Suicide Essays (202 words) - Suicide Prevention,

Suicide In this world today there are many people who commit murders, homocides, so on and so on. But, there are others who take their own life, which is called suicide. Many people who are suicidal are also depressed. They feel that the only way out is through suicide. The reasons to why people commit suicide is because they dont like the way their life is shaped or many have a low self-esteem in themselves and don't feel like living anymore. It all depends on the person. Statics show that the most percentage of people commiting suicide are teenagers. Teens are very sensative, moody, and want everything to go their way as smoothly as possible. So, if something happens that makes them suffer, or struggle just a bit, they get depressed and commit suicide for the dullest reasons. There are many signs that show that someone is thinking about suicide. Depression, cuts made purposely, non-talkative, and unsocial are signs of contemplating suicide. Helping someone that is thinking about suicide is kind of difficult. You can try talking to them, try to figure out where they're coming from, bringing them to professional help, and or give them positive reasons for living. Anthropology

Free Essays on Martin Luther King

Martin Luther King Junior’s appeal to the clergymen’s decisions was a concise, and effective statement, which conveys the reasons for, and the process in which civil disobedience can be put in action. In it, he directly but easily puts forth his reasons for his disappointment in rational, and understandable terms. He utilizes pathos in helping the readers identify with the problems of the black community, even if identity between the classes seemed impossible. King spoke of his children, and used them as an example to show how someone who is fresh into the world, and has not been tainted by society views segregation as unjust and irrational. He also used ethos in his argument by speaking of historical references where the only way people could gain power in an oppressed position, is to pressure the oppressors into giving some of that power away. King balances being brutally honest without sounding harsh and demanding in a way which gains attention and demands to be listened to. In King’s essay, the most effective tool he uses is rationality. He clearly points out the reasons for his civil disobedience and refutes them in a positive and constructive fashion. He uses calm arguments as well as solutions which appease both sides, and construct the possibility for negotiation. The article raises many inequalities and makes the reader wonder how any of this is possible. He uses situations in which seem outrageous and incomprehensible to make the reader feel as an injustice is occurring. After reading the article, the read cannot rejects feelings of sympathy for the situation which was so faithfully accepted for too long. It brings hope because it was the catalyst in creating a cultural revolution which would benefit all citizens and help America live up to its name as â€Å"land of the free.† King strengthens his argument by presenting opinions in a factual form, and by using statistics and realities of the inequalities... Free Essays on Martin Luther King Free Essays on Martin Luther King Martin Luther King Junior’s appeal to the clergymen’s decisions was a concise, and effective statement, which conveys the reasons for, and the process in which civil disobedience can be put in action. In it, he directly but easily puts forth his reasons for his disappointment in rational, and understandable terms. He utilizes pathos in helping the readers identify with the problems of the black community, even if identity between the classes seemed impossible. King spoke of his children, and used them as an example to show how someone who is fresh into the world, and has not been tainted by society views segregation as unjust and irrational. He also used ethos in his argument by speaking of historical references where the only way people could gain power in an oppressed position, is to pressure the oppressors into giving some of that power away. King balances being brutally honest without sounding harsh and demanding in a way which gains attention and demands to be listened to. In King’s essay, the most effective tool he uses is rationality. He clearly points out the reasons for his civil disobedience and refutes them in a positive and constructive fashion. He uses calm arguments as well as solutions which appease both sides, and construct the possibility for negotiation. The article raises many inequalities and makes the reader wonder how any of this is possible. He uses situations in which seem outrageous and incomprehensible to make the reader feel as an injustice is occurring. After reading the article, the read cannot rejects feelings of sympathy for the situation which was so faithfully accepted for too long. It brings hope because it was the catalyst in creating a cultural revolution which would benefit all citizens and help America live up to its name as â€Å"land of the free.† King strengthens his argument by presenting opinions in a factual form, and by using statistics and realities of the inequalities... Free Essays on Martin Luther King "When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of the Independance, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This not was the promise that all men would be guaranteed the unlienable rights of, life, liberty, and the pursuit Happiness." (Martin Luther King, Jr.) This is a very important speech from the great one martin Luther King. Martin Luther King was a great preacher, and public speaker. During his time there was a lot of racism going against the African Americans at that time. African Americans had no kinds of rights they weren’t allowed to do anything in the world they were considered nothing. It was at this time that Martin Luther King had spoken with passion and knowledge about what was going on at that time. So then this is when the African Americans started protesting for their rights. In one of his amazing speeches Martin Luther King quoted the above. The quote starts off with Martin Luther King talking about the people that wrote the Constitution and the declaration of indepencdance. And what the people wrote was what America had to follow, and the rights of people of all racists were granted. As Martin Luther King had spoke these words this is what he had work for. I look back at the times and I and I like man just imagine if I was there I would hated not be able to do anything just because I wasn’t white. I would have probably got teased at just because of the color of my skin and I think that wasn’t right at all. I think Martin Luther King was a brave and courageous man to have gone up against all those people, and fight for what he thought was right. The majority of people were white, and he had a lot of competition to go up against. Even to this day, with the constitution being written so long ago people rights have come up and they are now more ahead than they were 50 years ago, but at the same time ...

Origin of the Saying Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts

Origin of the Saying Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts Background The adage Beware of Greeks bearing gifts is heard often, and is normally used to refer to an act of charity that masks a hidden destructive or hostile agenda. But its not widely known that the phrase originates with a story from Greek mythologyspecifically the story of the Trojan War, in which the Greeks, led by Agamemnon, sought to rescue Helen, who had been taken to Troy after falling in love with Paris. This tale forms the core of Homers famous epic poem, The Illiad.   The Episode of the Trojan Horse We pick up the  story at a point near the  end of the  ten-year long Trojan War. Since both the Greeks and the Trojans had gods on their sides, and since the greatest warriors for both sidesAchilles, for the Greeks, and Hector for the Trojanswere now dead, the sides were very evenly matched, with no sign that the war might end soon. Despair reigned on both sides.   However, the Greeks had the cunning of Odysseus on their side. Odysseus,  King of Ithaca, devised the idea of constructing a large horse to pose as a peace offering to the Trojans. When this  Trojan Horsewas left at the gates of Troy, the Trojans believed  the  Greeks had left it as a pious surrender  gift as they sailed for home. Welcoming the gift, the Trojans opened their  gates and wheeled the horse within their walls, little knowing the belly of the beast was filled with armed soldiers who would soon destroy their city. A celebratory  victory festival ensued, and once the Trojans had fallen into a drunken slumber, the Greeks emerged from the horse and vanquished them. Greek cleverness won the day over Trojan warrior skill.   How the Phrase Came into Use The Roman Poet Virgil eventually coined the phrase Be wary of Greeks bearing gifts, putting it into the mouth of the character Laocoon in the Aeneid, an epic retelling of the legend of the  Trojan War.  The Latin phrase is  Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes , which literally translated means  I fear the Danaans [Greeks], even those  bearing gifts, but it is usually translated in English as Beware (or be wary) of Greeks bearing gifts. It is from Virgils  poetic retelling of the story that we get this well-known phrase.   The adage is now used regularly as a warning when a supposed gift or act of virtue is thought to hold a hidden threat.

DQ1 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 6

DQ1 - Essay Example Consumers decide about the goods and services they prefer to purchase while the objective of business firms is to decide on how to produce products and the variety of products to be produced. Government entities aim to provide public services and decide on the methods to finance them. The behavior of these varying sections of the society may be termed as purposeful behavior in terms of managing resources and finance, though it may be noted that institutions and people are not free from faulty decision making because decisions are influenced by emotions and by people around the decision maker. Economists consider the marginal analysis while decision making; a comparison of marginal costs and marginal benefits. In this context, marginal means additional, extra or a change in. For example, economists analyze whether a business should reduce or expand or whether the government should increase or decrease funds for a particular cause. A rational decision maker must compare both marginal costs and benefits while making a choice. Economics gives significance to scientific methods to observe consumption behaviors and outcomes and derives hypothesis (cause and effect), tests and modifies the hypotheses using facts and finally evolves it into economic theories or principles that predicts the outcomes of specific actions. Therefore, it is important to study economics, because economics concerns with theories and methods that support facts about how institutions and individuals essentially behave in producing, consuming and exchanging goods and services and thereby find a logical balance while consuming the available resources in this world (McConnell 2005 p.4-6). The sacrifice made by the society to acquire more of one product and when the society forgoes the chance of availing the next best thing, the sacrifice is called the opportunity cost of choice. Every option includes marginal benefits because of marginal costs (scarce resources). While making a reasonable

Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words - 21

Assignment Example Besides carbonated drinks, the market has had an influx of fresh juice owing to the increasing life awareness campaigns vouched y the government in order to increase effective lifestyles in the country. The consumption of soft drinks is definite with the growing number of competitors in the country validating the viability of the market. People consume soft drinks alongside other meals and when relaxing. Soft drinks are therefore a pertinent compatriot sustaining any form of social gathering. Additionally, people prefer soft drinks during meals times’ thereby increasing demand for the same products. Among the factors influencing the purchase of soft drinks are the pricing of the products, the type of the products and packaging among many others. Price is a fundamental marketing element that most consumers of the products consider before purchasing a product. The prices of commodities often vary depending on the quality and size of a product. Most of the soft drinks manufacturing companies price their products depending on the raw materials used in the manufacture of such products and the packaging of the same. Carbonated drinks are cheaper than fresh juices. However, fresh juices have smaller packaging as the vendors diversify their products packaging in order to cost lesser than the carbonated soft drinks. Most home based consumers purchase larger bottles of the soft drinks. This explains Coca cola and Pepsi’s decision to diversify the packaging of their products to two liters. Such large products are economical and ideal for families. Fast food consumers on the other hand prefer smaller packages such as a half a liter. The manufacturers of such drinks including the two have therefore diversified their packaging thereby capturing both markets in a bid to increase their market share. The trend has succeeded thereby facilitating the two companies’ large international market shares. However, with the develop ment of local brands and the prevalent of fresh

Hippocratic Medicine :: essays research papers fc

Introduction Hippocratic medicine remains one of Ancient Greece's lasting contributions to the field of science. Lacking the equipment physicians today take for granted when diagnosing and healing their patients, Hippocratic physicians were forced to create a novel system for explaining and curing disease based upon the prevalent scientific theories of their era. This system became known as the humoral theory of disease. Humoral theory incorporated the theories of Presocratic philosophers in order to explain disease and offer help for a cure. Two themes characterizing Presocratic philosophical thought dramatically influenced humoral theory. The humoral theory approach of Hippocratic medicine was based upon Presocratic philosophical musings about the relationship of man to the world. By the time humoral theory was vogue, philosophers had concluded that both man and the world were governed by the same natural laws. Humoral theory also was based upon Presocratic theories about change and how it occu rred in the world; humoral theory depended upon the assertion that contrasting elements constantly contradicted each other, leading to continuous change on one level and stability on another. These two Presocratic theories shaped humoral theory and allowed the physician to develop a rational and empirically based approach to medicine. Hippocrates - Separating the Man from the Myth Before we can trace the development of these theories by the Presocratics we must first consider Hippocratic medicine and humoral theory. Most of what is known about the historical figure Hippocrates, the supposed founder of the Hippocratic medical approach, must be evaluated with caution. Hippocrates lived c. 460-370 BC, but further reliable information about his life is difficult to obtain.(1) Two passages from Plato are seen as legitimate sources of information about Hippocrates' life. Plato lived from 427-348 BC, making him a contemporary of Hippocrates. A passage from Plato's work Protagoras suggests that Hippocrates was a physician, associated with the island of Cos, who taught medicine to students for a fee. Another passage from a work of Plato, the Phaedras, alludes to a "method" by which Hippocrates gained an understanding of medicine. These sources provide some means by which to evaluate the impact of Hippocrates upon ancient medical practice. The Corpus Hippocraticum Many other texts attributed to Hippocrates shed light upon the Hippocratic method of medicine. None of these texts may be identified as Hippocrates' own work, however. These works are called the Corpus Hippocraticum and number upwards of sixty.(2) Scholars have suggested that the texts may have been part of a library collection, originally from Cos, that was subsequently moved to Alexandria and then added upon, building the collection of medical texts we have today.

Examine the Key Ideas Associated with Law and Punishment

Examine the key ideas associated with law and punishment Law and Punishment go hand in hand. There are Laws, which are the system of rules which a particular country or community recognises as regulating the actions of followers, and there are punishments, for when a member of said country/community breaks the rules. Punishment is defined as the infliction of a penalty or to cause pain for an offence.Most of the time it is not a choice as to whether you are part of a law-following community because almost all countries in the world have some kind of law-system and often the minute you turn the age where you are legally responsible or step off the boat, plane or train you are subjected to their laws. The Biblical views on punishment have often been based on the old testament teaching ‘an eye for an eye’. The bible also lays out punishments for certain crimes that appear to follow this teaching. Except that there are many punishments in the bible that seem to be out of pro portion to the crime e. . â€Å"whoever curses his father or his mother will be put to death†. There are many problems with this statement for example it does not state how old the son/daughter has to be to deserve this punishment, it seems to imply even a 4 year old who does not necessarily know what they are saying can be put to death for cursing their parents. An eye for an eye is also relevant in today’s laws, it is the basis of retributive justice that is present in our society. Retributive justice is the idea that those who have done the crime should somehow pay back for what they did.Rachel’s said â€Å"People deserve to be treated in the same way that they have (voluntarily treated others)† This seems like a fair way of treating someone because why someone should be allowed to do one thing and then not expect to be treated in the same way? But some punishments that are retributive e. g. capital punishment do not seem to benefit society and there i s a risk of the punishment becoming revengeful not retributive. Retributive justice also causes a problem because it might make capital punishment a legitimate approach to punishment.I. e. If a person murders it is right for them to be killed. And It also can lead the legal system to instead of appearing like someone is being made to pay back what they have done wrong to looking like the legal system is being hypocritical i. e. we are showing society that it is wrong to be violent by being violent to wrong doers. This is not how we should be teaching people to not be violent. The punishment also must not be disproportionate to the crime e. g. sentencing a small child to death for stealing a sweet from a shop.Some forms of punishment e. g. fines may be disproportionate because to people with money a fine does not make any difference but to someone who has just enough money or just below the money they need for necessities it can be a massive problem, but on average I think retributiv e measures helps to make the punishment be proportionate to the crime because the person can be treated the way they treated others. Deterrence is another form of punishment. It means that we should punish for crimes in order to deter others from committing the same crime i. e. f we know what the punishment for an act is we are less inclined to do it. However there are problems with this because it assumes that the perpetrator had intent and full knowledge of what they were doing was wrong but often violent crimes happen in the heat of the moment and are not planned and those violent crimes that are calculated are often done by those people who are mentally ill. Also, why should be punish someone for the sake of someone else? Reformative justice is becoming more popular in today’s society and is the attempt to turn the criminal into a normal law abiding citizen.It is often based on the idea that everyone has an intrinsic value simply because they are human and the improvement of humans is good. According to deontology this is good because rehabilitation prevents people treating others as means. There is also a utilitarian argument for this because reformative justice improves the general quality of life in society. I also would argue that reformative justice is also trying to right the inequality between the rich and poor. People from less well of backgrounds are more likely to commit crimes due to them having fewer opportunities and less education.Poorer people are also more likely to come from violent backgrounds and therefore are more likely to be violent themselves. Therefore reformative justice helps make up for this lack of opportunities by offering classes inside prisons for example. Although there are many good things about reformative punishments, there are also many problems. Reformation takes away the responsibility for our actions and it does not attempt to right the wrong. This causes problems in itself because if there is no ‘punishm ent’ other than reformation then there is no incentive for people not to commit crime, in fact there is almost an incentive to commit a crime!And why someone in prison should be getting opportunities that people outside the prison do not get. I would like to think that there is good in everyone but it would simply be impractical to think that we can rehabilitate everyone as some people are simply too far gone and do not want to change. Hobbes philosophised about why we want/need laws in society and he came up with an idea called the social contract theory. This idea was based on his notion that government is an agreement between a group of people where they agree not to hurt each other.This is fuelled by the motivation of self-interest which according to Hobbes is pertinent because human beings are selfish creatures and therefore seek collective protection. i. e. If I promise not to hurt you and you promise not to hurt me then neither of us gets hurt and we’re both hap py. And this is what Hobbes believes to be the basis of our desire to keep the laws set out by the state – we should avoid chaos because it is not in our best interests therefore we should keep the laws. Kant had a similar conclusion i. e. that we should keep the laws but for a different reason.Kant said that we should ‘act so that you treat humanity, both in your own person and in that of another, always as an end’ i. e. we should keep the laws so that we do not treat others as means to an end. His idea of kingdom of ends states ‘act in accordance with the maxims of a member giving universal laws for a merely possible kingdom of ends’ where the kingdom of ends is a perfect community where all members respect each other as ends in themselves. This is what we should strive to achieve, and to be successful at this we should keep the laws of the community.Therefore we should keep the laws and to keep the laws means that we must punish those that break t he law.. Evaluate the view that objectivity and relativism pose problems for the concept of law and punishment. Objectivity states that there are ethical principles that are always wrong or always right and they are normally established a priori i. e. without experience. Therefore as there are certain things that are always wrong we need a law to stop people from doing it. This law may be objectively right and its punishment for breaking the law may also be objectively right.Objectivity might support retributive justice; Retributive justice is when someone pays back for their crime. This could support objectivity because it needs to be imposed with the consistency that objectivity provides therefore you could argue that Retributive justice only works with the objectivity and as retributive justice tends to be favoured in western societies perhaps objectivity does not pose such a problem with law and punishment. Having said this there are still the problems it does cause.Objective et hical principles are established a priori therefore we cannot know them through experience. If we do not know them through experience, how can we truly know if something is right or wrong and therefore how do we know if a law is right whilst using objectivity. Objectivity also does not allow for individual cases, it runs the risk of using a ‘one size fits all’ policy towards law and punishment and whilst we do need some consistency amongst crimes, one size does not exactly fit all because not every crime is exactly the same!Normative relativism states that truth and morality is relative to the country/society that one is in and therefore we cannot criticize other cultures as to how they do things. With regards to law and punishment this leads us to the face that there are no definite truths or morals that can be applied in every situation around the world so Punishment is determined according to the country and, if we take it relativism further, according to the circums tances of the case.Hobbes took a relativist view because he said that justice cannot be fixed, and each country/community has different ideas of what law and punishment should be all we should do is aim not be in chaos, not because it is wrong in an objective sense but because it does not serve or self-interest. Relativism may be a good thing because it allows each country to organise punishment as they see fit and there is merit in the systems that other countries have for example some people believe that Iraq was justified in the hanging of Saddam Hussein even though in our society the death penalty is not used.However it does have problems because it means that all forms of punishment are right as long as it is accepted by society e. g. it would be right to hang a small child for stealing sweets if society thought it was the correct punishment. If punishment is decided relative to the circumstance and there is no consistency we could end up with a justice system where only some p eople would be punished and this could easily lead to corruption, sexism and racism within the punishment system.It also means that there may be little point of having punishment because if only some cases lead to punishment then punishment would be pointless! It would serve no deterrent or retributive purpose. Objectivity and Relativism both have merits and cause problems for law and punishment and I do not think either can work solely on their own because they have too many problems by themselves, but on the other hand I do not know if it is possible for Objectivity and Relativism to work together.Perhaps if the laws are objective but how we punish people is relative to each country, case and persons involved. For example although killing may be objectively wrong it may not be appropriate to treat a child who killed someone, an adult who killed someone by accident and an adult who killed someone out of hate all In the same way although they have all broken the same objective rule.