Philosophy

Andrea, Heather and Tiffany occupy a single human body hence they must be treated as a single individual by law.  Although multiple personality disorder is a recognized mental illness, countless experts have opined that it is not a real disorder by any means (Braude 61-64 Saks and Behnke 26-29).  Therefore, when Andrea, Heather and Tiffany are heard in court, it would take psychologists and psychiatrists to convince judges and juries that Andrea, Heather and Tiffany are, in fact, multiple identities of a single person, who should not be punished for the crimes of a single identity.  Even if judges and juries are convinced that Andrea, Heather and Tiffany should not be punished for bigamy, or that it is unfair to prosecute Heather and Tiffany for a crime committed by Andrea alone, the fact remains that the bigamists and Andrea, the criminal, would go on occupying the same human body regardless of prosecution.  Hence, it should be considered necessary to punish all three personalities.  After all, the lawbreakers and the criminal are manifested through their body alone, without which nobody would even know that Andrea, Heather and Tiffany exist.
   
The human body that Andrea, Heather and Tiffany collectively occupy must be punished regardless of which identity commits a crime.  Daniel Dennett, a philosopher, states that persons are formed through rationality, intentions, consciousness, communication, and the fact that they are moral objects and subjects (Saks and Behnke 41-42).  Who is to say that Andrea, Heather and Tiffany are a person, seeing that they irrationally fail to remember one anothers existence  Saks and Behnke write that Dennett probably forgot to add the human body to his list of attributes of personhood (45-46).  But, John Locke argues that it is not the human body that helps to identify an individual rather, psychological characteristics are of the essence in this regard (Saks and Behnke 47).
   
Andrea, Heather and Tiffany have different psychological characteristics.  Even so, their human body should be prosecuted regardless of which of the three commits a crime.  If Heather and Tiffany are not prosecuted for Andreas crime, Andrea would never face punishment.  In that case, she may go on repeating her crime, as there would be no punishment to serve as a deterrent.  As courts of law are not in the position to punish only one personality out of the three, it is reasonable only to believe that the crime was committed by the human body occupied by three personalities of the same individual.  Courts of law may not find it easy to trust Heather and Tiffany that it was Andrea who committed the crime.  Hence, it is logical for judges and juries to consider the crime by trusting in Vellemans understanding of self.
   
Velleman, a philosopher, expresses his understanding of Buddhist philosophy that human suffering results from the false belief that our selves endure in what seems to be virtually endless time, which is why people are anxious about their past and future.  Human beings tend to look back on their lives with regret and nostalgia.  They also feel anxious about future as they try to make strategic plans to fulfill their goals based on their own expectations as well as those of others (Velleman).  Like Einstein or quantum physicists with little belief in the ordinary human sense of time  they believe in relativity of time that Velleman explains in philosophical terms  the philosopher seeks to understand how time is related to the concept of enduring self (Velleman 1).  After all, Buddhists assert that individual belief in self that endures is an illusion.  Buddhism encourages its followers to meditate as practice for living in the present or in the moment.  One of the commonly explained methods of Buddhist meditation is to concentrate on a single word, object or thought and ignore all others.  Buddhist masters also teach their followers to fully enjoy their daily chores so as to live in the moment.  Velleman explains that this state of mind is also available to us when we concentrate on a task that almost completely engages our intellect.  Regardless of whether Andreas intellect was completely engaged in the moment she committed a crime, the fact remains that that moment was lived by Andrea, Heather and Tiffany together.  All three must, therefore, be punished for occupying the same body in that moment of crime.  Criminal courts are not concerned with what preceded or followed that moment.  To put it another way, the criminal body should be prosecuted even if Heather occupied the body immediately before the crime committed by Andrea, or if Tiffany occupied the body immediately after the moment of crime.
   
Velleman writes that the future is envisioned in the following way In anticipating a scene that I would experience in the future, I would distinguish between the anticipating I and the experiencing I as well (14).  Thus, multiple identities are formed.  Just the same, if the philosopher were to commit a crime in the present moment, his body would be punished regardless of whether or not his future self is a criminal in his vision.  Moreover, this punishment may negatively impact his future self in a way that the present self may or may not imagine.
   
Of course, courts of law cannot be expected to employ Descartes philosophical technique of methodological doubt to determine whether or not Andrea, Heather and Tiffany should all be prosecuted for bigamy or another crime (Albl 20).  According to this technique, one must doubt everything that can be doubted, and refuse to accept anything as having been known unless it is established with certainty.  As there is no certainty in any matter available to human understanding or perception, Descartes doubts the things he sees and experiences.  He even doubts his good old belief in Gods greatness.  After all, Descartes is concerned with a sense of having no knowledge whatsoever, given that his human understanding and perceptions have failed to meet the criteria of being certain or foolproof (Albl 20-21).  Still, the philosophers most famous statement remains as the following I think, therefore I am.  In other words, the philosopher is permitted by reason only to believe in his own thoughts  or doubts, as in the case of Descartes (Albl 21).
   
If Descartes were a judge in the cases of Andrea, Heather and Tiffany, he may let them go without being prosecuted for their unlawful behaviors.  All three identities would prove themselves to him with their individual thoughts, which would convince him that they are separate identities.  As a matter of fact, Descartes, the judge, may even believe that Andrea, Heather and Tiffany occupy three different bodies.  As human perception of external objects is entirely based on judgments of the mind and the conclusion it reaches, even judges and juries apart from Descartes may come to believe this (Sepper 168).  It is further possible for the judges and juries apart from Descartes to completely disbelieve in the existence of multiple personality disorder.  They may opt to trust in David Humes philosophy instead.
   
Unlike Descartes, Hume rejects the certainty of personal- or self-identity because he has no faith in the substance of the mind (Flage 69-71).  This is because the mind does not comprehend the reality of all things that the human being perceives as external objects (Hume).  As the philosophers brain processes information about his concept of self, taught unto him by his own reasoning process and information provided by others, he realizes that his brain is just a piece of meat.  Shall he believe, therefore, that there is no self except God  If not, how shall he understand how his brain  a piece of meat  processes information as it does
   
In Humes view, one may only express skepticism with regards to things that he or she has not yet seen or understood, which is why Velleman believes that it is possible to reduce or remove anxieties by being either Buddhist or Tralfamadorian.  Hume further states that individuals may only know about the external world through their perceptions of it.  And, these perceptions may be accurate or inaccurate, as in the case of the mirage which looks real but is not (Flage 172).  Thus, Humes philosophy leads his readers to doubt their perceptions while doubting them not.  The reader is led to doubt his or her personal identity as does Hume, given that the mind does not always lead the thinker to the right conclusions (Flage 130-133).  If I were the first person on earth to throw an object in the air, I might have thought that that object would continue its upward movement instead of being pulled down by the force of gravity.  Hence, I would have made a wrong conclusion about the object of my perception.  I thought, therefore I was.  All the same, I did not want to be led to a wrong conclusion by my mind.  Why did my mind mislead me into thinking that the object thrown up in the air would continue its upward movement  Seeing as I did not, even for a moment, wish to be misled by my mind, and did not desire to be untruthful to myself, my sense of I am is a falsehood given that this I am is in my mind, and my mind can lead me to wrong conclusions.  I can make mistakes, and therefore, the substance of my mind is not truly real either  Just as the mirage, which is there and not there at the same time, my mind is with me today a perception the knowledge of which may be furthered through greater understanding with the mind alone.  Thus, my mind or I learned with the help of my sight that an object thrown in the air must fall.
   
With this understanding, it is plausible that the judges and juries would consider Andrea, Heather and Tiffany as deluded rather than an individual suffering from multiple personality disorder.  If Heather and Tiffany state that it was Andrea alone who committed a crime, judges and juries may further conclude that Heather and Tiffany have misperceived reality.  As their minds cannot be trusted, their separate personalities cannot be identified.  Even if psychologists, psychiatrists and Descartes come to their defense, Velleman and Hume would prove them wrong by arguing that the body occupied by Andrea, Heather and Tiffany should be punished.      

The philosopher who deals with the existential concept of humanism is called an existentialist. This term is used for those philosophers who focus on the conditions and circumstances of the existence of an individual which also include their emotions, actions, responsibilities, and thoughts. These are the things that existentialist philosophers like to delve on. Such philosophers who subscribe to this school of thought include thinkers such as Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) and Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980).  Although their philosophical theories are under the same school of thought, their approach to the topic of existentialism differs from each another.

In his work, Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaards (1985) notion of individuality is one of the two types of criticism. This notion of the mutually constitutive character of the individual and the community could shed some light into Kierkegaards claim about how ones individuality takes precedence over others and yet not demean it. If a persons individuality is inherently relational, then there should be no conflict between the individual and the community. The relational self is not predicted on the account of a unique one-to-one relation between an individual and God. On this interpretation, the main relation would only serve to reinforce and under-grid ones duties to the community. Nevertheless, Kierkegaard (1985) claims that the God-relation does not undermine ones relation to others (pp.65-67).

According to Kierkegaard (1985), a person is entitled to his individuality, special talents, and interests. Similar to Christian equality, this notion provides people, not just as incumbents and clients of a corporate state, but in whatever interpersonal relationships they are involved with the basis for the mutual furtherance of others interests. In addition to the Christianity aspects of Kierkegaard, the relationship with God disappears when an individual focuses only on him- or herself and never believe in the existence of spirituality. As individuals, we must ask ourselves the risk of every choice we make and we must learn to exercise the judgment part of us in seeing whether a situation falls under morally relevant from the description or concept of Christianity. A wrong judgment or decision might lead to loss of life, so we need to recognize all the risks before we make a serious decision. The morality is not just a matter of letting willingness in the right way of individuality. It has a conception of an answer which is to be objectively right (Kierkegaard, 1985, p.73).

On the other hand, Sartre (1993) takes an approach that is different from that of Kierkegaard.  While Kierkegaard is optimistic as evidenced by his emphasis on the need for the individual to have a relationship with God, Sartre leaves God out his ideas and focuses primarily on the individual. He believes that ideas are the results of ones experiences in real-life situations. In his work, Being and Nothingness, as the name suggests, Sartre wants to emphasize that consciousness is an act of negation.  Sartre contends that human existence is a conundrum whereby each of us exists, for as long as we live, within an overall condition of nothingness that ultimately allows for free consciousness, and that one way to be truly free is to go through the motions of life. By doing so, nothingness is replaced by order (Sartre, 1993, pp. 99-107).

In conclusion, both Sartre and Kierkegaard focus on the individual despite the differences in their approaches.  Existentialism explains that it is the responsibility of the individual to give him- or herself a meaningful life and to spend it wisely. Despite some negative traits that may affect ones life, these are expected since these are obstacles which need to be overcome.

Terrorism is probably the most dangerous and deadliest issue that the world is facing at the present time. A lot of innocent people die and some get severely hurt as a result of multiple terrorist attacks. The physical, emotional and moral damages are oftentimes beyond repair and people are left screaming for justice. A lot of questions echo in everyones mind why does it have to happen Why do innocent people have to suffer the consequences How can the ones responsible for the attacks do such a thing However, it is hard to understand the reasons behind their agenda  whether it is for the common good of mankind or merely for selfish reasons. One thing is certain though terrorism is destructive and puts humans in an agonizing situation. Looking back at the forms of terrorism we have witnessed or heard all over the world  in Iraq, Afghanistan and the shocking 911 terrorist attack in New York among many others, can terrorism ever be justified

Terrorism in its broadest term can be defined as the unlawful use of violence, force and threats to intimidate or coerce for political purposes (dictionary.com). It causes a state of fear and submission. In most cases, it is inflicted by a person or an organization (terrorists) against people andor property with the intention of intimidating societies or governments often for political, religious and ideological reasons (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, 2009).

From this definition, it does not take a genius to see the negative implications of terrorism to the society we all live in. It puts the mankind in extreme danger and destroys everything that a lot of men had worked so hard for. Sadly, nothing is resolved from such evil act. Terrorism is just a manifestation in order to voice out or communicate demands and wants that, oftentimes, contradict the laws of the government and violates the rights of the people. Ruthless and notorious organizations resort to this act in order to threaten and force the government. The shocking truth is that innocent people are the ones who always end up as the victims of this injustice. This only proves that misunderstandings between two powerful and influential groups of the society have dangerous consequences. When one failed to satisfy the other or one had offended the other, a clashing of principles can lead to a deathly battle. Force, threats and violence are used as measures in order to show who is really more powerful and who is most likely to succeed in its mission.

Greed, hunger for power and wealth, abuse of authority and fighting for rights and principles are just some of the reasons behind terrorist attacks. Regardless of reasons, nothing can ever justify terrorism. No particular point or belief is reason enough to resort to terrorism. It is not a humane way to communicate, negotiate or express power and authority. There is no way to justify an act of terrorism because it violates the rights of the innocent people and demoralizes the country that is involved.

If we all try to look back at what happened during the 911 terrorist attack, it is so much easier for us to see a clear picture of what terrorism is. A lot of innocent people died  mothers, fathers, young adults, children and servants of the country. None of these people deserved their fate. No amount of sympathy can heal the wounds left by the 911 attack. Members of the families were lost, children lost their parents, people had lost their friends and many others were crushed and buried down. The entire American nation mourned. Many years had passed already but for those who lost their loved ones in that tragedy, the wound will never heal. The untimely and tragic deaths of their beloved will continue to haunt them. The 911 tragedy had created an ugly mark in the face of America.

If we read the paper or watch the news on television, we would oftentimes hear the words terrorist attack and suicide bombers. Such news causes a great deal of fear among people because they know that their safety is at risk.  Threats and news that are associated with terrorism creates chaos and panic among people and this is very unhealthy for the society. It can cause degradation and can affect the economy as well. The way people think and make decisions can likewise be affected. Thus it is important for the government to have sufficient measures to protect the people from terrorism as well as threats and other factors that are closely associated with it. It is necessary to be very well-prepared and well-equipped in order to fight off terrorism. The people should also be well-informed. It is their right to know on how they can protect themselves and what they can do in order to save one another. Moreover, promotion of peace and unity can help develop positivity among people. Resolution of problems should always be initiated by the government in order to protect its people and the entire nation. This is the biggest challenge that the entire world is facing at present  how to keep terrorism from happening.

It is important for two conflicting parties to communicate and arrive at a resolution to a problem. At the same time, it is always best for every nation to act prepared. It is also extremely necessary for the government and its people to unite. It is a challenge indeed and a very difficult one. However, promotion of peace all over the world  one person and one nation at a time  can make a difference. Unity, mutual respect and freedom can all help in fighting off terrorism. For every government, thinking about the welfare of its people above all things and setting aside all personal interests and ambitions can help in promoting peace and progress for the country.

There is really only one cause for terrorism. All of the many justifications for acts of terror all come down to this one thing. Terrorism is caused by hate. Virulent, vicious and vital hate (Devera, Helium.com, 10). There is no single or concrete plan to completely eliminate it, but people and nations can always unite to go against it and fight for their freedom and safety.

Terrorism will never be justified by any reason or means. Communication between the governments of various countries, promotion of a peaceful and safer world, setting aside personal and selfish desires and fighting off discrimination and prejudice can also serve as inspirations to spread freedom and unity. We can all start by making the first step and by instilling the rights values to all the children who are the future of this world. Through joint efforts, cooperation and mutual and government support, there is a way to stop the growing hatred between nations, organizations and religions. Therefore, peace efforts can be successfully promoted to the rest of the world.

The question concerning the human life is one that has been provided many different answers for a very long time. Man has been trying hard to understand this concept and as a result come up with different theories and models in explaining it. These theories have provided varying answers to this question. Some of the theorists who have come forward to explain this question are William Fairbairn and Sigmund Freud. It has been revealed through research that the structural model of the psyche as put forward by Fiarbairn is completely different, and in fact an objection to the structure theory constructed by Sigmund Freud. The two theories provide different approaches to the study of psyche. While Freud creates the model of drivestructure, Fairbairn comes up with a completely different model of relationalstructure model. The two models have become very important resource in psychoanalysis. Despite this the uses of the two have been employed differently owing to the fact that the two are different. While the theory of Freud has been in use for a long time, the theory of Fairbairn has increased in popularity just recently. This does not mean that the model of Freud is no longer used (Mitchell and Black, p. 34). This paper seeks to prove that against the theory of Fairbairn, the theory of the drivestructure is the only fundamental basis of understanding psyche.    

Summary
Sigmund Freud is the brain behind the drivestructure theory as detailed in his book Freud argues that life is determined by the pleasure principle. Life is a continuous pursuit of happiness. This means that happiness or pleasure is the primary element in life. According to Freud, there is no provided meaning of human life. Religion as it tries to give the purpose of life is mistaken. It is simply a childish desire in a mature person to get back the protective figure of childhood. The concept of religion comes up where human beings seek to distance themselves from the suffering in the world. This is one way that human beings use to adapt to the world that is full of suffering. The ego comes up from when one is young over the oceanic feeling when one realizes that there are some destructive features of reality that he or she wants to avoid in life. At the same time, to ago hopes to avoid unhappiness and the aspects of reality that denies it pleasure. It is for this reason that the ego establishes itself in such a way that it hopes to achieve pleasure. The adaptation of the ego in what Sigmund refers to as the pleasure principle is where it realizes that the reality has to be encountered. Freud puts forward the claim that the purpose of life is simply the programme of the pleasure principle (Freud, 1989, p, 62). Freud in his theory provides the different ways through which human beings are able to adapt to the world such that they are able to secure pleasure. In his theory he provides three basic elements that cause unhappiness. The three are our own painful and mortal existence, the cruel and destructive aspects of the natural world, and the suffering endemic of the reality that we must live with other human beings in a society. According to fraud the last aspect is perhaps more painful to us than any other (Freud, 1989, p, 81).
One of the ways that Freud puts forward for the achievement of happiness is intoxication. Though the working of this method is not fully understood, there are some chemicals when introduced to the body tends to cause sensations of happiness. There are some elements that are natural to the body that operates in the same way as intoxication. This is for example what is commonly known as mania, which is a pathological state. Similarly the natural mental state has the tendency of experiencing pleasure while other times it exhibits displeasure. The element of intoxication does not only work to provide pleasure but also to offer some aspects of independence from the world that causes displeasure. The other way of escaping displeasure is through what is commonly known as Yoga. This is where the person practicing it gives up all the activities, seen as sacrificing all his life to achieve the pleasure of quietness. This is what happens when human beings are attempting to control their institutional life. The other way of avoiding suffering is by employment of displacement of libido. This is the element through which the mental components allow of and via which its functioning achieves flexibility. The mechanism in this case is the shifting of instinctual aspirations in a manner that they cannot arise against suffering from the outside environment. The model provides many other ways that an individual seeks to find pleasure. While some are through escaping from the external world that cause suffering and displeasure, other are through coming into contact with the world, thus coming out with strong aspects that lead one from the displeasure. Through the understanding of the different ways through which the body derives pleasure, it is easy to evaluate and analyze the psyche (Freud, p. 42).

Freud held to the belief that human beings are driven by two key desires. The first one is the life drive, which is the libido or the Eros. The other drive is the death drive which is known as Thanatos. His definition of Cathexis, whose energy is referred to as Libido, comprises of all the creative, life-rendering forces. The anticathesis are the forces that are natural to all human beings to go back to the state of quietness, which is the state of death. His approach to the contradiction between the two drives is the definition of happiness and unhappiness. Freud defines unpleasure as the stimulus that the body obtains. Pleasure on the other hand is as a result of the reduction in the stimulus. If happiness goes up as the stimuli goes down, then the final experience of happiness would be zero. This is according to Freud, death.  Freud acknowledges the propensity of the unconscious to go over unpleasurable occurrences so as to cause death to the body, or to desensitize it. This tendency is what explains the nightmares that happen in dreams. Nightmares are repeated in just the same way as the unpleasurable experiences in life (Freud, p. 72).  

The Rebuttal
The model of William Fairbairn is a complete refute to the theory of Sigmund Freud as will be established in this section of the paper. The theory of Fairbairn is a distinctive psychoanalytic model that has become widely used in psychoanalysis. His theory is basically on human object relatedness. This is why it is known as relationalstructure theory. The model of Fairbairn is a total rejection to the structural theory as developed by Freud. Fairbairns model is aimed at completely discarding the drivestructure model. He revealed human beings as being object-related by their innate character. His fundamental unit of evaluation is the self-in relation to others. The relationship with the outside world is basically in relation to the others. Fairbairn argues that the self is innate and that the only way to understand it is by evaluating its relationships that it has. According to Fairburn the shape of the self grows and changes from its experience in relationships, while at the same time the nature of the relationships it has are being shaped and changed by that self (Fairbairn, 1952 p 7). The theory reduces the study of the human psyche to the analysis of relationships. Unlike the views of Freud, Fairbairn maintains that the self expresses itself continues to develop (Fairbairn, p. 32).

It is argued that the theory of Fiarbairn, unlike that of Freud provides greater weight to the study of intrapsychic functioning. It provides deeper understanding of the inner world, unlike the drivestructure model that focuses a lot on the external world as related to the life drive or the death drive. Fairbairn holds that the interpersonal and the intrapsychic realms create, interpenetrate, and transform each other in a subtle and complex manner (Fairbairn, 1952 p. 9). This is what makes the theory a relational one and as such more superior to the drivestructure theory (Fairbairn, p. 91).

Key to the concept of Freud of the organization of the psyche is the basic subsistence of energetic, chaotic unit, the id. The basic principle is the instant and haphazard discharge of its stimulus-associated and endogenous pleasure. According to his theory, the creation of the ego is in order to create contact between the psyches energetic foundations in the id and the reality of the outside world. From this point of view, Freud alienated the structure that is used in the achievement of self-expression from the energy inside the self that is need of being expressed. This where there is conflict between the two theorists. Fairbairn adapted the conception that it is not possible to alienate the structure and the energy. He argued that both structure divorced from energy and energy divorced from structure are meaningless concepts (Fairbairn, 1952, p. 149). The structure is the one that provides form to the energy. Additionally, there is no way that the energy can exist devoid of the form, cannot be considered apart from the endopsychic structures which they energize and the object relationships which they enable these structures to establish and, equally, instincts cannot profitably be considered as anything more than forms of energy which constitute the dynamic of such endopsychic structures (Fairbairn, 1952 p. 85).

Fairbairn completely inverts the position held by Freud in maintaining that the relationship with the object is the main objective and that happiness is only a secondary result. He thereby wrote that The function of libidinal pleasure is essentially to provide a signpost to the object (Fairbairn, 1952, p. 33), and added that The real libidinal aim is the establishment of satisfactory relationship with objects (Fairbairn, 1952, p. 138). To him the pleasure principle instead of being a general principle of self-expression represents a worsening of behavior. This means that contrast to what Freud argues happiness or pleasure is not the fundamental principle (Mitchell and Black, p. 62).

The reply to rebuttal
The structural theory is the basic concept in the definition of psychoanalysis in general. Therefore acceptance of the theory by Fairbairn in totality means abandoning the structural theory by Freud. There is no way of fully understanding this area without reference to drivestructure theory. It is the starting point in understanding psychoanalysis. This means that it is not possible to completely abandon the drivestructure theory in psychoanalysis. It is important to note that even the British object-relations philosophers like Winnicott (1965), have made efforts to maintain the connection with the theory of Freud. It means that the theory was and remains superior to all the other theories developed there after, this includes the relationalstructure model (Mitchell and Black, p. 123).

Despite the fact that Fairbairn tried to completely divert from the drivestructure theory, he has used some terminologies that are directly obtained from the theory. This only means that there is no way of abandoning this theory completely. Its importance is evident in the theory of Fairbairn who was employing a lot of effort to completely divert from the theory. Even in his theory, he used terms like ego and libidinal in very important parts in his model. This is despite the fact that their use is not completely similar as in the drivestricture theory. Fairbairns employment of the term object is misleading. This is due to the fact that it does not begin with conveying its extensively departure from the drivestructure theoretical concept of object. This reveals the fact that there is no revealed distinction between object in the theory by Fairbairn and that of Freud. Despite the fact that Fiarbairn carefully defines the terms that he borrows from the drivestructure theory, his employment of the language of the model by Freud, caused a lot of confusion into the comprehension of his work. It is evident that despite the efforts of Fairbairn to discard the drivestructure model, he could not achieve this without an impact to his own work.

Despite the fact that the relationship between self and others is important in understanding life, it is not the basic unit. Just as put forward by Freud, it is important to understand individuals drive in life. This is also the only way of understanding these human relations. By studying the psyche as an analysis of the relationships, the theory of Fairbairn looses the meaning of individuality. This is what is captured in the theory of Freud. It is possible through the employment of the drivestructure model, to study the psyche without the analysis of relationships. It would be significant for Fairbairn to expand on the drivestructure model so as to begin from the self as a separate entity, and then go on to study its relationship with others (Freud, p. 91).  

The theory of Fairbairn establishes the idea of the self as a fundamental departure. For him, it is not a self-concept, or self-representation. It is always transformed by the relationships. It does not exist in itself without the relationship. This is not true because the self is a separate entity first and should thus be viewed and evaluated as such before considering its relationship with the object. The object is not more important than the self as Fairbairn claims.  Despite the fact that it is possible for the self to be shaped and transformed by its relationship with others, and does partly define itself in connection to those relations, it can express itself, and exists separate and before the relations (Freud, p. 101).  
It is only through the study of the external world that it is possible to understand life. This is because although the internal environment is important in understanding the human psyche, what impacts more on it is the external environment. It is the external environment that either gives or denies people the will to continued living. Where the external environment presents harsh conditions to a person, it denies him pleasure and hence the enthusiasm to continue living. This is what determines the nature of life that a person leads and his state of thought (Freud, p. 102).  

It is misleading for Fairbairn to claim that happiness if a secondary consequence.  This is because as Freud put it pleasure is what life is all about. Most of the things that human beings involve themselves in are in pursuit of pleasure. Pleasure principle there fore remains the basic principle and is therefore not a deterioration of behavior as argued by Fairbairn (Freud, p.65).  

Conclusion
This paper seeks to prove that against the theory of Fairbairn, the theory of the drivestructure is the only fundamental basis of understanding psyche. It has been revealed from the research that the theory of Fairbairn is completely different from that of Freud. While Freud model is drivestructure model, the one for Fairbairn is relationalstructure model. The theory of fraud is superior to that of Fairbairn in that it starts as its basic level, the individual. On the other hand the basic level for the theory of Fairbairn is the relationship between the self and other. It is not possible to evaluate the relationship before determining the drive to that relationship. It is evident from the research that despite the fact that other theories of psychoanalysis have come up, the drivestructure theory remains superior to all the others.

Hailed as Platos greatest masterpiece, the Republic is considered one of the best guides of ethics and politics not only in a5th century Greece but in modern and contemporary times. Just like in the Dialogues, throughout all the sections or books of the Republic, the main character is Platos mentor, Socrates, whose conversations with prominent Greek personalities on the subjects of ethics and politics the former documents. Book One is particularly important as it opens the series of dialogues that discusses ideas relevant to human nature and the definition of a good man. This paper seeks to present the views of Plato on the subjects of wealth, friendship and justice as it relates to the idea of what a good man should be.

The Important Points of Republic I on Human Nature
The ideas on human nature and goodness in Book One of the Republic are hinged upon the important points in the conversations among Socrates, Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus.

On Wealth. Socrates talks to Cephalus in the first part of the first book of the Republic. Socrates is curious about Cephalus mild demeanor when it comes to his wealth.

First of all, Socrates states that in order for one to value money, he has to make it himself. He speaks of this important concept in the following statement of his to Cephalus Men who have made money take this money seriously as their own creation and they also value it for its uses as other people do (Plato, Republic I, 330c). Socrates points out further that those who have themselves acquired their money have a double reason in comparison with other men for loving it (330c) and so the men who have made money are hard to talk to since they are unwilling to commend anything except wealth (330c). In short, Cephalus states that the best thing about wealth is that it can save us from being unjust and thus smooth the way for an agreeable afterlife (Brown). This is clearly one of the best insights on human nature related to wealth. This line implies that a good man is supposed to make his own money in order for him to appreciate it much and to value it. Wasteful men who do not value their money may have been those who did not make their own money and have acquired it only through inheritance.

The second important point regarding how wealth relates to human nature is that a good man should know that the importance of money is for him not to cheat his fellowman. Socrates asks Cephalus What do you regard as the greatest benefit you have enjoyed from the possession of property (330d). And after a long explanation, Cephalus answers, I affirm that the possession of wealth is of most value not to cheat any man and not remaining in debt to a god for some sacrifice or to a man for money and it has also many other uses (331a-331b). It is clear from a Cephalus statement that the purpose of money is not to do harm to ones fellowman even though this harm is unintentional. He therefore presumes that a man who does not have enough money has a natural tendency to wrong his fellowman. It is therefore imperative that people should make money for such a purpose.

On Friendship. From the subject of wealth as it relates to human nature, Socrates concludes that the purpose of acquiring wealth is somehow based on the idea of doing justice to ones fellowman. And this idea of justice extends to friendship.

In the conversations between Socrates and Polemarchus, one of the conclusions they have arrived at is that it is but just for one to do good to his friends and not to do evil. This is explicitly stated by Polemarchus as Friends owe it to friends to do them some good and no evil (332a). This is based on the saying according to Polemarchus that according to Simonides, it is just to give to each what is owed or due to him (Humphrey), which means that because your friends do good to you and not bad, then it is but just to return the favor.

Polemarchus also says that in order to do justice to ones enemies, one should do to him what also is proper for him and some evil (332b). This means that since ones enemies do bad things then one should give them a taste of their own medicine through doing bad things too.

On Justice. Both the aforementioned subjects of wealth and friendship as they relate to human nature can be reduced to the idea of justice. The ideas on how justice relates to human nature are somehow lifted from the dialogue between Socrates and Thrasymachus.

A just man first of all should not try to take advantage of another man. Socrates asks Thrasymachus, Do you think the just man would want to overreach or exceed another just man (349b) and he answers, By no means (349b). This means that a just man recognizes the fact that since the other person has not wronged him, he has no right to wrong him either.

However, Thrasymachus states that a just man would deem it proper and just to overreach an unjust man, although the just man wouldnt be able to (349b). This means that if someone wrongs a just man, he would think it is but just to retaliate, only that out of kindness he might not be able to do it. However, it is implied here by Thrasymachus that a just man may rejoice when the unjust are punished for the former thinks just punishment is well-deserved.  However, it is believed that this provides a contrast to the preciseness of Socrates claims (Kanak). Nevertheless the just man is still better than the unjust man, for the just man does not seek to take advantage of his like but of his unlike, but the unjust man of both.

From the aforementioned statements, it has been concluded that the just man is like the wise and good, and the unjust is like the bad and the ignoramus (350c). The wise and good man, or the just man, according to the Republic, is not really someone who accepts all ridicule and unjust treatment without question. He is rather someone who treats in a good way those who do good to him and may choose to treat in a similar way those who do bad things to him.

This is basically the idea of a just and good man based on the first book of the Republic.

Conclusion
The good man according to Book One of the Republic is the man who is just. Specifically, he is a firstly a man who makes his own wealth in order that he may appreciate it. He is also one who recognizes that the importance of money is for one to be able to treat his fellowman justly and to avoid causing any unjust treatment (Kozlovic). Moreover, a good man is one who gives to his friend what is due him and to his enemy some evil that he rightfully deserves. Lastly and most importantly, a good man is a man who does to others what others do to him, whether this is good or bad, although out of kindness he may choose not to do something bad. Nevertheless, a good man believes that a just punishment should serve its necessary purpose. We therefore learn so much from the words of Cephalus When a man lives out his days in justice and piety, sweet companion is with him, to cheer his heart and nurse his old age. (331a)

The public image of stereotypes and rhetoric is not very positive. They tend to attract negative attention in the context of the individual, race or ethnic identity. There is connotation which is attached to age, profession, gender, and image and racial identity of the person. The essence of the impact lies in the argument used for such specific stereotypes which provides people with the images based on which people process their information related to specific stereotypes. The inherent processing of the mental images is the key to the development of such stereotypes as well as the arguments used serve as rhetoric. The culture shapes the development of such stereotypes based on the popular publicity and imagery created by the community or the media. In some cases special attention is provided, in some cases they are ignored or heavily criticized. The key point is that in all cases they are categorized as stereotypes, which are different from the common masses. It is important to evaluate the situation of the specific stereotypes in the four categories as they really are.

Some of the stereotypes like politicians and senior citizens are over privileged and some like feminist and tattooed persons are underprivileged based on their mass identity and recognition. There is also the connotation of good and bad which is associated with the specific group of people whop have been chosen to be evaluated based on the rhetoric and the stereotype image they have created. There is need for compassion of underprivileged and hope for reform for hose ho are privileged. The differences in the background and cultural ethnicity also play an important role in the determination of such stereotypes and rhetoric related to it.

The label which has been marked as the characteristic for these four groups 1) Politicians, 2) Tattooed persons, 3)Feminists, 4) Senior Citizens has been negatively projected in the community and society. These four groups have to work very rigorously to break the cycle of image which surrounds them. They have been labeled and targeted by society, government agencies and the media which makes the rhetoric stronger against them. The image of a politician is that of an unreliable con artist who is manipulative, selfish, dishonest and not true to his words. The feminists play a very negative role in the mans world as having negative and rageful tendencies which goes to extreme of hating men in general for the wrong reasons, they are mostly inclined to be lesbians, who are staunch environmentalists. The image of the senior citizen is that they are forgetful, have chronic ailments, not considered fit enough to drive and are dependent and rigid in their frame of mind. People who are tattooed have been categorized as criminals, lawbreakers, violent and untraditional and unconventional. They are mostly associated with gangs and are strong rebels who duel on negative aspect of life. They are underachievers. These four categories are classic categories of stereotypes as they represent thoughts or images of the group which is not based on sound evidence or proof.(Moore  Parker, 2007, pg.122)

It is amazing to notice how these four categories long with many others can be identified with typical stereotyping of the individual based on the thought process and the images created by the community and the media. Sometimes it takes just one known source or individual to be identified with certain characteristics which leads to the generalization of the image. Politicians are one f the toughest stereotypes which can be penetrated through and broken for genuine grasp of the situation. In such roles media plays an adverse role in conforming with the stereotype. The feminists are targeted as negatively and have not been recognized for their zeal and their independent frame of mind. The tattooed person has to struggle for positive attention from the time he presents himself on any scene.  An elderly is never seen to be capable of independent existence and sound memory. It is always associated that sick and elderly are prone to accidents and legal issues and cannot take charge of their life on their own independently. Their judgment is always questioned.

There is need to pay attention to the kind of words and images which have been formed over time to describe these four groups in the eyes of the public. These words and images which have been directed to describe such characteristics in individual are the rhetorics which are based on the positive and negative statements made by the social organization and media to project such images(Moore and parker, 2007, pg.118).

The stereotypical issues are the result of the rhetorical devices used by the public machinery. These can be used carelessly to spin off an agenda and hence should be taken critically based on ethical inquiry. The images and the thought process are critical factors which support any such stereotypical beliefs. The report and study conducted by a group of researchers have confirmed that negative information has powerful impact on the impression it has to influence mind frame with regard to specific information in comparison to positive information.(Ito, 1998). Hence it is important to judge the statement or an opinion in the light of the rhetoric which is the basis of the manifestation of the stereotype.

Intelligent Design (ID) is a scientific theory which suggests that natural phenomenon like the formation of the universe, human organ system, and hierarchy in both the plant and animal kingdom is a result of a process that is ultimately guided by some form of intelligent design. It has become the major opponent of Darwins evolution, the scientific theory that everything around us is a result of natural selection and not based on any grandeur plan, which is currently taught in almost all schools of thought. Currently, the academic world is divided on the idea of whether ID should be taught in addition to evolution in science classes in public schools.

Those who criticize ID believe that it is simply a reformulation of Creationism, the belief that a supernatural being fashioned the entire universe which includes man. It is simply a strategic plan to return religious creationism back into the academe which is a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution that clearly states the separation of State and Church. Furthermore, they believe that ID provides pseudo scientific facts. Michael Behe in his article The Challenge of Irreducible Complexity Every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines attempted to provide scientific evidences which will link ID to the scientific world. Unfortunately, Michael J. Behe was keen to the details of each of his arguments and was able to refute all of it. When he suggested that the complexity of some biological functions directly points out the impossibility of Darwinian Evolution, he was cleanly and effortlessly refuted by Kenneth Miller. All of his arguments were then reversed in favor of Darwinian Evolution by providing scientific evidences that shows how evolution duplicates and modifies certain organ parts to suit the needs of a species survival. (Miller, The Flaw in the Mousetrap, par. 5). According to them, ID lacks scientific evidences which will characterize it under scientific inquiry. It is simply a philosophical inquiry which rests on theoretical assumptions alone.

On the contrary, ID supporters claim it is a scientific theory and is not motivated by any religious means. There may be certain similarities between the two but ID never claims that a supernatural being is the cause of things. It simply argues that it is based on a grand design and not a mere accidental result. Those who wish to discredit it are the one who have hidden motives for not permitting it to be discussed in the academe.

Any monopoly always results to abuses. Darwinian evolution is not yet a law. It is simply a theory. Laws are distinct from theories because it has been proven and accepted by the scientific community. Theories are a set of arguments which aims to answer a scientific inquiry yet lacks sufficient evidence to support it. Even after reigning supreme for several decades, it has not yet reached the next level.

Introducing ID in the classroom will create balance. It will further create an avenue for the students to practice their scientific reasoning by carefully analyzing and examining the evidences provided by the two school of thought. Teaching and indoctrinating are two different things. By introducing ID in the classroom, we provide them another theory to criticize. We do not discuss it to become an absolute doctrine but an avenue for them to utilize their reasoning skills. We should bear in mind that one aim of education is to foster critical thinking in the minds of the students. A way of achieving this is through argumentation and debate. There can be no debate if there is only one side of the pole.

My central argument is a causal deductive argument. Here are the premises in my argument
P1       Intelligent Design (ID) is a scientific theory which provides the students an alternative theory aside from Darwins Evolution which will allow them to practice scientific inquiry.
P2        ID is in accordance with the US constitution and does not violate the separation church and state rather it is in support of academic freedom.

Conclusion ID should be taught in addition to evolution in science classes in public schools because it further enhances critical thinking.

-our common notion of seeing right and wrong is flawed
-our common notion of seeing right and wrong today came from religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam
-it is flawed because these religions are limiting and suppressing the natural tendencies of human being such as sex, war, self-interest etc
-In terms of sex, Nietzsche sided for the ancient Greek orientation in sex that is more liberal and more open. Homosexuality is even rampant in ancient Greece and it is accepted in their society.
-for Nietzsche, it is unacceptable to limit the natural tendency of human beings

Disproving Nietzsche using Hobbes
-Hobbes argument will came from his work entitled LEVIATHAN
-in the Leviathan, Hobbes imagined a hypothetical society wherein there is no limit to the actions of human beings. This is comparable to what Nietzsche is proposing.
-in this society, anyone can  do whatever heshe wants
-in this society, there is no outside defining element such as government, moral system or religion that can dictate human actions
-this society is called STATE OF NATURE
-this kind of society, the state of nature is a failure
-the life in this kind of society is defined by Hobbes as short, nasty and brutish
-people will kill each other and will not be prosecute by doing crimes against other people
-after living the harsh conditions of state of nature, the people decided that they need to let go some of their rights to be able to form an entity that will safeguard them against the interest of other individuals
-in the book, metaphorically, this is the LEVIATHAN (a sea monster), this is Hobbes metaphor the creation of a government or moral system wherein individuals will surrender in exchange for the security of their lives.
-this hypothetical example of state of nature had proven us that Nietzsche proposed society that lacks the limitation of religion is impossible to sustain. His society can lead to another state of nature.

The Dark Knight
-I used this example to show how human beings can deny their selves (even at the cost of their lives) to be able to attain something that is bigger than life (life after death, non-guilty conscience)

Conclusion
-After we define Nietzsche and we found out his main criticism lies on mainstream religions limitation to our lives and instincts, we debunk it using Hobbes example of state of nature. If we are to follow Nietzsche proposal, discouraging the moral system of religions, it is possible that we can fall again to the state of nature of Hobbes. As we see, humanity cannot withstand the arrangement and condition in the state of nature. In this sense, Nietzsche proposal will fail because the society that he is proposing is not sustainable.

Love, being one of the central concepts of Platos dialogue, Phaedrus, had provided as an extensive discussion of this common yet misunderstood concept. The Phaedrus, through the lips of Socrates would provide us a unique way of understanding love that is far beyond the popular concept of love in the past and in todays world.

For both Symposium and Phaedrus, Plato regarded love that is directed only on physical beauty and pure sexuality as a mere waste of time. Love in this earthly form is a degraded and corrupted form of love from its purest sense. For Plato, the goal of love is not to define and discover what is already in this world but to discover and see what is beyond this realm. Hence, Plato is talking here the world of forms wherein the real beauty is the Form of Beauty itself. We can find in the world of forms the purest and the source of all what we can see in this world (e.g. perfect love). Unless love is directed towards the sought of these higher form of wisdom, love cannot go any further. It will become stacked to world that is corrupt and degrading (247d - e). Therefore, for Plato, a lover must see beyond what the human eyes can see. Though Plato does not discourage physical beauty in its self, Plato prescribed that we must take a look past what the physical world manifest. This is because the real beauty cannot be found in its physical form but rather to the intellectual realm which can only be reached by your intellectual dedication

What is the ultimate expression of love then The answer in this question lies on the Platonic Socrates discussion on Phaedrus. According to him, love in its highest term and form is expressed by some kind of madness. In this proclamation of Socrates, it is important to note that he had shown earlier that madness is not as bad as the common first impression. For Plato, being mad will not do bad things exclusively. He debunked the earlier speech redelivered by Phaedrus (even Socrates first speech). These two speeches spoke of madness as something that is exclusively bad and shall not bring any benefits for the lover and the beloved. In these new position however (third speech), madness is seen as the highest expression of love. He argued that madness can be inspired by the gods. This includes the different kind of madness which was referred as divine madness. This includes gift of prophecy, mystical rites and rituals, poetry and finally loves itself (244b-245a). This argument cleared madness in terms of love from a negative connotation.

Being passionately in love is being mad. Madness in this term is like the possession of something that is outside the lover. The highest form of love is an individual who is mad and obsessed to his or her pursuit of wisdom. The individual dedicate himself to the pursuit of things that is outside him and the realm that is beyond our current world. What he is mad on discovering about is the Truth, the Beauty and the Being in its purest form which cannot be found here on Earth but on the world that is higher and beyond our comprehension.

The pursuit of love is most important in the development of a person. To explain this, we must first understand Platos conception of the structure of the soul. He compared the soul to a chariot with a pair of winged horses and a charioteer. For Plato, each part of the chariot corresponds to each part of the soul. The charioteer is the reason, the first horse correspond the spirit and the second and the last horse is the impulse. According to him, gods have a fully functioning, noble and good charioteers and horses. However, for mortals, one of the horses is not functioning as its best. One of the horse is a corrupt horse that loss its wings and causes the chariot to fall in to the ground. The chariot will have a difficulty in flying towards the heaven where the Good, the Beauty and the Wise can be found. It is impossible for the chariot to make way upwards unless the other horse has been patched up. (246a)
The only cure for this kind of shortfall of the chariot is to heal the other horse. The only thing that will make possible his flight upwards is the desire for the quest of true knowledge. As the chariot realized that what he needs to seek can only be found above, he will be able to heal the short fall of the other horse and can make it way above in the realm of true knowledge and the gods wherein the true love of wisdom can manifest.

You may notice that Plato provided an extensive account of the different provinces of love. It is important for Plato to discuss love, it sources and its derivative to be able to define it. If he did not make this kind of effort, our conception of love will be stuck to a mere common way of interpreting love affairs which is shallower than it must be (i.e. exclusive to sexual and romantic affairs). For Plato, love is more than the physical contacts of the body and the urge and desire that envelop it. Love is not just a province of the physical realm but rather a province of realm of the forms or the realm of gods (245e).

By proving that the love is more than physical contact, Plato had proven us that love or at least true love is one of the goals that we should strive and aspire. By establishing the importance of love, he can then argue for the one of the most important way of living the human life. It is important to note here that the love that Plato is speaking is love for wisdom. This love of wisdom can be interpreted as the philosophy itself and its object. In this sense, Plato is encouraging that we must engage in philosophy.
You may ask, why philosophy What is the importance of studying philosophy What is the significance of loving wisdom For Plato, the pursuit of wisdom is the most essential goal of man. Wisdom is concerned with the things that are beyond this world. Plato believes that humans are not destined to be stacked in the affairs of this world. The true place of human is not here on earth but in a world that is beyond this earth where the real and true wisdom and knowledge lies.

Another important concept that will arise in our discussion of love is the famous Platonic love. What then is Platonic love Platonic love is indeed a kind of love that involves friendship while lacking sexual intimacy. However, there is another important factor that is important to note in defining Platonic love. For every mutual love, we must remember that something is shared between the two lovers. In a romantic love for example, the two lovers share and enjoy their passions. For two best friends, they share both commitment and trust. In a Platonic love, there is also a thing that is being shared by the two lovers  intellectual bond. Intellectual bond or the sharing of two Platonic lovers is their quest for the pursuit of both wisdom and knowledge (249a).

We had learned in Phaedrus a new spectacle on how we can see love. Rising from the conception of love that is shallow and only concerned earthly elements such as eroticism, emotions and passions, Plato had taught us how we can extract more out of love. Expanding the province of love not only here on earth, we had learned from Phaedrus that love is not only an affair of humans but also an affair of the world beyond us which we are ought to discover.

Essay
For every individual there is always a reason for every choice made. A situation was given to us in relation to the field of engineering. The situation started with a backgrounder, the need for safety is proportional to the danger of having an accident. Nothing is foolproof, yet we must try to minimize risks, and then continued with the question, if the public is still willing to run or to take such risks, who are engineers to refuse, and to say no. The question presented an argument. There are two enquiries that an engineer would deal upon. First is how will an engineer refuse from the demand of the public because of some ethical issues that one ought to consider Second is the fact of the demands of the tasks or the roles of the engineer Thus, what is an engineer Is there a good and bad engineer What makes them

Engineer practices the profession that deals upon or the person in-charge with the improvements of every institution, like the social, cultural, legal, economic, technological, and organizational system (Geistauts, Baker IV,  Eschenbach, 2008, p.21). Their role is to master mathematics and physics, science of engineering (Harris Jr., 2008) to be able to practically solve the technical problems from designs demanded, and to consistently produce high-class or astounding masterpieces (e.g. infrastructures such as roads, buildings, bridges, etcetera.). However, due to popular demands of the people and the society itself of a developed state reflected through their high buildings and world class bridges, some engineers are pushed beyond capacity making them decide unethical blueprint and projects. Still, this statement is yet to be proven.

An engineer is expected to have an ethics class. As a matter of fact, there were lots of engineers, and their each professional group who demands for due process to anyone who passed their limits, as recounted by Paul T. Durbin (2008, p.226). Engineer ethics focuses on the importance of acting ethically or on an analysis of what should be done in a particular situation or class of situations, which are incorporated to engineering training and teaching of engineering and management (Geistauts, Baker IV,  Eschenbach, 2008, p.21). As a foundation of ethics, engineering ethics implies the importance of determining the relation between risk and safety, difference between good or (competent) engineer and bad (incompetent) engineer, and the standards of due diligence.

 An engineer just like in any profession has codes to follow. A concrete example, which may serve as the overall- overview of a kind of a moral concerns of engineers is the one that the CIAPR or the Colegio de Ingenieros y Agrimensores de Puerto Rico follows. CIAPR or the Puerto Rico State Society of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors in English determined codes of professionals through the following professional context or that identifies who can or cannot practice engineering in Puerto Rico the context of corruption, that condemns anyone, through removal from profession and imprisonment, who uses their profession just for corruption context of social justice, is the most sensitive part as the context aims to discover the harmful social and environmental effects which are caused by the large scale government and private industry projects such as copper mining, designing and operating systems lastly, the context of craft where the value of the artistic side of the engineers are celebrated because of continuously providing large scales solutions (Frey  Carrillo, 2008, p.418).

 The following contexts seem to be improbable. Those were ideal, which is actually related to the relationship of risk and safety. Risk and safety in engineering was apparently implied in the context of social justice. The context of social justice risk is that it will expose or reveal the truth about large-scale businesses and companies whenever they crossed to the boundaries of the majority. This means that the engineers are responsible to deliver their services or formulate and make their crafts for the large people, at the same time they are responsible to safety the whole population or the majority. The environment is included in this because that is the source of the basic needs of people.

 Same story goes with enforcing due diligence, or the act by which engineers carefully create blueprints and formulate next steps. In a mishap or an accident for example, the engineer must know how to deal with it through knowing their people or the workers, the community and the site. The codes of ethics in Puerto Rico are applicable in this through, first, in preparing for the project an engineer must know how to act in professional matters for each employer or client as a faithful agent or fiduciary and avoid conflicts of interest or even the mere appearance of conflict of interest, and work to maintain independence in the exercise of professional judgment (Frey  Carrillo, 2008, p. 420). This can avoid possible accidents or conflicts making the project a less-conflict-faster-service project. Second from the codes number 5 and 6 that tell, topromote only relevant experiences and qualifications in seeking engineering work and avoid unfair competition with other engineers, and avoid deception in seeking employment and in offering professional services (Frey  Carrillo, 2008, p.420). This can avoid or prevent possible movements against the project that looses the projects place in other people. And, lastly, the first in the list, to avoid any accidents, an engineer must always, guard the safety, environment, health, and welfare of the community above all other considerations in the execution of professional responsibilities (Frey  Carrillo, 2008, p.420).

 Above all else, of course an engineer, to be called an engineer must be technically competent, which also means passing all subjects required in the first education, then gaining their internships, thus their licenses and being able to have another degree in order to be established and prominent in the profession. George Geistauts, Elisha Baker IV, and Ted Eschenbach (2008) defined technical competence as, technical competence means the professional is capable of providing an acceptable, expected level of service (pp.21-22). Otherwise, the engineer without dealing with all of this is incompetent.

However, a technical competent engineer is not the last phase of the profession. Another technical competence is known that requires a high level of professional conduct, meaning moral, accepted conduct that has integrity in what he is doing (Geistauts, Baker IV,  Eschenbach, 2008, p.22). The difference between the two kinds of competency is that one masters the scientific aspect of engineering while the other masters the inner or inside justification of engineering.

Charles E. Harris Jr. (2008) put emphasis on virtue ethics as a key motivator for engineers to be competent. He described virtue ethics profoundly by rooting it from the ancient beliefs and philosophers such as Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics (p. 155). Engineers need this because virtue ethics is also their characters ethics, meaning, the disposition that they have are motivated by the inner self, like the commitments that they render or will render to their future clients.( Harris Jr., 2008, p.156). Likewise, it is just good that engineers are taking courses such as philosophy, social science and humanities to detach them from being too much positivist or empirical.

Consequently going back to the question that was raised before, if the public is still willing to run or to take such risks, who are engineers to refuse, and to say no The answer, based on the discussion above was engineers must refuse if what the public demanded were not for the good of the majority, or if it will destroy the ecosystem, and, or if it will cause social impacts that may lead to chaos or bigger mishaps. Of course and without question an engineer has a say on this, on one reason he or she is the engineer, the creator and starter, thus he or she can say no or refuse to any requests against his or her will or dispositions.

On the contrary, based on the answers, there is another approach to this issue on engineering ethics. This came from another thinker that proposed a unique different answer but relevant and with a cause. Paul T. Durbins (2008) argument was that ethics was less important than professional responsibility or the service itself (p.231), he named this paper, Engineering professional ethics in a broader dimension, where I would like to give further emphasis on broader dimension. Simply he wants to tell that it is the personal behavior of every engineer that will determine their responses to any solicited and unsolicited criticisms. He argues that every peoples behavior change and it is their responsibility to make their image to the public good or bad (Durbin, 2008, p.156). Hence, the image or the individuals approach on ethical issues ands misconducts are not the problem of the other individual in the same profession, but these efforts in solving the problem of each individual must be passed to improving or answering and forwarding the general problems that the society have.

In conclusion, it appears in all information that the answer to the question is also questions. These questions will ask all impending problems that may be thrown at the projects that the public wanted. In adieu, all perspectives and the last all aid, still to a proper way in addressing the ethical considerations in engineering.

What is Fords point Why did he say this Is he right Does his view of American traditions have any bearing on the past, or on todays historians

Based on Henry Fords remarks, history for him is meaningless.  It can be inferred here that he did not care much about traditions for him, traditions were a matter of keeping the past alive and not think about the future.  As a pioneer in his field, he always focuses on the future and has no need of the past.
One of the problems with history is that it is sometimes the least favorite subject of any student in school, next to mathematics.  Most people tend to regard history as nothing more than storytelling and because of this, is downright boring and not so interesting.  Historians beg to differ in that regard.  While it is true that history is defined as either the past per se, or an account of the past, it does not necessarily mean it should be left that way, that is, to remain in the past.

Apparently, Ford and others like him appear to underestimate what history can do as a discipline.  History is more than just storytelling and it is more than just tradition.  History is a teacher.  It uses the past as a way of educating one at present and in order to prepare for the future.  This was something Ford seemed to have overlooked or took for granted.  History provides a background for anything to be studied, hence the term historical background.  Everything has a past because it has to start from somewhere.  It is this background that would provide the foundation for the present and if it were not for this, the present would not be possible.

Yet, Ford did have a point when he said that what is significant or matters more is the history we make today.  Anytime or point in ones life, that today, is an opportunity to make history but this is where Ford seemed to have stopped.  What he did not realize is that the history he made today would become part of the past of tradition.  It can be inferred here that Ford might be caught up in his ambitions and cared more about his own achievements and putting down that of others.  It can be said that Ford had probably committed a fallacy when he made this remark.  History is an integral part of human life and whether one likes it or not, it will still be there.  History has significance and to ignore its lessons or what it has to offer would be a great disservice to one.  If there is one thing about tradition that makes it significant, it provides stability and continuity.

Is history a science Why or why not Is science divorced from its own past What can science do for history. What (if anything) can history do for science Is scientific method a myth Does historical method exist Is it possible What is the relation between history, rationality and objective, verifiable truth
History is regarded to be both an art, a branch of the humanities and a science. History is regarded as a discipline of the humanities in the sense that the study of history is subjective.  When a historian studies historical evidence, there are more than one ways in looking at it.  Therefore, there are many ways to interpret a fact. Nothing is absolute and no one can dispute the validity since there is basis for arriving at the conclusion which the facts on hand.  A historian then cannot be accused of making up information or a conclusion from nothing.  This is what gives history its humanistic aspects, it is how one interprets the facts on hand.

History is considered a science for two reasons.  First, the study of history requires investigative research and the methods a historian uses is similar to what scientists so.  Secondly, historical facts are validated through theories to determine its validity (Ankersmit  Kellner, 1995, pp. 42).  Facts serve as the basis of truth and truth must be grounded in reason.  Historians are not mere storytellers and they do not make up stories. They are also investigators. The stories they make up are grounded on the facts they uncover and study.  They also possess the same skills as detectives and journalists in searching for information vital to the writing of history.  These information or sources they use to write history are called primary sources.  These can be ordinary things like a personal diary or a letter to significant ones like document that make history like a constitution or a treaty.  These would be used as a basis of writing history and when combined with other similar sources, a historian can now create a patter or chain of events and in doing so, make use of various theories or schools of thought to validate his or her study of the past.  This is how scientific method is brought into play.

In history, one of the virtues or goals of the historian is the accuracy of the facts.  History deals primarily with facts, which forms the basis of truth.  It is these (historical) facts that serve as the basis for writing history and one of the things historians do is to ascertain its accuracy by looking at primary sources.  This is what science does for history.  It provides it with (research) methodology and provides theoretical framework as a service to history in the search for truth and to determine its validity.

In any form of research, there is always the historical method.  Whenever one tackles a certain topic, it would often begin with a historical background which would entail conducting an investigation into the past.  This would mean examining pertinent data.  Like a puzzle, these data would be pieced together to form a clear picture of how things developed and become what it is at present.

Since history deals with facts, it is essential that accuracy is achieved.  In studying it, it must be done rationally, based on the theoretical and conceptual framework provided by science and when one draws a conclusion, it has to be objective (Lemon, 2003, p.7). Among historians, however, it would be realistically impossible to arrive at an objective conclusion.  The reason for being is that humans are prone to bias and this would taint the conclusion drawn up.  However, in fairness to the historian, as long as the facts would serve as the basis, he or she would not be accused of not being objective.  But the challenge now is how to get around the biases.  What is suggested is that historians be impartial.  This would probably be the closest a historian would get to being objective.  Impartiality entails looking at various perspectives, rather than limiting oneself to only one.  By viewing various perspectives, a historian would gain a much clearer insight and be able to draw a very reasonable conclusion.

All in all, history is a discipline that can encompass other disciplines.  If there is one significant contribution or role it plays is that it provides a backgrounder that serves as the foundation of any research being conducted as well as a starting point that helps define the direction of the study.
What is Thucydides point Why did he say this Is he right Does his view of Athenian history have any bearing on America, or on the problems we face today

Thucydides studied the Pelopennesian War.  In his point of view, the Greek forces led by Athens were facing defeat at a much more superior force than they have thought.  It can be inferred here that they did not know what they were getting to when they committed themselves to war.  The cyclical view of history was employed here and apt to repeat itself though the actors are different and in this case, it would be the United States in Vietnam.

Thucydides was probably the earliest to make use of scientific history because of his strict standards of obtaining information and analysis in terms of cause and effect without reference to intervention by the gods.  He had somewhat revolutionized the study of history by leaving divine intervention out of it and sought to study it as the cause of human factors, such as the case of the Pelopennesian War.

When he studied the war, he did not limit himself to studying the battles alone not simply chronicling accounts.  He assiduously borrowed from other disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, psychology and even economics even though these disciplines may not be non-existent in name.  He studied the socio-economic conditions of the belligerents, the mood of the people, as well as the incumbent governments.  All these were essential because they helped provide historians like Thucydides what would be called underlying circumstances.  It is these circumstances that would be the root cause of certain events in history to unfold (Ankersmit  Kellner, 1995 p.27).  The immediate cause would merely serve as the catalyst to set things off.  This was what made Thucydides arrive at his remark on what would become of the Greek (Athens) army.  In doing so, he was able to determine how humans would influence the outcome of events, not the gods through his careful research.

In applying the same principle during contemporary times, one can see that the same approach Thucydides took applies in studying American history.  This can be first applied in studying the Vietnam War.  The United States got involved with the hope of winning the war as they have done in past wars yet they lost.  To understand why, one has to look at various circumstances, not just the battles or military operations alone.  This would mean looking at the social, cultural, economic as well as political.  The confluence of these aspects would enable a historian to have a much deeper insight and understanding why the war turned out this way.  This same approach can also be used in Americas current war on terrorism as well using the same questions.

a) Explain what is meant by this contention
Organizations have undergone radical transformations in both economic and social spheres so as to ensure that every employee participates in decision making. In democratic socialist environment, organizations should be managed democratically to ensure that the needs of all the stakeholders are met, and not just to profit a few individuals. Running of an organization democratically is easy theoretically  but it is not easy to practice. The subject is about behavioral characteristics and skills. Leaders in the workplace are followed chiefly because they are trusted and respected. An organization will achieve its objectives only if there is peaceful relationships amongst different  stakeholders, and this is affected commonly by the leadership and management qualities such as integrity, commitment, sincerity, passion, confidence, wisdom, compassionate, humility and degree of personal charisma.

Honesty and effective communication skills win is bold. The statement is provocative and has yearned for attention from many managers. In a multicultural working environment, democratic socialists should not create a sophisticated bureaucracy but should not allow the employees to control the organizations. This calls for democratic socialism and economic decisions based on honesty and effective dialogue. It is the role of the of an organization to make peoples lives better as opposed to exploiting them at expense of making huge profits. Experiential ethics and democratic socialism implies that no individual should be exploited nor wasted because of other reasons. Socialists value the principle of equality and fairness, hence employees in such working environment expects vital political principles that reflects democratic socialist society. The commanding heights of the economy and the people in it can only be reached if honesty prevails. By virtue of being honest, leaders in the workplace will satisfactorily support state ownership of every individual enterprise.

Democratic socialism in essence is a state of an organization where all stakeholders are treated equally and work cooperatively for the common good of all. In the post-modern working environment, people are very cautious about their individual rights. The warfare of employees in organizations largely emanates from inability of the top management to exercise participative standards where transparency and honesty prevails. Honesty enables management to envision reforms which promotes equality and transparency hence peaceful coexistence between different stakeholders.

As a blue print with which and individual can identify personal or corporate principles, experiential ethics are applicable only if an organization establishes effective ways of achieving corporate objectives without causing any harm to some stakeholders. The implementation of corporate strategies is only possible if the responsible personnel possess effective communication skills to avert the obstacles arising from different in human experiences.  In a cosmopolitan health working environment, people will enjoy working if the job is meaningful and enhances their lives otherwise they work of out of a sense of irresponsibility to the organization. This usually occurs when the organization does not meet their needs and demands. There is need for the organizational managers to balance between the interests of the employees and the organizational objectives. In a health setting, the goals must ensure that the patients are well taken care of while  the employees are well compensated and  protected  from contagious and communicable diseases. However, it is sometime hard to adopt policies that are favorable to every individual in the organization. The responsible personnel have to be very bold enough but care should be taken not to coerce the employees.

 Importantly, strong communication skills are necessary to make some employees work. Conventionally, many health organizations have had problems when enforcing specific rules and principles. It is imperative to introduce a rule or a practice after educating the workers on its importance, advantages and disadvantages. Additionally, the organizational strategy should be introduced to the working environment after consulting them. Employees often resist any change because they fear that it might affect them negatively i.e. loss of employment. Management strong communication skills will only work out in case of employees resistance.

Generally, the contention implies that organizations operating under democratic social environment cannot progress in the absence honesty amongst their management. Honesty is the force behind thrive and success of all democratic organizations. It is impossible for democratic socialist organizations to enforce laws, regulations, policies and strategies without strong communication skills.

b) How might this combination of theories apply to the health care field
Health practices are very delicate hence calls for mutual understanding, democracy and transparency. All these virtues encompass the honesty principle. Health care practitioners are expected to display highest degree of honesty when dealing with the clients. The employees i.e. the nurses and the doctors should give truthfully information concerning health of patients. In some extreme cases, nursing practitioners hide health information or give deceptive information and demanding more pay from their clients. This is risking human life, and this is often prohibited by the law.

In order for a health practice to thrive and work to the best of health practitioners ability, strong communication skills is very important. This should not mean being pushy and intrusive, but the nurses be monitored positively so as to ensure that they undertake their duties effectively, ethically and professionally.

I. Introduction
The human social and personal life has become more and more complex. Over time, individual thinkers and intellectuals have consistently delved and investigated many important aspects of the human way of life. One of which is the investigation of how people rationalize their actions based on the socially-shared concept of right and wrong. Every time an individual acts, the deeply embedded instinct to question whether the action is right or wrong is influenced by the concept known as morality which is important in the society. Today, morality as an idea and as a practice and social feature remains unstable because it is still subject to change. This is the reason why morality is never cast in stone and that is why there is a saying that not all moral actions are legal and not all legal actions are moral. What morality affects is an aspect of life that greatly varies based on case-to-case situations and scenarios. It is difficult to define what morality is, and more importantly, what morality expects from the people. Helping the people understand that and manage this dilemma are the ideas of thinkers like John Stuart Mills, Immanuel Kant and Aristotle, who provided explanations and ideas regarding morality, what it is, what it entails, what to do with it, how to use it, etc. They are famous during their time and even in their present because of their intellectual gifts, how they used it and what resulted from it, these individuals proved to be instrumental in exploring and explaining the extent of morality and moral philosophy. They opened ideas regarding morality and moral philosophy that acted as guide for people to better understand it and live and act in accordance to what they believe are suitable tenets in their own way of life. History has viewed Kant, Mills and Aristotle as important pillars in the discussion of morality and moral philosophy. What people feel vis-a-vis what people are subjected to by law are all making its impact in how morality develops, shifts and change every day.  It is important that individuals have a solid understanding of what these ideas are, how they differ or are similar with other ideas and how it can impact human life.

II. Discussion
A. Morality
What is morality For the longest time, morality has been strongly debated by many of the worlds greatest thinkers in the hope of finding a concrete and definitive answer to this inquiry en route to a useful application of such ideas in practical everyday lives. In the past as well as in the present, morality has often figured significantly in the many different affairs and activities of human beings. It is a set of beliefs. It includes important aspects like punishment and reward system in societies as well as traditional practices among others. Society has been strongly dependent and influenced by the concept of morality especially those which are socially shared. Morality has long existed but in the past was hardly explored, explained and defined. With the works of philosophers like Aristotle, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills, among others, morality and the philosophy operating it has been explained and explored, especially in consideration to how people act or in anticipation of how people will and should act.

Morality is an important aspect of social and personal life that influences and dictates the actions of human beings and how the society and other human beings respond to it. It is hard to imagine world without the concept of morality as it is. It may be presented in another words or terms but the ethos of such idea will persist. The human nature is naturally attuned to discovering and exploring a natural aspect of human interaction such as morality. Through the established ideas of morality accepted by the society, an action is defined as right or wrong, moral or immoral (although in case to case basis it is often more complex than that).  Morality acts as a guide. The society hopes that through aspects like morality, people can have an organized set of actions and the social life will not fall into chaos. As an important indicator of what is right and what is wrong, morality and morals of the individuals have always been subjected to investigation. This is done to see if the existing parameter for the identification of morality and what is moral or immoral is acceptable, and if necessary, challenged to influence the entry of change.

Individuals like the thinkers Kant, Mill and Aristotle tried to find out and explain the implications of morality, as well as its scope and boundaries. They explained whether it is a simple code of conduct or is it something more, something reflective of the real and true character of the individual which is innate even without the influence of external rules. What is at stake is whether morality is essentially a system of rules, which persons can obey for whatever reasons, or something that is broader in its demands - a system that reaches to the ingredients of the characters or personalities of those who obey its rules.

B. Morality according to philosophers
i. Immanuel Kant  Immanuel Kant was a very insightful and talented thinker and intellectual who made his mark in history based on what he offered to the world as important ideas in many different fields of human way of life. His position on morality and moral theory is characterized by his creation of what is known as the Categorical Imperative or simply CI. For Kant, discerning what is moral or immoral is simply based on how the individual acts according to the Categorical Imperative. Being consistent with what the Categorical Imperative requires mean that the action and the individual is moral, while varying or deviating from the Categorical Imperative is equal to being immoral.

Basically, what Kant is trying to point out here via his Categorical Imperative is the idea that morality is something that should be hinged on a particular set of standards established and shared by the society pertaining to what is acceptable and what is unacceptable action. Kant rationalizes that the individual should be free to pursue or deviate from the Categorical imperative. The individual is a rational being and not a being that is merely driven by emotional motors without consideration to reason. He or she is free and endowed with autonomy to make the distinction in recognizing moral and immoral actions. The individual pursues what could be moral or immoral in the persons perspective and the perspective of other people or community.

Kants position on morality is found in his several published works which have been extensively read, critiqued and reviewed by other individuals, who, like Kant are also intently pursuing the philosophy of morality and the ideas affecting it. These include The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, followed by The Critique of Practical Reason, The Metaphysics of Morals, Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View. His writing entitled Religion Within the Boundaries of Mere Reason also touches the topic of morality and is important in moral theories.

ii. Aristotle - Aristotle is a thinker who has explored many different aspects of human social life and has contributed many different important ideas. One of the things that Aristotle talked about in his works is morality. Aristotle is known for his contribution to the philosophy of morality. Despite the fact that Aristotle is well respected as a thinker, critical analysis of his works on moral philosophy still revealed some key holes and weaknesses in his overall concept. Some of the ideas that Aristotle explored with regards to morality and moral philosophy include the idea that the main consideration in morality is having people consider what is best for the many and not for the few. Aristotles discussion of morality is also focused on virtue, and the consideration and role of money and material consideration and the weighing of material and non material considerations when it comes to what constitutes happiness. In turn, it is an important consideration in assessing moral and immoral actions. It can be considered that Aristotle was practical and realistic in his approach to explaining morality, even giving ideas in simple construction, like how it is not easy to be good, as reflected in his work Nichomachean Ethics.

iii. John Stuart Miller - John Stuart Mill has been considered as one of the individuals in the nineteenth century who talked about morality and provided new ideas regarding morality and moral philosophy. Many believed that Mills ideas were actually off shoot from other ideas in the past like those presented by intellectuals like John Locke and David Hume among others. Critics and analysts believe that what Mill did was consolidate some of the important ideas of these philosophers and develop and new approach in understanding morality and moral philosophy to help guide people and their way of life and way of thinking. This results to a society in tune with moral paradigms and is assisted in defining what is right and wrong actions and way of life. Mill is identified with the utilitarian approach in moral philosophy. This means Mill believes in the idea that the morality of the action of the individual is assessed by the consequences of that action which makes considerations on action utilitarian. The society judges the actions based on what it can do to the people or society.

C. Similarities
The three philosophers provide moral philosophy outlooks that share similarities based on what they imply and based on its characteristics as well. For example, critics and analysts believe that the theories of the three in morality are considered as normative. These are the kinds of theories that people should value and put importance to. Kant, Mill and Aristotle are offering normative theories theories of what we should value. The moral philosophy design of Aristotle, Mill and Kant also shares the similar belief that part of the concept to be good which is important in morality is the recognition that it is difficult to act in such a way that is perceived by the society as good. The concept of what is difficult and what makes the actions difficult vary from one philosopher to the other. Also, morality plays an important part in Mill, Kant and Aristotles explanation of other related concepts integral to morality, like ethics, for example.

One of the similarities of the three individuals with regards to their pursuit of and contribution to the concept of morals, morality and the moral philosophy is that they are all responsible each for three different perspective, approaches and ideas on morals and morality based on what they have popularized. Aristotle has his Nicomachean Ethics while Kant has his Categorical Imperative. Lastly, Mill has his Utilitarianism. Kant and Mill, two philosophers whose lives are closer to one another compared to the differences in time span with that of Aristotle, has become a factor that resulted in the creation of similarities in their ideas regarding moral philosophy. Larmore explained that the moral philosophy of both Mill and Kant are considered as liberal theories. It is characterized by consistent similarities between the two moral philosophies that featured ideas such as the autonomy and independence of individual in relation to morality, among others. Liberal political theory since Kant and Mill has usually presented itself as an all-encompassing moral theory committed to overall personal ideals such as autonomy or an experimental attitude towards ways of life.

Both Kant and Mill also focused on the role and importance of virtue, citing the idea that virtue is a driving force behind achieving morality. Morality, in turn, is realized because of how virtue manipulates individuals towards action. Kant and Mill both wrote about the importance of virtues. Still, in their views of morality, what makes for a virtue is the fact that the agent acts in accordance with the fundamental principle of morality. Also, another similarity, this time between Kant and Mill, is their similar use and advocacy regarding human freedom regarding action and the pursuit of morality. For these two individuals and their moral philosophy, an important idea postulated is that of the role of autonomous human beings being empowered by freedom to choose their actions and by themselves consider what is moral and what immoral actions are.

An important characteristic of the ideas of Kant, Mill and Aristotle when it comes to moral philosophy is the shared similarity of the three which made them a collective whole in the analysis of moral theory and philosophy. Prinz, in his book The emotional construction of morals, explained that when moral philosophies are examined collectively, Mill, Kant and Aristotles ideas comprise a particular group from which other groups involving different ideas are compared and contrasted with. An example is how the approaches of Hume and Nietzsche are compared to the collective similar ideas of Mill, Kant and Aristotle. It is important to see that Hume and Nietzsche are doing something very different from Kant, Mill and Aristotle.

D. Differences
i. The different ideas - In many different ways, the philosophical approaches of these three individuals vary from one another. For example, both Aristotle and Mill put forward reasonable, practical and understandable constructs and designs for their moral philosophy and the expectations of the humans and the societies in this matter. In comparison, Kant appears to be extreme in his ideas and in his expectations of the people and the society if his approach on moral philosophy would be followed. For example, Kant was expecting that the rest of the society and other people will rigidly follow behaviors indicative of moral behavior when the truth is, it is more complex than this. Also, Aristotle and Mills moral philosophies are considered teleological while that of Kant is considered deontological. Others believe that Aristotle was developing something which differs from the point of focus of the works of Mill and Kant, especially in the idea that moral philosophy can be a guidebook for some, while for others simply the identification of the idea good person.

ii. Differences in lieu of God, religion and morality - In comparing the approaches, perspectives and moral takes of these three individuals on morality, morals and the philosophy of morality, it is noticeable how the concept of god and religion has often figured in this equation, and how the three individuals handled them differently. There is Kant who believes that the autonomous individual exercises free will and the belief that this act is a manifestation of Gods will and that reason is used to identify and understand morality. Mill, on the other hand, believes that morality does not include God in the equation and the identification of morality is dependent strongly on the consideration of the individual of his happiness or pleasure. Unlike Kant who believes that as morality is dependent on the individual, so is the individual answerable for his actions on morality and immorality. Mill believes that the individual is not the only entity answerable in morality but society as well.

It appears that Aristotle sides with the idea that morality is dependent on the conscious course of action of the individual. This creates moral virtues which in turn influences and determines actions and whether or not they lean towards morality or otherwise. In the idea of virtue, differences are found, especially in comparison to the moral philosophies of Aristotle, Kant and Mill wherein Mill and Kant are in similar standing in the idea and concept of virtue different from how Aristotle perceived it. For Aristotle, virtue is basic in a way which it is not for Kant and Mill. That is a crucial difference that is reflected in their theories as overall. Aristotle provides a very good model for morality, explaining that morality and the pursuit of moral living should be aided by other aspects of life, like education. By being educated, the individual can act better in a way that morality is being considered more significantly in the actions.  

E. Analysis
An important consideration to the understanding of, as well as appreciation, of the moral philosophies of the three moral philosophers is not just based on what the individual analyst or critic is experiencing at the moment and what the individual is biased for or against. Rather, it is based on the context by which they are trying to define and explain morality. It is important that regardless of their differences and similarities as ideas. All of these perspectives are based on an important foundation, and that is the reason through which the philosopher propels his or her ideas (in this case his since all three are male philosophers).

As Rosenstand explained it, analysis and criticism of any of these ideas first require the individual to be able to understand the point of reason of these philosophers, why they are trying to say what they are saying and why this is how they see things. If we were to ask Kant, Mill, Aristotle, or just about any moral thinker, he or she would say we must try to appeal to their reason. This phenomenon, in a way, is indicative of the social condition. Societies vary from one another when it comes to their collective idea of morality as well as the differences in the personal preferences on morality. They all have their reasons why their morality and their moral philosophies are designed as it is.

III. Conclusion
The philosophers Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill and Aristotle are individuals and thinkers who explored and discussed morality and in the process helped people in defining standards for life and way of life. These individuals are important because people has the need to understand how they should act and under what considerations. It is an idea that is important and crucial in the concept of morality and moral philosophy. Through these individuals and their ideas which are similar and different in one or many different points, people are given the chance to assess their actions and see if they are good or bad depending on the moral guides that they follow. Kant, Mill and Aristotle are telling us what we should value.