Related Keywords

No Related Keywords

Register NowHow It Works Need Essay Need Essay
Compare and contrast two main theories of 'crime and deviance'. ''a diabetic at work without a recent insulin injection approaching the lunch break may become tense, erratic, short tempered, but that behaviour does not constitute a criminal act'' Kelly, Holborn and Makin, 1983 sited in; M. Haralambos and M. Holborn 2000 It is regarded amongst sociologists that physiological characteristics do not cause criminal or deviant behaviour. This paper will look at a few of the main functionalist and conflict theories of crime and deviance and conclude with which one, in relation to the title, provides the largest body of evidence. Functionalist theorists argue that crime and deviance is caused by 'structural tensions' where as conflict theorists argue that 'deviance is deliberately chosen, and often political in nature'. Functionalists argue that people commit crimes because there is something wrong with the society the individual is in, and that this is what causes the individual to commit crime. Crime is caused by the structure of society. Conflict theorists argue that the criminal makes a choice to commit a crime ''in response to inequalities of the capitalist system'' Giddens, 2001, Pg 272 Starting then, with Albert Cohen, a subcultural functionalist, who based his studies on the lower classes, Cohen found that lower class children were disadvantaged at school and thus disadvantaged in light of general success in life. Cohen said the lower class were at a disadvantage before they had even started to achieve! Most lower class children, he argued, do not have the same starting position as middle class children. Because of the difference in class Cohen believes the lower class children suffer from 'status frustration' Haralambos and Holborn, 2000, Pg 357. Following this frustration with their position in society Cohen put forward the theory that these lower class children develop a subculture where ''the delinquent subculture takes its norms from the larger culture but turns them upside down'' Haralambos and Holborn, Pg 357. Cohen stated that the success achieved within this subculture related to earning their goals which were perceived by the delinquent as unattainable within society. This he argues is the cause of crime and deviance. Cohen's claim that lower class children are frustrated at being disadvantaged in society, that they have less opportunity to succeed, this indicates quite blatantly that society is not equal. Bernstein stated in Giddens that language differed according to class. Bernstein came up with a theory that the lower classes used a 'restricted code' and middle classes an 'elaborated code' Giddens, Pg 512. Going with the notion that school teachers are middle class, thus use the elaborated code of language so do not communicate as successfully with children originating from lower classes. These youths, as it appears, do not have the access to the same standards of education and so it is easy to assume the individuals motivation for turning to crime. A problem with Cohen's theory is that fundamentally it is based on class position, namely the lower class. He disregards crimes of the upper class. This could indicate that only the lower class has the potential to become deviant in their behaviour. Also Cohen seems to suggest that all disadvantaged people will perform acts of deviant, criminal nature to achieve their goals. It is important to recognise that this is not always the case. Some individuals choose to work hard within society and its laws to gain legitimate success as is seen in Coleg Harlech. Turning now to another functionalists view the writer considers Merton and his 'strain' theory. Merton modified Durkheim's theory of anomie by stressing that where Durkheim said ''that circumstances in which social norms are no longer clear and people are morally adrift'' and instead put across the point that ''"¦term anomie is to describe the strain which occurs when individuals experience conflict between their pursuit of societies goals and the means society provides to achieve them'' O'Donnell, Pg 352. Merton's theory focuses on various acts of deviance which he believes may lead to acts of crime. Merton says there are various goals pushed by society and that society emphasises a set of means to obtain these goals i.e. hard work, education, abiding by the law. Merton goes on to say that not everyone has the means to legitimately obtain these goals and so came up with a theory where he uses five models of adapting to the 'strain' he said people feel due to the inability to successfully adhere to societies goals, and the means whereby they obtain these. The five models Merton put forward are as follows; conformity, where the individual continues to accept the goals and the means to obtain these goals even though failure is almost inevitable. Innovation, according to Merton is the response when the individual accepts the goals set by society but rejects the means to obtain these goals set by society, he then goes on to say the individual finds a replacement to societies 'means', this being an illegal act. The third in Merton's theory is ritualism, this is where the means and goals of society are adhered to but the individual has lost sight of the goals and has no interest in the outcome of his/her work. It is the opposite of innovation. Retualism, according to Merton is the next step from ritualism, the individual disregards both the means and goals set by society. The individual is seen to 'drop out of the rat race', observed by those with alcohol and drug problems. The fifth part of Merton's theory is rebellion where the individual rejects both the means and goals set by society, this is recognised as terrorists/radical political parties P. Taylor et al, Pg 471. Both Cohen and Merton's theories are that of a functionalists perspective and believe crime is needed within society, to indicate there is a problem and in turn that problem can be resolved. Turning now to an interactionalists perspective on crime and deviance, the writer will compare the similarities and differences between the functionalists and the conflict theorists explanation for crime and deviance. Considering Stuart Hall, a conflict theorist, who in 1972 studied the increasing problem of mugging, Hall believed that class position was irrelevant in respect of the victim. He found that muggers would target people that appeared to come from a similar background to themselves, rather than the poor stealing from the rich as is the commonly associated stigma. At that time mugging was not recognised as an actual crime due to its ability to fall within two categories, either robbery or assault with the intent to rob. Over a period of four years the British government released a statistic claiming that muggings were on the increase of one hundred and twenty nine percent per year, Hall argued that this figure could not be completely relied upon. After comparing various statistics Hall discovered the real annual increase of muggings was only fourteen percent. From these findings Hall suggested that the source of moral panic was not the underlying economic problem Haralambos and Holborn, Pg 388. This opinion is in complete contrast to that of both Cohen and Merton who both identify class as a major factor in crime, and both based their theories on the lower classes. Hall also put the thought across that the Media's presence had the ability to make crime appear much worse than it really is/was. Hall described this exaggeration as 'moral panic' Giddens, Pg 212. It is also important to recognise that neither Cohen nor Merton discussed the medias influence upon crime. It is stated in Giddens that ''"¦moral panic about muggings was encouraged by both the state and the media as a way of deflecting attention away from growing unemployment, declining wages and other deep structured flaws within society'' By stating this Hall is concluding that the individuals committing the crimes are individuals forced into crime due to the nature of the economic situation, although Hall is talking about the wider population this could be loosely associated with Cohen and Merton's link with class position. As Hall takes a Marxist view on crime some sociologists argue that it is almost inevitable he comes to the conclusion that the economic situation and to a greater extent the influence of capitalism is the cause for crime and deviance. However Hall's study is based upon statistics and like all statistics these may or may not be accurate, as statistics have the tendency to be bias. It is also important to recognise that crime statistics are collected from crimes that have been reported, thus the figures shown do not represent the whole spectrum of crime, a lot of crimes are clearly not represented by these figures. Hall's study, like that of Cohen and Merton's, focuses on class. But unlike others sociologists i.e. Cohen and Merton, it acknowledges that criminals can/do target individuals in similar social situations as themselves. Cohen and Merton's studies gave the impression that the lower classes select the upper classes and intentionally harm them. This study clearly states that anyone is liable to become a victim of crime and acknowledges the influence of the media on crime. Living in a world where the media has such a large influence upon people it is easy to see how many crimes are exaggerated on television and in the newspapers, the term 'moral panic' used by Hall is a good description. Concentrating now on a more radical perspective the writer shall consider Taylor et al. Ian Taylor, Paul Walton and Jock Young, new criminologists with a neo-Marxist almost radical perspective, developed a theory whereby they believed criminals, out of free will, choose to break the laws set by society and decline any theories that view human behaviour as being influenced by external factors. Functionalists have quite a different opinion to this and believe almost the exact opposite to Taylor et al. Taylor et al view the individual's reason for turning to crime as ''the meaningful attempt by the actor to construct and develop his own self-perception'' Haralambos and Holborn, Pg 386. This strand of new criminology reject's theories which claim coherence with anomie, physiological perspectives and those which include the forming of a subculture, this is undoubtedly as distant in regards to Merton and Cohen's theories as is possible, without creating a new theory. Taylor et al are in complete contrast to the functionalists opinions and actually see crime and deviance as ''actively struggling to alter capitalism'' Giddens, Pg 386. They see crime as a deliberate act, more often than not, with a political basis against the state. Taylor et al hold rather a liberal view upon the capitalist society and its restrictions and would base much devotion on the freedom of a future Marxist society. They believe that ethnic minorities, homosexuals and drug users should not be persecuted but accepted by society. Taylor et al all have the belief that crimes related with property involves the redistribution of money. An example given in Haralambos and Holborn Pg 386 is that ''if a poor resident of an inner-city area steals from a rich person, the former is helping to change society'' Taylor et al come from a socialist perspective and like many other Marxists would like to see the capitalist society replaced by another type of society, Taylor et al would rather adopt a more 'socialist' society which is not only a substantial difference to the functionalists but also to conventional Marxists who would adopt a more 'communist' society. In conclusion this paper has shown that functionalists and conflict theorists hold opposing views about the nature and cause of crime and deviance. As shown above functionalists see crime and deviance as a product of society whereas conflict theorists view crime and deviance as a path chosen by the criminal. I believe, like functionalists the environment possibly created by those in power, i.e. the patriarchal government determines and influences the opportunities given to an individual. I also feel that the individuals have choices in the way they interpret and act upon the opportunities society provides - much like the conflict theorists. In my opinion, neither of these theories produce an accurate, 'whole' picture of the nature and cause of crime, however each of the theories, with their contrasting statements, contain specific characteristics which help to form the larger picture.
0 User(s) Rated!
Words: 2054 Views: 481 Comments: 0
Compare and contrast two main theories of 'crime and deviance'. ''a diabetic at work without a recent insulin injection approaching the lunch break may become tense, erratic, short tempered, but that behaviour does not constitute a criminal act'' Kelly, Holborn and Makin, 1983 sited in; M. Haralambos and M. Holborn 2000 It is regarded amongst sociologists that physiological characteristics do not cause criminal or deviant behaviour. This paper will look at a few of the main functionalist and conflict theories of crime and deviance and conclude with which one, in relation to the title, provides the largest body of evidence....
crime and deviance as a path chosen by the criminal. I believe, like functionalists the environment possibly created by those in power, i.e. the patriarchal government determines and influences the opportunities given to an individual. I also feel that the individuals have choices in the way they interpret and act upon the opportunities society provides - much like the conflict theorists. In my opinion, neither of these theories produce an accurate, 'whole' picture of the nature and cause of crime, however each of the theories, with their contrasting statements, contain specific characteristics which help to form the larger picture.
Become A Member Become a member to continue reading this essay orLoginLogin
View Comments Add Comment

Culture is a hot topic. Scholars...Culture is a hot topic. Scholars Fukoyama, Huntington, to mention but two disagree about whether this is the end of history or the beginning of a particularly nasty chapter of it. What makes cultures tick and why some of them tick discernibly better than others "“ is the main bone of contention. We can view cultures through the prism of their attitude towards their constituents : the individuals they are comprised of. More so, we can classify them in accordance with their approach towards "humanness", the experience of being human. Some cultures are evidently anthropocentric "“ others are anthropo-transcendental. These two lingual coins need elaboration to be fully comprehended. A culture which cherishes the human potential and strives to create the conditions needed for its fullest materialization and manifestation is an anthropocentric culture. Such striving is the top priority, the crowning achievement, the measuring rod of such a culture, its attainment - its criterion of success or failure. On the other pole of the dichotomy we find cultures which look beyond humanity. This "transcendental" look has multiple purposes. Some cultures want to transcend human limitations, others to derive meaning, yet others to maintain social equilibrium. But what is common to all of them "“ regardless of purpose "“ is the subjugation of human endeavour, of human experience, human potential, all things human to this transcendence. Granted : cultures resemble living organisms. They evolve, they develop, they procreate. None of them was "created" the way it is today. Cultures go through Differential Phases "“ wherein they re-define and re-invent themselves using varied parameters. Once these phases are over "“ the results are enshrined during the Inertial Phases. The Differential Phases are period of social dislocation and upheaval, of critical, even revolutionary thinking, of new technologies, new methods of achieving set social goals, identity crises, imitation and differentiation. They are followed by phases of a diametrically opposed character : Preservation, even stagnation, ritualism, repetition, rigidity, emphasis on structures rather than contents. Anthropocentric cultures have differential phases which are longer than the inertial ones. Anthropotranscendental ones tend to display a reverse pattern. This still does not solve two basic enigmas : What causes the transition between differential and inertial phases ? Why is it that anthropocentricity coincides with differentiation and progress / evolution while other types of cultures with an inertial framework ? A culture can be described by using a few axes : Distinguishing versus Consuming cultures Some cultures give weight and presence though not necessarily equal to each of their constituent elements the individual and social structures. Each such element is idiosyncratic and unique. Such cultures would accentuate attention to details, private enterprise, initiative, innovation, entrepreneurship, inventiveness, youth, status symbols, consumption, money, creativity, art, science and technology. These are the things that distinguish one individual from another. Other cultures engulf their constituents, assimilate them to the point of consumption. They are deemed, a priori, to be redundant, their worth a function of their actual contribution to the whole. Such cultures emphasize generalizations, stereotypes, conformity, consensus, belonging, social structures, procedures, forms, undertakings involving the labour or other input of human masses. Future versus Past Oriented Cultures Some cultures look to the past "“ real or imaginary "“ for inspiration, motivation, sustenance, hope, guidance and direction. These cultures tend to direct their efforts and resources and invest them in what IS. They are, therefore, bound to be materialistic, figurative, substantive, earthly. They are likely to prefer old age to youth, old habits to new, old buildings to modern architecture, etc. This preference of the Elders a term of veneration over the Youngsters a denigrating term typifies them strongly. These cultures are likely to be risk averse. Other cultures look to the future "“ always projected "“ for the same reasons. These cultures invest their efforts and resources in an ephemeral future upon the nature or image of which there is no agreement or certainty. These cultures are, inevitably, more abstract living in an eternal Gedankenexperiment, more imaginative, more creative having to design multiple scenarios just to survive. They are also more likely to have a youth cult : to prefer the young, the new, the revolutionary, the fresh "“ to the old, the habitual, the predictable. They are be risk-centered and risk-assuming cultures. Static Versus Dynamic Emergent Cultures Consensus versus Conflictual Cultures Some cultures are more cohesive, coherent, rigid and well-bounded and constrained. As a result, they will maintain an unchanging nature and be static. They discourage anything which could unbalance them or perturb their equilibrium and homeostasis. These cultures encourage consensus-building, teamwork, togetherness and we-ness, mass experiences, social sanctions and social regulation, structured socialization, peer loyalty, belonging, homogeneity, identity formation through allegiance to a group. These cultures employ numerous self-preservation mechanisms and strict hierarchy, obedience, discipline, discrimination by sex, by race, above all, by age and familial affiliation. Other cultures seem more "ruffled", "arbitrary", or disturbed. They are pluralistic, heterogeneous and torn. These are the dynamic or, fashionably, the emergent cultures. They encourage conflict as the main arbiter in the social and economic spheres "the invisible hand of the market" or the American "checks and balances", contractual and transactional relationships, partisanship, utilitarianism, heterogeneity, self fulfilment, fluidity of the social structures, democracy. Exogenic-extrinsic Meaning Cultures Versus Endogenic-intrinsic Meaning Cultures Some cultures derive their sense of meaning, of direction and of the resulting wish-fulfillment by referring to frameworks which are outside them or bigger than them. They derive meaning only through incorporation or reference. The encompassing framework could be God, History, the Nation, a Calling or a Mission, a larger Social Structure, a Doctrine, an Ideology, or a Value or Belief System, an Enemy, a Friend, the Future "“ anything qualifies which is bigger and outside the meaning-seeking culture. Other cultures derive their sense of meaning, of direction and of the resulting wish fulfilment by referring to themselves "“ and to themselves only. It is not that these cultures ignore the past "“ they just do not re-live it. It is not that they do not possess a Values or a Belief System or even an ideology "“ it is that they are open to the possibility of altering it. While in the first type of cultures, Man is meaningless were it not for the outside systems which endow him with meaning "“ In the latter the outside systems are meaningless were it not for Man who endows them with meaning. Virtually Revolutionary Cultures versus Structurally-Paradigmatically Revolutionary Cultures All cultures "“ no matter how inert and conservative "“ evolve through the differential phases. These phases are transitory and, therefore, revolutionary in nature. Still, there are two types of revolution : The Virtual Revolution is a change sometimes, radical of the structure "“ while the content is mostly preserved. It is very much like changing the hardware without changing any of the software in a computer. The other kind of revolution is more profound. It usually involves the transformation or metamorphosis of both structure and content. In other cases, the structures remain intact "“ but they are hollowed out, their previous content replaced by new one. This is a change of paradigm superbly described by the late Thomas Kuhn in his masterpiece: "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". The Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome Differentiating Factor As a result of all the above, cultures react with shock either to change or to its absence. A taxonomy of cultures can be established along these lines: Those cultures which regard change as a trauma "“ and those who traumatically react to the absence of change, to paralysis and stagnation. This is true in every sphere of life : the economic, the social, in the arts, the sciences. Neurotic Adaptive versus Normally Adaptive Cultures This is the dividing line: Some cultures feed off fear and trauma. To adapt, they developed neuroses. Other cultures feed off hope and love "“ they have adapted normally. Neurotic Cultures Normal Cultures Consuming Distinguishing Past Oriented Future Oriented Static Dynamic Emergent Consensual Conflictive Exogenic-Extrinsic Endogenic-Intrinsic Virtual Revolutionary Structurally-Paradigmatically Revolutionary PTSS reaction to change PTSS reaction to stagnation So, are these types of cultures doomed to clash, as the current fad goes "“ or can they cohabitate ? It seems that the Neurotic cultures are less adapted to win the battle to survive. The fittest are those cultures flexible enough to respond to an ever changing world "“ and at an ever increasing pace, at that. The neurotic cultures are slow to respond, rigid and convulsive. Being past-orientated means that they emulate and imitate the normal cultures "“ but only when they have become part of the past. Alternatively, they assimilate and adopt some of the attributes of the past of normal cultures. This is why a traveller who visits a neurotic culture and is coming from a normal one often has the feeling that he has been thrust to the past, that he is experiencing a time travel. A War of Cultures is, therefore, not very plausible. The neurotic cultures need the normal cultures. The latter are the generators of the former's future. A normal culture's past is a neurotic culture's future. Deep inside, the neurotic cultures know that something is wrong with them, that they are ill-adapted. That is why members of these cultural spheres entertain overt emotions of envy, hostility even hatred "“ coupled with explicit sensations of inferiority, inadequacy, disappointment, disillusionment and despair. The eruptive nature the neurotic rage of these cultures is exactly the result of these inner turmoils. On the other hand, soliloquy is not action, often it is a substitute to it. Very few neurotic cultures are suicidal "“ and then for very brief periods of time. To forgo the benefits of learning from the experience of normal cultures how to survive would be suicidal, indeed. This is why I think that the transition to a different cultural model, replete with different morals, will be completed with success. But it will not eliminate all pervious models - I foresee cohabitation.   

Culture is a hot topic. Scholars Fukoyama, Huntington, to mention but two disagree about whether this is the end of history or the beginning of a particularly nasty chapter of it. What makes cultures tick and why some of them tick discernibly better than others – is the main bone...

Words: 1674 View(s): 107 Comment(s): 0
In July of 1994, Paul J....In July of 1994, Paul J. Hill, a former Presbyterian minister and later a pro-life activist, was prosecuted for killing Dr. John Britton, an abortion performing doctor, and James Barrett, a volunteer, outside a clinic in Pensacola, Florida. Prior to this, Hill commented on the murder of Dr. David Gunn, another abortion performing doctor, stating that it was a "biblically justified homicide P. 215." This statement shows how strong Hill's beliefs were and leads one to assume that he did not regret killing Britton and Barrett. This paper will address the Hill case and determine the ethical parameter in which Paul Hill should have acted. The two philosophical approaches that will be examined and contrasted are the Kantian and Utilitarian perspectives. Kant and Mill's point of view on the actions of Paul J. Hill will be presented based on their theories. Lastly, I will explain why I believe that Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of morality. Kantianism and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the moral nature of human beings. Immanuel Kant's moral system is based on a belief that reason is the final authority for morality. John Stuart Mill's moral system is based on the theory known as utilitarianism, which is based upon utility, or doing what produces the greatest happiness. One of Kant's lasting contributions to moral philosophy was his emphasis on the notion of respect for persons. He considers respect for persons a.k.a the Kantian respect to be the fundamental moral principle of ethical philosophy. His Kantianism premise is a deontological moral theory which claims that the right action in any given situation is determined by the categorical imperative, which he calls the Supreme Principle. This imperative is a command that applies to all rational beings independent of their desires. It is a command that reason tells us to follow no matter what P.31." Kant considers this an objective law of reason and because it applies to all of us, he calls it a universal practical law for all rational beings. The hypothetical imperative, on the contrary, is a conditional command, which "we have reason to follow if it serves some desire of ours P.31." For example, if you want X, then you will do Y, whereas with the categorical imperative, X has nothing to do with why you do Y. Kant's categorical imperative is a tri-dynamic statement of philosophical thought. In order to determine the morality of the Hill case from Kant's perspective, it is vital to understand the formulations that accompany the categorical imperative. Kant upheld systematic laws as the model of rational principles. A characteristic of systematic laws is that they are universal, such as the law that when heated, gas will expand. Kant thought that moral laws or principles must have universality to be rational. He derives the categorical imperative out of the notion that we should be willing to adopt those moral principle that can be universalized, that is, those which we can imagine that everyone could act upon or adopt as their principle. Thus, the first formulation of the categorical imperative is, "Never act in such a way that I could not also will that my maxim should be a universal law P.31." By maxim, he means the rule or principle on which you act. Consider the example Kant gives of giving a false promise. Making false promises is wrong and therefore could not be a universal law, because every rational being would not adopt this as a principle of action. In the Hill case, if Paul Hill kills the doctor than it is morally permissible for everyone else to kill someone they disagree with. Therefore, Hill's actions were not justified, because killing cannot be a universal law. Kant also believes that human beings have "unconditional worth." In his passage of, "The Ultimate worth of Persons," he says: Now, I say, man and, in general, every rational being exists as an end in himself and not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will. In all his actions, whether they are directed to himself or to other rational beings, he must always be regarded at the same time as an end. What we treat as having "only a relative value as a means . . . are consequently called things. Rational beings, on the other hand, are called persons because their nature already marks them out as ends in themselves, that is, as something which ought not to be used merely as a means. Such a being is thus an object of respect and, so far, restricts all arbitrary choice. The practical imperative will therefore be as follows: "Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own or in that of another, as an end and never as a means only P. 32." According to Kant, as rational beings, we are self-directed beings. We experience ourselves and others as intrinsically valuable, as valuable as an end and not merely instrumentally valuable or valuable as a means to obtaining something. According to this second formulation of the categorical imperative, we should treat people with fundamental dignity and respect. For instance, it would be wrong to make false promises because we would be treating others as merely a means and not respecting them as persons with intrinsic value. In order to avoid misunderstanding Kant, it is crucial to distinguish between treating someone as a means to an end and treating them merely as a means to an end. In a complex network of social relationships, we use other people all the time as means to our ends without dehumanizing them. For instance, we use the services of certain people to deliver our newspapers, groceries, and mail. Students use professors as tools to become educated and earn degrees. By contrast, when you use someone merely as a means only, it is abusive and lacks respect for that person. The abuse of that person shows that you do not believe they have value apart from his or her immediate use. Kant believed that human beings occupy a special place in creation. Human beings have dignity, because they are rational agents, capable of making their own decisions and guiding their conduct by reason. Therefore, we have the duty of being good to all persons. In the Hill case, Paul cannot kill the doctor, because according to Kant, in virtue of being a person the doctor had rights, dignity, and intrinsic moral worth, as well as value. Hence, killing the doctor would be the wrong thing to do and through Kant that action is not morally justified, since the moral law demands that we treat others as ends in themselves, and never as mere means to other ends. In other words, you should always treat other rational beings persons as having absolute moral worth, or as the ultimate ends of action. ""¦ This I will call the principle of autonomy of the will in contrast to all other principles which I accordingly count under heteronomy P.33." The moral will is the only truly autonomous will. Only by following the absolute dictates of reason which is the source of will do we arrive at the moral law, since will is a kind of reason, following the dictates of reason means following the dictates of will itself. Because we are subject only to the laws of our reason, he says, we are autonomous beings. And our autonomy gives us dignity and worth beyond all price. Due to our priceless dignity and worth, all persons are worthy of respect." An immoral will would not be autonomous since it would violate itself, the law it gives to itself. The immoral will is heteronomous. If you pursue ends that are not the ultimate ends the absolute dignity of persons, your actions are ruled by something other than the true rational form of will. You might be ruled by passion, by desire, by the wish for happiness, etc., but whatever it is, it is not self-rule by reason. Therefore, Paul cannot kill the doctor, because in doing so, he will be violating the inherent worth and dignity of persons. "A rational being belongs to the realm of ends as a member when he gives universal laws in it while also himself subject to these laws"¦P.33" By this, I believe he means that Paul Hill cannot kill the doctor, because that will make him a hypocrite. He is strongly against abortion, which is the killing of the fetus who is a person from the moment of conception. Therefore, it is wrong for him to kill the doctor, because in doing so, he will be going against his own belief of taking life. Unlike Kant, John Stuart Mill believed in an ethical theory known as utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is another theory in which the main objective is to explain the nature of ethics and morality. There are many formulations to this theory. Utilitarianism is based upon utility, or doing what produces the greatest happiness. It states that the actions of a person should be based upon the "greatest happiness principle." This principle states that ethical actions command the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Mill's main point is that one should guide his or her judgments by what will give more pleasure. He believes that a person should always seek to gain pleasure and reject pain. So, the formulation is that the morality of an act can be held upright if the consequence produces the greatest overall utility for everyone who may be directly or indirectly affected by the action. Utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of an act rather than on the intrinsic nature of the act or the motives of the agent. So Hill's killing of the doctor is morally justified based on it bringing Hill pleasure and eliminating the pain he inflicted on the fetuses. Mill states that "some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others" and that "it would be absurd that while in estimating all other things, quality is considered as well as quantity, the estimation of pleasures should be supposed to depend on quantity alone". Therefore, if Paul kills the doctor, he only took away two lives quantity, which is less than those that would have been lost if the doctor would have continued performing abortions quantity. However, Mill states that doing ""¦as you would be done by and "¦loving your neighbor as yourself constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality". He also says that "the thoughts of the most virtuous man need not on these occasions travel beyond the particular persons concerned, except so far as is necessary to assure himself that he is not violating the rights, this is the legitimate and authorized expectations, of anyone else." Both of these statements do not justify Hill's actions because he should have loved the doctor and he should not have violated the doctor's rights. Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism both attempt to explain how one can go about acting ethically, however they differ in how they measure morality and in the use of rules. Kantianism says that an act is deemed moral if it is done for the sake of duty and if its maxim can be willed as a universal law. Kantianism can therefore be seen as a rational and logical theory in which decisions can be made. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, would only see the act as morally permissible if the consequences of that action produce maximum utility and happiness for all involved. Utilitarianism has no universal set of rules on to which morality is based. In assessing the two moral theories, I believe that Kantianism provides a more plausible account of ethics. Kantianism is more consistent of a theory and can be universally applied to all beings. It is more plausible because even if the consequences of performing an action are not necessarily the best, the agent is still obligated to perform the action because it is there duty to do so. Therefore, ethically and morally they are doing the right thing. In conclusion, this paper has discussed two main theories regarding the ethical behavior of human beings. Kantianism is a theory based on duties, maxims, willing and the categorical imperative. Also, it focuses on the motivation of actions, has clear and distinct set of universal rules, and is morally logical. On the other hand, Utilitarianism is based on the concept that we ought to do whatever produces the greatest overall utility and this will be the morally right action. Furthermore, it relies on the consequences of an action, has no set universal laws as each action is assessed on an individual basis, and morality is based on the results of the assessment. Because of these reasons, I believe that Kantianism is the more ethically plausible theory of the two.   

In July of 1994, Paul J. Hill, a former Presbyterian minister and later a pro-life activist, was prosecuted for killing Dr. John Britton, an abortion performing doctor, and James Barrett, a volunteer, outside a clinic in Pensacola, Florida. Prior to this, Hill commented on the murder of Dr. David Gunn,...

Words: 2191 View(s): 186 Comment(s): 0
What is art? Can it be...What is art? Can it be defined in any single painting, or sculpture? Is it even something that can be seen, or does it have to be experienced? The term "art" is so vague that it can be applied to almost anything, really. Mostly, however, art should be that which frees our imagination. It connects our conscious with our subconscious, putting into a visual form what we feel and think. It allows us to explore our inner self and fill that urge to understand our minds and our universe. Art helps us to see beyond the ordinary, to see what is in our hearts without being blinded by reality. When an artist creates a painting, it is not to create a picture; it is to create a feeling or mood. The purpose is to convey an emotion, and, it is hoped, to make the viewer experience that same emotion. The painting is really just the final result. Picasso once said ""¦the thing that counts, in painting, is the intention of the artist"¦What counts is what one wants to do, and not what one does"¦ In the end what was important is the intention one had." So, what happens when artists are judged only on their final result, with no consideration to the purpose of their artwork? Censorship happens. That"s right, every day in America, "Land of the Free", another artist falls victim to The Censor. Everyday, despite rights guaranteed by the constitution, people are being oppressed-by school officials, librarians, committee chairpersons, and even by those in government positions. It"s time everyone, everywhere, stood up for Freedom of Expression, and put and end to censorship. In September of this year, the Brooklyn Museum of Art planned an exhibit of British artwork entitled "Sensation: Young British Artists from the Saatchi Collection", the controversial art exhibit which, on it"s world tour, has been shown in Germany and England. The exhibit, as well as the majority of other artwork on display in the museum, was to be funded by the National Endowment for the Arts. The NEA is a government agency that grants federal money to artists and organizations in an attempt to serve the public good by "nurturing the expression of human creativity, supporting the cultivation of community spirit, and fostering the recognition and appreciation of the excellence and diversity of our nation"s artistic accomplishments". The organization was prepared to share part of its 98,000 dollars of appropriated funds, until several weeks before the exhibit was to open. At that time, Mayor Rudolph Guiliani, after having viewed the exhibit, threatened to withdraw city financial support to the museum. The Mayor labeled the exhibit "sick" and "offensive to Catholics", and made no secret that his objections were based on his personal dislike of the contents of the show. He criticized the work of Chris Ofili, specifically a painting called The Holy Virgin Mary, because of its use of elephant dung. Ofili, a British artist of Nigerian descent, uses elephant dung in many of his works as a reference to his African roots. As an observant Catholic himself, he denies that his work is either anti-Catholic or anti-religious. He meant the dung to be a symbol of life and providence, however this simple explanation was not enough to satisfy Guilani. His threats to withdraw funding stood firm. Offili told the New York Times, "The people who are attacking this painting are attacking their own interpretation, not mine." Damien Hirst, whose display was also part of the show, said that the mayor "may as well say, "I only like Picasso and if you don"t show it then I"m going to cut your funding." It"s just pure censorship." He may be right, and the Brooklyn Museum of Art sued the city on September 28th, protesting the mayor"s threat to freeze millions of dollars in funds. To the relief of museum officials and art lovers across the country, the courts ruled on November 1st in favor of the Brooklyn Museum of Art and against New York City and Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani. Even those who privately disliked "Sensation" and the way it was handled by the Brooklyn Museum couldn"t help but feel that their own fates had been on the line, too. Their interpretation of the First Amendment was at stake, which lets a public museum show work without fear of financial retribution if someone in the government finds the work offensive. The ruling was a narrow victory in the fight against censorship, and it is neither the first nor the last. There are some that still believe that "the city" has a right to choose what artwork to fund. "People can do what they want to do and they can draw what they want to draw," but, Senator Bob Smith said, "the government doesn"t have to fund this garbage." He is not alone in his opinion. New York City official Michael D. Hess sent several letters to the museum"s director, Arnold L. Lehman, warning that the museum "cannot proceed with the exhibit as planned," and threatened to not only cut funding for the museum, but also warned the museum that it would loose it"s lease if the exhibit was opened as planned. He agreed with Mayor Giuliani"s statement that "where it comes to Catholic bashing, this kind of thing is never treated as sensitively as it sometimes is in other areas. If this were a desecration of a symbol in another area, I think there would be more sensitivity about this than a desecration of a symbol that involves Catholics." Much of the opposition was based on the idea that if the mayor action, was in the best interest of the city. The mayors action displayed his lack of respect for the First Amendment rights of the residents of New York, and also his disdain for the reputation of New York City as a world-class center of art and culture. "The entire arts community should be grateful to Director Arnold Lehman and the BMA"s Board of Directors for standing firm on the right of artists and museum-goers to make their own decisions without interference from the government," said Joan Bertin, Executive Director of the National Coalition Against Censorship. "If the city chooses to fund the arts, it simply cannot pick and choose what art is "offensive" and what is not." In addition, "That judgment varies so widely and is so subjective that, if it were the test, publicly funded art institutions would likely have little of interest to offer beyond the most inoffensive and conventional art," Michelle Coffy, Program Director of the National Campaign for Freedom of Expression, says. It is not appropriate to censor something based solely on a failure to understand and a personal dislike. In this case, the mayor and other critics may simply be revealing their own misinterpretation of the varied cultural and artistic traditions on which artists draw, having obviously misunderstood the whole point of art in the first place-expression.   

What is art? Can it be defined in any single painting, or sculpture? Is it even something that can be seen, or does it have to be experienced? The term "art" is so vague that it can be applied to almost anything, really. Mostly, however, art should be that which...

Words: 1179 View(s): 103 Comment(s): 0
An individual's role in society can...An individual's role in society can vary with the number themes the characters exhibit. When there are signs of fate, cruelties, weaknesses, and desires for justice and catharsis the role of an individual becomes more complicated. In Antigone, most of those themes are shown thus a single person's influence or role on society is very small and complicated to attain. However in The Lottery the society has most of the control and there is not many signs of those characteristics so the role of a person is simplified because they are nothing compared to the society combined. Finally, in The Penalty of Death, there are signs of many of the themes but since it is the societies influence against that of an individuals, it is simplified because they have to work together. Out of the three readings, I believe that Antigone exhibits most of the characteristics that complicates an individual's role in society. There is a considerable amount of fate shown in this story. For example, the most evident is that of our main character Antigone. Her fate is shown from the Prologue where she makes her decision to bury her brother Polyneices. "Ismene, I am going to bury him. Will you come?" There is a point that sort of suggests where her conflict will arise where she defies Creon's law by saying, "Creon is not strong enough to stand in my way." Weakness was shown on the part of Creon. His main weaknesses were his cruelty and hubris. He seems especially cruel when he is enraged with Haimon for taking Antigone's side and says, "Bring her out! Bring the woman out! Let her die before his eyes! Here, this instant, with her bridegroom beside her!" This act of savageness is also because of his tragic flaw, hubris. He is too proud and arrogant to change his ways like when Teiresias warns him of his fate yet he refuses and says, "Whatever you say, you will not change my will." Due to Creon's unchallenged law and sentence, Antigone yearns for justice to be enforced on him. There is a very good example where she states, "But if the guilt lies upon Creon who judged me, then, I pray, may his punishment equal my own." With all of these themes in the story, it further complicates the role of an individual on society. The Lottery has a many themes that the characters or group of characters show. There was fate because no on really knew who would be picked, and when Tessi Hutchinson was picked, it was because of fate. This fate is different than the kind of fate shown in Antigone. In Antigone, the person's actions controls their fate, while in The Lottery there is no action shown which can lead to her fate. It is an act of randomness. Tessi Hutchinson had a weakness which was that she kept on saying, "It isn't fair!" and all sorts of excuses like that to prevent her family or herself from being picked, even though she had gone through the lottery many times before without saying anything. Her weakness is that she cared too much for herself and her family in a society where one person's opinion doesn't matter and it is a dog-eat-dog world. One can clearly tell that, by our definition of cruelty, the actions of the townspeople are cruel. They pick a random person a month from their own to be stoned to death for reasons not comprehensible by us. Tessi defended her family from being picked and stated the picking wasn't fair because she wanted justice. She didn't want any of her family members to die; she wanted someone else to be picked. With all of odds set against an individual, it simplifies their role and influence on society because an individual is considered nothing is alone. The Penalty of Death describes the nature of man and what its faults are. In it, the need for catharsis and the wanting of justice are very much alike. A person wants them for the same reason, so that the person who harmed them would not go unpunished and to feel a sense of satisfaction. He states that catharsis is used to relieve a person of their emotions. He gives an example where a victim will turn in the criminal because they are not at rest unless that person is brought to justice. That brings me to my point about wanting/enforcing justice in which is it used for basically the same reason, for catharsis. "When there is a crime which destroys a whole community's sense of security. Every law-abiding citizen feels menaced and frustrated until the criminals have been struck down "“ until the community capacity to get even with them, and more than even, has been dramatically demonstrated." This is stating that victims of an act of crime cannot continue with their regular unless they are convinced the criminals got what they deserved. Here is another example, "Until they are brought to book that unhappiness continues; when the law has been executed upon them there is a sigh of relief. In other words, there is katharsis." An individual's role in society is simplified because the society works together to achieve catharsis and justice. The more themes that were mentioned earlier that are present, the more complicated the role of an individual's on society is. It also makes it harder for them to achieve anything against society since they have less influence. However, society has more influence and a bigger role against an individual if those themes are shown. The less of those themes exhibited the more influence a single person has on the society. In the three writings, there is no example of where a person's influence is high. There is an example of how their influence is not high or that the societies influence is high because they work together like in The Penalty of Death. The influence of an individual is varied by the number of themes shown in a said writing.   

An individual's role in society can vary with the number themes the characters exhibit. When there are signs of fate, cruelties, weaknesses, and desires for justice and catharsis the role of an individual becomes more complicated. In Antigone, most of those themes are shown thus a single person's influence or...

Words: 1016 View(s): 109 Comment(s): 0