Related Keywords

No Related Keywords

Register NowHow It Works Need Essay Need Essay
Should there be a House of Lords?
0 User(s) Rated!
Words: 1384 Views: 177 Comments: 0
Clearly, in such a populated country such as Great Britain, a Second Chamber of Parliament also known as the House of Lords is necessary. Although the House of Lords cannot execute much power, compared to the House of Commons, it is a vital part of British Government. The House of Lords plays an important part in revising, potentially delaying legislation and as well as keeping a check on Government by scrutinising its activities. It complements the work of the Commons, whose members are elected to represent their constituents. Members of the Lords are not elected and are unpaid. Most peers...
very well and it would not make sense to remove its presence from Government. The House of Lords works to revise legislation ensuring it is coherent. It also works by keeping a check on Government by scrutinising its activities. Many people do not realise that the House of Lords is influential in Government. For example, it can delay legislation for a maximum of one year. It is also made up of many committees that make sure that Government is working efficiently. Although there are some problems with the House of Lords including being undemocratic, overall it works very well.
Become A Member Become a member to continue reading this essay orLoginLogin
View Comments Add Comment

"We hold these truths to be..."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Those are the opening lines to the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence was written in 1776. Yet, slavery continued in the United States for nearly ninety years after this document declared that "all men where created equal," and those "unalienable rights" are still not shared by everyone in the United States. The U.S. has been lacking in its responsibility to its citizens. The state responsibility for human and civil rights must be expanded in the United States. In December 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The thirty articles of the UDHR were developed to provide a clear definition of human rights. It then became the responsibility of the states of the United Nations to protect those rights. This is where the United States is lacking. The U.S. is one of the founding nations of the United Nations and one of the most influential, yet it has failed to take adequate state responsibility for human rights. Before the ineptitude of the United States can be discussed, the concept of state responsibility for human and civil rights must be clearly defined. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines state as "a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory," and responsibility as "moral, legal, or mental accountability." These definitions of state and responsibility can be interpreted and combined to provide a literal definition of state responsibility. The definition of state responsibility could then be seen as "the moral and legal accountability of a government." A concise notion of state responsibility for human and civil rights would then be congruent to "the moral and legal accountability of government for life, liberty, security, and any other finite right of a person." With the concept of state responsibility for human and civil rights having been defined, the extent of state responsibility in the United States can be discussed. Rhonda Copelon once noted, ""¦the most limited conception of state responsibility [in the United States] has been essentially dismantled." Copelon also made a statement to the effect that rights in the U.S. are limited to constraints on government and that they do not reach private conduct or include the most basic social and economic needs. Copelon sights the case of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services 1989 as an example of the limitation of rights because of the constraints of government. In the DeShaney case, a child was subject to a series of beatings by his father. Social Services stepped in and took various steps to protect the child; they did not, however, remove the child from his father's custody. The father finally beat the child so severely that the child became mentally retarded. For the lack of prevention of the beatings, the mother of the child and the child filed suit against Social Services. The court ruled in favor of Social Services and sited that "private violence or other mishaps are not attributable to the conduct of its [i.e. state or local government] employees." Chief Justice Rehnquist established the ruling of the court better when he said, "[Nothing] in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect life, liberty and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors. The clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of minimal levels of safety and security." What does this mean? It means that the law establishes the rights of citizens, but does not provide for a means of providing those rights. This is why Rhonda Copelon used negative as "a word that aptly describes the U.S. framework of civil rights and civil liberties in a number of ways: Rights are limited to constraints on government; they do not include the most basic social and economic needs"¦" The United States has been lacking in other areas of state responsibility for human and civil rights. Racial discrimination has been a part of the U.S. since its origin. W. Haywood Burns once commented on the early legal status of black Americans in the U.S.: "The legal issue of the status of black people in pre-Civil War America came to a head in 1857 in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, which proved to be one of the most important judicial decisions in the history of the black experience in the law. Dred Scott, a slave who had been taken to a free territory by his master, attempted to sue for his freedom based upon the theory that residence in a free state had made him free. As Chief Justice Taney put it, 'The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen"¦?' The Court's answer was, simply, 'No.' In ruling that Dred Scott, and by extension, any other black person, could not be a citizen under the Constitution"¦" The Court's decision in Scott set precedence until Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and the conclusion of the Civil War. Even after Reconstruction, racism and inequality were still a part of U.S. society and law. The Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 can be used to illustrate this fact. The Plessy case resulted in a statute of "separate, but equal." This statue was applied to separate blacks and whites in many aspects of life, from where one could sit to what school one had to attend. The Plessy case came long before the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but its statute was up-held until the 1955 ruling of Brown v. The Board of Education. The ruling of Brown, which overturned the Plessy ruling, found the statute of "separate is never equal." Even this ruling maintained an establishment of a negative framework of civil rights and civil liberties because it provided no means for action for what should be done, only a guide for what cannot be done. The inadequacies of the United States' state responsibility are not limited to the aforementioned. The U.S. has been lacking in many of its responsibilities to its citizens. Those responsibilities range from the quality of education to the standards of living to general welfare. Though the United States may be the only remaining "super power" on the planet, the quiescent laws of the U.S. have inhibited state responsibility for civil and human rights. If the U.S. is to move forward and join the other nations of the world, it must improve its responsibility for human and civil rights so that it can fulfil the articles established under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.   

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Those are the opening lines to the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence was...

Words: 1189 View(s): 127 Comment(s): 0
Numerous experts in modern time regard...Numerous experts in modern time regard Plato as the first genuine political philosopher and Aristotle as the first political scientist. They were both great thinkers in regards to, in part with Socrates, being the foundation of the great western philosophers. Plato and Aristotle each had ideas in how to proceed with improving the society in which they were part of during their existence. It is necessary therefore to analyze their different theoretical approaches regarding their philosophical perspectives, such as ethics and psychology. This paper however will mainly concentrate on Aristotle's views on friendship and how it impacts today's society. The main objective in Plato's philosophy is a creation of a perfect society. He constructs a foundation for a utopian society in his book "The Republic". The purpose of his thought process was to cleanse his society of the woes he felt plagued it and construct a new one. Plato lived during the Peloponnesian War, which consequently lead to the end of the Athenian democracy. He had eyewitness account of his mentor's Socrates trial and execution. Bitter and angered by the political corruption that gripped the Athenian democratic government, he disengaged from participating in politics. He strongly felt that neither a moral individual nor a state that is rational could be established in a democratic environment. Plato felt that the common man wasn't intelligent or capable of dealing with concepts that influence the state such as economics, policy of foreign affairs and other relative matters. He viewed political incumbents in Athens government as being elected for matters that were irrelevant to main factors that affected the state. Another danger was that excessive liberty for the people of the democratic society could potentially lead to anarchy. In Plato's perfect society, he forged ahead to eliminate the disease pluralism of friendship that plagued the human character and society Class Notes. Essentially, Plato wanted to establish the perfect form of society, linked by one single entity. Aristotle, unlike Plato, was not focused or concerned about the idea of a perfect society, instead he wanted to improve upon the one that he was part of during his existence. Rather than develop a framework for a society that is perfect, he suggested that society should, in it self, strive to utilize the best system it can attain. He felt that utopia was abstract and superficial. It wouldn't allow for realistic problem solving solutions. He felt that Plato's view of a strict overhaul of society in general wasn't necessary. He believed that society was at its optimum and you can only improve upon the existing one. Plato's perfect society would consist of three basic groups, which are Guardians Gold, Auxiliaries Silver, and the Artisan Bronze. The highest of these classes are the gold people, which consist of rulers and non-rulers. Those that are rulers are society's decision & policy makers and non-rulers occupy levels of civil servants. The fundamental prerequisite to becoming a genuine philosopher is to have knowledge of forms, thus enabling you to know the truth. Plato's theory of the forms is partly logical and part metaphysical. Armed with the truth, he believed that philosophical ruler will always make the right decision, and rule with total wisdom, justice and virtue. The rulers, he felt, wouldn't posses any money or property, they would be free of desires, excesses, and vices. The Auxiliaries Silver are people of strength, courage, and military capacity; they occupy a small sector of society. All auxiliaries would be subjected to a series of tests, which will check their powers of resistance to self-interest, pleasure and other temptations. The last level, Artisan Bronze, are the workers which might be composed of farmers and artist, essentially non-skilled workers. They would produce all the consumable and non-consumable goods deemed necessary for consumption and the continued economic viability of the society. Plato whole-heartedly felt that if ever the bronze or iron people rule the state would collapse Class Notes. He sought to establish the concept of the gold class having wisdom, thus they should be wise and good rulers. It was imperative that those who rule be philosophers and skilled in areas that pertained to the interest of the state. Aristotle's disagreed with Plato in regards to allowing one particular class to govern the state politically for indefinite period of time. He felt that to not allow interaction among the various classes would inhibit those who posses the ability to engage in political life, an injustice. He feels Plato's structure of classes is politically incorrect for the state. He quotes "It is a further objection that he deprives his Guardians even of happiness, maintaining that happiness of the whole state which should be the object of legislation", ultimately he is stating that those who rule Guardians, sacrifice their happiness for control and absolute power. Those who are of the gold class, lead such a rigid life, that it will become necessary to impose the same strict way of life on those being governed. He places the idea of moderation on a high pedestal. Many individuals come to favor the concept of moderation because it is flexible, part liberal and part conservative. Plato's ideal society is so difficult to conceive that Aristotle believes that no human being can achieve its rudimentary requirements. He decided to express in the "Republic" how men should conduct it self in a perfect society and what attitude they should posses. In retrospect, Aristotle felt by using real world experience along with real people, he can see first hand how and what way can he improve society. Plato and Aristotle both agreed on justice and viewed it objectively; that is it controls the belief a life of good nature would be provided for all people no matter their ranking in society. Aristotle's states " In democracies, for example, justice is considered to mean equality, no oligarchies, again inequality in the distribution of office to considered just". Plato views the idea of law and justice as what sets the standard for society's behavior in a state. Aristotle puts emphasis on the institution of the polis or civilized community. The polis was structured to allow the average individual in society to participate in political matters. This institutional forum is not the city-state or the community, but merely the larger of the two entities. It is rather a partnership between households, clans, and villages for the sake of a fully developed and self-sufficient life. The polis enables those individuals who naturally posses moral intellect and wisdom an opportunity to rise to higher positions Class Notes. Justice is the political good within the polis, and it must promote the common interest of the people of the state. What is seen as good must be distributed and regulated through out the state. The law is also the regulating factor that arises from equal and free people in civil institution. The well being of a society is solely based upon the connection between the effort in which the citizens of the state adhere to the law of the land. A good citizen of the state will posses prudence, moderation, and justice, and above all to rule and be ruled. His belief contradicts Plato theory of one controlling class, governing the political matters and decisions that effect the state. The Theory of Democracy that Aristotle states is that democracy is a "perversion" form of government of "polity" Class Notes. He clearly states "The people at large should be sovereign rather than the few best". Plato on the other hand, wouldn't permit citizens to engage in public participation concerning governmental issues, as Aristotle would have enjoyed. Plato also felt that public judgments of disapproval and approval were based on emotional belief, instead of factual knowledge. He believes that if a revolution occurred it would happened within the corridors of the palace, hence palace revolution. This type of revolution happens when there is a transmission of power from one holder of power to another. Aristotle perceives such an event occurring between the wealthy and less fortunate in society. He feels to prevent such actions, one must participate in them. Plato thinks that in a utopia a disgruntled group of Guardians will emerge and disengage themselves from the ruling law of the state. He feels that an oligarchy two things may initiate a possible revolution: the first one is the ruler and their offspring would grow to be weak, sympathetic, and second is that the number of poor individuals will grow larger and there for be taken advantage of by the ruling class. Aristotle states that to know the factors that caused the revolution, which destroys the constitution, is to also know the principal of effect, which in turn ensure its preservation. Aristotle and Plato also have contrasting views on ethics, psychology and metaphysics. In regards to ethics, Aristotle believes that virtue is necessary for happiness, while Plato says virtue is enough for happiness. The psychological difference between the two is that Plato feels the body is a prison for the soul; body and soul are two different entities, capable of maintaining independence from one another. As for Aristotle, he claims that the body and soul are two different things, one consisting of matter the other form. He sees everything in the universe being composed of matter and form, so its not surprising that he perceives human being are too. To him form is simply the way matter is arranged. For example, a cat is composed in a feline way; that's what makes a cat. Human being for that matter, have a unique method of structure, too; that's their form. In fact, Aristotle strongly feels that nothing in existence can be without form and matter. If you eliminate its structure and form you have nothing left. So for Aristotle, the concept of soul without body or body without soul is incoherent. In regards to form, Plato expressed how things should be through utilizing vague language and poetry. In respect to friendship, I firmly believe that Aristotle's views on friendship holds value in today's society. First we will touch on the various points that Aristotle makes regarding friendship, then expand on his main principle in connection to modern time, if possible. Aristotle distinguishes between three types of friendship: friendships of utility, friendships of pleasure and friendships of virtue. The idea behind friendship of utility is that it is founded on the idea of usefulness. The interaction among friends is only valued if there is usefulness between the two individuals. An example of this would be any automobile dealer and car buyer. Factoring in that they know each other, both need what the other can provide. The bond that unites the two people is based on usefulness. As long as they each can provide what the other needs, it satisfies the friendship. The second concept would be friendship of pleasure, which is basically the amount of pleasure generated between the participants. An example of this would be two people engaging in a social event, such as an outdoor festival. Each of the participant's enjoys the others company. They are friends because of the pleasure they bring to themselves. The last kind of friendship is the friendship of virtue. This friendship is special and unique, such that it can only be between two people. Rather than utility and pleasure, where it can establish a group of people, this type of friendship is connected solely between two people. This type of friendship is also unique based on the fact that it can only hold any true value if both individuals are of the same virtue. People in general might regard these definitions of friend objective. Some believe that doing something for someone is solely based on the act of self "“fulfillment. Aristotle, I believe is not incorrect in stating that the idea in friendship in utility and pleasure is for our own sake, and the concept behind friendship of virtue is for the sake of the friend. These three categories are arranged in a certain format that there are influenced by the next level. These bonds of friendship can arise from various forms of potential fraternal groupings. Present day possibilities can include: various college organizations, union members, national communities and any other form of group's that people find a common denominator. For Aristotle Aristotle is more philosophically inclined than Plato; he tends to get rid of ideas that are irrelevant, and he believes that the concept of forms existing separate from matter is somewhat superfluous. He dives right into the heart of the matter. You can see Aristotle as someone who believes the world in which he occupies very satisfying just the way it is. His main focus is always connected with things that are consistent with ideal experience, without introducing unnecessary notions of concepts that can't be proven. Plato's vague, poetic language in metaphysics and physics didn't stimulate inspiration; it made him uncomfortable. Both Plato and Aristotle were two men who envisioned methods on ways to improve their existing society. Plato, the political philosopher, was basically in pursuit of philosophical truth. Aristotle was more concerned with citizenship and institutional politics. They both had developed ideas and concepts to improve society as a whole. Aristotle and Plato have had a tremendous impact on political scientists of today. In Aristotle case, he was responsible for developing various democratic ideas. Even in modern democracies like our own Aristotle's ideas hold true. When we vote in the election of the ruler of our country we, theoretically, are voting for the single most "excellent" citizen of our nation. That is we are voting for that citizen who can do the best job of working toward our common interest. The citizen of a state who has the greatest ability to work towards the salvation of the constitution has a great gift that can benefit all citizens. It only makes sense to allow that particular individual to lead the rest of the citizens in working towards the common interests of the state. In conclusion, these men were great thinkers. Their opinions on society and its function were quite different, but they both had the same concern, to build a better way of life for their societies they in lived in and for the societies that would come to be in the future.   

Numerous experts in modern time regard Plato as the first genuine political philosopher and Aristotle as the first political scientist. They were both great thinkers in regards to, in part with Socrates, being the foundation of the great western philosophers. Plato and Aristotle each had ideas in how to proceed...

Words: 2387 View(s): 178 Comment(s): 0