heart of darkness :: essays research papers

Settings: Story took place during the 19th century (1901). The characters in the story were all over the world in different times of their lives. the main character: The main character, Marlow, is a hard to convince man, paranoid man who tells lies although he says at the beginning that he can't stand lies, just so he will be able to live without having to bear the weight of truth on his shoulders. He is an average man. He had a sunken cheeks, a yellow complexion and a straight back as the story describes. additional characters: A lawyer: the lawyer, described as the best of all fellows, is a good honest man who does only good things. He is remembered for his good virtues and he got rewarded for that and was given the opportunity to have the only cushion on deck. A director: the director, also most responsible for the anchor, was a big strong man. He loves to socialize with the ship members. Assay: In the story Heart Of Darkness, the main character makes a decision to go against his convictions by telling a lie about Kurtz1s death to the intended. After careful analysis of the situation, you can see that Marlow is justified in lying to the intended because the lie enables Marlow live the rest of his life without having to bear the weight of truth on his shoulders. Marlow comes to understand and to accept Kurtz1s view of life. The things that Kurtz had both done and seen in his life were in fact horrible, but was something that Marlow was able to look past. He condemning mankind as a whole with this statement. . This is why Marlow keeps the words to himself. It allows him to preserve hope both in the intended, and more importantly in himself. In this story, the main character is faced with with a decision. He had the option to either tell the woman the actual final words of her loved one, or to make up new ones which she would find soothing. Marlow choose the the latter of the two, but it was almost as though he was unable to tell her the truth.

The Satire of Animal Farm :: Animal Farm

The Satire of Animal Farm Orwell's book, "Animal Farm", is full of satire. This satire is Orwell's way of communicating problems and resolutions. The main message in Animal Farm is that power cannot be divided equally. There will never be equality for all. Once power is obtained it is always abused, and power causes all to think as the leader does. Equality does not exist, for it is impossible for everyone to be equal. There will always be a leader and there will always be followers, and they will never be equal. A society in which all are equal will never exist because people will have different opinions on the way that the society should be run. "This arrangement would have worked well enough if it had not been for the disputes between Snowball and Napoleon. These two disagreed at every point where disagreement was possible." Snowball and Napoleon are battling for control of the farm, they both want to be the leader because they know that the leader has the most privileges. The animals that are in charge, the pigs, do less work than the other animals. "All that year the animals worked like slaves." The title of leader is highly sought after, because the leader tells everyone what to do without actually having to work. The pigs not only do less work but they receive more food. "Once again all the rations were reduced, except those of the pigs and the dogs." The fact that the pigs receive more food than the other harder working animals, shows that the farm is full of inequality. This type of governing is wrong, and Orwell wants it to stop. Less power should be given to the leader, so that the leader and his followers can be more equal. Once a group or an individual obtains power, it is impossible to manage it correctly. The leader will always take advantage of his power. Power causes the leader to make decisions, that will only better himself. "... Boxer was being sent to the knacker's." The pigs killed an animal just so that they could make some money. The power led them to this decision, they could kill Boxer, make some money, and no one would ever find out. Everyone has heard about the golden rule: "whoever has the gold makes the rules." This applies to "

Mystery of Free Will and Moral Responsibility

The Mystery of Free Will and Moral Responsibility We all seem to think that we make decisions on our own and have the ability to choose from making different decisions. We do what we want to do because it seems as if we have many options to choose from to be in control of our own destiny. The basic question of the mystery of free will is that, â€Å"Are we able to really make our own decisions or are the decisions we make already predetermined (with it being inevitable of us making that certain decision)? Our futures seem to be undetermined and have an infinite amount of possibilities of which we are able to choose freely among. Think of your life as a garden of forking paths with each path being a certain decision you make that affects your future. However, many philosophers believe that the thesis of determinism threatens this model of free will. If you may know, determinism is the theory that the universe at any point in time is entirely fixed by the state of the universe at a pr ior time, in combination with the laws of nature.So the reason why this threatens the ‘garden of forking paths’ model of free will is that how can we have so many options to choose when determinism has already chosen one for us? This leads us to another central issue, which is: â€Å"Can free will and determinism co-exist? † The two ways philosophers go about considering this question is either with a ‘yes, they can co-exist’ or ‘no, they cannot. ’ If you were to believe that, yes, free will and determinism can co-exist, then you would be considered a compatibilist.Answering no, free will and determinism cannot co-exist, you would be considered an incompatibalist. Peter Van Inwagen, a prominent figure in the philosophy world, created the consequence argument. In his argument, Van Inwagen explains that if determinism is true, then our acts are just a consequence of the laws of nature and events in the remote past. And since it’s no t up to us what went on before we were born nor what the laws of nature are, the consequences of these things (including our present acts) are not up to us (PowerPoint 1, Slide 23).In short, he explains that if determinism were to be true then no one would ever or has ever made a choice on their own about anything. So if no one has power over the facts of the past and the laws of nature and that no one has the power of the fact that the facts of the past and laws of nature entail that only future is possible, therefore, no one has power over the facts of the future. To further demonstrate his reasoning of the consequence argument, Van Inwagen created the No Choice Principle (NCP). In this example, let ‘p’ = â€Å"Plato died long before I was born. † Let ‘q’ = â€Å"I never met Plato. Now, if I have no choice about ‘p’ and no choice about the fact that (if ‘p’ is true, then ‘q’ is necessarily true. Therefore, I have no choice about ‘q’ (PowerPoint 1, Slide 26). How can one have a choice about something that is inevitably going to happen if one has no choice about it happening? Van Inwagen’s consequence argument is based on the NCP. Now, if determinism and free will can co-exist (Compatibilism is true) then the No Choice Principle must be false (Remember, you would have no free will and no choice of ‘q’ happening because it was never in your control to choose so).But, the NCP is not false, therefore the Compatibilism theory is not true and with this being said the free will thesis and theory of determinism cannot co-exist. I believe that free will is incompatible with determinism, but free will exists because the thesis of determinism is false. I choose this opinion because, going to back to the ‘garden of forking paths’ model, if I come across a path with three forks in it I have the ability to not take one or two of those paths and have the ab ility to freely choose which path I would prefer to take.I know that I have the ability to choose because I can take either 3 paths, but I only choose to take the one which I desire most. Determinists may say that I took that path because it was inevitable. Whichever of the 3 paths I took, it would be inevitable that I took it. The reason why I believe in free will and not the coexistence of both free will and determinism, and determinism itself is because there is no way to prove something of happening inevitably in every occasion. Determinists could say that just about anything was inevitable of happening, what’s their proof? Mystery of Free Will and Moral Responsibility The Mystery of Free Will and Moral Responsibility We all seem to think that we make decisions on our own and have the ability to choose from making different decisions. We do what we want to do because it seems as if we have many options to choose from to be in control of our own destiny. The basic question of the mystery of free will is that, â€Å"Are we able to really make our own decisions or are the decisions we make already predetermined (with it being inevitable of us making that certain decision)? Our futures seem to be undetermined and have an infinite amount of possibilities of which we are able to choose freely among. Think of your life as a garden of forking paths with each path being a certain decision you make that affects your future. However, many philosophers believe that the thesis of determinism threatens this model of free will. If you may know, determinism is the theory that the universe at any point in time is entirely fixed by the state of the universe at a pr ior time, in combination with the laws of nature.So the reason why this threatens the ‘garden of forking paths’ model of free will is that how can we have so many options to choose when determinism has already chosen one for us? This leads us to another central issue, which is: â€Å"Can free will and determinism co-exist? † The two ways philosophers go about considering this question is either with a ‘yes, they can co-exist’ or ‘no, they cannot. ’ If you were to believe that, yes, free will and determinism can co-exist, then you would be considered a compatibilist.Answering no, free will and determinism cannot co-exist, you would be considered an incompatibalist. Peter Van Inwagen, a prominent figure in the philosophy world, created the consequence argument. In his argument, Van Inwagen explains that if determinism is true, then our acts are just a consequence of the laws of nature and events in the remote past. And since it’s no t up to us what went on before we were born nor what the laws of nature are, the consequences of these things (including our present acts) are not up to us (PowerPoint 1, Slide 23).In short, he explains that if determinism were to be true then no one would ever or has ever made a choice on their own about anything. So if no one has power over the facts of the past and the laws of nature and that no one has the power of the fact that the facts of the past and laws of nature entail that only future is possible, therefore, no one has power over the facts of the future. To further demonstrate his reasoning of the consequence argument, Van Inwagen created the No Choice Principle (NCP). In this example, let ‘p’ = â€Å"Plato died long before I was born. † Let ‘q’ = â€Å"I never met Plato. Now, if I have no choice about ‘p’ and no choice about the fact that (if ‘p’ is true, then ‘q’ is necessarily true. Therefore, I have no choice about ‘q’ (PowerPoint 1, Slide 26). How can one have a choice about something that is inevitably going to happen if one has no choice about it happening? Van Inwagen’s consequence argument is based on the NCP. Now, if determinism and free will can co-exist (Compatibilism is true) then the No Choice Principle must be false (Remember, you would have no free will and no choice of ‘q’ happening because it was never in your control to choose so).But, the NCP is not false, therefore the Compatibilism theory is not true and with this being said the free will thesis and theory of determinism cannot co-exist. I believe that free will is incompatible with determinism, but free will exists because the thesis of determinism is false. I choose this opinion because, going to back to the ‘garden of forking paths’ model, if I come across a path with three forks in it I have the ability to not take one or two of those paths and have the ab ility to freely choose which path I would prefer to take.I know that I have the ability to choose because I can take either 3 paths, but I only choose to take the one which I desire most. Determinists may say that I took that path because it was inevitable. Whichever of the 3 paths I took, it would be inevitable that I took it. The reason why I believe in free will and not the coexistence of both free will and determinism, and determinism itself is because there is no way to prove something of happening inevitably in every occasion. Determinists could say that just about anything was inevitable of happening, what’s their proof?

Slave Trade

History Hon. Document Based Question Essay For years people have blamed Europeans of the Early Modern Period for slavery, when truly it was not. At the very beginning of it all, lies the African businessman of the Early Modern Period. He just wants to make money, even if that means selling his own kind. That is the part people in history today forget, that Africans were sold by their own blood. Europeans during this time we’re searching for wealth; gold, silver, cotton, tobacco, etc. What they lacked was the workforce to harvest all these items.The government or Gobroon Dynasty, our businessmen, seized the opportunity that was in front of them. Essentially, the Atlantic Slave Trade in Western Africa really boomed between 1650 and 1850 when the demand for slaves seemed to increase daily, according the Journal of African History. Acquiring slaves had gone from peaceful and civilized to aggressive and militarized. As stated in the Cambridge University press in 2000, society had f ound it acceptable to raid for supplies that could be used to buy slaves and slaves only.The blame for Slavery can be placed on the natural human desire for wealth and power, which is essentially greed. When a human has the desire for wealth, they will try to obtain it by any means necessary. Even if a human has to sell their own flesh and blood, the only thing that matters is wealth. The participation of Africans in slave trade was voluntary; Europeans could have gotten their slaves from China or India or Mexico or anywhere else with an abundant workforce. In compliance with the Cambridge University Press in 1992, Europeans did not force the African leaders to sell slaves; they made that choice on their own.The mainstream view of slavery is what went on in the plantations of southern America, what usually does not get as much attention is what the Africans went through before they set foot on the boat. More than often, the enslaved Africans would spend an average of 11 weeks aboard the ship before living the inhumane life of a slave for the rest of their existence, according to The Cost of Coercion: African Agency in the Pre-Modern Atlantic World written by Stephen D. Behrendt, David Eltis and David Richardson. That point of the process is crucial in determining how the slave would be treated during the trip and on the plantation.For example, if a slave was to lead a revolt while sailing aboard the ship, the slave trader could make sure that when the time comes to sell the leader of the revolt, he would be sold to a very cruel master. In accordance to recent articles, views of the Atlantic Slave Trade in Western Africa are starting to shift toward the very root of the industry. People are not so much looking at what happened in the United States of America but mostly at things up until that point. After reviewing all the articles, I can see how important what happened before the boat ride is important.

Assess the Marxist View That the Main Role of the Family Is to Serve the Interests of Capitalism

Assess the Marxist view that the main role of the family is to serve the interests of capitalism. There are many different perspectives of the family. Each different view sees different things as the main role of the family. Marxists view the family in a very belittled manner. They believe that the main role of the family is to serve the interests of capitalism and bourgeoisie. They also believe that the family cushions the main provider. Marx’s views on the capitalist mode of production highlights the exploitative nature of the eco system.He displays how the middle class take advantage of the working class and their labour; the working class are a tool used to create profit and to keep profit at a reasonable level. Marx argues that the monogamous middle class nuclear family developed to help them solve the problem of the inheritance of private property. The men needed to know who their children were in order to pass on their property to their heirs. The family was therefore t hought to be by Marxists as designed to control women and protect property.The Middle class nuclear family is emerged with capitalism. It is patriarchal as designed to guarantee and encourage male power through the inheritance of property. It therefore serves the interests of capitalism. Marxists would argue that families are a unit of reproduction, they believe that the family is essential in the reproduction of the labour force. In pre capitalist society people only grew staple foods, drank water and lived simple life’s. People choose to have numerous children. More children meant more farm hands and help around the farm.It also acted as an insurance, against the famine, disease and other natural disasters. After the industrial revolution this all changed, Families would have less children because there was a higher chance of them surviving. Men would find themselves working and getting paid much less than the money they made for the business Engel says women’s role in the family was harsh as they did unpaid work such as cleaning and childcare. The capitalist benefits from the unpaid labour given to them by women and children within the unit.Zaretsky argues that the family is a major consumer of capitalist products. This fact in itself ensures a market for capitalist products. Because it means that the working class are first exploited and underpaid and then overcharged to buy the goods they do not need which they produced. Functionalists would argue industrialisation led to the slow replacement of extended families by nuclear families because industrialisation requires more geographical and social mobility.Geographical mobility is easier for nuclear families while if within extended families young adults achieve higher social status through social mobility than their parents this, according to Parsons would make for social tensions within the extended family which would be avoided if young married adults lived separately in their own nuclear f amily. Industrialisation leads also to processes of structural differentiation which implies that new more specialised social institutions such as factories, schools and hospitals develop to take over some of the functions previously performed by families.This means therefore that the nuclear family loses some of its functions but it remains crucial in relation to the two functions which it does retain, the socialisation of the young and the stabilisation of adult personalities. In conclusion, the main purpose of the family is to support capitalism to a certain extent as Marxists have many valid points however Capitalism may not be seen as biased and therefore the Marxist view of the family is rejected and Marxists ignore family diversity completely.

Response to Obedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem Essay

These are rules rather than orders that most people are given choice whether it is to obey or suffer some sort of consequence, despite not knowing what the consequence are many may choose to obey the order; however the question is, should we obey all orders that are given to us, despite of our moral of ethnical problem with the order that are ordain to us? Regarding this matter of disobedience as being â€Å"a psychological and moral problem† according to the author Eric Fromm, I would like to point out the concept of â€Å"autonomous obedience,† which gives us an opportunity to rely on our â€Å"own powers and to become fully human,† hence gaining our own knowledge, intellect, independence and freedom by being dictate by our very own â€Å"humanistic conscience† that helps and guides us to discern right from wrong and to justify what’s is just and unjust. Just may be the world will be a much better place if we learn to be autonomously obedient based on humanistic discipline, whilst being conscience wise in decision making and being bold enough to face the outcome whether it is good or bad. To be control and govern by â€Å"an institution or men† who rely only upon the power to give vigorous orders and to rule with a vast amount knowledge to intimidate, manipulate and create just and unjust laws to exercise authority and use all sorts of judgment with no ounce of logical thinking. In full grasp of these trademarks one who have not fully grounded in courage and are unsure of their conscience is left with no other choice, but to be submissive and obey, therefore there are no different from a slave who has his rights taken away. Although through the traditional meaning of slavery we know that it is a person who has their rights stripped. A complete obedient person has thus fallen into intellectual slavery. As his rights to question, assess, and evaluate the authority have been consciously or unconsciously taken away, this doesn’t deny the fact that he is in a case of complete and blind submission to the higher authority he submits to intellectual domination. Throughout history there have been a lot of exploitation and abuse of power, especially by those in higher authority, such as the government structure and the constitution, which in some nations creates and pass unjust laws through legislature that clearly violates human and civil rights. To make sure these law are uphold several types of initiative are introduce in the process. The act of negligent brute and â€Å"sheer force† always seem to be the best alternative for these laws, in attempt to secure the system and the infrastructure; anyone who may defy and attempt to cause treason may face with some type of harsh punishment; for example the  controversial Jim Crow laws  where state and local laws in the United States between the year 1876 and 1965 that mandated racial segregation, the separation in practice led to conditions for African Americans that tended to be inferior to those provided for  white Americans systematizing a number of economic, educational and social disadvantages. Some examples of Jim Crow laws are the segregation of public schools, public places, and public transportation, and the segregation of restrooms, restaurants, and drinking fountains for whites and blacks. The U. S. military was also segregated. From the mid 1960s through the end of the decade, more than half a million Blacks participated in rebellions that rocked some 300 American cities. More than 60,000 Blacks were arrested, more than 200 were killed, and tens of billions of dollars worth of property was damaged. Despite of the consequences of these acts, humanistic conscience and stirred emotions drove the blacks to disobey the high authority they were cognizant that their entire life have been jeopardize by this unjust law, in other words they were being treat like rejects from another planet, scorned like a plague, and ordered around like a mule on a saddle, hence the introduction the Civil Right Movement that revolutionize worldwide political movements for equality before the laws. This ruckus could have been impeded if they have had some sort of reasoning, however the government being pompous in there thinking and also claiming â€Å"omniscience and omnipotent† they clearly lose sight on the outcome and they did not prevail over the crisis that t hey single handedly created, moreover; their laws were over thrown and their high authority openly defied, by those who they may label as rebels and not a type of revolutionist since they so called oppose the natural flow cycle  of things. A great instance comes from a recognizable man Nelson Mandela, who stood side by side with his beliefs and humanistic conscience, together with determination and resilience to defy, fight and break â€Å"White Supremacy† and the apartheid system in his home country South Africa where their beliefs that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that whites should have control over people of other races. Though Mandela strove to benefit his people and ultimately society on a whole, he was accused of treason and thrown in prison for 27 year since he opposed the normal flow of interaction between the higher authority and its subordinates. Another fine example was displayed by an officer of the U. S armed forces, Lieutenant Ehren Watada, who refused deployment to Iraq, he created fury with his objection and public condemnation of the war in January 2006. Watada therefore believed his own involvement would be constituted as crimes against peace under command responsibility. He asked to be deployed to Afghanistan, where he felt there was a true moral imperative to defend the United States, his request for his resignation was declined. He was force in court on a double jeopardy trial regarding the accusation of insubordination. Today Watada works at Fort Lewis with the continuous threat of a 6-8 year prison term looming over him for the crime of speaking truth to power. We have the authority and are our own individual, whether we choose â€Å"to say no or to obey,† the power is in our hands and not in the hands of others that control you like a puppet on a string. Blindly obeying authority often results in disobedience to one’s personal morality. Since rules were established and exist for the common interests of the general population, some would say follow the rules and be obedient. However, when rules conflict with people’s morals, one has the right, and furthermore the responsibility to disobey. Contrary to popular belief, disobedience does not center around rebellion. In fact, disobedience is the manner in which people shed enlightenment on the well-traveled journey of intellectual ignorance, by offering another point of view. Nevertheless, if people do not challenge their very surroundings, then they will never discover the true freedom that exist behind the castle gate of control and pressure. Through choosing to disagree, a person is exclaiming the fact that they will not negotiate the most personal aspects of their lives, such as their morals theory and still today they neglect to acknowledge an essential partner in the undisputed credibility of moral decisions. This essential is one’s own conscience. By allowing one’s conscience to govern ideals and decisions, the community as a whole rises to a heightened understanding of its surroundings. As conscious individuals, humans acknowledge the fact that not everyone holds the same opinion, and therefore, not everyone is governed by the same rules. .

Supply, Demand and Diversity Factors in the Workforce of Australia

1. Labour Supply Analysis (to determine if the number and types of employees required are available when and where they will be needed). You should analyze current workforce’s capacity to meet current and predicted demands for business goods and services. The process begins with the internal analysis of existing employees in the company. If the number or mix of staff are not sufficient or not meet the requirements, the search for external information is required. Theses information can be obtained through the intranet, policy documents, divisional reports and etc. The beginning is made a list of current employees to identify future skills. This analysis includes an audit of current skills of each employee. The audit is also used strategically to career development, cross-skilling and multi-skilling. Even with the availability of these resources, the greatest challenge is also to establish a dialogue with the staff to meet the goals and aspirations them and also if they want an opportunity to grow within the company. According to new research, companies are not giving the right support to their staff. Without opportunities, employees are going away. For this reason the skills shortage and staff turnover still are being a problem. People need to feel purposeful and valued about where the organization is going. The companies need to create strategies to retain their talent and this is the main feature that ensures competitiveness, much more than material resources, financial and technological. The ANZ bank has a supply intensive with over 15. 000 suppliers providing good and services that keep their operations. Their focus is on strengthening their relationship with local suppliers in all markets and their supply chain is located in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong and India. 2. Labour Demand Forecasting (estimating the number and type of employees needed to meet organisational objectives). Using (not just repeating) the labour supply data or demographic and economic data: explain how this data will be used to forecast human resources supply within ANZ Bank Australia. The Human Resource Planning will be affected according to the level of business development. If the company is starting now, the HRP will hire only candidates with skills that sustain the operations of the company. But if the company is growing, the HRP will focus on the hiring of experts. And if the company is in decline or challenge in the face of economic climate, the focus will be the restructuring. With the globalization, the advance of technology and the concept of sustainability, the companies need to adapte to these challenges. These challenges influence the vision and objectives of the companies. The strategy used by the bank is to nurture leadership team in regions where business is growing. Today this strategy is being implemented in Asia and the Pacific. ANZ bank seeks to avoid redundancies. 3. Balancing Supply and Demand Considerations Review of diversity in the Australian workforce – how would this affect/apply to ANZ Bank Australia. One of the problems that it has been affected the workforce in Australia is the redundancy and many employees have left their jobs for fear to lose the work. According to a survey, 76% will be looking for a new opportunity in the next 6 months. The main reason is that they are seeking a career development and wage growth. If the employee feels that is purposeful, valued, that have some support and rewards necessary, the employee remains in the company. An example that expresses this problem is with receptionist position because over half 54% of administration and office staff a new job and it have proven that receptionist are the most unhappy. This position is easily filled and employers don’t have to invest in these staff, even the reception staff are the face of an organisation. The challenge has been also finding people who are prepared to develop their skills and match the current needs of the companies. The qualities that employers are looking for today in candidates are: resilience, strong leadership, ability to seek ways to remain competitive from a business development standpoint and the ability to be more productive with limited resources. Employers are looking for who are make an impact on profitability today. The balancing supply and demand is based on recruitment (shortage) such as: full-time, part-time, job/work design, career management, remuneration practices. And also Reductions such as: Dismissals, retirements, retrenchments. 4. How to Formulate Staffing Strategies to meet Organisational Needs Define ow the article information will be used to define objectives and staffing strategies in ANZ Bank to retain required skilled labour. According to ANZ bank the staff strategies are used to create a new leadership team in which region that they are included. Others staffing strategies used are: open communication with staff (people need to feel purposeful and valuated); is impo rtant to communicate a clear vision to the employees and the goals and objectives of the company and also where the company is going to; provide some coaching and training; provide some salary package.