Cry the Beloved Country by Alan Paton :: Cry, The Beloved Country Essays

Cry the Beloved Country by Alan Paton As an advocate for the natives, the death of Arthur Jarvis is a blow to the South African community. Although dead, Arthur Jarvis has a significant influence in the book Cry the Beloved Country by Alan Paton. Arthur Jarvis is a white man who believes in equality between the white men and the native men. Before dying Arthur Jarvis was a president for the Africans Boys Club and involved in many other such organizations. (He wholeheartedly believed that all men were created equal, a belief reinforced bye the wall of books on Abraham Lincoln. Jarvis’ passion to read all about Abraham Lincoln, who firmly believed that all men were created equal, reinforces.) Jarvis is placed in the story to symbolize the fight for equality that occurs in South Africa. With the rise of native crime in South Africa, Arthur Jarvis begins to write a book. In the book Jarvis states that the reason for native crime stems from the fact that the white man oppresses the black. The white man leaves the black uneducated, yet expects him to be civilized. When the natives commit crimes, it shocks the white man, yet the white man does nothing to better the situation. This, states Jarvis, is unacceptable. For as long as the white man does this, there will be native crime in South Africa. Yet the most significant thing that results from Arthur’s death is the effect it has on his father James Jarvis. James Jarvis is a white farmer who lives near Ndotsheni and notices the poverty, yet does nothing. Nothing, that is, until his son dies. The death of Arthur cases James to rethink some of his beliefs, and in the end results in his helping out the natives of Ndotsheni. For example, when one of the children I the valley falls sick and needs milk to survive, Jarvis sends milk for the child.

Problem of Evil Essay

The traditional problem of evil emerges when people believe in and argue for the existence of a God who is both omnipotent and wholly good. According to Mackie’s study (1955), few of the solutions to the problem of evil could stand up to criticism. Today, someone suggests an alternative: God is not perfectly good, but maximally cool. By cool he means to be free from tension or violence. Since God is maximally cool, he is not so much concerned about either eliminating evil or maximizing goodness than promoting coolness. This God appears to be logically valid, but this essay will show that the existence of such God is impossible. First, we should ask this: if God aims to promote coolness, why would he bother to create evil? It is clear that evil is not cool, given that evil creates tension and violence. It may be replied that God is maximally cool and therefore creates anything based on his will and is not concerned with what happens to his creation afterwards. This reply is arguing that God created some cool thing which later then turned into the uncool evil. Then, the fact that uncool evil exists implies that God cannot make this uncool evil to be cool again, which contradicts with the premise that God is omnipotent. Secondly, good is also uncool. According to most theists, good is defined to be opposite to evil and thus always fights to expel evil (Mackie, 1955), so that good is in constant tension and possible violence with evil. Though the God in argument is claimed to be not perfectly good, this God is still good to a certain degree. Then he will still fights against evil and therefore is not always cool. This leads us to conclude that this God cannot be maximum cool. This guy in defense of the existence of a maximally cool God might argue that uncool is necessary as a counterpart to cool. It seems natural and necessary to consider why there should be uncool things if God is maximum cool. He might argue that if there were no uncool, there could be no cool either, in that if there were no violence or tension to be created and involved in, there could be no violence or tension to be free from. It might be that out of randomness, God created evil that generates tension and good that engages in tension against evil. To detach from involvement in tension or to destroy tension might create another tension and may incur violence. If God were to eliminate uncool things that he created, he would enter a tension between cool and uncool. Then, it would be uncool to make uncool things cool. Because God is maximally cool, he will not enter such tension and therefore he leaves good and evil as uncool as they are. By claiming that cool cannot exist without uncool, this guy shows that God cannot create cool without simultaneously creating uncool. This sets a limit to what God can do, which involves two possibilities: either God is not omnipotent or that omnipotence has some limits. If it is the first case, then we can deny the existence of a God who is omnipotent and maximally cool. If it is the second case, one may argue that these limits are logically impossibility. However, according to Mackie (1955), some theists hold the view that God can do what is logically impossible, while many theists maintain that God created logic. This leads us to the paradox of omnipotence, where we consider whether an omnipotent being can bind himself. According to Mackie, although we can avoid the paradox of omnipotence by putting God outside time, we cannot prove that an omnipotent God binds himself by logical laws. Therefore, it is a fallacious approach to prove the existence of a maximally cool and omnipotent by claiming that cool and uncool are counterparts to each other. To summarize, if a God is omniscience, then he must know the existence of uncool. If he is omnipotent and maximum cool, he will promote coolness to the maximum. However, we observe that there are uncool things which are against God’s will to promote coolness and which God cannot make them cool. Therefore, a God that is omniscience, omnipotent and maximally cool cannot exist. Works Cited J. L. Mackie, â€Å"Evil and Omnipotence,† Mind, New Series, Vol. 64, No. 254. (Apr. , 1955), pp. 200-212. In Pascal’s Wager, Pascal concludes that rationality requires people to wager for god. He bases his argument on mainly three premises. The first premise is his construct of the decision matrix of rewards. The second premise suggests that we are required by rationality to assign positive and not infinitesimal probability to God existing. The third premise states that we are required by rationality to perform the act of possible maximum expected utility. This essay will argue that Pascal’s Wager does not demonstrate solid prudential reasons for us to believe in God, by showing the third premise is not necessarily true. We consider that it is not in all cases that we are required by rationality to maximize expected utility. In Pascal’s Wager, we pay ‘one life’ to wager for God and obtain infinite expected utility. Paying finite amount to play a game with infinite expectation appear to be at our interests and can therefore serve as a prudential reason for us to wager for God. However, in certain cases, this action could be regarded as absurd and alternatively, and to the contrary, taking intuitively sub-optimal actions would actually maximize the expected utility. For example, the St. Petersburg paradox could be representative of this kind of situations. In the St. Petersburg game (Martin, 2011), we keep flipping a coin until we get a coin. The total number of flips, n, yields the prize which equals $2n. There are infinite sum of flips possible, so we have infinite number of possible consequences. The expected payoff of each consequence is $1 and therefore the ‘expected value’ of the game, which equals the sum of the expected payoffs of all the consequences, will be an infinite number of dollars. Then, intuitively we will be willing to play the game as long as we only need to pay a finite number of dollars, given that the ‘expected value’ of the game is infinite. However, Hacking (1980) suggested that â€Å"few of us would pay even $25 to enter such a game. † If we were to pay $25 for the game, half of the time we receive $2 and one quarter of the time the game pays $4, so the probability to break-even is less than one in twenty five. Still, because of the very small possibility of the number of flips to be greater than $25, the expected payoff of the game is larger than the $25 payment. According to standard Bayesian decision theory (Martin, 2011), we should play this game. Then again, because of the very small possibility of getting high enough payment, it is very likely that we will need to flip a coin longer than our physical possibility. In that sense, it will be absurd to pay this finite amount and flip longer than physical constraints for the infinite expected payoff. Therefore, it is not always true that rationality will require us to perform the act that yields maximal expected utility. In the St. Petersburg game we experiment infinitely many trials which yield infinite expectation. In Pascal’s wager, we have a single-trial which also yields infinite expectation. It seems natural for Pascal to assume that expectation is a good guide to solve this decision problem. However, according to Hajek (2012), we need to take variance into consideration to make better decision, because in this one-time shot, a large variance could lead us to an outcome which is much worse than the expectation. When the variance is small, it is probable to get an outcome close to the expectation. However, the further the distribution of outcomes spreads out, the more likely it is to get a bad outcome, and the less compelling the third premise seems to be. Assuming that the expectation of wagering for God is infinite, we can calculate the variance of the outcomes of the wager. Given the infinitely good of the good outcome and the status quo of the bad outcome, the variance is infinite. In the case of an infinite variance, due to our risk-aversion, we might be better off choosing to minimize variance than maximizing our expected utility. Indeed, if f2 is made as low as possible, the variance of wagering for God would be much greater than wagering against God. If the probability of the probability of receiving infinite good, is made as low as possible, the resulted variance might make we deviate much further away from the expected utility in an undesirable direction. Both cases above could happen, and if they do, we would feel less compelled by our rationality to maximize our expected utility because the large variance could lead us to a situation that is much worse than expectation. To summarize, Pascal’s premise three is not necessarily true. This premise says that we are required by nationality to maximize expected utility where there is one available. However, the St. Petersburg paradox suggests that rationality does not always require us to maximize our expected utility. Furthermore, in consideration of large variance, expectation might not be a good measure of choiceworthiness (Hajek, 2012). Without the validity of premise three, we cannot draw the conclusion that rationality requires us to wager for God. Therefore, Pascal’s wager does not solidly demonstrate that we have prudential reasons to believe in God. Works Cited Hajek, Alan, â€Å"Pascal’s Wager†, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed. ), URL = http://plato. stanford. edu/archives/win2012/entries/pascal-wager/ Martin, Robert, â€Å"The St. Petersburg Paradox†, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = . Hacking, Ian, 1980, â€Å"Strange Expectations†, Philosophy of Science 47: 562-567. According to Pollock (1986), you might be a brain floating in a vat filled with nutrient fluid. You do not realize that you are a brain in a vat because this brain is wired to a computer program that produces stimulation in brain to cause experiences that are qualitatively indistinguishable from normal experiences of being a human being. The problem lies exactly in that whether you are a brain in a vat or not, everything seems to be the same to you. Many philosophers have attempted to prove that you are not a brain in a vat and their approaches seem to be valid. Among those, Moore’s argument and Putnam’s argument are two influential but different approaches. This essay tries to show that you cannot use either of these arguments to prove that you are not a brain in a vat. While going through Moore’s argument seems to be an easy way to show that you are not a BIV (brain in a vat), it is not difficult to show how this approach is flawed either. By Moore’s argument, first you open your eyes and form perceptual knowledge that you have hands. Then you deduce that you are not a BIV which does not have hands and thereby you come to know that conclusion. However, it should be argued in the first place that your senses are not reliable. As Descartes argued in Meditations (1986), while you might form the perception that you are wearing a dress in the dream, you are actually undressed in your bed. The flaw in the logic of this approach can be demonstrated in the following analogous story. You see an empty glass on a table. The glass looks orange and in fact it is. You form perceptual knowledge that the glass is orange. You deduce that it is not colorless and filled with orange juice. You thereby come to know that the glass does not appear orange to you because it is colorless with orange juice filled in it. By assuming that there is orange juice in the glass, you establish that the glass does not appear orange to you because it is colorless with orange juice filled in it. Here the problem is that there is no orange juice and you are trying to prove there is orange juicy by assuming its existence. For the same token, if you are a BIV, then the hands that you perceive are hands* produced by one feature of the computer program. The premise asserting that you form a perception of hands is assuming that you are not a BIV and therefore can form a perceptual knowledge of hands. This is begging the question because we want to prove that we are not BIV. Therefore, you cannot prove that you are not a BIV by going through Moore’s argument. Another famous discussion is Putnam’s semantic arguments. One problem of this approach is the narrow scope of the arguments. Putnam started his arguments by drawing analogy between the mental image of a Martian and that of a BIV. Claiming that Mars does not have tree, Putnam established that BIV’s utterance of ‘tree’ has a different referent from the referent of a non-BIV speaking of a tree. While it is possible that you have always been a BIV since you come into being, so you have never seen a tree that a non-BIV sees. It is also possible that you have lived certain part of your life as a non-BIV and then at some point you are made into a BIV. For example, if you recall in The Problems of Knowledge (Pollock, 1986), by the time that Margot tells Mike that he is a brain in a vat, he has been a brain in a vat for three months. According to Margot, Henry, or the brain in a vat that Mike sees, receives a fictitious mental life that merges perfectly into Henry’s past life. To merge perfectly, the language and its referents that the computer generates for Henry must be indistinguishable from those before his envatment. Similarly, if Mike has been speaking English up until three months ago when he was envatted, his utterance of ‘Margot’ after envatment must have the same referent as the one he had before. It must be that now his words retain the same English referents to the same contents in order to achieve a perfect merge (Brueckner, 2012). This perfect merge makes brain* in a vat* the same as BIV, which means whether you are BIV or not, you always speak English rather than vat-English. Because there are no differences in the languages between BIV and non-BIV, the semantic arguments have nowhere to start in this case. Unless you know with certainty that all BIVs have been BIVs since they came into beings, you cannot use semantic arguments to prove that you are not a BIV. To summarize, Moore’s arguments appear to be an easy solution to the problem of knowledge, but these arguments are begging the question and therefore cannot refute the brain-in-a-vat hypotheses. It seems that Putnam’s arguments are more compelling, but still they fail to rule out all possible versions of the brain-in-a-vat hypotheses. Therefore, you cannot prove that you are a non-BIV by using either of these arguments. Works Cited Descartes, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1960. Print. Pollock, John L. Contemporary Theories of Knowledge. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield, 1986. Print. Brueckner, Tony, â€Å"Skepticism and Content Externalism†, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed. ), URL = .

Forensic Psychology

Forensic psychology is the use of science based on the mind and behavior relating to law and legal matters (Nordqvist, 2009 & â€Å"Forensic Psychology,† 2010). The word psychology comes from the Greek word psyche meaning â€Å"breathe, spirit, soul†, and the Greek word logia meaning the study of something. The use of psychology dates back to 44 B. C during the assassination of Julius Caesar (â€Å"History of Forensic Psychology,† n. d. ). In 1879 Wilhelm Wundt, originally from Germany, founded psychology as an actually independent experimental field of study.He set up the first aboratory that carried out psychological research exclusively at Leipzig University. Wundt is known today as the father of psychology (Nordqvist, 2009). Forensic psychology involves sentencing criminals, determines guilt or innocence, eyewitness accuracy, and assists in the profiling of criminals (Nordqvist, 2009). In forensic psychology criminal profiling or also known as psychological p rofiling is a key factor in the criminal investigation.The main purpose of criminal profiling is to provide the police with a psychological profile of the personality of the perpetrator that could then be used to direct the investigative search. It also involves investigating an offender's behavior, motives and background in an attempt to turtner guide an investigation. Research shows that offender's that repeatedly rape or kill are driven by a sensitive public fear for their actions and media attention, which could eventually lead to their arrest. Analyzing the criminal's habits and customs allows investigators to trace similarities between previous crimes.When these details of their lifestyle are made public, friends, neighbors and colleagues may recognize them (Psychological Profiling, 2005. ) In homicide case, for example, FBI agents gather personality report through questions about the murderer's behavior. During this investigation four main phases are put into play to profile a suspect such as antecedent, method and manner, body disposal, and post offensive behavior. The first is antecedent: what fantasy or plan, or both, did the murderer have in place before the act?What triggered the murderer to act some days and not others? The second is method and manner: What type of victim or victims did the murderer select? What was the method and manner of murder: shooting, stabbing, strangulation or something else? The third is body disposal: Did the murder and ody disposal take place all at one scene, or multiple scenes? The last is post offense behavior: Is the murderer trying to inject himself into the investigation by reacting to media reports or contacting investigators? (Winerman, 2010. Each step helps analyze the suspect and brings forth new information needed to crack the case. Investigators use this technique often in all types of cases usually the cases dealing with the murder of an individual or more. The first documented case using criminal profiling was in the year of 1940 in New York City. This profile dealt with a â€Å"The Mad Bomber†(or F. P. he initials he used to sign his mysterious, paranoid letters) named George Metesky responsible for a series of random bombing attacks across New York within 16 years. (Winerman, 2010. Due to the success of George Meteskys criminal profile, which profile in every detail was matched, he was found insane and committed to the Mattawan asylum for the criminally insane (Madden, 2010). In another case forensic psychology was used to help solve the murder of two year old James Bulger. In this case the suspects were the ones you least expected to even commit such a daring act. On February 12, 1993 little James Bulger was kidnapped rom a shopping store while with his mother by two ten year old boys Robert Thompson and Jon Venables.The two boys raped, beat, and tortured young James and left him to die. Detectives found him left on a railway line brutally beaten on both his face and head o n February 14. Robert and Jon were profiled as adults because both knew the difference between right and wrong. Both Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were charged on February 20, 1993 with abduction and murder although they were found guilty of the murder of Bulger on the 24 of November making them the youngest convicted murderers in modern English history.

Acesite Corporation vs. Nlrc

* Gonzales took several leaves (sick leave, emergency leave, and vacation leave), thereby using up all leaves that he was entitled for the year. * Before the expiration of his 12-day vacation leave, Gonzales filed an application for emergency leave for 10 days commencing on April 30 up to May 13, 1998. The application was not, however, approved. * He received a telegram informing him of the disapproval and asking him to report back for work on April 30, 1998. However Gonzales did not report for work on the said date. * On May 5, 1998, Acesite sent him a final telegram in his provincial address containing in order for Gonzales to report back to work. * Gonzales, who claims to have received the May 5, 1998 telegram only in the afternoon of May 7, 1998, immediately repaired back to Manila on May 8, 1998 only to be â€Å"humiliatingly and ignominiously barred by the guard (a subordinate of [Gonzales]) from entering the premises. * It appears that on May 7, 1998, the issued notice of termination was thru an inter-office memo. * Gonzales thus filed on May 27, 1998 a complaint against Acesite for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement and payment of full backwages, etc. * Acesite claims, Gonzales â€Å"showed no respect for the lawful orders for him to report back to work and repeatedly ignored all telegrams sent to him,† and it merely exercised its legal right to dismiss him under the House Code of Discipline. LA – the c omplaint for lack of merit, its holding that Gonzales was dismissed for just cause and was not denied of due process. * NLRC – reversed that of the Labor Arbiter. * CA – finding that Gonzales was illegally dismissed, affirmed with modification the NLRC decision. Issue: * WON Gonzales was legally dismissed for just cause. Held: * No. there appears to have been no just cause to dismiss Gonzales from employment. As correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals, Gonzales cannot be considered to have willfully disobeyed his employer. Willful disobedience entails the concurrence of at least two (2) requisites: the employee’s assailed conduct has been willful or intentional, the willfulness being characterized by a â€Å"wrongful and perverse attitude;† and the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge. In Gonzales’ case, his assailed conduct has not been shown to have been characterized by a perverse attitude, hence, the first requisite is wanting. His receipt of the telegram disapproving his application for emergency leave starting April 30, 1998 has not been shown. And it cannot be said that he disobeyed the May 5, 1998 telegram since he received it only on May 7, 1998. On the contrary, that he immediately hied back to Manila upon receipt thereof negates a perverse attitude.

Global Warming is not as Big a Deal as the Government Makes it Seem Research Paper

Global Warming is not as Big a Deal as the Government Makes it Seem - Research Paper Example This paper briefly analyses the global warming topic with respect to reasons other than manmade. As per the recent studies, the earth’s surface temperature has been increased around 0.750 C during the last century itself. Moreover, scientists believe that the atmospheric temperature may even go up by 6 degrees before the end of the current century. Studies also showed that warming and sea level rise may continue for more than 1000 years even if we manage to stabilize the greenhouse gas levels. Increased global temperature can create dangerous futures for the human being. The consequences of global warming are unimaginable. Sea level raise, increased extreme weather intensities, changes in agricultural yields, complete destruction of some living things etc are some of the immediate difficulties we can anticipate. Even though manmade activities may have some effect, modern scientific theories unanimously agreed that the major reasons for global warming may be natural phenomenon like solar variations and volcanoes. While the world is unanimous in accepting the fact that global warming may cause severe problems to living things, there are different opinions about who contributes to the atmospheric temperature. The intensity of radiations received on earth from the sun has been increased drastically as per the studies conducted by Dr. Solanki.  

Supply Chain Management COURSWORK Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Supply Chain Management COURSWORK - Coursework Example More so ethics in organization can relate to managerial decisions which entail, organizational factors like code of ethics, compliance and the culture of the organization and individual ethics. Ethical decision making process in the supply chain targets implementation, planning and controlling the effective and efficient reverse and forward flow of services and good and also their storage (Weele &Van, 10). It also targets the effective information between the origin and consumption point with the aim of meeting the requirement of the customers. The ethical decisions in the supply chain encompasses the management and planning of the activities involved in procurement, resourcing, conversion and the other activities related to the management logistics. It also entails collaboration and coordination with the partners in the channels which include customers, service providers, suppliers and intermediaries. It encompasses integration of the demand and supply management across and within the organization. The primary function of the supply chain management is to link the various business functions in Coca Cola Company and other processes in the business. Ethical decision making in the organization’s supply chain keeps on changing. The change arises due to cross-functional integration in the organization (Weele &Van, 16). The integration focuses on relationship management emphasis and aligning of the objectives. Ethical behavior has a lot of benefits such as effective recruitment and motivation, higher revenue, new source of finance and increased recognition and awareness. Coca Cola Company may risk being affected with many accusations if the chain of supply is involved in bad practices. Some examples of foul unethical practices in supply include corruption, bribery and child labor which can impact negatively on the general achievement of the company.

Legal Aspects Of Business Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Legal Aspects Of Business - Case Study Example He should always comply with the deadline. Failure to do so makes all his efforts fruitless. So though he delivered the product it was of no value to the customer as he had run out of time and had made other arrangements. In the case provided it's not mentioned that the contract between Alf and the customer was written or not. If the contract is written then legal action can be taken against Alf. Since verbally the customer has mentioned that he cannot work other than the stipulated time, he has all rights to take action against Alf. The written agreement between both the parties with a clear mention of the time makes Alf's case weaker. However if the customer does not have a copy of the written agreement between him and Alf then his case becomes weaker. Also if somewhere in the contract if it's mentioned that the shopkeeper is in no way responsible for any delays in delivery then too, the customer can not take any action against Alf. So though verbally Alf and the customer know about their agreement, if the customer has a written document then Alf's action can be proved a legal offence. So for the sake of law it is advisable that Alf does not impose the contract forcefully on the customer. In the second case the customer was unable to work with an ... After inspecting the gravity of the defect, the seller should replace the product, repair the fault or in extreme circumstances even refund the money if the customer is not ready for either replacement or repair. But he cannot say 'no' to the customer. Hence legally the customer can take action against Alf for not complying with the guidelines of selling electronic gadgets. In such circumstances it is advisable for Alf to refund, as he himself will not have to suffer any losses because the sellers have back-to-back service and maintenance contract with manufacturers. According to Kolah if the customer claims that the purchased product is not working properly then "Such a claim will require the interpretation of the defendant's obligations under the terms of the contract. This is because there may be express terms of an agreement the claimant and defendant concerning the purpose and standard of the product." (2002, p. 52) If it's not this, then to ensure that the product is fit for th e purpose made known to the seller, in the contract terms, the law implies that the product is of good quality and is appropriate for the buyer. In the third case too, Alf has the similar legal bindings as in the second case. Alf assured the customer at the time of sale that the saw he is selling is meant to cut anything, even steel bars. Since the saw broke down on the first day of its use, the case of misrepresentation of facts by the seller can be charged on Alf. He is liable for refund or replacement and if he is not willing to do so then the customer has all rights to drag him to court. If the seller is making a statement to the potential buyer, like in this case, according to Kolah