The Purpose of Punishment

            Punishment has been defined differently by various people. In criminal law, it is defined as any penalty inflicted upon an individual for committing a given criminal offense or for acting against law. The act of punishing can be done formally or informally. Various experts have discussed the purpose of punishment using a number of theories. This paper will compare purpose of punishment based on classical and Durkheim theory (Durkheim, 1938, 15). Durkheim is one of the prominent experts in analyzing crime and punishment. According to Durkheim, the main objective of punishment was to maintain the authority of the laws that have been violated.

            Durkheim states that punishment is meant to restore and maintain collective conscience. He believed that crimes destroy solidarity in a society and a right to punishment can restore faith in one another by punishing the offender. He goes on to argue that in this complex modern world, people have gone to the extent of revenging back and this is what has weakened the power of punishment, hence increasing the rate of crimes and offences in the society (Merton, 1938, 3). Durkheim contends that people are molded by their own social experiences and if that collective principle is weakened, then the moral ties that bring people together will also be weakened. The weakening of these moral ties is what he termed as anomie.

            According to Durkheim, anomie happened after traditional norms were undermined and these norms were not replaced by other new norms. As a result, due to lack of moral guidelines, people experienced a state of anxiety, disorientation, aimlessness and so forth (Merton, 1938, 5). Therefore anomie is regarded as a very dangerous phenomenon because it puts in a state of being less concerned about others, and in this case, they refocus on their self interests. In effect, they end up looking after themselves not bothering about the impact of their actions on other people (Lombroso & Ferrero, 2002, 42).

            According to Durkheim, there is a difference between the traditional and modern law concerning punishment. Traditionally, punishment was corporal and intended on the body of the offender, whereas, in the current societies, things have become institutionalized leading to lenient kind of punishment (Durkheim, 1938, 66). Modern society is now progressive and individualistic forming a self centered culture where people are only concerned about their personal welfare than the welfare of the entire society. This has in turn contributed to the breakdown of collective conscience hence causing social decay coupled with lenient punishment as opposed to the traditional way of consciences.

            Durkheim has always desired to have conformity as a way to of bringing people together. Conformity can help people to live societal way of life but not individualistic as it is. This can help to build cohesiveness and collective conscience (Durkheim, 1938, 67). According to him, moral decay comes in when people are divided into groups and each group has its own view different from each other. He suggests that lack of conformity is the cause of increased conflict which has also increased crime rates. The solution to end this is by embracing conformity, such that there is nothing dividing people in the society.

On the other hand, classicalists have also argued their own views on criminal punishment based on their classical theories. Classical theory does not regard crime as a sin. Classical approach is an approach that analyzes societal factors to determine the factors that lead to the occurrence of a crime. This approach weighs the benefit of a crime alongside the cost of its punishment (Beccaria, 1963, 17). This approach goes further to determine the factors that lead to the occurrence of a crime such that, such that way to reduce criminal behavior is by eliminating the causing factors. This implies that classical approach limits punishment.  

            Beccaria was one of the theorists who transformed criminal justice system in the 18th century and this transformation was felt all over the world. According to him, the purpose of punishment is deterrence. Punishment should be imposed on an individual with the intention that, that individual does not commit the same crime again. So as to prevent crime, punishment needs to be swift, certain and severe and its severity should outweigh the benefits obtained from crime commission (Beccaria, 1963, 19). In his theory, he condemned human torture and his major focus was human justice rather why crimes are committed. In his work, he stated that human beings have a choice of actions. This implies, for any action taken by an individual, it is always his or her own choice, hence no need to be penalized for it. In his view, he said that punishment should be used as a threat to commit a crime. To control human behavior, punishment can be used to create fear since people fear pain; they will always control their behaviors.

            Beccaria believed on the need to put laws in place so as to have punishments consistent with the crime. He gave three categories of preventing crime basing on three ideas (Beccaria, 1963, 17). The first idea is being certain about the occurrence of the crime, the speed at which the crime occurred compared to how quick the punishment can be administered, and the brutality of the crime and how much pain can be administered to that crime. He thought that the severity of the penalty must be equal to crime and it should not exceed the necessary so as to discourage the criminal and other people from falling into crimes.

            According to this theory, criminals choose to do crimes due to maximum pleasure and minimum pain. Classical theorists say that since criminals are rational, there is a need create deterrents that slightly outweigh the benefit of a given crime (Beccaria, 1963, 17). And they viewed death penalty as being pointless because it has no deterrent. Classical approach has contributed towards the nature of criminal justice practice. In America and Europe, the common system of criminal justice is, punishment being proportionate to crime. Ever since classical theory was instituted, the use of capital punishments, corporal punishment and torture has reduced.


            Durkheim’s approach to criminology is slightly different from classical approach. Despite the fact that both theories agree with the use of punishment to deter people from committing crimes, the degree of punishment varies. Durkheim believed in the traditional way of administering punishment where corporal punishment was the order of the day. According to him, this was necessary in order to hurt the body of the offender for violating a given law and punishment in this case was to maintain the authority laws. Compromising with punishment in this case would lead to increase of crimes. On the other hand classical theorists argued that punishment deters people from committing crime but it should be inflicted in a way that punishment slightly outweighs crime. Classical approach also condemned the use of corporal punishments, capital punishment and torture as opposing to Durkheim theory.


Beccaria, C. (1963) “On Crimes and Punishment”, in E. McLaughlin, J. Muncie and G. Hughes (eds) Criminological Perspectives: Essential Readings, London: Sage.

Lombroso, C. and Ferrero, W. (2002) “The criminal type in women and its atavistic origin”, in E. McLaughlin, J. Muncie and G. Hughes (eds) Criminological Perspectives: Essential Readings, London: Sage.

Durkheim, E. (1938) “The Normal and the Pathological”, in E. McLaughlin, J. Muncie and G. Hughes (eds) Criminological Perspectives: Essential Readings, London: Sage.

Merton, R. K. (1938) “Social Structure and Anomie”, American Sociological Review, 3, 5, 672-682.




1249 Words  4 Pages

The Impact of John Locke and Age of Enlightenment Thinkers on American Culture and Philosophy


The principles of enlightenment held a primary impact on colonials and the American founding fathers utilized most of these thoughts in their governance. Several major components of democracy like the power separation, checks and balances were derived from enlightenment writers such as Locke, Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire, and Hobbes[1]. It is worth noting that Thomas Jefferson’s popular phrase in regard to life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness was acquired from Locke’s phrase of life, freedom, and material[2]. The developers of the American constitution were highly driven by the past and progressing events in Europe during the enlightenment period. In other words, the American founding documents which include the constitution, the declaration of independence, the bill of rights in addition to other documents written during the 18th-century platforms the traditional and philosophical base on which the country was developed and which is still depended upon in shaping the society[3]. John Locke and the enlightenment thinker’s ideas had a fundamental effect on the philosophical foundation of the United States revolution.

John Locke and the enlightenment thinkers impacted the American society by creating a more firm foundation that values individual’s rights, equality and pursues progress[4]. The enlightenment thinkers was a primary influence in regard to the political thoughts of the colonists who were involved in pushing for independence and individual’s freedom. This idea resulted in the American Revolution. To begin with, several ideas that resulted in this change. One of the primary ideas by Locke asserted that individuals should be governed based on reasons rather than conventions[5]. John and other enlightenment thinkers such as Thomas Jefferson, they did not see any rationale as to why kings were allowed to rule and exercise control over the public rather than permitting people to govern themselves. They held the belief that a logical system is one which the government is in existence based on the permission given by individuals which refers to democracy[6].  It is from such points that the revolution leaders took most of the politicized philosophies to fight for democracy.

John Locke is popular for asserting that every human is entitled to certain freedoms that are not handed to them by decree or society[7]. He asserted that rights such as liberty, life, and privacy are natural rights and should thus not be controlled. According to Locke and Rousseau when the governing administration fails to guard the public’s natural privileges or fulfill the most suitable interest of the society known as the general will then its citizens can directly withdraw their responsibilities of obeying or transform that leadership via elections or being disobedient to the administration which is known as the social contract[8]. Based on this Philosophy an individual’s moral and partisan responsibilities are reliant upon an agreement which plays part in creating a society and thus if the agreement is broken then they are not obligated to being accountable. In addition, Locke also contended that if the country’s governance failed to guard individual’s privileges then they are obligated to withdraw which is bound to bring revolution. In the context of rationality, these enlightenment thoughts are backed up by rationale which differs from the past period which was more reliant on supernatural and spiritual powers.

Essentially, the philosophical foundation in regard to revolution is based on enlightenment thoughts regarding natural rights and the social contract. Given that the colonist believed that the British administration had damaged their natural privileges they operated on the belief that part of the contract had already been infringed. The American colonist was, therefore, guided by the assumption that since the British administration breached this agreement they had no right of reigning them and that is the reason that led to their revolting[9]. The enlightenment additionally influenced the seconding administration after the revolution was won. The logic of the enlightenment thinkers was utilized as the primary authors of the constitution. In regard to the Social contract, Hobbes and Locke agreed that the objective of creating a government was to guard the rights of those being ruled but differed on the intention. While Hobbes proposed that after forming the government certain rights are to be surrendered to guard the society against any attack Locke via his two treaties regarding civil governance objected this notion. Locke contended against heavenly rights and total monarchy[10]. Secondly, he noted that everyone is created with specific natural privileges that include freedom, life, and assets. He emphasized that a government is created for rights to be guarded and if the administration fails them the agreement can be abolished or modified.

There are a number of enlightenment principles within the declaration of independence[11]. One of the primary thought that everyone is entitled to specific privileges only for working for them but for being human. An additional one is a primary notion that the legitimacy of any government is acquired with the permission of those being ruled. More so, it includes the enlightenment thought that the primary objective of any administration is to guard individual’s privileges. The American Revolution is characterized by a number of advantages as well as cons. To begin with, it resulted in American independence a free nation from the control of Britain and all its states were able to work collaboratively and exercise independence. Slavery was abolished, unity created, constitution and the development of American nationalism[12]. American became united to fight against the ruling which was unjust thus sharing a common goal of winning which brought about unity and significant changes socially[13]. However, the win came with economic recession due to the loss of resources and finances and also because commercial operations were affected. The two nations also became more divided due to the war.

Locke became among the most powerful philosophers on the contemporary era. In both of his treaties, he guarded the argument that all people are equal and free naturally in opposition to the claim that God created everyone to be a subject to Monarch[14]. In regard to the state of nature, Locke offered a more defense idea by stating that certain privileges are not offered by the government and should be guarded[15]. He also asserted that individuals should be allowed to govern themselves which would be associated with higher security and wellness by focusing on the own wills and desires. Locke along with other enlightenment thinkers such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Thomas Paine republicanism is a form of tyranny that violates individual’s rights[16].


It is apparent that the enlightenment thinkers led by John Locke had a significant impact on the American philosophy and culture. In that, the fight for democracy that emphasizes that every individual in the country is entitled to equal privileges was mainly influenced by Locke’s philosophy that everyone was born equal regardless of their status. It is on such ideas of natural rights and social contract that revolution emerged. The significance of enlightenment ideas in regard to a cultural and socio-economic revolution of humankind is not to be doubted as even the most important documents such as the constitution and declaration are driven by these ideas.








Work Cited

Arneil, Barbara. John Locke and America: The Defence of English Colonialism. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1996. Print.

Chapter 1- Common sense: on the origin and design of government in general with concise remarks on the English constitution.

Erckel, Sebastian. Classical Social Contract Theory The Classical Social Contract Theories of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau Compared. 2009. München: GRIN Verlag GmbH.

Garry Willis. The Negro’s president: Jefferson and I love power. Houghton Mifflin.





[1] Garry Willis. The Negro’s president: Jefferson and I love power. Houghton Mifflin

[2] Arneil, Barbara. John Locke and America: The Defence of English Colonialism. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1996.

[3] Garry Willis. The Negro’s president: Jefferson and I love power. Houghton Mifflin

[4] Erckel, Sebastian. Classical Social Contract Theory The Classical Social Contract Theories of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau Compared. 2009. München

[5] Erckel, Sebastian. Classical Social Contract Theory The Classical Social Contract Theories of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau Compared. 2009. München

[6] Arneil, Barbara. John Locke and America: The Defence of English Colonialism. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1996.

[7] Garry Willis. The Negro’s president: Jefferson and I love power. Houghton Mifflin

[8] Chapter 1- Common sense: on the origin and design of government in general with concise remarks on the English constitution

[9] Chapter 1- Common sense: on the origin and design of government in general with concise remarks on the English constitution

[10] Erckel, Sebastian. Classical Social Contract Theory The Classical Social Contract Theories of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau Compared. 2009. München

[11] Garry Willis. The Negro’s president: Jefferson and I love power. Houghton Mifflin

[12] Arneil, Barbara. John Locke and America: The Defence of English Colonialism. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1996.

[13] Garry Willis. The Negro’s president: Jefferson and I love power. Houghton Mifflin

[14] Garry Willis. The Negro’s president: Jefferson and I love power. Houghton Mifflin

[15] Erckel, Sebastian. Classical Social Contract Theory The Classical Social Contract Theories of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau Compared. 2009. München

[16] Chapter 1- Common sense: on the origin and design of government in general with concise remarks on the English constitution

1533 Words  5 Pages

David Korten: When Capitalism Rules the World

            Capitalism refers to an economic or political system where factors of production are owned by private entities. David Korten condemns this system of economy, in his interview. According to David Korten, with capitalism, the economy will not be in position to perform within the principles in the market economics. His argument against the system of capitalism is that, capital, economic power and other factors of production are only concentrated in a few hands (Korten, 2014). According to his political view, capitalism is an enemy of democracy; the rule of democracy is that one person one vote, whereas with capitalism, you find that 100 rich people own more assets compared 1 billion poor people, hence causing imbalances.

            According to him, there cannot be economic boom when only a few minority benefit. In reality, economic boom involves increased productivity, increased wages, increased sales and increased demand in the economy. However, he argues that in the US economy, wages have been stagnating and declining over the past 20 years. And only those who work for more hours can have their incomes increased. He also argues that GDP is not an effective determinant of the standard of living because it always ignores the poor people in developing countries (Korten, 2014). In his view, the progress in modernity affects the average citizens. For instance, roads can be built for cars and yet the majority of citizens cannot afford the cars. Dams are constructed and thousands of poor people being displaced from their homes.  Therefore, he believes that money is just a number but not wealth and real wealth is having food in abundance, fertile land, proper infrastructure and other things that can sustain human living.

            The measure of the standard of living in his case is when the economy is able to provide everyone with a decent and a proper means of living other than basing on the GDP. The other important indicators of that is quality water, air, animal and plant life (Korten, 2014). Thus, the economy should be organized in a way that gives people the opportunity to work, and build a livelihood that increases their hope for a proper future and for their children.

            According to David Korten, bankers are not doing productive work at all because of how they handle issues of wealth. For instance, when evaluating companies, bankers can rule out that the company is not well run basing on the stock price regardless of whether the company operating well, with policies and good business policies (Korten, 2014). Therefore, money should not be taken as a measure of quality life in a given economy.

            On his view about the European Union, Korten claims that money will always be a mechanism of control. Just like the US, the union will be controlled by a few elite decision makers. In his argument against globalization, he states that countries should work with local currencies instead of global currencies. In his opinions, he suggests local currency as being more efficient compared to global currency which can lose connection in the market (Korten, 2014). He argues that few politicians in US have integrity and vision, thus, they cannot see the need for change. It will take a longer period for a politician to get the attention of the American people and have understanding to do what is necessary for change and better future. This therefore means, politicians do not faithfully fulfill what they are intended to do while in power.


David Korten, (2014). When Capitalism Rules the World.

594 Words  2 Pages

Descartes to Elisabeth, The Hague, 6/16 may 1643

 In the correspondence, Elisabeth wants Descartes to explain further the link between the body and soul of a human being. Elisabeth wants clarification on how the soul, which is a thinking substance – can affect the body’s spirits so that the result is voluntary actions.  This means an explanation on how the soul affects the actions of the body. For further explanation on the topic, Elisabeth asks Descartes to give her a definition of the soul – a substance - separate from thought, which is its action (Atherton, 11). By separating the two in definition, she hopes to have a more perfect understanding of them. 

 In his definition, Descartes refers to the writings which he has published in which he explains that the human soul consists of two things upon which the knowledge of its nature can be based. These two comprises the idea that firstly, the human soul thinks and secondly, it is inseparable from the body. Since the soul and body are united, the both can suffer together. Descartes states that in humans, there some primitive notions that can be considered original and from which all other knowledge is formed (Atherton, 13). Such notions are very few since after the general notions like duration and number that can be conceived and gotten, but in relation to the body only the idea of extension, movement and figures can be explained. In relation to the human soul, only the idea of thought which consists of perceived understandings and a person’s will inclination can be explained (Atherton, 14). The union of the body and soul is the only notion which determines the movement of the body by soul’s force and the idea of the body acting causing the body to have passions and feelings. The explained notions are primitive and hence, every one of them can only be understood through itself (Atherton, 14).

  In essence, Descartes argues that the nature of the definition of the soul is different from that of the body and hence, each can exist without the other. He sees the various notions that try to explain the nature of the soul as being different from that which explain the nature of the body. The mind is seen as the substance that moves the body only because of the reunion between the two. This argument is not sufficient because it leads to a problem while trying to explain how the mind, with thought as its actions, can cause the movement of the body parts. The basic notion by Descartes is that the understanding of the divisible body can be done apart from the indivisible mind and the other way round (Skirry, 1).  He fails to clarify clearly the difference between the definition of the soul and of the body since it is possible that the mind or soul requires the brain, which is the part of the body to, to exist. In addition, the human mind cannot have a surface and motion, and hence, there is no clear explanation of various sensations. Since the soul and the body have different natures, the causal interaction between the two appears not possible. The effects of such a problem is quite serious given that it undermines Descartes claim of having a distinct and clear understanding of human soul without its body.


Works cited

Atherton, Margaret. Women Philosophers of the Early Modern Period. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994 11-15

 Skirry, J. (2006). René descartes: The mind-body distinction. URL: http://www. iep. utm. edu/descmind.



586 Words  2 Pages



Realism in terms of understanding international relations or what is popularly known as political realism is observed as among the oldest theories in international relations and is recognized as a worldview. This is one of the earliest theories when it comes to the study involving the politics at the international level and how it has evolved through failures and how it would change the global politics. Realism is considered to be contrasted with liberalism and idealism that tend to give more emphases on the cooperation. The realists consider that the states to be the principal actors in managing their security, interests and power struggle (Gilpin, 2016). The only negative implication of the realist is the fact that the emphasis on the self-interest and power is basically the skeptical ideology with regards to how relevant the ethical norms are with relation to the states involved. National politics in many parts of the world are identified through the way of law and authority but international politics are signified through conflicts and war.    

In every sense, not all the realists consider the lack of ethics in the international affairs. This dissimilarity ought to be identified between the classical which is represented by the twentieth-century theories and the extreme or radical realism (Scheuerman, 2013). The classical realists also acknowledge the possibility of having an ethical judgment in the global politics. Rather they are all critical of the moralist which signifies a moral disclose which does not take into consideration political realities. Supreme value is awarded to the successful political actions which are based on the prudence (Murray & Nuttall, 2014). Prudence is given as the ability to control the rightness of an issue from the possible possibilities based on the consequence of the politics in place. The realist theories urge that politics should be viewed as they are in the current times and not how one would like the politics to be in the world.   

The twentieth-century code of realism has been currently replaced by the neorealist that is an effort to develop a technical approach to the study of the worldwide relations. Considering the political system or more important the international system, the realist has been focusing their thoughts on how the international relations perform based on the perception of power and security (Scheuerman, 2011). The variations among the realist create an opening for the assumptions regarding the international relations that can be compared to the constructivism, feminism, and liberalism. International relations with regards to realism are mostly centered on the assumptions of the human behavior. In general, the entire realists are basically concerned with what is called the 3s which are survival, statism, and self-help.


For most, if the realists, the state become the main actor and the sovereignty is the distinguishing part. Being a sovereign state means that the state has the power and capability to do as it pleases. The clear way of defining this act of violence between the states, one would consider terming a state as a monopoly of using physical force in a given territory as a show of legitimacy. Within such a state with such a territory, sovereignty indicates that the state has the capability and the supreme power to create laws and have them enforced by the state members (Murray & Nuttall, 2014). This establishes the basis of unwritten relations between the state and the individuals. In most cases, this can be termed as trading the liberty for the sake of having security. Once there is security then the other arms can start operations such as civil societies. At this point, the only duty for the realist which is remaining is establishing power domestically. This is now the basis for competition in the international relations.

Realists argue that in anarchy, the states compete amongst themselves for security and power. In this sense, the nature of having the competition is viewed as a way of having one state grab everything while the others have nothing at hand. This logic of power competition politics makes the basis of the agreement very difficult to get in the universal principles but allows the principle of non-intervention into the internal affairs of any other sovereign state (Schuett, 2010). However, this same principle of non-intervention which is designed to bring in coexistence is suspended by some realist who argues that it does not apply to the relations between the great powers and their subordinates. As it has been witnessed in some parts such as the United States in a country like Iraq and Afghanistan, powerful states have the capability of overturning the principle of non-existence on the basis of international order and national security. Provided the first move of any state is to organize for power domestically followed by having power internationally, it is most evident to consider what the realist talk of when they say politics with power. Most can associate the politics on the international level as being a struggle for being in power but the main concern is what power is perceived to be the realists (Scheuerman, 2013). Power, in this case, is defined as the capability to control and rule over the minds of other people. Power is both a relation and relative concept where something has to be in existence for power to exist. Having power, in this case, is now perceived to be the counts of how many aircrafts, tankers, naval ships and number of troops a particular state possesses which can translate to having the capacity to force others to do what they cannot do willingly.


In international politics, the main idea is all about survival according to the realists. The ultimate concern is having security through the ambiguity by which the realists play it means accumulating more and more power. For one to attain every other goal in life, there has to be survival whether through conquering or through independence. Beyond every survival move, the aims by which a state possesses are endless. States compete to secure the best for their survival and therefore using every possible means to ensure that they succeed in what they are doing (Schuett, 2010). However, states are very defensive but if it means making the security of the country be vulnerable, then at times they will let go instead of jeopardizing the security. Realism does not only provide for an alternative code of morals for the leaders but also reject the bringing of ethics into the international politics. This code of moral has brought about the issue of criticism especially from the liberal theorist who recognizes the idea of universal human rights.

Self help

Conflicts and war are very common in the domestic politics but this is not the case with the international politics. The main distinction between the domestic and the international politics is the structure of each level. When it comes to the domestic politics, citizens have no obligation to defend themselves but for the international politics, there are no authorities in the higher level to counter or prevent the action of force used by every citizen. In this case, the security can be obtained through self-help. Self-help is basically a principle of action in an anarchic structure (Scheuerman, 2011). When a state is busy trying to secure its own security, other states are rendered insecure making it create competition among each other. Security dilemma is a term that is used to describe a spiral of insecurity issues. A security dilemma exists when a neighboring state starts military preparations which create the irresolvable lack of certainty in the minds of the immediate neighbors. In every sense, the preparations could be for defense or war but this does not change the fact that there will be conflict and lack of trust amongst the two involved states.


Realist idea is mostly viewed as one being obsessed with power. This is fuelled by the concept of self-help, survival, and statism which dictates that the states must have power as a key thing in the international politics. The level by which a realist can go in search of power can be determined through the levels of classical and structural realism (Gilpin, 2016). On other levels, security is more important than the power of a state. Competition can never end since one state is always concerned over the doings of another state. Countries want to retain the idea of being the sovereign holders of power and ideology makes others insecure.  











Gilpin, R. (2016). The political economy of international relations. Princeton University Press.

 Guilhot, N. (2011). The invention of international relations theory: Realism, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.

Murray, R. W., & Nuttall, A. D. (Eds.). (2014). International Relations and the Arctic: Understanding Policy and Governance. Cambria Press.

Scheuerman, W. E. (2011). The realist case for global reform. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Scheuerman, W. E. (2013). Morgenthau. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Schuett, R. (2010). Political realism, Freud, and human nature in international relations: The resurrection of the realist man. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.


1510 Words  5 Pages

Motivational Theory

Maslow’s Hierachy of Needs Theory

 The theory of ‘Hierarchy of Needs’ was formulated by Maslow. The theory focuses on human motivation and satisfaction of psychological needs. In the hierarchy of needs, Maslow states that  human being have different levels of needs and  in order to motivate behaviors, all the needs should met starting with the basic  needs.  For example, the needs are divided into two groups namely-deficiency needs-food, rest, friends, sense of belonging and growth needs- self-fulfillment needs (Armstrong, 2002). The main point is that when deficiency needs are fulfilled, it will be easier to fulfill growth needs. Note that in order to achieve self-actualization; people must fulfill social needs like food, shelter, security, love, self-respect and more (Armstrong, 2002).  The benefits of this theory are that in organization, managers are able to analyze the needs which employees need to improve performance. Organization is able to evaluate a qualitative difference among various needs. However, the theory has drawbacks in that it assumes that the hierarchy of needs applies to all individuals but failures to consider cultural differences (Armstrong, 2002).  


Herzberg’s two-factor-theory

 After conducting a comprehensive research on job satisfaction and dissatisfaction, Herzberg came up with two-factor model.  His research and other various studies concluded that job satisfaction or employee motivation is influenced by satisfiers (recognition, responsibility, etc). On the other hand, job dissatisfaction is influenced by hygiene factors (company policy, security, etc).  Herzberg explain the meaning of the theory by introducing intrinsic motivators- employees’ motivation is influenced by factors such as acceptance, honor, social  status and  extrinsic motivators- motivation is influenced  by outside sources such as bonuses (Armstrong, 2002).  Generally, employee satisfaction and work performance is influenced by things like recognition and dissatisfaction is influenced by things like salary, benefits, policies and more. The theory is beneficial to organization in that managers are able to eliminate dissatisfaction through eliminating strict rules and policies, creating a supportive culture, safety and security. However, the theory focuses more on satisfaction but overlooks productivity.  In addition, situational variables and satisfaction measures are not considered (Armstrong, 2002).


Expectant theory


 Expectant theory was formulated by Victor Vroom and he states that motivation comes from individual’s goals. In other words, by setting realistic goals, a person will strive to follow specific behaviors to achieve the goals.  Behaviors matters a lot since they determine achievement or failure. For example, employees are motivated by skills and abilities which increase performance. The organization also supports the expectancy theory by ensuring an effective payment system, positive conditions of working, security and more (Armstrong, 2002). In other words, there should be performance and outcome should   relate.  The theory is beneficial in that it focus on people and the need to make personal choices.  People are motivated by a reward and this indicates that effort is made to achieve the reward. However, the theory has drawback in that effort and performance may not be the key elements to achieve a reward.  Note that education and skills play part (Armstrong, 2002).



The three motivation theories have similarities. All theories show that motivation is influenced by similar factors.  For example, Maslow show that  that  an individual   need basic needs such food, shelter, love  and  more in order to  achieve goals in life.  This related to Herzberg theory in that for an employee to improve performance, organization must show recognition, responsibility, pay increase and more. On the expectant theory, motivation is influenced by expectations (Armstrong, 2002).  However, for expectations to be met, organization but provides resources which employees with use to achieve the goal. The same way Maslow and Herzberg  offer factors which influence motivation, Vroom states that employees need value (security, self-actualization, and higher pay) for them to work hard and achieve the goals (Armstrong, 2002).


             There is difference in the theories based on the structure.  Maslow focus on fulfilling basic needs starting from low order needs such food, shelter and more in order to have the strength to progress with life and achieve the ultimate goals. Hertzberg on the other hand does not focus on motivational factors toward life in general but rather he focuses on motivational factors toward work accomplishment (Armstrong, 2002).  Unlike Maslow who states that self-actualization cannot achieve without basic needs, Hertzberg states that self-actualization is a satisfier in workplace. Expectant theory also stands on its own by putting emphasize on effort and performance. In order to achieve the goals, you have to work hard.  Unlike other theories, Vroom also focus on organization role to  reward and performance should be connected  by providing training to enhance better performance (Armstrong, 2002).


The best motivational theory

 I believe that Maslow theory is the best for internal motivation.  First, I agree with Maslow that   there should a hierarchy of need which structures the important needs to meet in life before achieving higher level needs.  From my own opinion, I feel that human beings must   feel a sense of well-being by fulfilling the basic needs such as food and shelter.  Udechukwu (2009) supports this theory by stating that modern organization meets various challenges contributed by employee turnover. The article focuses on correctional officers and the higher turnover due to inhospitable conditions, limited resources among other challenges.  The author states that the root cause of the problem is failure to meet the psychological needs of collection officers (Udechukwu, 2009). Despite the fact they easily achieve safety, love and other psychological needs, correctional offers lack self-actualization. They face social and economic problems rooted from minimal economic development, limited property values, limited options and more.  Generally, in the hierarchy of need, psychological needs are met by 80% but self-actualization is never met. With respect to the research from this article, I believe that Maslow’s theory is the best and managers  should  ensure that after fulfilling the  employer’s psychological needs (wages, security, safety, benefits and more), they also  ensure employees achieve  self-actualization through job  enrichment, participatory decision making, rewards, freedom and more to develop self-esteem (Udechukwu, 2009).


 B.K Skinner was a leader who used behaviorism. He states that it is easier to understand behavior by focusing on actions and its result. As the leader of behavior, Sinner developed Operant conditioning  and stated that  behaviors  is impacted by both positive reinforcement-provides  a rewarding consequence and negative reinforcement-removes a negative stimulus and unpleasant experience. Behaviorisms focus on observable behaviors and its reinforcements are effective in shaping behaviors.  Sartre is leaders who used existentialism and stated that human being have the responsibility to make rational decisions. In addition, individuals have freedom and universal authority. Action and personal decisions are the key elements in addressing the challenges faced in life (Bek, 2015).









Udechukwu, I. I. (2009). Correctional Officer Turnover: Of Maslow's Needs Hierarchy and Herzberg's

Motivation Theory. Public Personnel Management, 38(2), 69-82.


Armstrong, M. (2002). Employee reward. London: Chartered Inst. of Personnel and Development.


 Bek Christopher. (2015). TheTheory of One: Realizingthe Dream of a Final Theory. FriesenPress,


1150 Words  4 Pages

Is morality relative or are there objective moral truths?


The society is haunted by the question of whether morality is fundamentally relative or there are moral truths that are objective.  The argument for relativism by Benedicts views modern culture as not being the culmination of human achievements but as   continuously evolving. Subjectivism and conventionalism also tries to explain the question moral truths in a society.

Concerning Benedict’s paper

 Benedicts is right in saying that the modern culture and civilization being just a part of long series of potential adjustments. This means that the modern culture is not a culmination of the best achievements that humans can gain but it shows that culture will keep evolving as it has happened before.  The changes in culture are informed by human experience, the need to identify with nature for different reasons for social sanctity and social good. In the same light, human experiences and nature is shaped by their surrounding at a particular moment and it is through this that moral values are developed and upheld in a given society (Benedict, 2000). This implies that human culture is never static but undergoes evolution in terms of what is moral or immoral which is then ingrained in the system. The moral codes will also change with change in different periods and under different circumstances and those humans who will have different traits from the selected human behavior in the community are considered as being deviant.

It is not possible to separate the descriptive aspect of anthropological study from the prescriptive evaluation of cultures. This is because the descriptive studying of anthropology helps evaluating the various cultures and why they exist.  The combination of the two is necessary in studying the humans through a descriptive view which will help in understanding the different culture, values and morals existing in a given community. Whether some cultures are better than others depends on the outcomes of the cultures and how they affect the human. Even though human behavior, morals and values are informed by their surrounding, there are various types that are found widely and are likely universal. There is a type of human behavior which can be found where there is big series of people and many people in a group are fashioned to a given culture (Fieser, n.d). This means that may exist which shows the universally accepted behavior can be found in a given culture but lacking in another culture. Rating of the culture may happen if a culture is considered devoid of the universally accepted principles in wide groups of people.

The notion by Benedict that morality refers to whatever is considered normal by a culture may have various ethical implications.  While there may be differences in the moral practices of various societies, the basic moral principles on which the practices are not different. It may be that morals are relative in regard to cultures but in all the societies there underlying principle of these morals cannot be condemned. Even though some things that are considered abnormal in one culture may function in another culture, there are some principles such as the sanctity of human life are held widely despite the divergence (In addition, if the wrongness or rightness of a given action is dependent on the norms of the society, it follows that one has to obey these norms even if they believe that an action is immoral (Benedict, 2000). In the case of ant-Semitism policy of the Nazi, the principle by Benedict is wrong since protection of human life is held as a universal moral principle and can mean. In this case, morality extends beyond what a group may consider tight to what is right for entire society.


The quotation by Benedict tends to articulate the fact that what we deem wrong or right is informed by the habits that have been held traditionally in the society. This means that whatever we see as being abnormal to other unfamiliar cultures only because our society has conditioned them as being so, whereas in other societies, they function normally (Pojman, 1994). This means that morality is conditioned by various aspects of the culture such as religious values. Outside such factors, what is considered abnormal could be perceived to be quite normal were it not for that elaboration? This implies that morality values cannot be considered universal in all societies because the very cultures different. There can never be instances where the fundamental moral principle which accepted in all the societies since beliefs are different and these beliefs shape the perception of an individual (Fieser, n.d). Abnormalities work at ease in some cultures but not with similar ease in other cultures.

Concerning Pojman’s paper

The thinking by Pojman that most American students are moral relativist is correct, which is not surprising given that people have divergent views on culture and behavior. This assertion can be supported by the view among most students that what is right for one person may not be right for the other person. To them, the ethical framework is en vogue especially in the atmosphere of learning institutions. To most students, morality is a personal judgment given that most students make morality to appear like a useless idea.  People at this stage believe that rebuking a mistake is being judgmental and hypocrite and it is not for condemning a person if you are doing what they do as long is not affecting others (Pojman , 1994).  Hence, a moral code is only meaningful to a person who embraces. This is because, people come from different cultures that hold different systems of moral belief and relativistic perception of morality. In this case, the existence moralities that are diverse blush aside the notion that there can be single criteria of true morality.  The relativism is driven by the need to promote tolerance and by encouraging humility among people from different backgrounds.

 The subjective ethical relativism involves a consideration that morality depends on an individual and not the society so that an individual determines whether an action is right or wrong.  In addition, the idea of good or bad is does not have an evaluative meaning that is interpersonal (Pojman, 1994).  The personal view of the morality is informed by the various facts that were instilled in families and communities that are mutually dependent. However, conventionalism holds the perception that there is no moral principle that is objective but all moral principles that are valid are also justified since they are culturally accepted and hence social aspect of morality is recognized. Unlike subjectivism, morality is not defined by a personal view but it is relative to the prevailing culture.   The individuals have an obligation to be tolerant (Pojman, 1994).

The view that morality of every culture is good may not be always true since there are some cultures that fail to adhere to the principles behind all the moralities.  On the other hand, the moral principles in some cultures may fail to promote or enhance human interests and hence, fail to meet the human needs.  Moralities should be upheld as functions of human interest and needs and should ensure that the most significance needs and interests are addressed (Pojman, 1994). In this sense, morality of a culture that does not meet the fundamental needs and interests optimally should not be upheld.  The morals of a given culture should therefore be objective so that they can be acceptable to all cultures since they do not harm humans or fail to address to their interests. Morals should be that they appeal to an ideal observer and with conditions whose effects are impartiality and which ensure that humans are provided with a good chance of making appropriate decisions (Fieser, n.d). Some cultures may involve practices do not address human needs.

Moral relativism may have a bad impact on the society in case where moral wrongs are taken to be acceptable. If it can be said that one’s actions and believes are wrong or right only in relation to a given moral benchmark, people may end up justifying almost any action. In the conversation with his victim, Ted Bundy defends his actions on the basis of moral subjectivism and that respecting the rights of other people was a great obstacle to his freedom.  A response to Ted Bundy by a relativist would include mostly refuting his reasons for the actions since relativism has boundaries such as those put in place by a culture at a time. In this case, raping and murder are against culture norms.


The objectivity of moral values is perceived in the sense that such values are beyond human conventions that are subjective. Moralities should uphold human need and interest as a basic principle in all the cultures.


Fieser, J.,(n.d). Ethics. Retrieved from:

Benedict, R. (2000). A defense of Ethical Relativism. Life and Death–A Reader in Moral Problems. London: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 37-42.

Pojman , L. P., (1994).The case against moral relativism.


1499 Words  5 Pages

Position Paper

  Utilitarian and Kantian perspective

 According to utilitarianism perspective, people have an obligation to produce actions which brings happiness and pleasure to others. Utilitarianism focuses on social improvement and introduces the ideology that if certain actions improve the human welfare, then such actions are right (Shaw, 49). In this perspective, pleasure is fundamental element for the well-being.  An important point to note in the ‘Blood Sale’ case study is that utilitarianism views this act as an act which produces the greatest good to the community. While Kant’s  perspective  focus on  moral action  regardless of the consequence, Utilitarianism focus on  performing  actions which produce a positive outcome and benefits the greatest number (Shaw, 49). In relating  the case study with utilitarianism perspective, the act of  buying blood  at fifteen cents and reselling at $25 per unit  is  a right act because after all  it minimizing pain and maximizing the well-being(Shaw, 80). In addressing the dilemma in this case, it is important to consider the well-being of the people and the huge benefits which community receives. Even though the business is designed to make profit, it produces the best result and produces happiness to the community. Apart from making profit, the Plasma international focuses on improving the lives of people and decreasing pain. In fact, the organization rejects the customs or moral codes from the National Health Service that blood should not be sold or bought. Rather, the organization’s actions are intended to maximize the well-being (Shaw, 80).

  According to Kant perspective, people should adhere to universal law and moral rule when doing actions. In other words, he says that moral rules should be categorical imperative where everyone has a moral duty to do the right thing and to obey the law (Shaw, 56). Kant adds other point based on universal acceptability and states that people have moral rules which are self-recognized. Though morality may be constricted by reasons, there should always be a moral law which guides toward doing the right thing. In addition to universal acceptability, people should view humanity as an end but not as means. In relating the case study with Kant’s perspective, the act of buying and reselling blood is unethical (Shaw, 58). This is because, Kant argues that people should be treated as ends but not as means. The act of buying blood at low price and reselling it expensive is an act of treating people as means. In other words; people have an obligation to adhere to the moral rule in making moral decision. In Kant’s perspective, patients should receive blood without charge and allow the voluntary donors to give blood without making profit (Shaw, 80). Kant argues that people should do unconditionally good and avoid condition good which focus on money. He adds that although the Plasma International brings the greatest happiness to the community, the source of happiness is not good will. Generally, the Plasma International does not adhere to the moral law which directs a person toward moral requirement (Shaw, 56).

   After reviewing both Utilitarianism and Kantian perspectives, I can say that Utilitarianism offers a meaningful moral evaluation. This is because; the act of buying blood and reselling is moral and just simply because it maximizes happiness and minimizing pain to the community (Shaw, 49). Unlike Kant’s perspective which sticks to the adherence to the moral rule and good will, utilitarianism considers the outcomes and the associated happiness or pain. Generally, the action of buying safe and uncontaminated blood is right as it maximizes utility (Shaw, 49).

Work cited

Shaw, William H. Business Ethics.  9th edition Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2015. Print.

601 Words  2 Pages


   In the Philosophy of Language, Frege showed interest in understanding the identity and the relation between object and names. Frege realized that it is not possible to derive a logical meaning of a sentence through focusing on names and descriptions. Rather, words in a sentence have a sense and a reference which have semantic relations. When thinking about this issue, he understood that relation between objects would mean a=a and a=b (Frege, 2002). However, Frege does not agree with this but he argues that there are valuable extensions   from astronomical discovery that a=a is not a=b. The reader may conclude that a=a is true and a=b is informative but according to philosophical thought, Frege states that both have different identity. Frege adds that if two signs present a similar object, then relation between the two makes an identity.  However, a=b is just a statement of identity which presents two modes of presentation (Frege, 2002).

            Having understood identity, one can be in a position to distinguish reference and sense by having a comprehensive knowledge which will assist in distinguishing whether a sense represents an object. In addition, the knowledge will help identify references and associated senses. On the theory of sense and reference, Frege states that reference does not contain a meaning and the latter is derived from a sense of expression (Frege, 2002). In making a distinction between the reference and a sense, he states that objects have the same reference but different senses. In his argument, Frege introduces the identity statement where he says that evening star=morning star. This puzzle contains valuable extensions which then contribute to problems of objects and identity. In this case, identity is derived from relating the objects, that is, evening start is morning start and evening start is evening start. However, Frege puts emphasize that   two objects do not form an identity but what happens is that identify is formed from relation between names (Frege, 2002).  In other words, evening start is morning start- meaning that there are two names with the same denotation.


            On sense and reference, Frege assert that a=a  and a=b have different senses and cognitive value.  Similarity is seen in modes of presentation and one is able to distinguish between truth and thoughts. Frege says that sign, sense and reference have different expressions. In explaining the expression of identity-statements, the main problem with identity is derived from object relations. In solving the problem, Frege shows that identity   has a binary function, that is, ordinary objects with truth-value (Kripke, 2008). The Sense and Reference theory states that there is a relation between objects between names. For example, there is a cognitive connection between a=a and a=b because the former has a prior while the latter does not have. In addition, one can solve the problems of identity by understanding that a name has a reference and a sense.  The reader also understands that a and b present a similar object but have different senses (Kripke, 2008).  

One can solve identity problems by understanding that different senses can contain similar references which signifies cognitive significance. Frege solves substitutivity problems of identity statements. For example, morning start and evening start differ in sense.  Since a sense determines reference, it contains truth and falsehood. The truth-value is derived from sentence’s dimension and the sentence can change its expression and retain its truth-value.  To sum up, Frege shows that there is a difference between the reference (denotation) and the sense (connotaion). The reference is direct and the sense is indirect since both have different ideas (Kripke, 2008). He puts emphasize that a and b are identical names with different meaning.  In his philosophical work, Frege offers a descriptive theory which allows the reader understands that object descriptions creates a semantic concept in a sentence. Sense helps the reader understand the objects described in a sentence. The sense acts as a mode of presentation and it also determines reference.  Frege informs the reader that sense and reference are joined by signification and meaning (Kripke, 2008).


 Frege‘s objection on sense/reference distinction is that the meaning is expressed with respect to the object. In other words, he does not agree that words or thoughts are ideas.  He understands that in order to solve the problems of identity, the expression and truth of a word in sentence is reinforced by the sense. Frege employs a logical language and asserts that sentences express meaningful sense and truth-value (Kripke, 2008).  In Frege’s philosophical work, identity statement is characterized by the name-view and object-view which are found in sentences with referring terms. The views contribute to problem in identity statement. For example, the name-view   means that a and b presents a similar object. One is able to solve identity problems by understanding that a=a  and a=b have  different cognitive meanings (Kripke, 2008).  In addition, the cognitive significance is derived from the sense the reader is also informed that names gives an identity since difference names have different cognitive value.  In addition, a and b are informative since they have different mode of presentation.







Frege Gottlo. (2002). Sense and Reference.  The Philosophical Review, Volume 57, Issue 3


Retrieved from:,Gottlob/Frege,%20Gottlob%20-%20Sense%20and%20Reference.pdf


Kripke A. Saul. (2008). Frege’s Theory of Sense and Reference: Some Exegetical Notes.  74, 181-218


Retrieved from:


885 Words  3 Pages

Ancient Greece: Socrates and Plato and Great books: Plato’s Republic


Socrates was one of the few philosophers there ever was in Greek. He was a son of a midwife and a sculptor and in his past, served in the army in Athens when there was a crash with Sparta. Socrates was a married man but he had a quire tendency of liking the young men and in particular the young soldiers whom he worked with in the army (Skoog, 2014). Much of what is discussed about Socrates is according to his friend Plato who wrote about Socrates since Socrates had no ability to read or write but blessed with a good mind. During his early years specifically at the age of 17, Socrates was already renowned for his talent in the mastery of philosophy. Socrates was always very comfortable with wines and having conversations which eventually led him to be described as one of the best philosophers. With his curiosity of wanting to know any other philosopher, he visited the young men, older men, and women and tried to hide his identity just to gather what they had in mind (Kastely, 2015). In the conversations, he used to ask very simple but critical questions which required too much thinking. In the process, he would listen to the ideas of others and use them to twist their thinking until they cannot defend their ideas anymore (Gingerdiva19, 2008).

Socrates in many cases was not fond of the sophist who had the tendency of teaching logics which basically had the aim of getting the self-centered terminals and what they always termed as being relative to the other. He was very interested in nothing but the truth which he envied and loved by all means. At one particular time, he got on the road bare footed and shabbily dressed and stood by for almost a whole day just thinking of the same spot. His students were burdened with writing about Socrates since he was not any good in writing. He in many occasions say that he was not a fun of teaching but a server just like the mother who took care of others by being a midwife and who loved the truth at all times (Skoog, 2014). The questions and answers he provided his students with served as a way of meaning that knowledge is a dialect. Once found guilty of engaging in activities that the members of the public did not like, the judges sentenced him to death for his beliefs.  Although he died out of his believing in the truth and what is just, Socrates was an influential man to most youths.

Apology of Socrates

During the trial, Socrates makes an apology to the judges after he was found guilty of not giving the required respect to the gods who were recognized by the society and the laws, causing the youths to be defiant and bringing in new ideologies. The speech made by Socrates was never an example of an apology but rather a sort of defense speech to the case against him. In the conversation, Socrates is very clear but lacks the experience of dealing with issues to do with the law according to the speech. He feels very proud of himself and says that what he does is since he is the wisest man alive so he has no apologies (Skoog, 2014). On being asked to prescribe a punishment for himself, he jokes about the issue and this makes the jury sentence him to death. In his response, Socrates gives himself courage that the only thing after death is the gods and so there is nothing which can make him afraid any longer. 


Plato was one of the highest valued students of Socrates. He was from a family which was wealthy and very powerful and his real name was known as Aristocles but people knew him as Plato. At a tender age in his early 20s, the spell of Socrates attracted him to his philosophies and this made Plato love being a philosopher. After the death of Socrates, he took it to himself and roamed around Greece and in the Mediterranean where he was captured by pirates. Plato’s friends tried to rescue him from the slavery by raising money but Plato was released without having to pay anything and the money was used to start an Academy in the late 386 (Kastely, 2015). The Academy acted as a meeting jointly for the rich kids meets to learn mathematics, law and the main subject of philosophy. Studying was free as long as the donations kept running the school. Plato also allowed the women to study along and the school was used by the Greeks for a millennium.

Great books: Plato’s Republic

Plato’s Republic basically deals with identifying the best strategies to deal with how justice can be formulated in a given state. The essence of this republic is to know the various laws and what the law demand from the general citizens. Plato prepared the book as a way of solving every situation mankind experiences in the society. During the war that took place before Christ, Plato just watched as the democracy of their country being misused by the invaders (Kastely, 2015). The conversation begins with Socrates and a group of other people who engage in a conversation. The conversation is initiated by Socrates who wants to know how one can live a long life with the already acquired amounts of money. One of the eldest men also engages in and this forms the basis for the talk to continue to the late night. Cephalus, also among the people present responds that living that long assist a person to make quality and decisive decisions. In his response, having escaped the age of being a youth is very advantageous as it allows one to always be truthful and being wealthy is just an advantage of enabling a person to pay his debt on time. Every man has the capability of living a good life and also gets the deserved justice. The cave by Plato is presented by this great philosopher by the name Plato basically in the republic which is meant to be a comparison of nature and the education (Gingerdiva19, 2008).

Allegory of the Cave

This was a dialogue between Plato’s brother and one of his mentors according to the latter. Socrates describes a group of people who were living in these areas and who were always chained to their walls which were blank. They all have been chained to a wall such that the legs and the necks are very immobile making them look straight forward to the walls. The fire has been lit behind the prisoners and in between the prisoners and the fire, there is a walkway which has been raised where people can walk. The passersby are carrying some objects which possess the shapes of animals and human figures and the items used on a daily basis. The individuals who are there watching images forming the walls start to give them names. In the real sense, the shadows present a reality of the prisoners. Socrates identifies these as the philosophers who have just been freed out of the caves and who come to learn that the images on the walls do not signify the reality since he can identify the reality instead of getting it from shadows been seen by the prisoners (Gingerdiva19, 2008).

Socrates with his intellectual mind reverses the question to the same participants to listen to their views. Socrates asks what would happen if, among the many prisoners, one was allowed to look behind at the fire. In any case, the fire and the flames would hurt the eyes just like the shadows. The disorientation could be seen as more severe if any prisoner was freed from the cave into the light of the sun (Kastely, 2015). Occasionally, the prisoner would eventually be in a position to see after spending some time in the open day light. The dimensions and any reflections would be seen from the waters after the eyes have adjusted. On entering into the reality, the prisoner was in a position to see how indifferent the colleagues were while in the cave. In the case the prisoner was sent back to the cave where the others are and there is a discussion on the images formed, he would not praise the kind of knowledge they possess. This is so since he has already experienced more than what the others in the cave have in relation to images.


















Gingerdiva19 (2008). plato's republic part 1. Retrieved from: Gingerdiva19 (2008). plato's republic part 2. Retrieved from: Gingerdiva19 (2008). plato's republic part 3. Retrieved from: Kastely, J. L. (2015). The Rhetoric of Plato's Republic: Democracy and the Philosophical Problem of Persuasion. University of Chicago Press. Lindblom, K. (2015). Understanding Rhetoric: A Graphic Guide to Writing. English Journal104(5), 92. Plato, P. (2015). Republic. eKitap Projesi.

Skoog, S. (2014):The Trial of Socrates: Retrieved from:

Williams, Phil. (2008). Plato's Cave (animated version). Retrieved from:


1526 Words  5 Pages


  1. Marxists believe that education works according to the interests of the elites and the ruling class. This consequently means that the children of both the elites and the ruling class go to good schools, where they get better education which translates to better jobs. On the other hand, the children of the working class tend to go to ordinary schools, where they get ordinary education hence getting ordinary jobs which makes them to end up being of the working class (Proctor, 2012).    

In following this theoretical approach, the levels of education will drastically drop. This is because the working class will not take their children to school, since it will be to their own disadvantage. In addition, the rich will continue ruling over the poor, hence the elite will remain elite while the working class will remain in their positions (Pallotti, 2011).  

  1. According to my point of view, I think human nature can be changed as a result of education. Makarenko suggest that parents should work hard in ensuring love is improved in the family. In as much as money might be a problem, parents should strive to improve love in the family, and not through any material gains.
  2. The main role of a teacher is to instil knowledge into the students. Teachers are therefore supposed to work hand in hand with students, thus ensuring they understand whatever is being taught (Pallotti, 2011). Teacher should stress on logic and language, thus enabling the students to get an understanding of what is being taught. Through getting the logic, students will be able to broaden their minds, hence easily understanding whatever is being taught. On the other hand, understanding the language allows the students to develop an inner understanding of what is being taught (Proctor, 2012).
  3. Linguistic analysis differs from other philosophies when it comes to education, since linguistic analysis provides a critical analysis on how the language used in education. In this analysis, linguistic approach focuses on how the use of languages may either affect or improve the understanding to education. This consequently makes it differ from other approaches which only focus on how education affects different societal classes.
  4. The postmodern critical theory and Marxist critical theory are related in the sense that both of them criticize the mode and impact of education. According to postmodern critical theory, education leads to the rise of modern social classes, whereby the educated tend to be of a higher class as compared to the less educated (Pallotti, 2011). Whereas in Marxist critical theory, education tends to only benefit the elite and the ruling class, whereby they tend to benefit fully from it. In other words, according to the two theories, education leads to the division of people through classes. On the other hand, the two theories also differ in the sense that Marxist theory stipulates that education only benefits the ruling and the elite, while postmodern theory opposes this as it says, education benefits all, but it leads to the rise of social classes in the society (Proctor, 2012).
  5. The concepts of power and empowerment are very significant in the postmodern education, curriculum and teaching strategies, in the sense that they provide a clear mode of teaching. Power allows students the control to do and create things out of imagination, whereas empowerment allows teachers to advice and teach the students on how to develop an inner understanding of creating rather than learning what they are only taught (Pallotti, 2011).    


Proctor, B. A. (2012). A definition and critique of postmodernism: Its traits in the emerging church and relevance to Romans 1:18-32. Chicago, Ill: Xulon Press.

Pallotti, G., Wagner, J., & National Foreign Language Resource Center (University of Hawaii at Manoa). (2011). L2 learning as social practice: Conversation-analytic perspectives. Honolulu, Hawaii: National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawaii at Mānoa.


637 Words  2 Pages

Mind and Senses

The idea of skepticism is a methodology that is used to ensure that the certainty of knowledge is achieved through the diversified means.  Every idea of knowledge requires it to be justified by all means since it is never enough to only rely on a belief that is perceived to be true and therefore an individual must have a good understanding and a reason for the same belief (Descartes, 2015). Skeptics always argue that there is no way of having a justification that is complete and that has no possibility of change. Skepticism in many cases involves the idea that the understanding of a person is only different mentally since different people can have different ideologies and room for change. Knowledge allows different fields to be associated in terms of making a claim and therefore if a person has the capability of making a claim supporting it should follow (Frankfurt, 2009). In this article, I will argue on the basis of being involved as a being that has life and a purpose including the fact that trusting in God is essential since we all exist in Him. Being in existence and having the capability of thinking is the sole reason for the article.

The main reason for this article is to show that the scientific knowhow and understanding does not rely on the senses but on the mind of a person. Science and religion in many cases can be compatible and increase the likelihood of finding a solution with just applying both theories (Descartes, 2015). The body in this case according to Descartes meditations is science while the mind will truly be inclined to the religious truth, for example, God exists is a mind affiliation from Descartes Meditations.

Main attribution for his meditations he exists because he is a thinking being is not to show that there is nothing that exists but to indicate that the knowledge of anything is always open to doubts through our senses (Descartes, 2015). According to the article, if the scientific knowledge is obtained through our senses, then it is correct that we all could not be sure that anything really existed outside our senses. The only understanding is that the external objectives exist through our minds and it is never from our senses.  

Descartes claiming to exist as a thinking being is correct in the essence that the thinking is attributed to the fact that God and evil exist. If at all God who is all powerful and commands the thinking does exist then the idea of being in existence is true (Descartes, 2015). Everything that has thinking has an existence and therefore the meditator is correct in what he says as being in existence as a thing that is thinking. For the meditator to exist, then there has to be me in place making it clear that one has to exist to be regarded as thinking.

In reality, God exists through the various features that we can see. According to the article, Descartes must understand that the world does exist because there is a God who also does exist. If God exists in the world and has power over the world, then there is no doubt that we all have an obligation to entrust Him and put all our senses towards Him (Frankfurt, 2009). The meditator has surely succeeded in his argument since a thinking being can always exist. Our senses never bring us into contact with the materials or the objects themselves but with the images in our mentality and therefore the senses never project the ideology of the world ever having whatever we experience in our minds. Through the introduction of having a deceiving God, the dream and the evil demon, Descartes ensure that his ideology of being in existence as a thinking being is not doubtable (Descartes, 2015).

According to the dream argument, the sensation experienced while dreaming is almost similar to the perceptions he has in his mind. In this setting, there is no one way of making the dream different from the perception and this can mean that he is dreaming every moment and his perceptions are very wrong which is an illusion opening the chances for doubts. Descartes believes that there is a God who is very powerful and we all owe Him everything we have but have the capability of deceiving us mathematically even if it is a solution we all know the outcome, therefore, a room for doubt. For this, an evil spirit or being must be in existence in order to deceive us since the all powerful God has control over everything even our sense which we trust so much.

Descartes supports his doubts through the existence of a deceiver who is in our senses and therefore the controller of our thinking of being in existence (Frankfurt, 2009). One can be deceived on the basis of their thoughts but there is no doubt about one being in existence and the certainty of objects can also not be doubtable in any case. Descartes argument about being a thinking thing in existence is now escalated due to the fact that he has the knowledge and the senses of believing he exists as a thinking thing.









Descartes, R. (2015). Meditations on first philosophy. Central Works of Philosophy Central Works of Philosophy is a multi-volume set of essays on the core texts of the Western philosophical tradition. From Plato s Republic to the present day, the volumes range over 2,500 years of philosophical writing covering the best, most representative, and most influential work of some of our greatest philoso, 15.  

Frankfurt, H. G. (2009). Demons, Dreamers, and Madmen: The Defense of Reason in Descartes's" Meditations". Princeton University Press.

955 Words  3 Pages


Materialist Traditions and Philosophies


The movie is based on religious and philosophical subject matters. The movie is a debate between an atheist and an evangelical pastor on whether religion is important or not. The atheist, Hitchens and the pastor, Wilson use philosophy and their intellect to argue it out. The film also tries to argue out if science sets the moral standards of the society or the religion decides for the people. Hitchens argues that man created religion due to the fact that he did  not understand  natural phenomena around him .He goes further to argue that science has discovered and improved much in the life of a human being than  religion. He cited example in medicine and the hobble telescope. Hitchens claims that even if Prophet Mohammed and Jesus still existed, humanity would still face the same questions on the relevance of religion. Wilson argues that time, chance and atoms cannot create the odder witnessed by man today. Chance is not powerful enough to compose music and build buildings. Wilson claims that the universe was not created by chance and relates it to shaking of a bottle full of water. If one shakes a bottle, no one can come to see the water fuzzing ,therefore  atheists gives preconditions about different phenomena  which cannot be accounted for when due procedure are put to practice (Green ,2009).

The readings deal with a transition from a religious society to a more secular embracing society and to eventually embracing atheism. One of the reading tells of a girl who is fed up of Muslim laws and the oppression it has on women, she finally decides to leave the religion and not to put any belief on any god (Hirsi. (2007). The reading also deals with western civilization that is dimmed as more civilized than other parts of the world but the atrocities that have been witnessed throughout its history are harsh, cruel and barbaric at best, despite the fact that they are religious (Coats,2013). The western world has conceived wars and has seen the rise of the Nazis killed many people (Clark, 2011).

The film and the movie, both talk about atheists and Christianity. Whereas the film shows reasons why people embrace atheism and why it is relevant in the society, the readings show how the society came to transform from Christianity to a more atheist embracing society. The movie and the readings dwell mostly on core fundamentals that bring about atheists and Christianity to existence. For example, atheist rely more on tangible proof without which they cannot believe in the existence of a god whereas Christians only rely on faith. The Christian religion is closely related to Muslim religion as they have similar prophets such as Jesus and Abraham. The American society has used Christianity based laws to come up with principles and laws that govern and influence their society. Christianity also influence the government principles and ideas. Christianity brings about equality in the American society as it opposes some of the oppressions in the society. Some people claim that Christians was the first religion to oppose slavery in America and its environs.





Emily S. Clark. (2011). Religion in American History. Retrieved from

Ta-Nehisi coats. (2013).The Myth of Western Civilization. Retrieved from

Ali, Ayaan Hirsi. (2007) “How (and Why) I Became an Infidel.” PDF.

Scott Green (2009) Collision .Retrieved from




573 Words  2 Pages

Get in Touch

If you have any questions or suggestions, please feel free to inform us and we will gladly take care of it.

Email us at Discounts


GET -30% OFF!



  Working. Please Wait...