Discipline and Punish, the Panopticon and The War on Kids

In the past few decades certain types of mainstream media outlets have increasingly taken to giving lots of airtimes to intellectuals and politicians who complain incessantly about the rapid degeneration of the social order. One of the claims of these people with respect to the alleged worsening state of the society is that youngsters teenagers and children, are increasingly out of control. It has become increasingly common in the media to refer to youngsters by such epithets as feral children and vermin.

This campaign of malignment of children by rightwing politicians and the media has resulted in ever stricter school regimens for children

The documentary The War on Kids is a look at how public schools have been invested with the task of controlling children through prison-like security measures, increasing use of police, invasive measures such as the installation of hidden cameras, metal detectors and drug sweeps. Children are increasingly been given psychoactive drugs to control them (Soling, 2009).

Precious school resources, which are needed for educational purposes, have been redirected toward the measures to secure the schools and to discipline the students. Education is now no longer the top priority for schools, instead the main focus of schools is to discipline children. Instead of giving children an education, schools are like junior prisons, intended to graduate minor criminals to take their place in adult Prison Industrial Complex. This is especially true in the case of schools in areas where minority groups such as African-Americans are the majority (Monahan  Torres, 2010).

In one of his most influential works Discipline and Punish, Foucault gives a dark view on modern society. Foucault asserts that since the 1830s the dominant paradigm for control and punishment in the society has come from the Panopticon Jeremy Benthams design for a prison where the supervisors have full visibility of the prisoners. The Panopticon has a central tower housing the supervisor and a ringed building consisting of the cells of prisoners. The inner side of the ringed building, the side that faces the tower, is to consist of wide windows affording the supervisor, full visibility into the prisoners cells. Through a combination of architectural design, backlighting and venetian blinds, the prisoners are unable to see the supervisor they are also shut off from each other, each prisoner housed in a solitary cell. The result of this arrangement is that the prisoners never know whether they are being watched or not, but the fear of instant punishment makes them assume that they are being watched. After some time the discipline the prison authorities wish to impose on the prisoners becomes internalized such that even if there is no supervisor, the prisoners continue to behave in ways that they are required to behave in (Foucault, 1995).

Foucault accepts the design of the Panopticon was in itself not widely popular, but adopts it as a symbol of a new hegemonic type of authority. The paradigm of panopticism is the internalization of discipline, people are no longer punished for acts that they commit, after they commit them, rather the regime in place serves to make the prisoners reject the very thought of rebellion against the rules and regulations as futile (Hilfer, 2003 Gane, 1986).

This paradigm is increasingly being applied to todays children. Invasion of childrens privacy with such things as hidden cameras, drug checks, locker searches, backpack searches and body searches offer obvious similarities with the world of the prison (Giroux, 2009). These searches are often challenged as being violations of childrens rights to privacy as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the constitution which states that

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (U. S. Constitution) (Stimson, 2004)

However in the media charged, hysterically anti-children political atmosphere of today, courts rulings on the issue suggest that children should expect to have no right to privacy whatsoever. In 1984, two fourteen year old girls were caught smoking in the school lavatory. They were then taken to the Assistant vice principals office where in a search, the marijuana and marijuana related paraphernalia, a considerable amount of money and a list of students along with the amount of money they owed, was discovered. These and other things were used to implicate the student in a marijuana dealing charge in juvenile court. The defense rested on the initial search being unlawful since it was undertaken without warrant, but the court upheld the right of school administrators to undertake searches of the students belongings without a warrant and based merely upon a reasonable suspicion (New Jersey v. T. L. O., 1985).

Aside from the basic issue of the lack of privacy, the Panopticon paradigm is employed in even more insidious ways in the education system. The Panopticons purpose of instilling discipline in the inmates and extending the prison authorities control to the very minds of the prisoners is being accomplished in a slightly different manner by todays schools. Doctors have regularly been prescribing children psychoactive medication to children for mild behavioral problems that in the past would have warranted no more than a couple of spanks and being sent off to bed without supper. In many states, the influential pharmaceutical industry has managed to make it a crime for parents not to give their children psychoactive medication In the words of congressional representative Dr. Ron Paul (R - TX)
Psychotropic drugs are increasingly prescribed for children who show nothing more than childrens typical rambunctious behavior. Many children have suffered harmful effects from these drugs yet some parents have been charged with child abuse for refusing to drug their children (Cooper, 2006).

Children are increasingly being medicated with psychoactive medication and monitored with hidden cameras and metal detectors in schools. Today, schools resemble prisons more than ever this represents a type of hegemonic thinking on the part of authorities that started in the early 19th century.

Philosophy Questions

Ontological argument
So far, different philosophers have come up with different arguments about the existence of God. Such philosophers include Anselm and Descartes both of whom have given different arguments about existence of God. According to Anselm, God is something at the apex of superiority above which nothing greater can be imagined. Anselm goes further to state that, if one understands the entire concept of God then God is prevalent in the understanding of that person. He also presumes that, one who exists in reality is much greater than one who dwells on understanding alone. Interestingly, Anselm notes that, even a fool does understand the entire concept of God (Banach, 1982). This means that in the understanding of a fool there is a God who exists. This leads us to the understanding that, God does exist in reality in the mind of a fool.

Anselm asserts that, if at all God only exists in the understanding of a fool then we can conceive something similar to what exists in the understanding of a fool though it also exists in reality. The latter conception is greater than what exists in the understanding of a fool. It follows that a fool can therefore conceive something than which nothing greater can be conceived. This leads to a contradiction in that earlier on, Anselm had assumed that God is present in the understanding of a fool. This contradicts with the later statement that a fool can conceive of something than which nothing greater can be conceived. This contradiction renders the assumption that God does not exist in reality in the mind of a fool absurd. This results to the conclusion by Anselm that God exists in reality.

Critics of this argument hold that, essence should not precede existence. They go further to sate that, no being has so far been proven to exist through priori demonstration. According to the critics, Anselms argument is rather absurd since nothing is distinctively conceivable. This implies that, there no being have a demonstratable existence.

According to Descartes, a supreme and a perfect being belongs to this nature. He cites that the essence of God can in no way be separated from existence. He relates this with how the idea of a valley cannot be separated from the mountain. Precisely, the argument by Descardes is of the opinion that the idea of existence is contained the idea of God thus God must exist.

However, critics in the likes of Moojan Momen take this discussion in a different form. He states that, the argument fails to make a difference between the real and the conceptual world making it to look non-sensical. In addition, he sates that no Human can make claim to have prove of God since mankind can only know what God chooses to reveal to them.

Problem of evil
The affinity to commit that which is considered evil has been a challenge to mankind at large. Interestingly, even the religious believers dont understand why they always end up doing that which they obviously know it is wrong. According to Kelly (author) there is need for God to step in and put to an end the evils which have so far dominated the lives of mankind.

The problem with evil is that, it is too extensive than anyone can imagine. Evil is literally everywhere considering that even the much considered religious and good ending up committing evil. The problem of evil can be divided into logical and evidential. To begin with, we have the logical problem which may be summarized as follows if a supreme being and a perfect good god exists then it follows that evil would not prevail in the universe. Still we are aware that, evil is literally everywhere in the universe. This is to mea that the Supreme Being does not exist.

We also have the evidential problem of evil. This is also called the inductive version lowers the level of truth in theism. According to Heil, the omnipotent and omniscient being should reduce instances of intense suffering ( Heil, 2003). Heil asserts that, if at all the omniscient being exists then he would prevent the incidences of suffering. This leads to the conclusion that the omnipotent and omniscient being does not exist.

However, Leibniz comes out in defense of God where he cites that humans are only aware of a negligible percentage of the universe and this should not be used to conclude that the universe is full of evil. He terms the whole idea and presumptuous since the order of the universe is beyond the judgment of anyone. In addition, he cites that the best possible universe is not devoid evil and that less overall evil is close to impossible. Finally, Leibniz argues that evil is a product of positive reality and that mankind is subject to imperfections and limitation. Consequently, he concludes that evil is necessary for created beings.
Teleological argument I
According to the Teleological argument, the order of the universe is by all means an indication that there existed an intelligent designer known as God. This opinion is also shared by one William Paley who compares the complexity of living things with the complex yet inferior watch which we consider to have been designed by an intelligent being. He categorically states that, since a watch cannot exist without a watchmaker, then living things cannot exist without the existence of an intelligent designer. According to Paley, the fact that a watch keeps time and its parts are of precise shape and size is sufficient evidence that the watch is a product of an intelligent designer. However, the argument to design according to Paley was undermined by the evolution theory by Charles Darwin. According to Charles, the biological complexity of living things is not a product of an intelligent designer but they are products of natural selection. Charles cites that, it is by the adaptation to the natural environment that living things appear to have been intelligently designed.

Teleological argument part II
Hume has also refuted the claims by Paley in the Dialogue concerning natural Religion. According to Hume, the feasibility of the design argument is based on the order and purpose. He further notes that order is often a product of unplanned and mindless processes. At the same time design can only be accounted for by order by a minimal percentage. This is an indication that the entire design argument is based on weak and incomplete analogy. According to him, the statement that the world is designed is uninformed since there is need for us to have an experience of different universes which is completely impractical (Manson, 2003). This implies that, analogy is not applicable since it involves the art of comparing.

Hume is also dissatisfied with the comparison of the world with a machine, watch for that matter. He cites that, though the design argument is successful it does not in anyway establish a robust theism. He does not refute the fact that, the universe may be a product of a well-ordered mind but his point of concern is about the designer. He argues that if the designer of the universe is God then who could have possibly designed the designer. According to him, if the universe requires a well designed designer then it goes without saying that, even the universe designer requires a special designer. Towards the end of his criticism, he cites that rather than relying on the design argument it makes senses to be contented with the fact that the universe is precisely the product of self order. Hume goes further to give a brief explanation of the teleology or the process of natural selection. He cites that, for outcome O to be achieved in the universe, an organism Z must possess a characteristic K. Precisely, Humes refutation seem to be in agreement with the natural selection process.

Critique with Regards to the Truth and Lies behind the Laws of Physics

The dispute regarding the truth or falsity as explained by the laws of Physics through the techniques of idealization began prior to the arrival of the 21st century. The battle has started even during the time of Galileo through his spokesman Salviati and the opposing team which was represented by Simplicio. According to critics, the techniques of idealization should be rejected because it tries to falsify the world by making it neat and regular when it is in fact complicated and messy (Mcmullin, 1985, p. 247).

Ronald Giere shares a similar conclusion by stating that the laws of physics are not really statements about the world but part of the characterization of theoretical models, which in turn may represent various real systems (p. 90). For him, the laws of physics are simply social constructs created through the collective judgments of scientists who in turn determines the resemblance of family models and the real world because for the physicist, the literal exact truth is not what matters but the purpose at hand (Gierre, 1988, p. 79). These statements are in unison with Cartwright who initially argues that the laws of physics are firmly based on the utility of these laws (laws of Physics) and has nothing to do with the truth (Mcmullin, 1985, p. 247). On the contrary, Ernan Mcmullin believes that the explanatory success of certain laws warrants belief in their correctness because it should be accepted that mathematics can indeed provide the mathematical syntax of the language of the Book of Nature (p. 273).  Thus in this paper, I shall briefly summarize the arguments presented by these two thinkers and analyze the validity of their claims.

The technique of idealization is of utmost importance in the field of empirical science and here lies the core of the dispute between Guiller and Mcmullin. Guiller sees idealization as a form of approximation that distorts reality. For him, the most that it can do is to construct an entity which is not in existence that will possibly fit into the proposed systems of the scientific world. A perfect example of a constructed entity is the harmonic oscillator. The harmonic oscillator is the conceptualization of a frictionless pendulum which is in accordance with Hookes law F  -kx wherein k, is a positive constant and F refers to force. Another one example is the linear oscillator which is the free motion of a symmetrical rigid body and the motion of a subject to a central gravitational force (p. 78). Both of these entities have no reality beyond that given to them by the community of the physicists. Their existence was only made possible through the minds of their creators, the physicists but such entities do not really exist in the real world.

The same goes with theoretical hypothesis which are proposed by scientists. These are simply linguistic entities which seem to exhibit a relationship between models and designated real systems but it can only claim similarities between models and real systems and can never go beyond that. Guiller states that  to claim a hypothesis as true is to claim no more or less that an indicated type and degree of similarity between a model and a real system exists (p. 80).  His claim can be clearly seen in the manner most physics textbooks are designed and conceptualized. According to him, these modern physics textbooks present forms that are well adapted to the actual operations of human cognitive capacities and are preferred over complex formulations because of its simplicity and convenience. What is contained in these textbooks is not reality but simplified laws of nature constructed and agreed upon by the scientific community. These contents are further given authority as scientists communicate with one another and actively show support in a particular theory. In the end, the scientific community becomes a powerful manipulation of scientists who uses language to wider the scope of their influence in the social world. What science does is invent truth rather than discover truth.
On the contrary, Mcmullin sees idealization in a different light. He defines it as the deliberate simplification of something that is complicated with a view of achieving at least a partial understanding of the thing (p. 248). He does not hide the possibility that it may produce a distortion of the original or it may also leave aside some of the components of the complex world order but we should not focus on the moment distortion is allowed but focus on the reason why such distortions are inevitable especially in the beginning of a scientific inquiry. The reason for this slight distortions if for man to eventually reach better understanding of the real world by using the intelligible order of form (p. 248).

Mcmullin believes that that phenomenon of the real world can be ordered geometrically and the Book of Nature employs a mathematical grammar which can be discovered by man through mathematical idealization. Mathematical idealization as he defined it is a matter of imposing a mathematical formalism on a physical situation in a hope that the essentials of that situation will lead themselves to mathematical representations. (Mcumillin, 1985, p. 254). This was the method used by Galileo in order to formulate simple laws of terrestrial motion and is still widely used by modern scientists, primarily the physicists. It uses subjunctive assertions, an appeal to simple experiences and to the intuition tutored by the most general sorts of observation of motion which can never be refuted by anyone for the sole premise of it being a factual given.

He adds that the theme of idealization presupposes a world to which the attempts to fit the conceptual scheme to a world which in some sense independent of these schemas and to which they only approximately conform (p. 254). But this does not necessarily imply that the scientist is trying to refashion the world so it will fit into his own schema rather he uses idealization to better understand nature. These can be done through construct idealization and causal idealization.

Construct idealization implies a conceptual representation of the world. Examples of this include infinite planes and equable motion which are abstract entities. In his words he states that the complicated features of the real world are deliberately simplified in order to make theoretical laws easier to infer, in order to get the process of explanation under way (p. 258). Why are abstract entity necessarily constructed in the scientific world It is because only through these method can we better understand how nature works. Let us take for example Bohrs hydrogen atom model. It is considered as the perfect example for theoretical models because it is the most simplified structure of an atomic model but it still manages to retain its basic features and the essence of the original problem situation. It is an idealized atom since it is assumed that the nucleus is at rest and the electron orbit is circular. There is no argument that this is a constructed entity but in doing so, Bohr was able to make a perfect fit between the theoretical model and measured values which eventually validated the model. Newtons laws of motions and the kinetic theory of gases were discovered in the same manner. Theoretical and idealized models were the initial step that was performed by scientists so they can reach a closer resemblance to reality and most of the time scientists benefited in this procedure.

Causal idealization is another method used by experimenters. In this method, the experimenter determines how nature is to be observe, when factors will be varied, which will be held constant and which will be eliminated (Mcmullin, 1985, p. 265). The experimenter acts as the absolute manipulator of a specific world, the world of theories. But the experimenter does not remain confined within his own world. After using this technique of idealization, he goes out to the world of reality and adds something to his causal idealization so it can have a perfect fit with reality. Thus, it does not become the authority rather it still becomes patterned to reality and not vice versa. There is still room for self correction amidst the complex world of idealization. If the theory does not fit then it is adjusted until finally we arrive at a perfect resemblance and ample justification of the different processes involved in nature.

In conclusion, it is certainly wrong to assume that the laws of physics are not really statements about the world because if these are not founded on truth then what could be the reason behind their functionality in our daily lives. Most of the machines, inventions, and technological advancements that we are currently using in the modern world rely on the laws of physics. Automation would have not been invented if inventors did not trust the laws and principles of engineering. Space travels will not be possible if they did not take seriously the calculations and mathematical diagrams of projectile and linear motions proposed by physicists. It is a fact that the modern world is in efficient operation thanks to the discoveries of the laws of physics so why can we not believe its authenticity nor refuse its aid  There is no sense trying to argue against it, especially for the sake of efficiency and functionality.

It may certainly be true that idealization involves distortions, manipulation, and eliminations but there is always room for self correction. In the words of Mcmullin, experiments are made to isolate true causes and to eliminate false starts. It does not recreate the world but it traces the principles governing the world so we can use it to improve our lives. There is no denying that the sciences are not perfect and does not provide absolute truth. In as much as it is considered to be one of the most respected field of study with mathematics and logic as its core, it is still prone to errors but the errors incurred in the pas by some scientists, which includes Galileo, does not make the entire field of inquiry a hoax. The capacity of mans mind is still very limited. We can only grasp as much information as we could and only a very few individual can go beyond what an average mind can fathom. There may still be inconsistencies along the way in some of the laws of physics because of this but idealization is trying its very best to provide the most accurate mathematical syntax of the physical world which can later on be used for the betterment of the world.

A Comparative Study of the Meaning of Freedom and Existence in Platos Allegory of the Cave and Sartres Existentialism and Human Emotions

Plato, in his famous cave allegory from Book VII of The Republic, imagines a group of prisoners confined in a subterranean cave like structure where their only glimpse of reality is what is projected to them from outside in the form of shadows. All the prisoners are chained in such a way that neither can they look otherwise nor look at each other while speaking. As a result, they are deprived of every chance to verify even the truth of what they conceive to be reality. Plato likens the phenomenal world that we see around us with this condition of the cave-men. We see only shadows around us, which are but reflections of Ideas  Platos conceptual essence of all existing forms, and usually conceive them as reality. Little do human beings realize that these are but reflections of higher truths that exist not necessarily in the plane of our perception but in higher planes.

Plato then goes on to further his allegory to a situation where one of the cave dwellers is given an opportunity to come out of the cave and perceive reality outside. Plato goes through a very poetic and vivid description of his initial reactions on being let out. He tells of the resistance that his eye would immediately face on being exposed to light, which has been so long used to darkness and then his utter disbelief in perceiving what he sees around him as true, as it is the shadows that he has long believed to be truth. However, if once, through courage and grit, he trains his eyes to get accustomed to the light outside he would understand the truth of things, as well as the falsity of the reality as it is understood in the cave. This is where Plato repeats, in a different way, the analogy of the Sun that he used just before he got into this analogy in the same book of The Republic. The Sun, he would understand, states Plato.

This is a very representation of Platos idea of knowledge, which can liberate man from the misconception of considering the phenomenal world around him as reality. However, apart from the very obvious analogy in the allegory, as well as following Platos conclusion of adapting it to the question of his Ideal State, we can come through a different direction, and try and read Platos implied ideas of freedom and meaning of existence in this analogy because that his what brings him closer to modern existentialist philosophers like Sartre.

For Plato, it is understandable from the very premise of the analogy, human existence is primarily considered to be one in captivity. Human beings are as if chained by the fetters of ignorance, considering the shadowy world around them as reality. Neither can they look around themselves, nor can they see the reality, because their ignorance stops them from looking for reality. There is also a jibe that Plato uses here against the traditional rivals of Socrates, the Sophists  who apparently were preaching a false idea of knowledge, which instead of taking human beings closer to the truth were in fact guiding them away from it. However, for Plato, there is a possibility of transcending this ignorance and looking into the truth of things, and that can only be achieved through sound philosophy, which for Plato, is largely revealed and he uses Socrates as an agency for that revelation.

The caution that Plato exercises in this part of the inference is noteworthy. He shows a keen awareness of the opposition and resistance that true knowledge  knowledge of the Ideas and realization of this present world as its imitation (or mimesis)  would face in this world, of which it is indeed a part. There would be resistance both internally and externally. Internally, because it would not be easy for man to accept what he has so long accepted as reality to be a shadow and there would be a natural tendency to turn away from it. Externally, because nobody will be willing to believe him, as nobody else has had any practical vision of that reality. However, Plato is reluctant to keep this theory at the mere level of speculation. His case is an immensely practical one, and although he understands the resistance that this brand of philosophy would face in most human institutions that matter  like the courthouse, he is firm on the belief that only a belief in this is possible to bring about a change in society in any positive way, and finally bring about a practical materialization of The Republic.

Thus, Plato believes the world to be a world of captivity, from which freedom is possible only through knowledge of the Forms. He also believes that life without questioning the reality of things and realizing their unreality is meaningless. Existence can have meaning only if it is understood to be what it is  a life lived within shadows, but one with a potential to search for the reality of things and apply that knowledge in carrying out practical business.

Sartres meaninglessness, which develops upon the existentialist theories of the likes of Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, are a far cry from the clear practical and political overtones that are apparent in Platos argument. The meaninglessness is still there, but it is a meaninglessness of a more absolute kind, of which even knowledge appears to be no channel for escape. One point that binds them together is their antagonism to organized religion. Socrates antagonism to the official Greek religion is well known, and is in fact the topic of Platos first and one of the most popular discourses that deal with the trial and execution of Socrates. Sartre writes at a time which is at the same time more liberal and more rigid. In the two and a half centuries that separate the two philosophers, organized religion has gone from strength to strength, building up a discourse of metaphysics much stronger than the mythical tropes that Socrates faced. Its control over the state, over matters political and financial, has become much more covert as well as powerful than the influence that the priests exercised in Platos time. At the same time, Sartre had a privilege over Plato he could publicly propound his philosophy and denounce religion more openly than Plato could possibly do, without fear of corporeal punishment of execution.

Sartres idea of meaninglessness draws from the stock Existential concept of the death of God. It is very important to remember here that Existentialism has an inherent double bind  and it is not necessarily, as it is often thought to be, purely negative philosophy and this double bind was very much in Sartres mind when he considered meaninglessness of existence originating from dissociation from any kind of divine control. Sartre develops from Nietzsches declaration of the death of God. This God is most immediately the Christian God, but can also include divinities as expressed and understood in most organized religions. The immediate consequence of considering a dead God is the fact that human existence is immediately deprived of any purpose. Most religions, and in a broader way most ideologies even when not overtly religious, according to the existentialist thinkers, draw their strength from asserting some purpose for the human race. This purpose is usually seen to be teleological  both in individual as well as in social terms. There is no doubt that this teleology has its roots in the Platonic concept of telos which has been the bedrock of most ensuing Western philosophy. Thus by considering God dead, human being is immediately divorced of any overarching purpose, and ascertaining purpose becomes the sole prerogative of the deciding individual. This is in a nutshell, the basic tenet of Existentialism as developed by Sartre.

The double bind is already apparent in the above formulation. Freedom from purpose means there is no God to look after good and evil, which means there is no necessity of judgment par say  as there is no ultimate authority to ensure that good is rewarded, and that evil is punished. Good and evil loose all meanings as the very structural base of its determination  the will and law of God, is shaken. The world becomes a monster driven only by the principle of self-interest. At the same time, it also means freedom  man is free to do whatever he wants. This freedom is more meaningful than the Christian concept of Free Will which is always judged against the will of God for validity and acceptance, and is finally judged through consequence. This freedom is absolute. An analogy can be drawn with a sailor in the deep, stormy sea, who has lost all maps and compass, and thereby a purpose to his voyage. He will be tossed around in the stormy sea, but at the same time will be free to explore on his own, never knowing where to anchor his vessel. It is this crisis, this co-existence of the positive and the negative aspects of absolute freedom, that is source of the crisis, which we name as Existentialist crisis.

The above study makes it very clear that there is a fundamental difference between Platos idea of existence as reflected in the cave analogy, and Sartres idea of Freedom as expressed in Existentialism and Human Emotions. Plato believes in a kind of ultimate good

the eye was unable to turn from darkness to light without the whole body, so too the instruments of knowledge can only by the movement of the whole soul be turned from the world of becoming into that of being, and learn by degrees to endure the sight of being, and of the brightest and best of being, or in other words, of the good (Plato, 1976, p.417).

Sartre completely denies any idea of ultimate good, and in fact questions the very definition of good as standing on troubled ideological grounds. The only good is that which at that time is good for an individual, nothing more, and more importantly  nothing less.


Executive Summary
This report aims to assess the validity of this case and the ethicalprofessional implications therein, including the cost considerations. It will demonstrate my course of action as the manager of this company. This is after realizing that a section of the workers are not performing as required and instead spend time doing their personal things. The profits as well as the core business are at jeopardy. Specifically, the report has got the following objectives

Exploring ethical theories and linking them to the newly-established policy.
Evaluating the principle tenets of professional conduct.

Demonstrating the relationship between professional practice and ethical practice.

Propose the best course of action paying.

As a manager, there comes a time when there is need to take a stance for the sake of the business. This can be due to poor performance of the employees, low production, competition just to mention a few. It is no doubt why as a manager I am charged with the responsibility of monitoring the professional conduct of the employees in this company, ensuring proper ethical, professional and cost issues.
This applies to our case where employees spend more time conversing through the phone with say, their friends or relatives. The same case applies to situations when the same employees spend more time in the Internet either sending emails to friends or chatting. As can be seen, the two situations are not only unprofessional but unethical.

As a manager to them, am required to develop a firm policy to regulate such conduct. It is absolutely unacceptable in this organization since it contravenes our laid out policies as well as the professional practice guidelines. Moreover, it contradicts the organizations code of ethics.

The course of action that I will take may seem cruel but it will not be executed outside ethical, cost and professional practice.

I will implement a policy that prohibits such a conduct in the workplace, and then there may be some crisis in the end, if not from a professional point of view, then from a humanistic point of view.

According to Jensen  Meckling (pg. 14) man is a resourceful, evaluative and maximizing and therefore can be trusted in finding solutions to a problem if approached properly.

This notion of man underscores certain professional and ethical modalities. For instance, what would happen if this organization decides to purchase software to monitor the progress of the employees Will they feel undermined But on the other hand, the business performance is at stake. So, what ought to come first, the business or the workers sense of responsibility These mainly are the outcomes. But as a manager, I must safeguard the interests of the business including the employees insofar as they act in the best interest of this company, period

This company believes in its code of ethics and professional practice laid out since inception. Its aim is to treat its staff members with maximum dignity and as ends in themselves. Therefore, the policy guidelines operate within the framework of deontology principles. This ensures that the directives implemented safeguard the interests of all. The fundamental point is to consider the act in itself not how it can benefit the company. Indeed, the staff members are of value to this business but, they must adhere to the rules and regulations in place. It is useless to be a manager and yet I cannot correct misconduct for fear of accusations, such as, you think we are not responsible or we can multitask or you are following us like we do not know our job and so on and so forth. To reiterate, to avoid such misunderstandings it is preferable to resort to deontology as the guiding factor in this case.

Policy Statement
Even though, independence and responsibility (performance with minimal supervision) is one of the highest values for this company, there comes a time when checks and balances play a role in regulating professional misconduct but in a professional way.

However, the course of action I will take must be in conformity with deontology principles. The company recognizes the efforts put in by every staff member but it cannot fail to reject any misconduct that contradicts the companys vision and mission. It is the companys priority to reward its workers for their efforts. But, it also has a responsibility to safeguard the future of the business in whatever manner. It is not acceptable to have low quality performance due to cases of insubordination and professional misconduct. All staff members must regard their duty as an important foundation of the success of this company.

This makes it imperative for me to announce a change of policy. It is with immediate effect that no use of phone and Internet facilities for personal matters during working hours. Furthermore, no employee is allowed to use company assets for personal gain. I believe this position is in total conformity with sound professional, ethical and cost considerations not only as for this company but as prescribed in the law as well as objective professional practice adopted by all other companies in the world. Or better still, my stance is not for my own selfish interest but it is so because our employees conduct is bad in itself and is also putting this business at jeopardy. Clearly, our profits have gone low and even the core business is utterly flat.

It is within my discretion to put in place regulatory measures to ensure quality and maximum performance of every staff member. I trust the skills of our employees so I want them to remain independent and autonomous.

There will be a bonus system that will reward every employee who adds value to assets of this company. By this I mean, those who utilize the companys little assets by either maintaining them technically and theoretically. In this regard, there will be an additional compensation of about 2000 to the net salary to all those employees who adhere to this policy. On the other hand, there will be a fine of about 1500 to the gross salary to all those employees who fail to adhere to this policy. In addition, they will be suspended from work without their reference for a period of thirty days without payment.
My position rests on deontology principles and more so, on the ethical and professional understanding of duty and responsibility. Just to reiterate, (a) I believe in condemning the act itself and (b) I believe in the notion that there is no freedom without responsibility (c) the good of the company takes priority (d) professional or ethical misconduct ought to be regulated.

Ethical Practice
In order to support my position, let us review some background information.
Deontological moral theory holds views opposed to Non-Consequentialist moral theory. While consequentialists believe that the outcome qualifies the means insofar as it is good and beneficial to the subject or agent, deontologists assert that the morality of an action is inherent in the action itself and it can never be qualified by the end results of the very act.
A prima facie duty is a duty an individual has if all factors connected to it remain constant. This is because such duties are never absolute but fluctuating. An action is a prima facie duty only if it holds moral quality features and the actions executed must prove to have been the only action possible at that time (Ross 34). He further asserts that there are no absolute standards or universal principles in morality. Moreover, there are duties that are clear to ones intuition. These duties are keeping promises, correction of a wrong doing, expressing gratitude, justice, benevolent inclinations, personal growth and development and keeping off the possibility of harming others.

According to Kant one ought to act in a manner which is adaptable in the universal order. That means a persons choice of action in a given situation should point to what can be universally accepted and applied. This maxim can have different interpretations but the most core thing is that the action undertaken be universally permissible. Therefore, all rational beings and with Good Will act in accordance with the categorical imperative and further to that, evaluate their actions to ensure they are universally fitting. A categorical imperative is an unconditional and generally acceptable moral duty (Lara, et al. 22).

Professional Conduct
Human Resources function is extremely vital in any given organization. It must protect the employees, demonstrate competence and act in an ethical manner (Bohlander  Snell 22).

Professional conduct can be regulated in so many ways. It ensures that staff members maintain irreproachable character, provides guidance and education to members in relation to what constitutes appropriate and acceptable professional behavior. It also establishes a disciplinary framework that deals with cases of insubordination or misconduct by the professional members (employees). Managers should create clear statements regarding what is or what is not professional behavior in the organization. These statements constitute the code of ethics, rules of professional conduct and standards of practice.

It is acceptable to put in place regulatory measures in order to enhance performance of the employees. Management can consider creating necessary by-laws in order to carry out the business effectively. It can regulate and govern the conduct of the employees while in the practice of their profession. This can be expressed through a code of ethics, rules of professional conduct and standards of practice. It is however essential to note that the three aspects mentioned above have distinct features.
An organization enacts its directional policies in its code of ethics. This means that an organizations code of ethics contains principles that guide or regulate employees conduct. Such a document is more directional and less specific. On the other hand, rules of professional conduct, point to behaviors which are acceptable or not acceptable in the organization. In a pedestrian language, it is the dos and donts of professional practice. Finally, standards of practice underscore the detailed guidelines for specific employees activities. A critical analysis of this triple model mentioned above will show that the code of ethics is at the broad end while standards of practice are at the narrow end. However, all the three models are exceedingly useful.

Policy Recommendations
I still insist that the conduct of our employees need to stop. It is not only unethical but unprofessional and outside proper cost considerations. Considering the position of Kant, Dentologism and professional conduct mentioned above and from my own ethical perspective, the following questions suffice
Is the conduct of the employees acceptable universally How would somebody else regard the situation
Is it fair to be unfaithful to ones duties and responsibilities
Is it justified to penalize insubordination
Is regulation of professional conduct an abuse of human dignity, isnt it
Is it ethical to check employees behavior, isnt it

These questions incline to obligation and prohibition. Indeed, these are the key pillars that guide our newly-established policy.

I believe that any sort of misconduct in the workplace is intolerable globally. There is absolutely no company that can sit back and watch its employees destroy its vision. There and then follows strict measures, even retrenchment without notice. I will send a final warning to all our staff members requesting that they do only what is in the best interest of our organization. They should note that their misconduct is destroying our business adversely as production has gone low.

In the contract signed by every member of our staff, insubordination has been defined as disobedience to the superiors and replacement of ones duty with personal matters. This is very offensive in this company and can lead to straight termination. Please note that, use of phone calls and Internet facilities for personal gain is unethical and unprofessional, and what is worse is that it is a violation of our own policies and code of ethics. It is bad in itself and we are not implying that our employers to stop communicating with friends or loved ones while at work place, no. I believe no one would appreciate when another colleague uses his belongings to serve his selfish ends. It is in this light that I condemn this misconduct. So, it is a must that all employees treat the assets of this company with the respect they deserve at all times.

As you can see from the newly-established policy, insubordination will lead to straight benefits as well as fines. This is the course of action I intend to take. Be informed that whenever you use these facilities for your personal gain the company loses adversely. Firstly, you do not perform your duties hence lowering our production. Secondly, the company ends up paying unprecedented bills that should not have accrued in the first place. Again, the company remunerates efforts that are not valuable to the business. This is not cost effective at all.

As noted earlier, professional conduct simply means faithfulness to ones duties. As the manager of this company, I have to ensure that our employees remain professional in their services. This is why this misconduct has to be regulated as per the policy guidelines. It is within my responsibility to define what is unprofessional or unethical or less cost-effective. Furthermore, I have the responsibility to put in place measures that will regulate any perceived misconduct in the three dimensions.

I am not convinced that purchasing software to monitor our staff is a solution. It is actually unprofessional and a misuse of funds. The employees should feel they have a prima facie duty to act truthfully to their employer and more so, faithfulness to their duty. Failing to do ones duty and instead spending more time in phone calls or internet is dishonest.

Finally, this matter presents at a glance the conflicts among professional practice issues, cost issues and ethical issues. It is necessary to develop a certain model that can be used to evaluate the three phenomena, not forgetting that the three models are distinct and can only be treated as ends in themselves. However, there are situations when professional practices require ethical practices and there are also instances when ethical practices dictate appropriate professional practices to be taken on board.

Indeed, it is my duty as a manager to ensure that all staff members adhere to the vision, mission and core values of this company. My course of action is strictly confined within the framework of professional, ethical and cost issues. It is rightly so that the newly established policy is a guide and motivation in ensuring faithful performance and economic well-being of this organization. Even though the aim is to maximize profits and safeguard our core business, it does not mean that the course of action we intend to take is unjustified neither does it mean that my ruling regarding the misconduct is unwarranted. No the act itself is wrong and reproachable. So, it cannot be that the outcome qualifies the means. In this regard, my course of action remains justified as an end in itself, regardless of the means.

The company will avoid adopting any solution that may lead to unprecedented use of funds. It will not watch the employees engage in misconduct neither will it remunerate valueless services. In addition, it will not buy software to regulate behavior since it is unprofessional and not cost-effective.

The son of Man

How do Freuds theories illuminate The son of Man
Sigmund Freud was a neurologist and a philosopher who proposed many theories on how the mind works.  Among these theories, there are some which help people understand and look beyond the surface of things.  He explained the uncanny feelings that people have toward unfamiliar events and how these feelings reflect an unconscious sense.  His theories help one to understand and look differently at artworks such as The Son of Man by Rene Magritte.

People have different sensitivities toward the uncanny feeling.  Freud explains the uncanny is the class of the terrifying which leads back to something long known to us, once very familiar (Freud, p. 34).  However, there are different notions of this uncanny feeling. Everyone experiences this kind of feeling in their lives.  When something is unfamiliar, which is also known as unheimlich in Germany, it causes intellectual uncertainty and doubt in people followed by fear.

There are different sources to this uncanny feeling.  One of these sources might be repetition.  Freud believes that Whatever reminds us of this inner repetition-compulsion is perceived as uncanny (Freud, p. 35).  When something happens once, we call it chance but if the same event happens twice or more, it creates an uncanny atmosphere.  For example, one might not be apprehensive if his hotel room number is 62.  However, if that persons age is 62, it will cause an uncanny feeling and if that person sees number 62 even in more places, it will create a greater anxiety.

Sometimes, we go to places or events that we think we have been to before and  or it has happened to us before.  We are not sure if we dreamed of it or if it has actually happened.  It is called the notion of Deja vu or a French term which means already seen.  This usually creates a strange feeling in people.
In our life we have sets of beliefs that are new and different from what people used to believe in the past.  However when something happens that supports the old thoughts and conflict with our new beliefs, we have an eerie feeling.  The uncanny feeling can come from many things.  It might be something we see or something we read like stories.  Sometimes, artworks such as paintings give a mysterious feeling to viewers.  In other words, uncanny is an aesthetic quality.  It is something that was familiar to us but has somehow become unfamiliar and scary.

Moreover, Freud discusses the unconscious mind and how it affects humans.  He believes that ones behavior is determined by ones unconscious mind.  We are different from who we are and who we think we are. All the acts and manifestations which I noticed in myself and do not know how to link up with the rest of my mental life must be judged as if they belonged to someone else (Freud, p. 51) he explained.

The first thing that one should know about the unconscious mind is that our inner impulses are sexuality motivated.  However, unconscious is not always sexuality.  In addition, Freud believes that there is a direct relation between dreams and the unconscious.  Dreams are like garbage cans of the conscious mind during the day.  Sometimes, we hold back and repress our impulses, because of the way we live in society, but these impulses have to come out in some way, which is in our dreams.  In sleep, somehow we will not resist our unconscious thoughts and will let it out in symbolic forms.  Basically, dreams are our inner eyes.

So how do Freuds theories help one to understand the masterpiece by Rene Magritte called The Son of Man  The painting consists of a man standing in front of a cloudy sea and there is a stone wall behind the man.  He is wearing a suit and bright red tie.  There is a green apple in front of his face that is partly covering his face.   Before understanding Freuds theories, one might look at this painting and see an ordinary man with an apple covering his face.  At the first glance, one might find the only weird thing about this painting is the apple in the air.  It is quite noticeable that even though everything else about the painting is ordinary, there is something unfamiliar about it.

After reading about what Freud says about our unconscious and uncanny feelings, there is a whole new meaning to this painting.  This painting has significance because of our unconscious thoughts and we do feel something but we do not know why we feel this way.  The meaning is not immediately evident to our eyes.  What we try to do unconsciously is to try to see the mans face.  We try to visualize his face and his expression to make sense of this painting.  Nevertheless, the apple is there not by coincidence but by purpose.   It is there to tell us that we always try to see what is covert or hidden.  Even though the apple is in the air, the painting looks realistic and as Freud mentioned Everything is uncanny that out to have remained hidden and secret, and yet comes to light (Freud, p. 51) maybe this is why we have an uncanny feeling towards it.

Humans are always interested in what is obscure or unknown.  There is an inherent feeling of interest we get from hidden objects that we do not get from visible objects.  Perhaps due to this reason, we feel uncanny about this painting.  There is a conflict between the hidden object and the visible.  Furthermore, there are small details that one will see if they look deeper into this painting.  The mans left arm appears to be bended backward, which is something unusual and scary which is another reason for the strange feeling viewers get.  Another detail that might catch viewers eyes is the lowest button of the mans suit is missing.  This could not be a coincidence since the artist was very careful with the details.  If one looks at what is visible from the mans face, it is obvious that his facial expression is not a happy one.

There is more meaning than just positive meaning to this painting.  If we look at the title of the painting, we can make sense of the context.  The title of this painting is The son of Man, which refers to the son of Adam.  The man dressed in the suit with a red tie represents the modern era.  Basically, the message Rene Magritte was trying to show through this painting might have been that even in modern era, humans still have the temptation that they cannot control.  Mans temptation might be unconsciously motivated which, as Freud explains

The unconscious comprises, on one hand, acts which are merely latent, temporarily unconscious, but which differ no other respect from conscious ones and, on the other hand, processes such as repressed ones, which if they were to become conscious would be bound to stand out in the crudest contrast to the rest of the conscious processes.

This painting reflects the unconscious sense.  The artist shows that the product of the human mind cannot be presented merely by an image with positive meaning.  This painting is significant due to the reasons stated before.  It gives the viewer an uncanny feeling and reflects human unconsciousness.  The artist has something in mind that he wants to transfer to his viewers, but these thoughts and meanings might not always be positive.

By looking at this painting, one can see that Freuds theories illuminate this masterpiece. At first glance, one will get the uncanny  strange feeling that Freud talks about and it is due to the unfamiliarity of the viewer to the painting.  The whole painting speaks of something unknown. It is as if the painter is hiding something.  The viewer is unconsciously searching for a meaning within the painting.

Interestingly though, the first thing one sees in this painting is the green apple, however, the viewer does not pay much attention to it and instead, he or she wants to look at the face.  The mans face is partially concealed by the painter.  Yet, our temptation to seek secrets and to see behind the apple is like the temptation that Adam had with the forbidden apple.

By applying Freuds theory, it is obvious to see that this painting reflects our unconsciousness and it has an uncanny  mysterious feeling attached to it, which makes this painting all the more interesting.  In the case of The Son of Man the language helps the viewer as well.  Without the title it is hard to see beyond our curiosity and to see the mystifying significance of this painting.  It is easy to forget the main intention of the artist, which was the production of human mind.

This painting definitely confirms the theories of Freud and actually demonstrates these to the viewers, which makes this artwork an amazing masterpiece by Rene Magritte.

Leibniz and Possible Worlds

Leibniz argument that our world is the best of all the possible worlds that God can create is his attempt to defend Gods omni characteristics. In addition, it is also his attempt to explain the evil and sin that is present in our current world. This is a response to critics question that questions God omni characteristics due to the presence of evil and sin in the world.

Leibniz argued that our world despite its imperfection and the presence of sin is the best of all the possible world God can create for us. For Leibniz the best of all possible world that can be created does not necessarily and will never mean a world that is perfect and is negated of suffering. He used a neo-Platonist argument saying that all creatures (i.e. created by a Creator or Superior Being) is a limitedcorrupted version of its creator. The thing or element that can limit or corrupt Gods creation is evil or sin. In this case, evil or sin is a necessary element for all the creatures. Leibniz also added that the universe is so vast that we only managed to have a glimpse of its parts. It is presumptuous to judge our world with this very limited information.

In case that Leibniz was wrong in this declaration and we can find a way to say that this is not the best of all the possible world it will imply the failure of rationalist to answer questions about God or the problem of evil. Leibniz argument is a flawless argument that use the rules of logic. In case it will fail and we can cite evidences that is untrue, rationalism, per se will lose its validity to answer such questions.

His statement is an argument made possible by the rules of logic. It is valid and rational in the theoretical framework. However, if we are going to judge and validate it empirically, we will definitely fail due to its nature. It is impossible to cite empirical proofs with his framework. We cannot go out there outside our world and see if there are other possible world that is better.

Philosophies of Rousseau Nietzsche

1. What is the main philosophy of Rousseau Explain.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a philosopher, writer  composer of 18th century Romanticism. His philosophical work influenced the French revolution  the development of educational, sociological  political thought. The social contract theory is one of the oldest philosophies it is the view that a persons moral  political obligations are all dependent upon a contract between them to formcreate a society.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau has two different social contract theories. The first one is from his essay Discourse on the origin  Foundation of inequality among men, which is also known as the second discourse. It is an account of how human beings evolved, both politically  morally over time, from a state of nature to modern society (Bertram, 44). It contains a much naturalized account of social contract, which Rousseau found problematic. In the Second discourse, Rousseau describes the historical process of how humans began in a state of nature  progressed into a civil society.
The state of nature was a quixotic  peaceful time, where people lived solitary  uncomplicated lives. As there was a very small population, competition was non-existent  natural resources were in abundance. These simple  morally pure people were morally sound  had pity in them,  therefore they were not inclined towards conflicts or harming others.

Time passed  humanity faced certain changes. Population increased, means of satisfying needs changed, people started living in small clusters e.g. communities, families etc. Division of labor, discoveries  inventions made life easier, giving people leisure time for themselves. This leisure time lead people to make compare themselves with others, resulting in public values, and this lead to envy, shame, pride  contempt. According to Rousseau, the invention of private property was the turning point for human beings this resulted in greed, competition, vanity  inequality.

With the introduction of private property, initial condition of inequality became pronounced. The development of social class began, as some people have property  other are striving for it. Then a government was formed, as it will protect the private property holders from those who think they can acquire it by force. Thus, a Government was formed to protect the rights of everyone, even though its actual purpose was something else. In other words, the contract which was supposed to protect the rights of everyone was actually in the interest of those who are rich  strong due to the development of private property. This was the naturalized social contract, which according to Rousseau is the reason why modern society suffers from competition  conflicts.

The Normative social contract by Rousseau in The Social Contract is meant to be a solution for the social  moral ills, produced by the development of society. The Social Contract starts with the most famous line by Rousseau Man was born free,  he is everywhere in chains (Bertram, 156).  According to Rousseau, humans were free from the start  were free in the State of Nature, but the progress of civilization has corrupted the simple human being. Since a return to the State of Nature is neither desirable nor feasible, so the actual purpose of politics is to restore freedom,  reconsidering how we live with each other. The basic problem that Social Contract seeks to address how we can live together  be free Rousseau has the same views like the philosophers before him, that all men are equal, therefore no one has the right to overpower them or govern them  the authority that is a result of agreement of covenants, is the only justified authority.

According to Rousseau, a sovereign may be formed when free  equal persons come together to create anew single body, which will work for the good of all considered together. The sovereign will work for the betterment of individual who constitute it, therefore each individual is committed for the good of everyone. For Rousseau, this was the most direct form of democracy. In order to maintain a democracy as Rousseau suggested, people should live in small clusters, they are not supposed to live at large distance from each other  even if they do, they are supposed to unite once a week regularly. Although these conditions are stringent, but this is the only way we can regain our lost freedom.
2. What is the main philosophy of Nietzsche Explain.

Friedrich Nietzsche developed his philosophy, which is also known as Nietzcheanism, in the late 19th century amid growing criticism of Hegels philosophic system. In his book Beyond Good  Evil, Nietzsche disagreed with what most of the philosophers  focused on the history of morality, rather then developing his own rational foundation of morality. According to Nietzsche, anything great that we are successful in, has been the result of following a strict course in a particular direction. Art, thinking  spirituality is all result of constant  harsh discipline. Nietzsche if off the view that we see far less, than we think we do e.g. when we read a book, we just take into account a few words  fit them into a perception of our own. He suggests that we are all artists, liars  inventors our knowledge is our own perception about things.

Possession is another area according to Nietzsche, that people differ in what they take to be possession of what they pursue e.g. One man feels that he can possess a woman, after having sex with her, another man thinks that he can possess a woman, only if she willingly gives up everything for him. Nietzsche also mentions examples of charity  education as means of possession e.g. While teaching, the teacher makes the student see the world according to their perspective thus teacher possess another soul.

Nietzsche is of the view that our moral values are based largely on fear  in a community, safe from external threats an aggressive member of the same community can be seen as a threat. Nietzsche suggests that our morality condemns all that is lively, giving priority to the safety of a tamed, mediocre mass. The morality of the herd is the self proclaimed true morality  all others moralities are immoral (Nietzsche, 65). Nietzsche further suggests that democracy will make us weak 7 give us all equal in mediocrity, with no where to go.

Nietzsche in his book Beyond Good  Evil mentions order of rank that exists between people and between moralities is that some people have strong and refined spirits than others. Those at lower ranks hate  condemn those who are at higher ranks. Nietzsche is of the opinion that philosophers dont consider the fact that there is no universal law applicable for morality, he further mentions that it is immoral to say What is right for one is not fair for the other (Nietzsche,74).

He suggests that humans are unique, as they are both creator  creature. We suffer in our creative efforts to make ourselves great. Showing pity for suffering is basically pity for the creature within that is being remade into something greater. Nietzsche feels pity only for the creator within, as it is played by modern society.

Nietzsche further suggests that all higher culture is derived from the spiritualization of cruelty.  We are usually of the opinion that we have destroyed our animal instinct for cruelty when in fact we have just turned them against ourselves. Search for knowledge is the highest form of cruelty, according to Nietzsche. He suggests that we would have been a lot happier not knowing, these unraveled mysteries.

We may consider ourselves as higher beings, but we forget that we are descendants from apes and are not much different from them. Among the virtues of Nietzsches ideal philosopher of the future,  they will take it ahead, whether people call it honesty of cruelty. Nietzsche has always been interested in a thing that disinterests other scholars. Nietzsches view about women are not very pretty, as according to him women are only good at showing their charms to make men take care of them. Nietzsches claim that women should be locked up in kitchens is not right. Nietzsches philosophies have a different take on almost everything  most of the philosophers disagree with his philosophies.

3. Whose philosophy is more valid Why Explain.
In my opinion Rousseaus philosophy is more valid, as Rousseau has a very mild, peace  calm approach. Rousseau talks about brings the world together  explains how a certain group of people are over powering others  depriving them of their rights.  How inequality creates evil in the society  how equality can bring people together  they can all live with peace  harmony.

According to me, Rousseau had a positive way towards things he saw purity in everything  was disturbed by the inequality  how the gap between the rich  the poor was widening. His theories suggest that man was much better  less selfish in the State of Nature. His believes does not support development, as he thinks competition is bad for society, while Nietzsche has a completely different  some what correct perspective about competition. He thinks that competition is healthy and people at lower ranks are just too jealous of the people at higher ranks.

Nietzsches approach is different, he has a very negative attitude towards things  it feels as if all he want to do is prove other philosophers work wrong. He is sometimes very sexist, as his philosophy about women is an extremist one. Nietzsches approach about inequality is sort of right, as a society cannot grow if people stop striving to get better  there will be no development. But he further negates the idea of humans researching towards living a better luxurious life.

Nietzsche is of the opinion that seeking knowledge, answers for every mystery is the root cause of all evils. He thinks that cruelty within a person comes out when heshe ventures to seek knowledge. According to me, amongst all these negative  pointless theories of Nietzsche there is one theory about morality, that is there can be no one theory or way to guide a person morally, as something might be good for someone  might be three times worse for someone else.

Nietzsche  Rousseau has one thing in common, they are both of the opinion that modern society has many flaws  that people are being played in this modern society. While Rousseau thinks that class difference is playing a vital role  creating differences between people, Nietzsche thinks that it is the person himself responsible for not getting what he deserves  is played by others.

Rousseaus philosophy is complete in comparison with Nietzsches. Rousseau does not negate the idea of human development  working for a better future. In my opinion there is just one flaw to Rousseaus philosophy, that is people should live near to each other, in small clusters  if they dont they should meet regularly on weekly basis. This idea sounds a little impractical, as it is very hard for people to live like that.

Thus, we can conclude that Rousseau has a better philosophy in comparison with Nietzsches  due to certain impracticalities in Rousseaus philosophy it cannot be called a perfect solution for the increasing inequality  class creation in our society. Although both of the theories were not complete solutions for mankind but with some optimistic approach, Rousseau makes a point.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau vs. Friedrich Nietzsche

1. What is the main philosophy of Rousseau Explain.
Rousseau takes a communitarian approach to human life. We are human beings because we are a part of the society. It is the society that makes us human, makes us rational and moral beings. Before the advent of society we were noble savages, we had all the physical freedom we could wish for. The society, however, tames us and restrains us. Our physical freedom is curtailed, however by being a part of the society we gain many higher kinds of freedom, we gain the freedom to be our higher rational and moral selves, the freedom to be truly human. The civil society is formed by social contract and only by participating in the society can we become truly human. Left to ourselves, we cannot be much more than savages.

So far, what Rousseau says is commonsensical, but from here onward he brings in his own unique slant upon the overriding importance of the society. The society becomes more important than the individual. The society does not exist for the individual, but the individual exists for the society. This way of thinking is very much in conformity with the prevailing view in most ancient or traditional societies.  Rousseau calls the collective entity as the Sovereign, and in Rousseaus opinion it assumes a life of its own. The Sovereign is almost like an individual to whose will the will of an individual living in the society should become subservient.

Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole. (Rousseau, 24)

We can see clearly that Rousseau is not propounding any new philosophy but trying emphasize an age-old philosophy in the modern times. The whole scientific and technological progress in the past four hundred years or so has happened because the individual has been able to free himself from the oppression of the collective. The story of tremendous progress in the past few centuries has been the story of the rise of the individual. Rousseaus philosophy is definitely atavistic in the 18th century  the Age of Reason  when people in Europe were increasingly realizing the value of thought, reason, and an individualistic approach to life, Rousseaus philosophy was an attempt to throw the zeitgeist back to that of hundreds or thousands of years ago.

Rousseaus philosophy of the state, however, has some virtues in that it sought to establish order and stability in a time when prospects of turbulence and turmoil were dramatically increasing. The ideal society that Rousseau champions is an orderly and smooth-running society in which people are living in harmony with each other. This can be achieved largely by placing a major emphasis on the public lives of the individuals and relegating the private realm to the margins. This was how it was in many ancient societies, most notably in Greece.

In the ancient societies, the life of a person was very closely integrated with the society that he was a part of. The individuals existence was not clearly differentiated from the collective existence. An individuals existence was defined in terms of his participation in the collective enterprise, therefore an individuals happiness was tied up with the well-being of the society. Essentially, a person could achieve happiness only being useful to the society in whatever capacity.  In return, the state does all it can to protect the individual and ensure his freedom.  This way, the conflict between the individual and the state is minimized. Except for the fact that Rousseau seems to prefer aristocracy over democracy, Rousseaus concept of an ideal society appears as a thinly veiled generalized version of the ancient Greek society.

2. What is the main philosophy of Nietzsche Explain.
Nietzsches philosophy stands in sharp contrast to that of Rousseau. Nietzsche takes a thoroughly individualistic approach. He despises the herd mentality. Nietzsches philosophy is encapsulated by the term will to power. Unsublimated, in its natural state, Nietzsches will to power more or less equals the unrestrained instincts of a primitive man living without a framework of the larger society. But while Rousseau emphasizes the role of social contract in taming these primitive instincts, Nietzsche says that the refinement and sublimation of the natural instincts should come from within.

Giving a higher expression to our will to power brings with it its own fulfillment. Indulgence in our desires and instincts may bring us immediate gratification, however our intelligence will help us to learn that when these desires are expressed in subtler ways, they can lead us to a greater enjoyment of power. For example, sex and anger are primitive energies, if we give way to them we may find pleasure and gratification through them, but since human beings are driven the will to power, which means will to more power, we seek ways to find greater fulfillment. And this can happen only when the energies that were being dissipated through instincts such as sex and anger are channelized into higher modes of creative expression.

In Rousseaus philosophy, the grosser instincts have to be subdued by the imposition of law, external force and threat of punishment, but Nietzsche is more concerned with sublimating the baser tendencies of our nature through our own will power or will to power. According to Rousseau, it is the society that makes us moral, for Neitzsche the morality that comes as a result of the societys laws is worthless. True morality comes from within. Nietzsche would think that Rousseaus ideal society turns us all into mediocre people. Rousseau is concerned about orderliness and harmony in the society, peace and happiness for all its people. But these are not Nietzsches priorities. Nietzsches values are power, vitality, aliveness, richness, exuberance, creativity, genius and so on. Nietzsche fears that the domination of herd mentality in a society will suppress and destroy individual creativity. The majority of the populace are submissive to tradition, convention and the collective will. The minority who want to assert themselves and seek to express their inner vitality in creative ways are also generally given little chance to rise above the herd.

Nietzsche does not believe in equality, he believes in valuable individual differences. The concept of equality reduces us all to the least common denominator. That is why Nietzsche condemns democracy. Nietzsche believes in wildness, the force and power of the individual, whereas democracy aims to tame us and render us all equal, mediocre. Rousseaus social contract is a means of ensuring peace and stability within a large group of people, but Nietzsche despises that kind of peace which deadens our soul and blunts our sensibilities.

While Rousseau argues for an effective suppression of an individuals baser instincts for the sake of common good, Nietzsche does not advocate suppression but transformation. There is raw power in all our baser and darker instincts, but in a bid to get rid of our dark side we also kill that enormous motive power associated with it, as a consequence we become impotent. Nietzsche considered the European populace of his time as having been rendered impotent in this way. To him, even violent barbarians are better than such dull and tame people as his fellow humans appeared to him  because the barbarians are at least in touch with the vitality of life flowing through them. But the civilized man is just so-so, flat, mediocre. However, the ideal men to Nietzsche are those artists, scientists, poets and other people, who have learned to transform their barbarian core into something divine.

3. Whose philosophy is more valid Why Explain.

Rousseau and Nietzsche have strikingly different visions of life. Rousseau wants to promote common good, Nietzsche wants to foster individual greatness  and both are required for human well-being. Both Nietzsches and Rousseaus philosophies are valid in their respective spheres, and both also have their limitations with some compromise it may even be possible for them to coexist. At the level of the society, we need peace, stability and communal harmony, but at the level of individual, we need uniqueness, passion, vitality and creativity. And it should be possible to reconcile them both in some way. However, Rousseaus philosophy is essentially nothing new, he is simply making a renewed call for an old form of society that existed in many cultures of the world for hundreds if not thousands of years. Nietzsches philosophy, on the contrary, calls for a new man, Nietzsche wants to awaken the sleeping man and put human evolution back on track. Nietzsches philosophy is much more valid and relevant for the modern times.

We live in a time when herd mentality is ruling supreme, thanks to the overwhelming influence of mass media, advertising and the prevalence of the culture of consumerism but we also live in an age when the opportunities for expression of individual uniqueness and greatness are present in an unprecedented manner. The future of humanity depends on whether the individual can rise above the level of the masses and lead human civilization in new directions. On the other hand, if Rousseaus approach to life gains upper hand, there is every danger that we may end up in nightmarish totalitarian regimes.

The twentieth century witnessed a colossal confrontation between Rousseaus philosophy and Nietzsches philosophy, with the latter triumphing over the former  though the victory is not a decisive one. Communism can be seen as an extension of Rousseau s philosophy, while the capitalist ethic emphasizes individual initiative and enterprise  it can be seen as a variation of Nietzsche s philosophy. The fundamental premise of both Rousseau and Marx is the same, that the society is much more important than the individual, that social forces shapes the course of humanity. Nietzsche, on the other hand, asserts that the individual is primary, that it is the individual who influences the society. The truth works both ways, the society and the individual exert mutual influence  however, to bring about a better society in the future we need to focus more and more upon the individual.

The society is a given fact, the society and its laws have been in place for more than 5,000 years now, and it would go on by its own accord, driven by its own momentum. This society is not an end in itself but is only a means. It becomes a backdrop in which Nietzsche s authentic individual  who is in touch with his own depth and who is aware of the heights to which he can rise  can emerge. Even if Rousseau s perfect society is achieved, not much is achieved a large group of people can go on living in peace and prosperity for thousands of years, but sooner or later this ideal society would die away and nothing would have come out of it. The value of society lies only in the caliber of individuals it produces.

It is only an individual human being who can represent his species, and give a new meaning to human existence through his intelligence, creativity, scientific and artistic excellence.


Non violence is a philosophy that has been used as a strategy to bring change. It follows a line
which rejects the path of violence. This method of using an alternate to aggression and armed
struggle against oppression has been preached and practiced from time immemorial.
In recent times, non violence has been used as a means for getting India independence from
British rule. This movement was preached and led by Mahatma Gandhi, who immortalized
himself to the whole world with the way he went about it. Another fine example is recent history
is that of Martin Luther King, who adopted  Gandhis non-violent ways , in the struggle to help
win civil rights for African Americans.

Jesus and Non Violence
History shows many examples of non-violence struggles, but if we look into our ancients texts
 we will be able to understand that even Jesus Christ was an advocate of non violence.
Until the very end Jesus never renounced his privilege of being the anointed one. Nevertheless,
he destroyed the wall that separated non-Jews from the God of Israel. He became the new and
living way by which all people had access to the kingdom of God. By acting in this way he
removed every pretext for the use of violence. He advocated that gods grace was offered to all
and with it the hand of fellowship and the offer of reconciliation. (Walter Wink. Ch.1.p119)

Nonviolence in Theory  Practice
Nonviolence has always been understood as the absence of violence, but the leading proponents
of nonviolence have always defined in positive terms. Thus Mahatma Gandhi spoke of
nonviolence as Satyagraha , meaning literally holding onto truth. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of
it as a commitment to resisting injustice without regarding ones success as a triumph over those
who stand for injustice. (Robert. H  Barry .L. G.  Nonviolence in Theory and Practice)
Nonviolence can be understood from many viewpoints and has many aspects to it. To some
it may seem as if it is the study of any psychological, social, or political technique  to bring
about social change, which  does  not involve the use of  the military force, yet again to others
it is the study of the spiritual pursuit of a nonviolence as interpreted by particular religions.

There is a belief among many, that nonviolence is actually nothing more than a form of
cowardice. Nothing can be further from the truth.  In the case of Jesus Christ it took tremendous
mental strength and will power to stand up for what he believed. Similarly, in the case Mahatma
Gandhi, though violence was used brutally against his followers who were both women and men,
by their belief in what they were doing  they could bear  physical beating and brutalities inflicted
upon them by the British without ever losing sight of what they were expected to follow - the
path of nonviolence.

Man has within him an inbuilt mechanism of self preservation and this manifests itself when he
is attacked  and being bodily harmed.  This instinct takes over and counters the attacker by
fighting back.  The ability to resist this natural instinct and to stay on the path of nonviolence is
a sure show of courage and strength.

In the case of both Gandhi and Jesus Christ, they were dealing against oppressive rule. They
could have chosen an easier way, but that they chose the courageous path of nonviolence .


The term philosophy has its origins in the  political philosophies which is entail freedom, legal code enforcement by authority, rights, liberty and law with respect to what constitutes the legitimacy of a government, freedoms and rights to be protected and the reason for protecting them and the duties owed by citizens to a government which is legitimate. Political philosophy finds its origins in ancient Greek period whilst nations were experimenting with several types of political systems including tyranny, democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy and monarchy. In one of his works Republic Plato defines what he calls as justice (Sayers, 1999). The republic refers to a philosophical conversation on the nature of justice including the character and order of a just individuals and a just city-state. Socrates concurs with Polemarchus on the fact that justice constitutes helping others and he indicates that a person who is just can never harm anybody. By saying so, Thrasymachus is strongly convinced that Socrates has been injustice to the present men and this leads him to attacking his reputation and character in public because he thinks Socrates does not understand that harming an opponent is unjust. According to Thrasymachus justice refers to that which is good as perceived by those in power or the stronger ones- the people who govern the city. Socrates however finds this meaning unclear and starts questioning Thrasymachus.

According to Thrasymachus justice comes from those governing a city or state hence their laws are fair as per his definition because they ratify the laws for their own benefits. Socrates then goes a head to inquire whether a leader, who makes a regulation that deems to lessen him, remains a leader with respect to Thrasymachus definition. But in response Thrasymachus agrees to the fact that no true leader would commit such a crime of lessening the laws. However, according to Aristotle, a ruler is a politician and a law giver who is entitled to providing a frame work of an appropriate constitution for the nation. This constitutes enduring institutions, laws and customs for the people (Rosen, 2005).

Having developed the constitution the, the ruler needs to maintain it, introduce reforms when necessary as well as stop developments which may sabotage the political system. Aristotle states that a lawgiver and politician is fully occupied with the nation and a constitution helps in organizing the citizens hence helping in protecting the (Nilstun, 1981) nations freedom. He indicates that because citizens are different from other people like slaves and resident aliens even seniors and children fit not to be citizens. He goes ahead to define a citizen as some one who has a right to partake in deliberative orand judicial office. For instance in Athens, citizens were entitled to attend the council, the assembly as well as sit on jurisdiction. This system was different from modern democracy because citizens took part in governing. Despite the fact that full citizenship was restrictive in Greek nations with foreigners, slaves and women- citizens were highly enfranchised as opposed to current democracies since they took part directly in governing the nation. This implies that to protect the nations freedom those people who are being governed must directly be involved in ruling.

The nature of individuals demands that they act co operatively towards discursive animals. Hence aggression to those not within another persons poll is forbidden with respect to justice, as opposed to aggression against a fellow citizen. People who are not citizen may also posses rights against the citizens of a nation (Mulgan, 1970). Aristotle refers to this as justice that is each time a common association occurs, a certain degree of justice would result. Polls are the most complete indication of an ideal hence justice can appear to be at its peak only through polls. On the other hand, Miller understands Aristotles passages of justice as rights he resists agreeing to the reality of rights prior to politics in the moral universe of Aristotle. He states that since natural justice is politically inherent it can not natural rights prior to politics held by persons in a nation that is pre-political in nature. Rights prior to politics are those rights which are enjoyed by individuals in a pre-political nation. Prepolitical rights in this case only refer to priority of rights. Miller fails to agree with Aristotle because he asserts that these are rights which are commonly universal as well as inhering in individuals from political or social relations. This seems to have much ambiguity because any theory on rights is it modern liberals or Aristotle theory can only be analyzed with respect to more than one person. If miller perceives that Aristotle believes that rights come from social contexts which are organized is very unconvincing. According to Aristotle Murder and theft are by no means justified, and he insists that people should possess a feeling of friendship to all people because friendship comes with justice obligation that is directly proportional to friendship.

 In considering Liberty evaluation by Aristotle, Miller differentiates Locke with Aristotle. According to Locke freedom defines the condition of human being.  Miller refers to liberty as an external good. Aristotle has divided all the goods in to three categories external good, goods for the soul and goods for the body. An individual freedom consists mainly in environmental facts as opposed to the body and soul (Nilstun, 1981). Miller on the hand uses external good to imply a good out side the well being of an individual, that which is not a constitutive element. It is critical that we consider the manuscripts in defining an external good which means that which is out side to the soul and body. Aristotle refers to an external good as that which is outside the well being of an agent and which bears an instrumental value. Aristotle finally defines freedom as that is state of being free outside slavery. There lacks a reason to believe that liberty from slavery overrides Aristotles instrumental good. In politics, slavery is incompatible with self-sufficient (Mulgan, 1970). The state of living for the sake of another person is what is called freedom. In addition to this liberty is important in the political theory of Aristotle. The importance of liberty according to Aristotle lies not in the tiny slavery chattel, he holds that political regimes amounts to slavery also called despotic rule which deprives a nation of its freedomliberty. Constitutions which are deviant are also despotic because they confine their subjects to slavery. This can be seen in Aristotles understanding of a citizen. Aristotle also defines a nation as a group of citizens that is enough for a life that is self-sufficient. In defining the constitution, he states that it is a means of organizing the nations offices especially the sovereign office. In this case a constitution becomes a governing organ that is in a democratic government it refers to the people. A polis refers to a nation which is free. Hence legitimate rule can be differentiated from despotic rule in the fact rulers in legitimate rule lead according to the communitys interest where as despotic rulers lead with their personal interests. The distinction between a person who is free and a slave is that one lives for the sake of his life where as another lives for the sake of the life of another.

This criterion which is based on the interest used in differentiating between despotism and freedom is often in the company of criterion that is based on the consent. Aristotle repeatedly suggests that governments which are legitimate possess the consent of those being governed as opposed to despotic governments which rule against the will of the people (Kallen et al,1969). This is a reply to the arguments of Plato concerning politicus. In the dialogue Plato earlier on treats absence or presence of consent with respect to the citizens as that which differentiates despotic government from a legitimate government. Following further reflection, Plato discards consent-based criterion stating that governing is similar to a profession like medicine the test of proper medical practice does not base on the consent of the client but rather on if or if not the correct medication can be prescribed by the physician. Plato concludes by saying that the truth does not lie in the person who rules by force but on that person who rules basing on wisdom. Aristotle agues against Plato are thinking on the physicians analogue. Doctors do not force treatment on patients instead they seek their consent. He insists that ruling against the will of those being ruled is similar to violation of justice and law. Aristotle considers being governed against someones will is denying that person nation freedom and deems it as being unjust.

To protect the nations freedom, Aristotle uses two distinct criteria to differentiate freedom from despotism the citizens interest and the citizens consent. This is very surprising. However, to a thinker who possesses a view of subjectivity on the well- being it may not seem surprising, because the interests of those who are being governed and the desires of the citizens may be required to meet at a given point (Knight,2007). Never the less, Aristotle believes that individuals are in most cases mistaken with respect to their personal interests, they are biased in judgement. There lack a guarantee on the fact that that which will benefit the citizens will tally with their consent. Then why should he use consent based criterion This is because being ruled against an individual will constitute an element of well-being. Liberty in the sense of consent-based is not enough for achieving the good but it is important constitutively. For instance someone being dragged, screaming and kicking towards a better life via benevolent government does not interact with others on the basis of cooperation but does so unwilling fully hence being deprived of his freedom. This is because he or she is being deprived of whole human life. An important part in the life of politics is cooperating with others on voluntary basis, and such a voluntary cooperation is what constitutes justice not something that can be forced down the throat of individuals. Basing on consent-based criterion, freedom is in the mind of any person who is not a slave. Thus, according to Aristotle freedom based on interest-based criterion constitutes consent-based criterion freedom. Therefore the approval of those being governed constitutes the first condition in a legitimate constitution hence justice being exercised (Nilstun, 1981).

The approval of those being governed can also just mean a majority. Miller agues convincingly that Aristotle is biased on what is he terms the common good where the polls seems to be a mutual advantage and an overall benefit. That means the polls should enhance the good of each citizen in a given nation. If liberty based on consent- based criterion is an important well-being element then for the polls to be just they must have unanimous consent. Aristotle recognizes himself when he approves unanimous consent as a sense of government legitimacy. An issue comes in if consent is preconditioned for well-being (Roderick). If this happens then, every paternalistic law must defeat itself, hence any measure intended to enhance the citizens well being will sabotage the end via depriving the people of their freedom critical to the well being. Aristotle is renowned for not supporting paternalistic laws. In addition to this, he indicates that the decision of the government will not base on ethical suasion alone in securing compliance with the decisions it makes, he stresses that the governments effectiveness is based on its ownership of coercive power which is organized. If a nation imposes its will on citizens forcefully it will deprive its citizens of its freedom. Consent is important in a legitimate nation because the citizen will have a sense of belonging hence protecting their freedom. If the inhabitants of the nation are adamant to exercise what they feel then they will not do so on voluntary basis. In such a case the governors may be force to choose between evils. Where each citizen of a nation enjoys maximum freedom punishment will not constitute an ideal poll. For Aristotle freedom is critical matter of consent as pertains to the constitution more than the individual statutes and edicts ratified under the same constitution (Knight, 2007). Democrats are not mistaken for embracing freedom instead he indicates that they have a false impression of liberty by stating that being subjective to the law is not compatible with freedom. Aristotle maintains that is compatible as long as people do what they do according to their will.

In conclusion a nations freedom can only be protected under justice. This can be found when the people being governed taking part in governing themselves that is the government needs to consent them on each and every thing it does.