The more we learn about culture, the greater our understanding of Essay - 2

The more we learn about culture, the greater our understanding of global consumerism,Discuss - Essay Example They go on to claim that people are â€Å"free and rational,† (Sheth & Malhotra, n.d, n.p) to make whatever choices they want about what to purchase, and that they have the desire to be different from others; this is what has resulted in the â€Å"rapid turn†over in goods and services,† (Sheth & Malhotra, n.d, n.p). Globalization has influenced this consumer culture in the way that ideas about what is fashionable spread from many parts of the world through the media and internet, creating what is a â€Å"global style,† (Globalization, 2010). Now we can sense that the consumer culture is becoming a global consumer culture; globalization has â€Å"homogenized images of the good life,† and created â€Å"sense of global identify and memory without which any cultural identity is incomplete,† (Sheth & Malhotra, n.d, n.p). Next, it should be helpful to explore what effect this globalization has on retailers and manufacturers in the fashion industry. Doherty notices how in UK there is a multitude of fashion retailers, both national and international, and how global brands have â€Å"come to characterize our major high streets and consumption patterns, and undoubtedly have an increasingly important influence on our lives and spending habits,† (Doherty, 2009, n.p). Globalization however means that the products provided by these international shops go through an extensive â€Å"network of contractors and subcontractors,† in different countries (Globalization, n.d, n.p). For example, a dress from a Gucci shop in Italy will be stitched and assembled in another country like Guatemala. It is rare that these international retailers like Nike, Gucci or Target produce their goods themselves; rather, they â€Å"source and market goods produced on contract in low-wage environments,† (Globaliza tion, n.d, n.p). Since these international retailers usually make huge profits,

Kant and Equality Essay Example for Free

Kant and Equality Essay Some readers of this essay will have become impatient by now; because they believe that the problem that perplexes me has been definitively solved by Immanuel Kant. It is certainly true that Kant held strong opinions on this matter. In an often-quoted passage, he reports a personal conversion from elitism: â€Å"I am myself a researcher by inclination. I feel the whole thirst for knowledge and the eager unrest to move further on into it, also satisfaction with each acquisition. There was a time when I thought this alone could constitute the honor of humanity and despised the know nothing rabble. Rousseau set me straight. This delusory superiority vanishes, I learn to honor men, and I would find myself more useless than a common laborer if I did not believe this observation could give everyone a value which restores the rights of humanity. †What Kant learned from Rousseau was the proposition that the basis of human equality is the dignity that each human person possesses in virtue of the capacity for autonomy (moral freedom). This moral freedom has two aspects, the capacity to set ends for oneself according to one’s conception of what is good, and the capacity to regulate one’s choice of ends and of actions to achieve one’s ends by one’s conception of what morality requires. According to Kant’s psychology, brute animals are determined to act as instinct inclines them, but a rational being has the power to interrogate the inclinations it feels, to raise the question what it is reasonable to do in given circumstances, and to choose to do what reason suggests even against all inclinations. The question arises whether Kant’s psychology is correct, or remotely close to correct. Perhaps something like the conflict between conscience and inclination is experienced by social animals other than humans. Perhaps the freedom that Kant imputes to human on metaphysical grounds can be shown to be either empirically nonexistent or illusory. For our purposes we can set these questions aside and simply presume that the human psychological complexity envisaged by Kant does describe capacity we possess, whether or not it is shared with other animals. My question is whether Kant’s characterization, if it was correct, would have the normative implication she draws from it. It might seem that the Kantian picture helps to show how moral freedom is arrange concept, which does not significantly admit of degrees. If one has the capacity to set an end for oneself, one does not possess this freedom to a lesser extent just because one cannot set fancy ends, or because other persons can set fancier ends. If one has the power to regulate choice of ends by one’s sense of what is morally right, one does not possess this freedom to a lesser extent because one cannot understand sophisticated moral considerations, or because other persons can understand more sophisticated moral considerations. Moreover, one might hold that it is having or lacking the freedom which is important, not having or lacking the capacity to exercise the freedom in fancy ways. But the old worries lurk just around the corner. The Kantian view is that there are indeed capacities that are crucial for the ascription of fundamental moral status that do not vary in degree. One either has the capacity or one does not, and that’s that. If the crucial capacities have this character, then the problem of how to draw a no arbitrary line on a continuum and hold all beings on one side of the line full persons and all beings on the other side of the line lesser beings does not arise. The line separating persons and nonpersons will be non arbitrary, and there will be no basis for further differentiation of moral status. One is either a person or not, and all persons are equal. Consider the capacity to set an end, to choose a goal and decide on an action to achieve it. One might suppose that all humans have this capacity except for the permanently comatose and the anencephalic. So all humans are entitled to a fundamental equal moral status. This view is strengthened by noting that there are other capacities that do admit of degrees that interact with the no degree capacities. Individuals who equally have the capacity to set an end may well differ in the quality of their end-setting performances. Some are able to set ends more reasonably than others. But these differences in performance do not gainsay the fundamental equal capacity. It is just that having a high or low level of associated capacities enables or impedes successful performance. So the fact that individuals differ in their abilities to do arithmetic and more complex mathematical operations that affect their ability to make rational choices should have no tendency to obscure the more basic and morally status-conferring equality in the capacity of each person to make choices. In response: First of all, if several of these no degree capacities were relevant to moral status, one must possess all to be at the top status, and some individuals possess more and others fewer of the relevant capacities, a problem of hierarchy, though perhaps a manageable one, would emerge anew. More important, I doubt there is a plausible no degree capacity that can do the work this argument assigns to it. Take the capacity to set ends and make choices. Consider a being that has little brain power, but over the course of its life can set just a few ends and make just a few choices based on considering two or three simple alternatives. It sets one end (lunch, now) per decade three times over the course of its life. If there is a capacity to set ends, period, not admitting of degrees, this being possesses it. The point is that it is clearly not merely the capacity to set ends, but something more complex that renders a being a person in our eyes. What matters is whether or not one has the capacity to set sensible ends and to pick among alternative end at a reasonable pace, sorting through complex considerations that bear on the choice of ends and responding in a rational way to these considerations. But this capacity, along with any similar or related capacity that might be urged as a substitute for it, definitely admits of degrees. The same point would hold if we pointed to free will or moral autonomy as the relevant person-determining capacity. It is not the ability to choose an end on ground of consideration for moral considerations merely, but the ability to do this in a nuanced and fine-grained responsive way, that is plausibly deemed to entitle a being to personhood status. In general, we single out rationality, the ability to respond appropriately to reasons, as the capacity that is pertinent to personhood, by itself or in conjunction with related abilities, and rationality so understood admits of degrees. Kant may well have held that the uses of reason that are required in order to have a well-functioning conscience that can tell right from wrong are not very sophisticated and are well within the reach of all non crazy non feebleminded humans. Ordinary intelligence suffices. His discussions of applying the categorical imperative test certainly convey this impression. But commentators tend to agree that there is no simple all-purpose moral test that easily answers all significant moral questions. Thus Christine Korsgaard cautions that the categorical imperative test is not a â€Å"Geiger counter† for detecting the presence of moral duties, and Barbara Herman observes that the application of the categorical imperative test to cases cannot be a mechanical procedure but relies on prior moral understanding by the agent and on the agent’s capacity to make relevant moral discriminations and judgments and to characterize her own proposed maxims perspicuously. These comments confirm what should be clear in any event: Moral problems can be complex and difficult, and there is no discernible upper bound to the complexity of the reasoning required to master and perhaps solve them. But suppose I do the best I can with my limited cognitive resources, I make a judgment as to what is morally right, however misguided, and I am conscientiously resolved to do what I take to be morally right. The capacity to do what is right can be factored into two components, the ability to decide what is right and the ability to dispose oneself to do what one thinks is right. One might hold the latter capacity to be the true locus of human dignity and worth. Resisting temptation and doing what one thinks is right is noble and admirable even if one’s conscience is a broken thermometer. However, one might doubt that being disposed to follow one’s conscience is unambiguously good when one’s conscience is seriously in error. For one thing, moral flaws such as a lazy indisposition to hard thinking and an obsequious deference toward established power and authority might play a large role in fixing the content of one’s judgments of conscience. A conceited lack of healthy skepticism about one’s cognitive powers might be a determinant of one’s strong disposition to do whatever one thinks to be right. Even if Kant is correct that the good will, the will directed unfailingly at what is truly right, has an absolute and unconditional worth, it is doubtful that the would-be good will, a will directed toward what it takes to be right on whatever flimsy or solid grounds appeal to it, has such worth. Take an extreme case: Suppose a particular person has a would-be good will that is always in error. This could be strong or righteous, so that the agent always does what he thinks is right, or weak and corrupt, so that the agent never does what she thinks is right. If the will is always in error, the odds of doing the right thing are increased if the would-be good will is weak and corrupt. Some might value more highly on consequential grounds the weak and corrupt erroneous will, even though the strong and righteous invariably erroneous will always shines like a jewel in its own right. And some might hold that quite aside from the expected consequences, acting on a seriously erroneous judgment of right is inherently of lesser worth than acting on correct judgment of right. Even if the disposition to do what one thinks morally right is unassailable, its purported value does not provide a sound basis for asserting the equal worth and dignity of human persons. The capacity to act conscientiously itself varies empirically across persons like any other valued capacity. A favorable genetic endowment and favorable early socialization experiences bestow more of this capacity on some persons and less on others. If we think of an agent’s will as disposed more or less strongly to do what she conscientiously believes to be right, different individuals with the same disposition will experience good and bad luck in facing temptations that exceed their resolve. Even if we assume that agents always have freedom of the will, it will be difficult to different degrees for different persons to exercise their free will as conscience dictates. Moreover, individuals will vary in their psychological capacities to dispose their will to do what conscience dictates. One might retreat further to the claim that all persons equally can try to dispose their will to do what is right, even if they will succeed in this enterprise to different degrees. But the ability to try is also a psychological capacity that we should expect would vary empirically across persons. At times Kant seems to appeal to epistemic grounds in reasoning from the goodness of the good will to the equal worth and dignity of all human persons. We don’t know what anyone’s inner motivations are, even our own, so the judgment that anyone is firmly disposed to do what is right can never be confirmed. But surely the main issue is whether humans are so ordered that we ought to accord them fundamental equal moral status, not whether, given our beliefs, it is reasonable for us to act as if they are so ordered. The idea that there is a threshold of rational agency capacity such that any being with a capacity above the threshold is a person equal in fundamental moral status to all other persons prompts a worry about how to identify this threshold non arbitrarily. It might seem that only the difference between nil capacity and some capacity would preclude the skeptical doubt that the line set at any positive level of capacity could just as well have been set higher or lower. Regarding the proposal to identify any above-zero capacity as qualifying one for personhood, we imagine a being with barely a glimmer of capacity to perceive the good and the right and to dispose its will toward their attainment. The difference between none and some might be infinitesimal, after all. However, a threshold need not be razor-thin. Perhaps there is a line below which beings with rational capacities in this range are definitely not persons and a higher level such that all beings with capacities above this level are definitely persons. Beings with rational capacities that fall in the middle range or gray area between these levels are near-persons. The levels can be set sufficiently far apart that the difference between scoring at the lower and the higher levels is undeniably of moral significance. But the difference between the rational capacities of the beings just above the higher line, call them marginal persons, and the beings at the upper end of the scale who have saintly genius capacities, is not thereby shown to be insignificant. At the lower end we might imagine persons like the villains depicted in the Dirty Harry Clint Eastwood movies. These unfortunates are not shown as having moral capacities which they are flouting, but rather as bad by nature, and perhaps not entitled to full human rights. No doubt this is a crass outlook, but the question remains whether the analysis we can offer of the basis for human equality generates a refutation of it. Suppose someone asserts that the difference between the rational agency capacities of the most perceptive saints and the most unreflective and animalistic villains defines a difference in fundamental moral status that is just as important for morality as the difference between the rational agency capacities of near-persons and marginal persons. What mistake does this claim embody? COMMENTS ON KANTS ETHICAL THEORY Because we so commonly take it for granted that moral values are intimately connected with the goal of human well-being or happiness, Kants insistence that these two concepts are absolutely independent makes it difficult to grasp his point of view and easy to misunderstand it. The following comments are intended to help the you to avoid the most common misunderstandings and appreciate the sort of outlook that characterizes what Kant takes to be the heart of the ethical life. Kants ethical theory is often cited as the paradigm of a deontological theory. Although the theory certainly can be seriously criticized, it remains probably the finest analysis of the bases of the concepts of moral principle and moral obligation. Kants endeavor to ground moral duty in the nature of the human being as essentially a rational being marks him as the last great Enlightenment thinker. In spite of the fact that his critical philosophy in epistemology and metaphysics brought an end to The Age of Reason, in ethics his attempt to derive the form of any ethical duty from the very nature of a rational being is the philosophical high water mark of the Enlightenments vision of humanity as essentially and uniquely rational. What Kant aims to provide is a metaphysics of morals in the sense of an analysis of the grounds of moral obligation in the nature of a rational being. In other words, Kant aims to deduce his ethical theory purely by a priori reasoning from the concept of what it is to be a human person as a rational agent. The fact that people have the faculty of being able to use reason to decide how to act expresses the fundamental metaphysical principle -the basis or foundation in the nature of reality- on which Kants ethical theory is erected. Kant begins his treatise, The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals with the famous dramatic sentence: Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good without qualification, except a good will. 1. What does Kant mean by good without qualification? Obviously people try to seek and avoid many different sorts of things; those things which they seek they call good, while those they try to avoid, they call bad. These goods which people seek may be divided into those which are sought as means to some further end and those which they seek as good as ends in themselves. Obviously some things may be good as means to one end and bad as means to some other end. Different persons, motivated by different ends, will thus find different things good and bad (relative to their different ends). More food is good to a starving man, but it is bad to one overweight. In order for something to be good without qualification it must not be merely good as means to one end but bad as means to some other end. It must be sought as good totally independently of serving as a means to something else; it must be good in-itself. Furthermore, while one thing may be good as means relative to a particular end, that end becomes a means relative to some other end. So a college diploma may be sought as good as a means for the end of a higher-paying job. And a higher-paying job may be good as a means to increased financial security; and increased financial security may be good as a means to obtaining the necessities of life as well as a few of its luxuries. However, if we seek A only for the sake of B, and B only for the sake of C, etc. , then there is never a justification for seeking A at the beginning of such a series unless there is something at the end of that series which we seek as a good in-itself not merely as means to some further end. Such an ultimate end would then be an absolute rather than a relative good. Kant means that a good will is good without qualification as such an absolute good in-itself, universally good in every instance and never merely as good to some yet further end. 2. Why is a good will the only thing which is universally absolutely good? Kants point is that to be universally and absolutely good, something must be good in every instance of its occurrence. He argues that all those things which people call good (including intelligence, wit, judgment, courage, resolution, perseverance, power, riches, honor, health, and even happiness itself) can become extremely bad and mischievous if the will which is to make use of them is not good. In other words, if we imagine a bad person (i. e. one who willed or wanted to do evil), who had all of these so-called goods (intelligence, wit, etc. ), these very traits would make only that much worse his will to do what is wrong. (We would get the criminal master-mind of the comic books. ) Even health often also cited as a good in- itself may serve to make a person insensitive and indifferent to the lack of good health in others. 3. Isnt happiness such a universal, absolute good in-itself? Kant answers clearly, No. However, many philosophers (the ones we call eudaemonists) have assumed the obvious answer to be Yes. All ancient eudaemonistic ethical theories as well as modern utilitarian theories virtually define happiness as the absolute end of all ethical behavior. Such eudaemonistic ethical theories are attractive because of the fact that they make it easy to answer the question Why should I do what is morally right? For any eudaemonistic theory the answer will always be Because the morally right action is always ultimately in the interest of your own happiness. Since these theories generally assume that people really are motivated by a desire for their own happiness, their only problem is to show that the morally right action really does serve as the best means to obtain the end of happiness. Once you are led to see this, so such theories assume, the question Why should I do what is morally right? is automatically answered. Kant totally rejects this eudaemonistic way of ethical theorizing; he calls decisions made according to such a calculation of what produces your own happiness prudential decisions and he distinguishes them sharply from ethical decisions. This is not because Kant thinks we are not motivated by a desire for happiness, in fact like the ancient philosophers, he takes it for granted that we are; however, such motivation cannot be that which makes an action ethically right or wrong. The fact that an action might lead to happiness cannot be the grounds of moral obligation. Kant regards the notion of happiness as both too indefinite and too empirical to serve as the grounds for moral obligation why we ought to do something. In the first place it is too indefinite because all people have very different sorts of talents, tastes and enjoyments which mean in effect that one persons happiness may be another persons misery. This is because the concept is empirical in the sense that the only way you can know whether what you seek will actually serve to bring you happiness is by experience. As Kant points out, it is impossible that the most clear-sighted [man] should frame to himself a definite conception of what he really wills in this. Since we cannot know a priori before an action whether it really will be conducive to our happiness (because the notion is so indefinite that even the most clear-sighted amongst us cannot know everything that must form part of his own happiness) the desire for our own happiness cannot serve as a motive to determine our will to do this or that action. Moreover, Kant observes that even the general well-being and contentment with ones condition that is called happiness, can inspire pride, and often presumption, if there is not a good will to correct the influence of these on the mind. In other words happiness cannot be good without qualification for if we imagine it occurring in a person totally devoid of the desire to do what is right, it could very well lead to all sorts of immoral actions. 4. What does Kant mean by a good will? To act out of a good will for Kant means to act out of a sense of moral obligation or duty. In other words, the moral agent does a particular action not because of what it produces (its consequences) in terms of human experience, but because he or she recognizes by reasoning that it is morally the right thing to do and thus regards him or herself as having a moral duty or obligation to do that action. One may of course as an added fact get some pleasure or other gain from doing the right thing, but to act morally, one does not do it for the sake of its desirable consequences, but rather because one understands that it is morally the right thing to do. In this respect Kants view towards morality parallels the Christians view concerning obedience to Gods commandments, according to which the Christian obeys Gods commandments simply because God commands them, not for the sake of rewards in heaven after death or from fear of punishment in hell. In a similar way, for Kant the rational being does what is morally right because he recognizes himself as having a moral duty to do so rather than for anything he or she may get out of it. 5. When does one act from a motive of doing ones duty? Kant answers that we do our moral duty when our motive is determined by a principle recognized by reason rather than the desire for any expected consequence or emotional feeling which may cause us to act the way we do. The will is defined as that which provides the motives for our actions. Obviously many times we are motivated by specific desires or emotions. I may act the way I do from a feeling of friendship for a particular individual, or from desire for a particular consequence. I may also be motivated by particular emotions of fear, or envy, or pity, etc. When I act in these ways, I am motivated by a desire for a particular end; in Kants vocabulary I am said to act out of inclination. Insofar as an action is motivated by inclination, the motive to do it is contingent upon the desire for the particular end which the action is imagined to produce. Thus as different rational agents might have different inclinations, there is no one motive from inclination common to all rational beings. Kant distinguishes acts motivated by inclination from those done on principle. For example someone may ask why I did a certain thing, and point out that it brought me no gain, or perhaps even made life a bit less pleasant; to which I might reply, I know I do not stand to gain by this action, but I do it because of the principle of the thing. For Kant, this sort of state of mind is the essence of the moral consciousness. When I act on principle the sole factor determining my motive is that this particular action exemplifies a particular case falling under a general law or maxim. For Kant the mental process by which the actor understands that a particular case falls under a certain principle is an exercise in reasoning, or to be more precise, what Kant called practical reason, reason used as a guide to action. (Pure Reason is reason used to attain certainty, or what Kant called scientific knowledge. ) Since to have moral worth an action must be done on principle, and to see that a certain principle applies to a particular action requires the exercise of reason, only rational beings can be said to behave morally. 6. Why does Kant believe that to have moral worth an action must be done on principle rather than inclination? Kants argument here may seem strange to the contemporary outlook, for it assumes that everything in nature is designed to serve a purpose. Now it is an obvious fact that human beings do have a faculty of practical reason, reason applied to the guidance of actions. (Kant is of course fully aware the people often fail to employ this faculty; i. e. they act non-rationally (without reason) or even irrationally (against what reason dictates); but he intends that his ethical theory is normative, prescribing how people ought to behave, rather than descriptive of how they actually do behave.) If everything in nature serves some purpose then the faculty of practical reason must have some purpose. Kant argues that this purpose cannot be merely the attainment of some specific desired end, or even the attainment of happiness in general, for if it were, it would have been far better for nature simply to have endowed persons with an instinct to achieve this end, as is the case with the non- rational animals. Therefore, the fact that human beings have a faculty of practical reason cannot be explained by claiming that it allows them to attain some particular end. So the fact that reason can guide our actions, but cannot do so for the sake of achieving some desired end, leads Kant to the conclusion that the function of practical reason must be to allow humans as rational beings to apply general principles to particular instances of action, or in other words to engage in moral reasoning as a way of determining ones moral obligation: what is the right action to do. Thus we act morally only when we act rationally to apply a moral principle to determine the motive of our action. 7. Do all persons have the same moral duties? According to Kant only rational beings can be said to act morally. Reason for Kant (as for all the Enlightenment thinkers) is the same for all persons; in other words there isnt a poor mans reason versus a rich mans reason or a white mans reason versus a black mans reason. All persons are equal as potentially rational beings. Therefore, if reason dictates that one person, in a particular situation, has a moral duty to do a particular thing, then any person, in that same situation, would equally well have a duty to do that same thing. In this sense Kants reasoning parallels the way in which stoicism led Roman lawyers to the conclusion that all citizens are equal before the law. Thus Kant is a moral absolutist in the sense that all persons have the same moral duties, for all persons are equal as rational beings. But this absolutism does not mean that Kant holds that our moral duties are not relative to the situation in which we find ourselves. Thus it is quite possible for Kant to conclude that in one particular situation I may have a duty to keep my promise, but in another situation (in which, for example, keeping a promise conflicts with a higher duty) I may equally well be morally obligated to break a promise. 8. Why is it that actions done for the sake of some end cannot have moral worth? Since what ones moral duties are in a particular situation are the same for all persons, ones moral duties must be independent of the particular likes and dislikes of the moral agent. Now any action which is motivated by the desire for some particular end presupposes that the agent has the desire for that end. However, from the simple concept of a rational being it is not possible to deduce that any particular rational being would have any particular desired ends. Most people, of course, desire to seek pleasure and avoid pain, but there is no logical contradiction involved in the notion of a rational being who does not desire pleasure or perhaps who desires pain. Thus reason does not dictate that any particular rational being has any particular end. But if the desire for a particular end gave an action its moral worth, then only those rational beings who happened in fact to desire that end would regard such actions as good, while those that desired to avoid such an end, would regard the action as bad. (Thus for example eudaemonistic theories which assume the end of achieving happiness is what gives an action its moral value, would serve to induce only those beings who happened to have the desire for happiness to behave morally. For those rational beings who happened to desire to avoid happiness, there would be no incentive to behave morally and what appears good to the happiness-seeker will appear positively bad to one who seeks to avoid happiness. ) But, as we have seen above, Kants absolutism reaches the conclusion that moral obligation is the same for all persons. Thus the ground of moral obligation, what makes an action a moral duty, cannot lie in the end which that act produces. 9. What does reason tell us about the principle that determines the morally dutiful motive? Since Kant has ruled out the ends (i. e. the consequences) which an act produces as well as any motive but those determined by the application of principle as determining moral duty, he is faced now with the task of deriving the fundamental principles of his ethical theory solely from the concept of what it is to be a rational being. He now argues (in a very obscure manner) that from this notion of what is demanded by being rational, he can deduce that it would be irrational to act on any principle which would not apply equally to any other actor in the same situation. In other words, Kant claims that reason dictates that the act we are morally obligated to do is one which is motivated by adherence to a principle which could, without inconsistency, be held to apply to any (and all) rational agents. This fundamental ethical principle, which is commonly called The Categorical Imperative, Kant summarizes with the statement that I am never to act otherwise than so that I could also will that my maxim become a universal law. Kants claim that Reason demands the moral agent to act on a universal law thus in many ways parallels Jesus dictum that God commands that those who love Him obey The Golden Rule. 10. What is a categorical imperative? Any statement of moral obligation which I make the principle of my action (my maxim in Kants vocabulary), in the context of a specific situation, constitutes an imperative. I might, in such a situation, choose to act on a statement of the form, If I desire some specific end (e. g. happiness, maximum pleasure, power, etc. ), then I ought to do such and such an action. In doing so I would be acting on what Kant calls a hypothetical imperative. However, Kant has already ruled out ends as the grounds for moral obligation; thus hypothetical imperatives cannot serve as the basis for determining my moral duty. However, if I act on a principle which has the form, In circumstances of such and such a character, I ought to.

How did Television Sitcoms Change Gender Roles?

How did Television Sitcoms Change Gender Roles? How did television sitcoms change gender roles from late 50s to 60s? Television started to become a popular piece of entertainment for the family in the 50s. Television was one of the most important entertainment forms of device that entertained the family at home rather than going out[1]. As television got popular over the years, more and more people started to buy them for their house. Television took the place for piano, radio and phonograph[2]. Television was placed in the center of the family, where they would spend family time watching news to sitcoms. Television was the great family entertainer that brought mom, dad, and the kids together; while portraying different gender roles and social functions in a society[3]. Sitcoms in 1950s portrayed of having a perfect family, husband was the bread winner and the women was the house wife. Women were often showed in sitcoms as the family care of the family and also not expected to have a job. Sitcoms played a major role in the American society and played a biggest influence role on women throughout the years .1960s was the era where the perfect family construct was changed, where both men and women were shown of having jobs in sitcoms, which was different from 1950s. There was a big shift in the sitcoms, once it was shown to have a perfect family of one male worker in the family to showing both gender having a job. Television and sitcoms played a huge role into shaping up the future of the society. The American suburb was growing postwar era, a nuclear family was a basic social construct [4]. Sitcoms such as father knows best and leave it to beaver showed a perfect nuclear family construct. A womens job was to stay at home, take care of the family, cook, and make husband happy. In an episode from I love Lucy; Lucy was portrayed to follow her husbands commands. Where the man is the master, and the woman does what shes told (equal rights).ÂÂ   Usually women had to be obedient to their husbands, respect their opinion and always agree with their opinion.ÂÂ   Most of the sitcoms would show women at home taking care of the house instead of pursuing a career. A womans place is in home (leave it to beaver, Beavers house guest).ÂÂ   Sitcoms such as father knows best, Jane the mother, was always at home taking care of the children, cleaning, and making food; While the man had a different role A husband was the bread winner of the family[5]. In an episode from Father knows best, a young engineer had the ideal family vision of a hardworking man that worked hard all day that would come home to pretty wife. So when the day is over he can come home to some nice pretty wife (Betty, Girl Engineer).ÂÂ   There are many things that sitcoms portrayed about a suburban culture from Father knows best, I love Lucy, and Leave it to beaver that showed predominantly common gender role, where the husband was the bread winner and women was the home wife. Sitcom such as father knows the best played a perfect nuclear family that Americans dreamed of having. Jim played the role of the husband. He came home after work every day expecting dinner and the house to be clean. Since the men were the money provider for the family, they realized that supporting the family was hard at times. For example: in an episode Jim told the family Time has come for us to tighten our bills (The Mink Coat). This shows that Jim was the only money provider for the whole family, while the rest of the family did not know how to control their expenses. It got harder for Jim to balance the checks, since he was the only money provider for the house. In a way, Jim as a husband and father has to make his family happy but since he is the only worker of the family, sitcoms showed that man would work hard all day and come home to nice family, which was a stress reliever. While women on sitcoms had a different thinking that earning money was same as working in the home. Lucys character was mainly showed as naÃÆ'Â ¯ve, dumb, and careless with money. For example, in I love Lucy whats so tough about earning a living (Job Switching). Lucy thought that earning money was not hard, and it could be done by women as well. Sitcoms often showed that women were not mature when it came to money decision and work, while on the other had men were shown to be the mature responsible earner of the family. Sitcoms often showed women only doing the house work. They were not shown intelligent and were not encouraged to pursue any career.ÂÂ   For example: In an episode from fathers knows best in which betty signed up as wanting to be an engineer, one of bettys guy friend said but youre a girl (Betty, Girl Engineer) referring it to how men thought girls were not capable to do jobs like men. Even mothers would train their daughters to do house work and be a good wife. Youre joking (Betty, an engineer) Jane, mother of Betty took it as a joke that Betty was going to be an engineer. Sitcoms often showed that women were not expected to do big things in life such as work and earn a living. In an episode from I love Lucy, Ricky said Anybody can cook and do house work (Job Switching). Ricky the husband works in the kitchen and Lucy works in a chocolate factory. It showed in the episode how it was miserable for both the man and women to struggle for job switching. It referenced that women were better in the kitchen and man were better at earning a living. Sitcoms also showed that women were shown non intelligent even if they were working in a chocolate factory. In 1960s, there was a change in sitcoms, where women were not always shown working in the kitchen but they held some type of job on the side. Shows such as That Girl played an important role in the 1960s showing women were more than capable to work and handle house work. Ann was portrayed as a strong woman who is focused on her career. You got the job (Help Wanted) it was when Ann got a job as a secretary job. It was an important scene because it showed the viewers that women should advance in their careers instead of being a full time house wife.ÂÂ   Ann was a main character in the show, where she was portrayed as a hard working woman. Shows like That Girl, made women realize that they can be more independent. Sitcom such as That Girl tried to show that women should pursue their career instead of being rushed to their marriage and raising a family. Finally, Television played an important role in social life and gender life. Television transitioned the whole idea of gender roles. 1950s was a period of time where nuclear family was known as the dream family. In 1950s, men were the bread winner of the family and the women were the home taker of the house. The idea of nuclear family started to transition as time progressed. 1960s had a revolutionary change in sitcoms, women were shown having a job and taking care of the family, but before it was different where they were not shown to be working. Father knows best, I love Lucy, and Leave it to beaver showed how a typical family construct and showed the gender responsibility. Shows like that girl started to change the idea of a dream family and men and women were shown to be equal. Bibliography Primary sources: Father Knows the best. Betty, Girl Engineer April 11, 1956. Television Father Knows the best. The Mink Coat. April 11, 1956. Television Leave it to beaver, Beavers house guest. October 8, 1960. Television I love Lucy, job switching. September 15, 1952. Television I love Lucy, Equal Rights. October 26,1953. Television That girl, help wanted. October 20, 1966. Television Second Sources: Bogart, Leo. The Age of Television. 3rd ed., New York: Ungar, 1972. Spigel, Lynn. Make Room for TV: Television and the Family Ideal in Postwar America. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1992. Print. [1] Bogart, Leo. The Age of Television. 3rd ed., New York: Ungar, 1972. [2] Spigel, Lynn. Make Room for TV: Television and the Family Ideal in Postwar America. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1992. Print. [3] Spigel, Lynn. Make Room for TV: Television and the Family Ideal in Postwar America. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1992. Print. [4] Spigel, Lynn. Make Room for TV: Television and the Family Ideal in Postwar America. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1992. Print. [5] Spigel, Lynn. Make Room for TV: Television and the Family Ideal in Postwar America. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1992. Print.

Color Blindness Essay examples -- Abnormal Color Vision Color Deficien

Color Blindness   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Many people refer to problems with one’s ability to see color as color blindness, however, unless a person can’t see any color at all, color vision problems should be called by another term. Common terms are abnormal color vision, color deficiency and color vision confusion. Females maybe be effected by color blindness, but usually they are just carriers. Males are more often affected. About 8% of males and 0.5% of females are effected by color blindness.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Although color blindness may be a result of another eye disorder, the majority of color blind cases are hereditary and present at birth.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The retina, is a complex nerve system which converts light energy into electrical energy that is then transmitted to the brain. This conversion is accomplished by two types of receptor cells in the retina called rods and cones do to their shape. The cones are responsible for converting the color. Each cone contains visual pigments that are sensitive to one of three wavelengths of light: red, green and blue. Normally, all colors of the spectrum are able to be matched by mixtures of only three color sensitivities. Therefore, the huge variety of colors we see are a response to different compositions of wavelengths of light. The rods are responsible for encoding white and black.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Color blindness results when one or more of the cone cells fail to function properly. One of the visual pigments may be functioning abnormally, or be absent altogether.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  ...

Paris During the Terror Essay -- Papers Paris France Terror Essays Pap

Paris During the Terror This document in its original form as a speech is an unpublished document. However, because it has been translated and printed as a part of a book, it is now a published document. As a source for study, it has several strengths. Firstly, it is now a part of a recognized historical document. Secondly, it fulfills the criteria of being a relevant document because of the author’s proximity to the Paris Terror. It also provides good clues about the view points (however biased) of Jacques Roux and others like him living in Paris at that time. On the other hand, while this speech’s translation into English will ensure it reaches a wider audience, important nuances of the French language may have been lost in the crossover. As a result, significant connotations gained from a choice of French words may no longer be obvious and this may even affect the amount of unwitting testimony one might have been able to extract from it. Another weakness this speech will have is its bias. It is very obvious that Jacques Roux is passionate about the role of the government in the persecution of his people. The reader is presented with one side of the struggle without being aware of whether the government was in fact guilty of what it is charged with. The foot notes are also open to interpretation. How sure can the reader be of the accuracy of the information? While reading Jacques Roux’s speech, it may be difficult to decipher certain terms, one of which is the sans culottes. If one investigates, one will be faced with the task of interpreting which version was meant and used by Roux. In order to truly underst... ... by law’, merchants and traders should bear some moral responsibility towards the poverty stricken citizens of Paris. Although much of what Roux says can be checked against other documents of the era, his speech would be of significant use to a historian as except for the translation to English, it has not been manipulated in terms of personal interpretations or open to discussion. It is mainly for this reason that for a historian, Jacques Roux’s speech is a minefield of information about the personal struggles of a Parisian living during the Terror. Bibliography An Introduction to the Humanities. History, Classicism and Revolution. Block 3. Open University Press.1997 An Introduction to the Humanities. Resource Book 2. Open University Press. 1997 www.library.ttu.edu/ul/subjects/humanities/history/

Microbiology Study Guide Unit 2

Define metabolism: The sum of all biological chemical reactions inside a cell or organism Differences in catabolism and anabolism: Catabolism is an enzyme-regulated chemical reaction that releases energy. Complex organic compounds such as glucose, amino acids, glycerol and fatty acids are broken down into simpler ones. The energy of catabolic reactions is used to drive the anabolic reactions. Anabolism is also enzyme regulated but requires energy for taking the simpler broken down components from the catabolism phase and building them into complex molecules such as starch, proteins and lipids What is the role of ATP?ATP is the driving force for catabolic and anabolic reactions. ATP stores energy that is produced from the catabolic reactions which is later released to drive the anabolic reaction and other cellular work. ATP is stored energy in cells (phosphate groups held together by high energy reacting bonds) ATP is required for synthesis and some of the energy is given off as heat What are enzymes and their components? Enzymes are biological catalysts (substances that speed up a chemical reaction without themselves being permanently altered) Components:Apoenzyme is the protein portion of an enzyme. Inactive by themselves, must be activated by cofactors Cofactor- non protein portion (IE: ions of iron, zinc, magnesium and calcium) ****If the cofactor is an organic molecule, it is called a coenzyme Holoenzyme- The apoenzyme+cofactor forms the holoenzyme. It is the active enzyme. If you remove the cofactor, the apoenzyme will not function. **Cofactors may assist the enzyme by accepting atoms removed from the substrate or by donating atoms required by the substrate. Substrate=the specific substance that an enzyme will act on) **The crucial function of enzymes is to speed up biochemical reactions at temperatures that are compatible with the normal functioning of the cell. What are metabolic pathways? The sequence of enzyme catalyzed chemical reactions within a cell . What is the Kreb’s cycle? A pathway that converts two-carbon compounds to CO2, transferring electrons to NAD+ and other carriers; also called tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle or citric acid cycle A series of biochemical reactions in which a large amount of potential chemical energy stored in acetyl CoA is released step by step.In the cycle, a series of oxidations and reductions transfer that potential energy in the form of electrons to electron carrier coenzymes (mostly NAD+). The pyruvic acid derivatives are oxidized and the coenzymes are produced. Kreb’s cycle is for lipid catabolism. Glycerol is converted into dihydroxyacetone phosphate (DHAP) and catabolized via glycolysis and the Kreb’s cycle. Fatty acids undergo beta-oxidation, in which carbon fragments are spit off two at a time to form acetyl CoA which is catabolized by Kreb’s cycle.What is glycolysis? **Glycolysis creates to ATP molecules The main pathway for oxidation of glucose to pyruvic acid: Glycolysis is usually the first stage in carbohydrate catabolism. This occurs from the oxidation of glucose to pyruvic acid. Most microorganisms use this pathway and it occurs in most living cells. The term â€Å"glycolysis† means the splitting of sugar. The sugars are oxidized, release energy and then their atoms are rearranged to form 2 molecules of pyruvic acid. **Glycolysis does not require oxygen!Explanation of cellular respiration: Cellular respiration takes place after the glucose is broken down in pyruvic acid which is then channeled into the next step of either fermentation or cellular respiration. Cellular respiration is defined as the ATP-generating process in which most molecules are oxidized and the final electron acceptor is (almost always) an inorganic molecule. **operates via an electron transport chain * Aerobic respiration the final electron acceptor is O2 Anaerobic respiration the final electron acceptor is an inorganic molecule other than O2 What is an el ectron transport chain and why is it important? It is a system in which electrons pass through a series of different electron carriers to molecules or oxygen or other oxidized inorganic and organic molecules. The process occurs in the plasma membrane of the prokaryotes and in the mitochondrial membrane of eukaryotes. What is microbial growth? It is the growth in numbers of populations or an increase in the number of cellsWhat are three physical requirements of microbial growth? PH, temperature and moisture Define psychotrophs: Are cold loving microbes, will usually be found growing in the refrigerator such as listeria (20-25oC) How does PH affect growth? Certain bacteria thrive in a specific PH environment. Acidophiles like a PH of 5. 4 or below whereas Neutrophiles (most human pathogens) prefer a more neutral environment (5. 5-7. 5 PH) Define halophiles: Extreme halophiles (obligate halophiles) are microbes that require a high salt concentration that is required for growth.Facculta tive halophiles (most common) are microbes that do not require high salt concentrations for growth but can tolerate high salt solutions. How does osmotic pressure effect microbial growth? Microorganisms obtain most of all their nutrients in solutions surrounding water; therefore water is required for growth. They are composed of 80-90% water. High osmotic pressures have the effect of removing vital water from a cell. If a microbe is in a solution in which the concentration of solutes is higher than in the cell, the microbe is in a hypertonic environment which will create pressure on the cell.It will crush the cell causing the cells water to push out through the plasma membrane into the high solute concentration. What are some chemical requirements for microbes? Carbon- one of the most important for microbes next to water because it is the structural backbone Nitrogen- it is required for protein synthesis (requires some sulfur), also needed for DNA or RNA synthesis (needs some phosph orous) Vitamins and minerals- needed for essential function of enzymes, usually as co-factors. What are some organic growth factors?Essential organic compounds an organism is unable to synthesize are known as organic growth factors. They must be directly obtained by the environment. One group of organic growth factors is vitamins for human. What is a media? A media is a nutrient prepared for the growth of microorganisms. In the lab we use nutrient broths and nutrient agars. What are canophiles? Canophiles (aerobic bacteria) are microbes that grow better at high CO2 concentrations. Low oxygen high CO2 conditions resemble those found in the intestinal tract, digestive tract and other body tissues where pathogens grow.Why is a selective media desireable? Because a selective media will suppress the growth of unwanted bacteria while encouraging the growth of the desired microbes. How do prokaryotes reproduce? Reproduce by binary fission (most common) while others may go through a â€Å" budding† process 2 Categories used to control microbes (physical and chemical) Physical: Heat (dry heat such as flame or in hot ovens) heat will denature the protein causing the proteins shape to change making it no longer usable by the organism.Or (moist heat) such as with an autoclave which will force steam inside of the organism very quickly and cause it to break down Chemical: surfactants such as soaps which will work as a binding agen to the microorganism causing it to break off and be rinsed off or phenols which will disrupt the cell membrane or denature the protein therefore disrupting protein synthesis What are physical methods to control microbes? * Heat (dry and moist heat) * Cold * Radiation * Membrane filtration * Drying * Osmotic pressure What are the most common and effective ways of controlling microbes?An autoclave machine that utilizes heat, steam and pressure to kill microbes and their endospores in about 15 minutes (prions are not killed) Is it more effectiv e to control or kill microbes? It is more effective to control the microbes because we can study live bacteria, but not if they are dead Why would we want to control microbial growth? Controlling microbes can prevent infections and food spoilage Compare and contrast chromosomes in prokaryotes and eukaryotes: Prokaryotes have 1 chromosome (only one allele)Eukaryotes have 2 chromosomes (2 alleles) DNA is not always the genetic material. What are the exceptions? How could mutations give rise to new alleles of a gene? How does translation differ from transcription? Transcription in the synthesis of a complementary strand of RNA from a DNA template Translation is the protein synthesis that involves decoding of nucleic acid and converting the information into the language of the proteins What are the differences between the leading and lagging strand?Leading strand gets replicated sequentially and gets filled first. The lagging is the strand that gets replicated sporadically based off of what is left. What are three types of RNA and what do they do? Messenger RNA (mRNA): carries genetic information from the nucleus to the cytoplasm. Transfer RNA (tRNA): transfers the necessary sequence by carrying the code. Ribosomal RNA (rRNA): helps in synthesis of proteins. Explain mutations: A mutation is the change in the base sequence of DNA. Some mutations are bad such as when the gene for an enzyme mutates.The enzyme encoded by the gene may become inactive or less active because its amino acid sequence has changed. But a mutation can also be beneficial such as when an altered enzyme encoded by the mutant gene suddenly has new or enhanced activity that will benefit the cell. List and discuss common mutagens: Define genetic engineering: Manufacturing and manipulating genetic material in vitro also called recombinant DNA (rDNA ) What is recombinant DNA? A DNA molecule produced by combining DNA from two different sources. Exchange of genes between two DNA molecules) **Contribute s to a populations genetic diversity (source of variation in evolution) What are three processes involved in making recombinant DNA? Transformation in Bacteria Conjugation in bacteria Transduction in bacteria What is a restriction enzyme? An enzyme that cuts double stranded DNA at specific sites between nucleotides Pg. 249 What is conjugation? The transfer of genetic material from one to another involving cell to cell contact What is a plasmid? A small circular DNA molecule that replicates independently of the chromosome

Marketing Audit Example Essay

1. Explain how information technology puts powerful tools in the hands of global martekers. technology is very important in now times this is why in every area of the business technology is a very important tool, information technology and international marketing are working very closely; information technology innovations is improving marketing process and the way we interact with the customers. So thanks to information technology markters now have more information about customers and they can reach them easily due to data bases. Also information technology has changed the competitive environment, consumers have more information about competitive offering, also thanks to internet a new way of marketing has emerged and new ways to reach the consumer. †¨2. what is the difference between existing, latent and incipient demand? how might these differences affect the design of a marketing research project? Existing demand where there are existing suppliers; latent demand, where there is a need or desire that is not currently satisfied because there is non suitable supplier; and incipient demand that is the demand in which certain trends project shows an emerging need but customers are not really aware of it. when designing a marketing research we have to make sure what kind of market we are dealing with and which type of demand, if the market is mature and the demand is existing the consumer is already familiar with the products and the strategy to be used is different than if the demand is existing and the needs of the consumers hasn’t been satisfied. Also the approach to the different kind of demand will be different and the knowledge that we have form the different markets will make the research more successful. In the marketing research we could include how is the actual demand or we can investigate how will be the future demand. in conclusion marketer could focus their marking research in the deemed estimation, to determinate how is the approximate level of demand for a product. 3. describe some of the analytical techniques used by global marketers. when it is approbated to use each technique? Analytical marketing technics are often used where the research data are interpreted using computerized analytical techniques. The database in such a system is composed of a statistical bank  of information, which enables marketers to draw conclusions from data using statistical procedures. also a model bank of information, which enables marketers to make better marketing decisions using models . key Analytical Tools & Techniques Perceptual Mapping Tool – these maps take empirical customer-based evaluations of key brand attributes and translate this data into visual maps. These maps provide a method for calculating the ROI of positioning changes, identifying product strengths & weaknesses, and determining unmet customer needs. Read this article by Marketing NPV’s Managing Partner to learn more. Resource ReAllocator – by combining management science, historical data, and executive judgments, this model can be used to size and allocate marketing resources such as salesperson headcount.  Bass Diffusion Modeling Tool – use this technique to accurately forecast revenue for a new product where you have no historical data.  Markov Chains – this technique can be used to understand the future of your market such as how your customers will make purchasing decisions. Many organizations have used Markov chains to forecast the impact of market changes. Follow this link to learn more about this technique. Marketing ROI – measuring return on investment is one of the most frequently used methods for analyzing the success of marketing programs. Follow the preceding link to develop a Forward ROI model. Decision Trees – this technique provides a method for breaking large decisions into manageable pieces, analyzing the expected outcomes, and determining potential payoffs.  Simulation Tools – using turbocharged Excel spreadsheets can provide insight into the effectiveness of a particular marketing program. Follow the preceding link to download the required plug-in for Excel and start simulating. Competitive Radar – use this tool to graphically represent your competitive  matrix.