Since 1997, britain has been undergoing a period of constitutional Essay

Since 1997, britain has been undergoing a period of constitutional reform. this reform has been radical and yet piecemeal Discuss this statement in relation t - Essay Example The reverse side of the British political tradition is ability to modernization of political system, creation of new political institutes for further development of a society and the state. The newest cycle of political modernization in the Great Britain has begun in 1970s years, but its most dynamical stage has fallen to the period from 1997, when the Labour party led by Toni Blair has come in. Till now from the formal point of view the United Kingdom of the Great Britain and Northern Ireland was considered as the unitary national state with the one centre in London, possessing the inseparable sovereignty. At the same time administrative-territorial division of the country includes four regions: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which long since possessed rather wide autonomy. Initially England was the state-forming nation, which has annexed or has entered the unions as the senior member with nations adjoining it. Long time, the leading position of England in a state order and governance was expressed in the fact that its name was a synonym of the name of whole country. At the same time the English nationalism was not ethnic, but civil, it became the basic source of formation of concept "British public". The British Empire, which has reached culmination of its power in the nineteenth century, became a primary factor in accumulation of the phenomenon of "Britic ism", which long time was the basic identification for inhabitants of United Kingdom. However in second half of the last century after the empire came apart, situation has changed. In the British regions except for England national movements became more active, more and more number of people named themselves not British, but Scots, Welshmen or Irish. The growth of national consciousness in the British regions of so-called "Celtic peripheries ", and also a number of other factors, has led to the fact that to elections of 1997 the Labour party has come

Movie analysis of the TV Movie Bonanza Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Movie analysis of the TV Movie Bonanza - Essay Example Most of all, it was a time when Americans were not quite settled with members outside of their race, including, but not limited to the Chinese. Second, we will, next, take a look at the place where â€Å"Bonanza† had taken place, in Virginia City, Nevada. The scenes were set on the Nevada Ranch territory. Ben Cartwright, himself, was a wealthy rancher who owned a 600,000-acre ranch, the largest in the territory. However, despite his riches, he never forgot how he started, where he came from and that he needed to help others struggling along the way. One of the values that Ben Cartwright strived to instill in the audience of the movie of â€Å"Bonanza† is brotherly love, whether it was through their father, Ben Cartwright, through his sons, Adam, Eric ‘Hoss’ and Joseph ‘Little Joe’, or another neighbor in the community. Ben Cartwright prided himself on being a Christian, and, also, the fact that he was enable to instill in his sons the right way to live and to treat others. Another value that Ben Cartwright strived to instill in the viewers of â€Å"Bonanza† was neighborly love. He was always willing to help out another neighbor in need or if they needed his advice. Ben Cartwright also taught his sons how to â€Å"stick† together as a family, and, in turn, his sons reached out to other members of the community in the same capacity. The Cartwrights always â€Å"stuck† together as a family, no matter what, and tried to help each other through the rough times. Victor Sen Hung played the role of Hop Sing, the Cartwrights’ family cook. Now, while most people might have viewed the role of the family’s cook as subservient, Hung’s role of Hop Sing was incorporated into the Cartwrights’ television family because, not only did the Cartwrights view Sing as their cook, but they also viewed him as their friend. The Cartwrights included

Environmental Ethics Pollution And Degradation Of The Environment Philosophy Essay

Environmental Ethics Pollution And Degradation Of The Environment Philosophy Essay The world has evolved so much since its existence until now. Science and technology have taken charge over the way we live our lives. Industries, mining, agriculture are among the daily activities of people nowadays. The anthropogenic activities have brought problems to the earth. One of the problems that have raised the concern of all mankind is pollution. Pollution is happening in terms of air pollution, water pollution, soil contamination and noise pollution. Basically it involves components of the earth, living and non-living things. What is our ethical views regarding the issue of pollution to the earth? The awareness against the environment had risen since long ago especially since the publication of Rachel Carsons Silent Spring in 1962. Silent Spring tells us about the bad effect pesticides bring to the environment. Besides that, the disastrous event that took place around the globe such as in Chernobyl, Bhopal India and the oil spill by Exxon Valdez had open the eyes of society that the environment needs our attention and that these events should not be happening again. In the Exxon Valdez oil spill episode, many wild life and aquatic organisms had been killed. It was one of the biggest pollution disasters ever. Then, emerge the sustainable development concept that has been a new way of living. The activities that we do should be sustainable for the future generation to have access to the same sources like we do. We should take care of the environment and not to pollute the environment for it to be safe for people to live in. Pollution results in degradation of the environment and quality of life. It involves the whole component of the environment or described by Aldo Leopold the biotic community. In Aldo Leopold Land Ethics, the act is considered right if it serves to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community (Leopold 1949). Therefore, it is ethically wrong for people to pollute the natural environment. In the next section, we will look into the reason on why we cannot pollute the environment in the ethical point of view and further arguments on the pollution matters. INTERDEPENDENCY OF THE ECOSYSTEM The first argument that we should not and cannot pollute the environment because of the relationship we have with the ecosystem, namely the animals, plants and other non-living things such as water, soil and air. I believe that every component serves a purpose in the ecosystem. The interference of anthropogenic activities such as pollution will only affect the chain of the natural process and eventually will affect the equilibrium state of the natural environment. Every organisms in the environment is view as an ecocentric creature where each of us are interrelated with each other. Humans, animals and plants are the living system in the environment. We are all teleological creatures. We have our own purpose even for the organisms that are not aware of its purpose and we will find means to achieve those purposes. Living things need the appropriate conditions and habitat to live and breed. The earth has a place for all of these creatures. The earth is designed to complement the needs and necessity of the living components. Humans basically are the steward of the earth because of our ability to administer and control other components. However, we should not treat the earth in a utilitarian kind of way. We do have goals and pleasures that we want to achieve, but at the same time we do have duties and responsibilities for others. Degradation of the environment and pollution are the results of our own actions. Industrialization, food production, overpopulation and lack of education are among the reasons for these problems to happen. Clean water supply is being polluted with industrial waste, the atmosphere is being emitted with the Green House Gas and the soil is being contaminated with chemical pollutants. These will eventually interfere with the natural ecosystem. If the equilibrium state of the natural environment is being interfered, then will come the disastrous events that will cause harm to human population. Nowadays, we tend to look so much into the economic incentives of the physical world where we tend to exploit the natural resources and overused the resources. These what leads to environmental degradation and depletion of natural resources. Fossil fuels are being overexploited, deforestation are happening every second and development are being carried out massively. The result, extinction of wildlife species, natural disaster happens all time and loss of habitat for species. What we can do is to opt for sustainable development. We should be considerate to other living components in the ecosystem as well. We should conserve and preserve the natural resources not only for our purpose but also for the benefit of the ecosystem. The relationship between humans and the ecosystem is a tight one. We are interdependent on each other. We cannot live in the world by ourselves, we need the air to breath, water to drink, plants and animals to be able to live. Therefore, we need to take care of the environment to achieve a level that would sustain an equilibrium state of ecosystem. INTRINSIC VALUES AND RESPECT FOR NATURE The second argument in stating that pollution is ethically wrong is that every component in the environment has their intrinsic values, meaning that every living environment has their good of its own. Therefore, we should respect the existence of each creature and not to take away their rights for a live. The event of the oil spill of the Exxon Valdez in 1989 at the Prince William Sound, Alaska had taken away lives of aquatic and wildlife species. These happen because of humans actions. Pollution not only degrades the environment, it kills lives. The organisms that are not adaptable to the changing environment will die. The dying organisms will affect the food chain and ecosystem cycle and soon the threatened species will die if no further action is taken to curb the problems. Humans should respect the existence of other living components in the environment. The lack of respect towards the environment what motivates us to continue to pollute and degrade the environment. We naturally have the aesthetic feelings towards our surroundings and appreciative gestures for other creatures. The way we treat animals and plants will eventually reflect our character as a human being as well. The act of pollution shows that we have no respect to the environment. Where is our moral conscience and awareness in dealing with the environment? The polluter-pay principle that has been adopted mainly allows companies to pollute and pay the compensation accordingly. It is very utilitarian in approach and does not justify the actions. It shows that economic outcomes are rather important than the natural environment. The cost and benefit analysis also focus more on the economic outcomes rather than preserving the natural environment. Pollution is a continuous process and infectious. Once it happens, the remedial will take forever and cost a lot, not only in terms of monetary but also the lives of the components in the ecosystem which are affected. It is undeniable that human population is expanding and lots of things need to be done to maintain the needs of the growing population such as food supply, infrastructure and basic needs. Therefore, we should find a way to develop in an unconventional method such as adopting the Green technology and not to view the natural resources as means to achieve our needs and wants. FUTURE GENERATIONS The third argument is that we should not pollute the earth for future generation to have the same access to the environment that we have today. If pollution and the environmental degradation continue to happen, the earth might not be as the status quo. Even natural processes cannot undo the damage we done to the environment. Future generations are the people in the future. We do not know who they are and even their existence are not certain. Their existence mainly lies in our decisions, because they are our inheritance. But why do we care? We care because as humans we have the feeling of care and love. We want our child and love ones to have the best. Therefore, we tend to care for the future generation because we want them to have the same environment as we do. We do not want them to live in a polluted environment where there is no access of clean water, no more fresh air and no more forest and wildlife. We want them to enjoy the same natural resources as we do now. From the deontological point of approach, we as humans have our duties and obligations towards the environment. Therefore, we have the responsibilities for the future generation. We have duties to preserve and conserve the environment for them to live with. If we continue to let pollution happens at an alarming rate like today, the earth wont be able to sustain. We need to carry out our duties and start to mitigate the pollution and find ways for better solution in providing the best interest for all living components in the environment. Science and technology is growing in a fast rate. The emerging technology and scientific findings should not jeopardize the environmental conditions. With the more discoveries in genetic engineering and cloning, the path of these scientific findings should still respect the natural evolution of species and not change the natural process of the ecosystem. STEWARD OF THE ENVIRONMENT Humans are no superior creature of the earth. It is just that we have the ability to create a platform of common understanding between us and the ability to turn our thinking into words and action. We are the steward of the environment. It is our duty to take care of the environment at the best condition possible. Problems will occur if we tend not to care of the environment. The problems basically came from humans. Overpopulation, poverty, war, lack of education, health care, and hygiene, waste dumps, global warming, climate change and in this context pollution are among the problems the world face today. These problems involve the whole of the biotic community. As stated by Aldo Leopold (1949) in his famous view of Land Ethics, a thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise. CONCLUSION Humans are part of the ecosystem. We are interrelated with each other and every component has their own purpose in the environment. Too much anthropogenic activities have lead to a global problem of pollution. It is an issue that needs further attention. We are part of the environment and we should respect the other components in the chain of the ecosystem. We are interrelated with each other and our existence complement each other on earth. Every living thing has their own intrinsic values. We have no right to overrule their rights for a live and should respect their needs for a condusive environment and habitat to live and breed. Besides that, we have the responsibilities to the future generations. We want them to have the same access of the environment as we do. We want them to breathe in the same quality of air and the same access to clean water supply and to have the same natural resources like we do. Therefore we should not pollute the environment for it to maintain as the status quo. Humans are the steward of the environment because we can think, speak and act accordingly. We can develop a platform of common understanding among us and develop organizations. Therefore, we have the responsibility to take care of the earth and prevent any more pollution from happening than what is happening now. Humans, animals and plants need a condusive environment for us to live and breathe. The earth is designed for us to have all the access to the needs that are required for us to live. Therefore, we should not jeopardize all these just in the name of economic incentives.

The Roman games :: History

The Roman games Question : Who were the spectators at Roman games? Discuss the relationship between them and the performers they watched. Gladiator fights were first introduced to Rome in 264 BC, when the sons of Junius Brutus paid honor to their father's funeral by showing three pairs of gladiators fight. This ritual caught on and was performed to honor significant men. As the years passed, the ceremonies became more promoted and emperors began to present the games to symbolize their power. The citizens of Rome loved to go to these bloody warfares. In the city of Rome, these events were held in the Colosseum. An arena so large that it could hold 50,000 spectators and host fights between men and animals. Gladiatorial games occupied a central role in society. Sponsored during the republic by rich magistrates and later in the Empire by the Emperors themselves, the games have long been called an election tool. The games in Rome are known today as the bloodiest exhibitions of public entertainment known to mankind. Men, Women and children flocked to the Colosseum to watch the bloodthirsty fighters murder one another. The spectators came from all over the Roman Empire and various other regions, like Africa. The games became a way of entertaining the wealthy, as well as the common people. "Gladiator", comes from the latin word "gladius", for sword. They were primarily made up of slaves, criminals, prisoners of war or even volunteer free men. The crimes that could lead one to the arena included treason, robbery, and murder, among others. Some free men became gladiators of their own free will in hopes of gaining notoriety and patronage amongst the wealthy citizens. By the end of 50 BC almost half of the gladiators fighting in the Colosseum were free men. The gladiators competed against one another for the sake of public entertainment at festival games. Although some gladiators fought wild animals, the combats usually featured a pair of male human contenders. They fought in diverse styles depending on their background and how much training they had endured. Originally as captured soldiers, they were made to fight with their own weopons. There were also strong sexual references to the gladiator. The word gladius, for sword, was used to mean penis, their helmets were also, occasionally, shaped in the form of a phallus. Even the dead, defeated gladiator, had something sexual about him.

Design Argument for the existence of God Essay

The Design Argument can be split into two sides: design qua purpose and design qua regularity. The key idea of design qua purpose comes from William Paley. He used analogy as the basis for his argument, noting how the complex design of a watch allows all the parts to work together perfectly to achieve its purpose. He then noted the complexity, order and purpose of the universe, stating that â€Å"every manifestation on design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature.† Therefore if a watch’s intricacy stands as evidence that it has been designed, by analogy the universe must also have a designer and, as the designer is required to be supremely powerful, the designer must be God. Aquinas also presented an argument to support design qua purpose. Similarly to Paley, he argued that all natural occurrences show evidence of design. He claimed that this suggested there is a being which directs all things, and as humans have knowledge this being must also be knowledgeable. Therefore there is an intelligent being that directs everything towards its purpose, and Aquinas stated that this being must be God. Unlike Paley, Aquinas explained that God is a designer at work who continues to direct us towards our purpose as well as regulating the universe (e.g. the planets and the seasons). He also attempted to explain how free-will plays a part in design, claiming that we are programmed to reproduce but free-will allows us to choose who we reproduce with. Through these points he also demonstrated a key aspect of the design qua regularity side of the Teleological Argument. Another aspect of the argument is the anthropic principle, which was first introduced by F.R. Tennant. The significant difference of this principle to Paley and Aquinas’ ideas is that it doesn’t reject the scientific principles for existence, as Tennant said that the conditions for the development of human life were intrinsic to the Big Bang. The strong principle says that the reason and purpose of the universe is to support human life, supported by the way the conditions on earth are perfect in order for us to survive.  For example, the atmosphere is 21% Oxygen which is near enough the exact amount that humans need. Consequently a greater being created the universe to support us, and the only being powerful enough to do so is God. On the other hand, the weak anthropic principle doesn’t accept that life was inevitable from the beginning and instead suggests that it just happened to have occurred. Richard Swinburne developed this by suggesting that the creation of the universe came down to probabilities rather than chance. He recognised that the universe could have easily been chaotic, but the fact that it isn’t suggests some element of design. Tennant described this as the world being â€Å"compatible with a single throw of a dice†, and said that â€Å"common sense is not foolish in suspecting the dice is loaded.† This explains how Swinburne and Tennant believed that it took an incredibly small singularity to create the cosmic explosion which created the universe, but the order and purpose is so beyond chance that there must have been a greater being behind it. This therefore shows how the anthropic principle is used to prove the existence of God. This principle has been supported by many other philosophers, including Fred Hoyle and Anthony Flew. Comment on the claim that this argument totally fails to prove the existence of God Charles Darwin used the idea of ‘Natural Selection’ to challenge the Design Argument. This is a theory that claims that the strongest and most adapted species survive and therefore species develop and evolve naturally through time. Darwin argued that the illusion of design is actually a result of natural and random process caused by Natural Selection, and not by God as the designer. Steve Jones described this process as â€Å"a series of successful mistakes†, which again doubts the involvement of God in the design of species. Nevertheless, Christians could object to this disproving that the Design Argument proves the existence of God as the anthropic principle suggests that Natural Selection and Evolution are caused by God, as they are too unlikely to have occurred by chance. As a result, one would argue that Darwin’s theory doesn’t hold up under its counter argument because Natural Selection can still occur with God being the designer of the universe. Freud also questions the Design Argument’s success at proving the existence of God in his book ‘The Future of an Illusion’. In it, he describes religious faith as an illusion based on wishful thinking, arguing that religion exists because people fear living in a chaotic and unordered world. Therefore we project order on to the universe out of fear and so our minds are predisposed to see order. Freud uses this idea to dispute that the order and regularity of the universe is a result of design, thus questioning the existence of God overall. One would say that Freud’s argument supports the claim that the Design Argument fails to prove God’s existence as it suggests that the universe is in fact not ordered perfectly as we perceive, and so God’s work as a designer is an illusion arisen from fear of chaos. Additionally, the Epicurean Hypothesis disputes that the designer of the universe could be the God of classic theism by exploring the idea of evil and suffering. Epicuris says that if God is willing to prevent evil but isn’t able to then he can’t be omnipotent, and if he’s able but not willing then he can’t be benevolent. From this argument, he concluded that either God isn’t the God of classic theism or God isn’t the designer of the universe at all. On the other hand, Christians could counter this by arguing that evil and suffering is a test from God as an opportunity to prove our faith to him. Therefore based on this, evil and suffering doesn’t disprove that God is the ultimate designer. However, the argument still stands as if God was omniscient he wouldn’t need to test people as he would know whether or not they were faithful. Also permitting evil and suffering would still make him malevolent. Consequently  one would say that the Epicurean Hypothesis still supports that the Design Argument fails to prove the existence of God. Overall, despite the Design Argument’s in depth ideas such as the anthropic principle and design qua purpose and regularity, there are stronger scholarly arguments to support the claim that the Design Argument fails to prove the existence of God. Although the use of Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection can be cancelled out by its counter, Freud’s idea of illusion both successfully argues that the apparent design is created out of fear of chaos and not the result of a supremely powerful source, and the Epicurean Hypothesis argues that the God of classic theism can’t exist under the premise of evil and suffering. Therefore these ideas effectively support that the Design Argument doesn’t prove that God exists.

Boots

Would Mulishly be able to help Boots manage the Japanese regulations? Boots needs to reformulate more than 2,000 products in order to meet with the regulations and import restrictions of Japanese market, Which is a huge investment and after reformulation, these product have to be registered with the Japanese authorities whiny had considerable leeway in how they applied such regulation.Nevertheless, Mediumistic Corporation belong to the Mediumistic keiretsu Which is one of he oldest and largest industrial group in Japan and are leaders in their respective industries, they already have experience working with foreign firms to established in Japan and they are looking to increase Its retail activities. So they match In the right way with MAC to manage all of the Japanese regulation. 2. Would It be able to provide meaningful advice about how to attract and retain Japanese costumers?Foreign companies often had difficulty entering Japan, due to the complexity for obtaining resources, and l ocal reputation or business relationship, the trend is to see s less trustworthy the foreign firms. So in order to attract and retain costumers MAC is the best option for entering the Japanese Market due to its well known reputation and access to resources ( people, real state and financial resources).But they still have to be aware of the complexity of the health and beauty business in Japan, Which have many differentiation for each area. 3. Would the two companies continue to share the same interests? The Joint venture proposal is giving Boots the decision advantage by having 51% stake of the Joint venture, and as MAC is looking to increase retail activities they are in he same direction and should continue to have the same interest in the process of entering this market.Was the proposed Joint venture a good Idea for Boots? Is a great Idea, In order to enter the Japanese market they need to make this Joint venture with MAC, there Is no other way due to regulations of the Japanese authorities and the untrustworthy of the market in foreign firms, it would end up in big losses if no experience and they are in the right position to make this venture since they are the leaders and are managing in and excel way their local market.