The Brown Wasps Essay -- essays research papers

The Brown Wasps   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In Loren Eiseley’s Essay The Brown Wasps, Eiseley shows that humans and animals act in similar ways. He says that humans and animals cling to the things they know very strongly. Sometimes they even act as if nothing even changed. Humans and animals tend to want to return to things that they are familiar to as they grow older. Loren Eiseley shows how humans and animals try to cling or recreate an important or favorite place. This essay is about memory, home, places in time. Loren Eiseley does a great job describing the place that he is talking about to make the reader visualize and make them feel like they are there. Some examples are the old men, the brown wasps, the mice, the pigeons, the blind man, and even himself. He recalls his childhood in Nebraska and how the train stations used to be and how the pigeons would fly around waiting for people boarding the trains to feed them. Loren Eiseley once planted a tree with his father, when he was a boy and he ac ts like it has been there the whole time. Years later he returned to the house where they had planted the tree and realized that the tree he had been imaging all his life was gone.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In the beginning Eiseley describes the appearance of the train station and tells of the men that sleep on the benches. The lonely old men come into the train station for shelter and to get some rest. Whether they sleep for an hour or just take up space on the benches, t...

Psychological egoism and ethical egoism Essay

Human beings put so much value on other people’s interests. They find that if they satisfy their hunger for helping others, they (in turn) will have satisfaction for themselves. This was shown in Mother Teresa’s giving to others without taking anything back. However, as with everything else, there are exceptions. I know many people (i.e. car salesman ha-ha) that have only their interests in mind when they are taking action. This brings us to the discussion of the difference between psychological egoism and ethical egoism and my position upon ethical egoism. I will begin by defining both psychological and ethical egoism. I will then state the counterexamples/arguments against it, and finally critically assess my position on ethical. Psychological egoism, as Dr. Belcher describes it is, â€Å"Psychological egoism is the claim that humans are (and can be) motivated only by selfish desires or that humans can pursue only their own self-interests.† This means that every action that helps others turns into a selfish one because the action gives satisfaction or happiness to the human that performs the action. There are many counterexamples of this theory. I will give two: First, all actions are motivated by desires, therefore in seeking desires, I am doing what is in my interest. Secondly, we seek our own happiness; therefore our desires seek happiness not selfishness. Next, I will give arguments against psychological egoism. First, the argument is flawed in onto itself. When humans choose to pursue their own interests, who is to say that these interests are selfish (selfish being a purely subjective term). Secondly, if an action gives pleasure to a human, it does not necessarily mean that the human set out to get pleasure. Psychological egoism, although on first glance, may seem logical; it is flawed in its own arguments. Ethical egoism is the theory that the promotion of one’s own good is in accordance with morality. It is what one â€Å"ought† to do. In the strong version it is held that it is always moral to promote one’s own good and it is never moral not to promote it. In the weak version, it claims that although it is always moral to promote one’s good, it is not necessarily never moral not to do so. There is one solid, logical argument for ethical egoism. If, in the wilderness, two humans come across the only source of  food (which happens to be enough for one human), a dilemma arises if both claim the food. The rational idea would be to accept an equal share of the food. However, both humans would only have half as much food as they need. Therefore, there is no possible resolution and they must fight for it. They must resort to the â€Å"might makes right† theory and in the interest of living, they must indirectly kill the other one. Here are two main argum ents against it: First, only the human in question can say what is best for him/her. No human can say that they clearly know what is better for another human. Moreover, helping others is offensive to them. It is presumptuous to show a human that they are inadequate and that others are able to do what they cannot. Secondly, given that any argument that puts forth the idea of a different treatment for different groups of people without any justifiable differences is unacceptable arbitrary. Ethical egoism makes people put more importance on themselves than others; therefore, ethical egoism is unacceptably arbitrary. Although ethical egoism is trying to be helpful, it seems that the argument goes about it in a very selfish way. I will try to defend ethical egoism. The main argument I will put forth was originally created by Ayn Rand. 1) We must accept that life is of the utmost worth. Humans only live once and if we have any value on the individual, we must adhere to this claim. 2) Altruistic theories regard the individual as something that must be sacrificed for the greater good of others. 3) Altruistic theories do not take the worth of the individual life into account. 4) Ethical egoism’s main philosophy is that the individual life is of utmost value. 5) Therefore, ethical egoism is the most logical theory. The second argument for ethical egoism runs along the lines of the first. Humans ought to act on whatever will promote the interests of everyone. The interests of everyone can only be promoted if humans pursue their own interests. Thus, every human should look out for him/herself. I can see one major flaw with this argument. Although it seems that humans cannot see what is good for other humans, in most real life scenarios (the man that is about to be ran over by a truck), we can safely say that we know what is best. We should push the man out of the way. Furthermore, why are the interests of the individual so important? Is not every human being an  individual? Therefore, all of our interests are of equal importance. It is a prejudice to take our interests above others. Although, the arguments against ethical egoism seem to be solid, I believe that greatness cannot be achieved by looking out for the interests of the entire group. Genius is not a group effort. I do not believe Mozart or Van Gough could have made such great works of art if someone had been looking over there shoulder saying, â€Å"no, no, that doesn’t look/sound good at all.† Even though on average humans will get the better for themselves by looking out for the greater good, we will never see anything that is a work of genius.

What is the Bill of Rights Intended the Second Amendment to Mean - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 2 Words: 535 Downloads: 9 Date added: 2019/03/20 Category Law Essay Level High school Tags: Gun Control Essay Second Amendment Essay Did you like this example? In 2008, Chicago resident Otis McDonald filed a suit in U.S. District Court challenging a citywide ban on handguns. In two years’ time, this case would reach the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, making McDonald v. Chicago the most recent decision reaffirming American entitlement to gun ownership. On behalf of the majority, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the right to bear arms is â€Å"deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,† and was considered â€Å"no less fundamental by those who drafted and ratified the Bill of Rights.† However, is the â€Å"tradition† that Justice Alito cites basis enough to uphold such controversial liberties? In 2010 alone—the same year during which the McDonald v. Chicago decision struck a blow to the regulation of firearms nationwide—31,076 Americans died as a result of gun violence. Decidedly, the heightening contention surrounding the Second Amendment and its implications merits an objective evaluation of its worth in modern America. A true understanding of the Second Amendment begins in 1791. The Revolutionary War was fresh in the mind of the American citizen; following years of abuse at the hands of British soldiers, few ideas provoked greater paranoia than that of a standing army with which the new government could potentially execute its despotic will. Hence, the Second Amendment was born, eliminating the need for a permanent military by allowing for the establishment of militias comprised of part-time troops. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "What is the Bill of Rights Intended the Second Amendment to Mean" essay for you Create order Logic dictates that if the circumstances which a law seeks to regulate no longer exist, the law is rendered obsolete. This is the case of the Second Amendment. Two hundred and twenty seven years in the future, and not only does the United States maintain a standing military, but the populace no longer fears that such a force would be employed to institute tyranny. Furthermore, militias fell out of use not even a century after the Bill of Rights was ratified. A basic grasp of these such historical influences that motivated the inclusion of the Second Amendment clearly demonstrate why it has no place in present-day America. Unfortunately, this truth behind the Second Amendment has been ignored. Today, it is rarely considered with the crucial historical context that imbues it with its meaning. Because the Bill of Rights was written with language distinct to its time, a modern and literal interpretation of this document falsely projects upon it certain values that were not intended by it s original author. To argue that James Madison was dedicated to protecting the right to own an AR-15—when he wrote the Second Amendment in the era of the musket—is preposterous and historically negligent. Revisiting Justice Alito’s claim that curtailing firearm regulatory capacities in the aforementioned McDonald v. Chicago ruling was justified by â€Å"tradition,† it is now clear that his Honor was mistaken. In fact, the rationale that Alito applied here is common among many Americans who erroneously attribute the historically rooted Second Amendment to the modern opinion that unhindered access to firearms is a basic liberty. An impartial assessment of what was truly intended by â€Å"those who drafted and ratified the Bill of Rights† reveals that an accurate contemporary interpretation of the Second Amendment would involve releasing it to history, where it belongs.