciousness began slowly to emerge, starting with medieval Europe. In an interview with Jeffrey Mishlove on Thinking Aloud, Lerner described her work on the subject of patriarchy: Other groups that were subordinated in history - peasants, slaves, colonials, any kind of group, ethnic minorities - all of those groups knew very quickly that they were subordinated, and they developed theories about their liberation, about their rights as human beings, about what kind of struggle to conduct in order to emancipate themselves. But women did not, and so that was the question that I really wanted to explore. And in order to understand it I had to understand really whether patriarchy was, as most of us have been taught, a natural, almost God-given condition, or whether it was a human invention coming out of a specific historic period. Well, in Creation of Patriarchy I think I show that it was indeed a human invention; it was created by human beings, it was created by men and women, at a certain given point in the historical development of the human race. It was probably appropriate as a solution for the problems of that time, which was the Bronze Age, but its no longe r appropriate, all right? And the reason we find it so hard, and we have found it so hard, to understand it and to combat it, is that it was institutionalized before Western civilization really, as we know it, was, so to speak, invented, and the process of creating patriarchy was really well completed by the time that the idea systems of Western civilization were formed. Some Quotes About Feminism and Patriarchy From bell hooks: Visionary feminism is a wise and loving politics. It is rooted in the love of male and female being, refusing to privilege one over the other. The soul of feminist politics is the commitment to ending patriarchal domination of women and men, girls and boys. Love cannot exist in any relationship that is based on domination and coercion. Males cannot love themselves in patriarchal culture if their very self-definition relies on submission to patriarchal rules. When men embrace feminist thinking and practice, which emphasizes the value of mutual growth and self-actualization in all relationships, their emotional well-being will be enhanced. A genuine feminist politics always brings us from bondage to freedom, from lovelessness to loving. Also from bell hooks:  We have to constantly critique imperialist white supremacist patriarchal culture because it is normalized by mass media and rendered unproblematic. From Mary Daly: The word ‘sin’ is derived from the Indo-European root ‘es-,’ meaning ‘to be.’ When I discovered this etymology, I intuitively understood that for a [person] trapped in patriarchy, which is the religion of the entire planet, ‘to be’ in the fullest sense is ‘to sin. From Andrea Dworkin: Being female in this world means having been robbed of the potential for human choice by men who love to hate us. One does not make choices in freedom. Instead, one conforms in body type and behavior and values to become an object of male sexual desire, which requires an abandonment of a wide-ranging capacity for choice... From Maria Mies, author of  Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale, linking the division of labor under capitalism to the division of the sexes: Peace in patriarchy is war against women. From Yvonne Aburrow: The patriarchal/kyriarchal/hegemonic culture seeks to regulate and control the body – especially women’s bodies, and especially black women’s bodies – because women, especially black women, are constructed as the Other, the site of resistance to the kyriarchy. Because our existence provokes fear of the Other, fear of wildness, fear of sexuality, fear of letting go – our bodies and our hair (traditionally hair is a source of magical power) must be controlled, groomed, reduced, covered, suppressed. From Ursula Le Guin: Civilized Man says: I am Self, I am Master, all the rest is otheroutside, below, underneath, subservient. I own, I use, I explore, I exploit, I control. What I do is what matters. What I want is what matter is for. I am that I am, and the rest is women wilderness, to be used as I see fit. From Kate Millett: Patriarchy, reformed or unreformed, is patriarchy still: its worst abuses purged or foresworn, it might actually be more stable and secure than before. From Adrienne Rich,  Of Woman Born:  Ã¢â‚¬Å"There is nothing revolutionary whatsoever about the control of womens bodies by men. The womans body is the terrain on which patriarchy is erected.†

MidTerm Two Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

MidTerm Two - Term Paper Example Plato on the other side argues that the best rational political order leads to harmony and unity in a society. He says that behaviors of people determine the outcomes of any political endeavor. If dialogue is initiated, then there is the belief that there would be some political order (Kennedy 152). Plato insists that justice is the best character that leads to a political order. Plato’s argument seems to be best since it urges people to prepare and ensure that everything is in order before politics is initiated. On the other hand, Aristotle argues that only the happy and virtuous people can participate in politics. For both ideas of Aristotle and Machiavelli, there is belief in a spectrum of some diverse categories for exercising social development and organization. Both believe that social organization can function as an on-going negotiation of time among the individuals with desperate aims. It can also function as a partnership that aims at persuading common goals (Gross et al.