Category: Conversation

In Parfit’s attempt to create a theory of morality, labelled Theory X, which is a non-person affecting view and doesn’t allow for situations in which an intolerable conclusion could be reached, he found what he called the ‘Repugnant Conclusion’. Parfit’s original formulation of the Repugnant Conclusion was “for any possible population of at least 10 billion people, all with a very high quality of life, there must be some large imaginable population whose existence, if other things are equal, would be better even though its members have lives that are barely worth living” .

The logic behind the Repugnant Conclusion can be explained as follows: imagine a World ‘A’ with a population of 1 billion very very happy people, living fulfilling lives. Now imagine a World ‘A+’ in which there are 1 billion people of equal happiness to those in A, as well as an additional 1 billion people who are unhappy, but possess lives that are worthwhile. As the mere addition of lives worth living, given that they do not affect the lives of the current population, cannot make something worse, it follows that A+ is better than, or at the least, not worse than A.

Now imagine a World ‘B’, which has the same quantity of people as A+, but has both a higher average utility and a higher total utility than A+, although the utility of each person is less than that in A. It would be incredibly counter-intuitive to suggest that B isn’t better than A+, as the population has both a higher average and total utility. According to the law of transitivity, it follows that B is better than A. For a graphical representation of the logic thus far see appendix A.

Following this logic, we can find that C is better than B, and thus, better than A. Continuing this process, we will eventually reach a World ‘Z’, a world of “muzak and potatoes” , where people’s existence is drab and dull, but not terrible enough to not be worthwhile. However, our logic will maintain that Z is better than Y, and therefore better than A.

This leaves us with the Repugnant Conclusion, as through seemingly sound logic, we have arrived at an absurdly counter-intuitive conclusion, in which World ‘A’, where 1 billion people have a very high average quality of life, is seen to be worse than World ‘Z’, in which billions upon billions of people have an average quality of life that is barely positive. For a graphical representation of this see appendix B.

Although Parfit wasn’t the first philosopher to notice that influential moral views have counter-intuitive repercussions, such as the Repugnant Conclusion, he was certainly the one who popularised it with regards to population ethics. The Repugnant Conclusion, namely how to avoid it, has become one of the great debates of modern philosophy, at least in the realm of population ethics. This is due to the fact that the moral comparisons used in assessing the Repugnant Conclusion, are inextricably linked to the moral foundations upon which we base our present actions. In other words, our present actions, whether it be policy-making, environmental conservation or increased education, etc., will inevitably have a significant impact on the well-being of future generations as well as an influence of the size of future populations, therefore philosophers are determined to work out the best action to take.

Parfit’s admission that he had failed to construct a Theory X that was able to satisfy the parameters he had set himself, consequently drew quite a lot of philosophical attention, with a plethora of notable philosophers weighing in with their theories of how to tackle to issue. Some philosophers have argued that we should accept the Repugnant Conclusion, however, most philosophers maintain that we should attempt to avoid the Repugnant Conclusion.

Total utilitarian approaches to Theory X seem to inevitably lead to the Repugnant Conclusion, whilst average utilitarian approaches violate other principles by reaching equally intolerable conclusions such as, the Absurd Conclusion and the Sadistic Conclusion. As a result, compromise theories have begun to take prominence, the most prominent of which is Number Dampened Utilitarianism.

Number Dampened Utilitarianism, sometimes referred to as Variable Value Principles, is effectively a compromise between total and average utilitarianism such that, when the population is relatively small, judgments relating to the maximization of utility are largely based on the total sum of utility. However, as the populations’ increases, the importance placed on the total sum of utility, in maximizing utility, is reallocated to average utility. This is because, although Number Dampened Utilitarianism follows the Impersonal Total Principle, it adds the constraint that there is a limit on the total utility in a world, meaning total utility becomes less relevant as the population increases. As a result, Number Dampened Utilitarianism allows us to avoid the Repugnant Conclusion, as, in the most simplistic sense, the Repugnant Conclusion represents the problems that arise when quantity can trump quality under simple maximizing utilitarianism, but the effect of quantity here has been ‘dampened’.

A more detailed analysis of Number Dampened Utilitarianism shows that the solution, and the limit, are predicated on the idea that the total amount of utility in the world is a diminishing function of the population of that world. Thus, it allows us to avoid the Repugnant Conclusion as the diminishing marginal increase in the value of utility, as a result of increases to population, means the total utility of the world will reach a limit.

Number Dampened Utilitarianism, is based upon the mathematics of a sum of an infinite series that tends towards a limit, i.e. the simple sequence 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/16…. will tend to 2 (Flim = 2). In the context of which the Repugnant Conclusion was explained earlier, no matter the population of World ‘Z’, there will be some limit to the total happiness in the world (Zlim). Therefore, as long as World ‘A’ has a total utility greater than Zlim, it will be better than World ‘Z’, no matter the scale of the population increase.

Philosophers have developed various models based on Number Dampened Utilitarianism, however, Ng’s formulation of the Number Dampened Utilitarianism model is arguably the most well-known. Ng’s model applies an increasing concave function to the size of the population and in doing so, Ng’s maximization of Number Dampened Total Utility is not only able to avoid the Repugnant Conclusion, but solve the non-identity problem, whilst not implying counter-intuitive rankings. However, in less compelling cases it fails to satisfy the Mere-Additions principle, eluding to what will be a reoccurring problem with Number Dampened Utilitarianism: it fails to satisfy all the principles of Theory X at once.

However, Number Dampened Utilitarianism faces quite a few serious pitfalls. One such problem is that it violates Weakened Pareto. The problem can be seen in the example outlined below:

Imagine a World ‘X’, in which there are 1 million very very happy people, leading fulfilling lives. Now we increase the population, say, by increments of 500,000 people who are equivalently very very happy and also leading fulfilling lives, and doing so in no way impinges on the happiness of the current population of ‘X’. If we use Number Dampened Utilitarianism, then the total goodness in ‘X’ will approach a limit. When we reach this limit, or get insignificantly far from it, each time we add 500,000 more people, the value that their happiness will add to the total welfare of ‘X’ will be negligible. However, this is an obvious violation of Weakened Pareto and therefore the problem at present can be set out as:

Number Dampened Utilitarianism violates Weakened Pareto

Weekend Pareto is true

(i , ii) Number Dampened Utilitarianism is false.

The same observation can made with regards to Weakened Negative Pareto. For example, imagine a world where the entire population live very very tortured lives, in which they are constantly suffering. Now we start to increase the population, by adding people whose lives are equally tortured and thus have a negative utility. As per the Number Dampened Utilitarian view, as we increase the population, the total suffering in the world will approach a limit. As before, when we reach this limit or get insignificantly far from it, each time we increase the population, the disvalue each additional person brings to the world will be negligible. This violates Weakened Negative Pareto and therefore the problem can be set out as:

Number Dampened Utilitarianism violates weakened negative Pareto

Weakened Negative Pareto is true.

(i , ii) Number Dampened Utilitarianism is false.

Whilst one may be able to concede that the value of adding extra lives with a positive utility may decrease asymptomatically, tending to a limit, the analogous assumption about lives with negative utility, as shown above, is arguably more repugnant than the Repugnant Conclusion itself.

Moreover, whilst Number Dampened Utilitarianism may be able to logically avoid the Repugnant Conclusion, it ultimately suffers the same pitfalls as the Average Utility Principle, most notably that it allows for situations in which it can be better, with respect to maximising welfare, to add people with negative utility to a world rather than creating a larger number of people with positive utility. This is widely referred to as the ‘Sadistic Conclusion’. Thus, in a sense, Number Dampened Utilitarianism’s greatest strength is ultimately its greatness weakness, in that it ultimately suffers the pitfalls of both forms of utilitarianism it is derived from, arguably making it a lesser alternative to either one of the individual principles.

Furthermore, whilst one can acknowledge the foundational logic of Number Dampened Utilitarianism in its avoidance of the Repugnant Conclusion, the analogous assumption with respect to negative utility individuals, as well as is allowance of the Sadistic conclusion, are both unattractive and unavoidable, presenting a large problem for Number Dampened Utilitarianism as a credible method of satisfactorily avoiding the Repugnant Conclusion.

On top of that, attempts to rectify the problems posed to Number Dampened Utilitarianism, by its original assumption with respect to negative utility individuals, through the alteration of models and amendment of assumptions, have resulted in different, but nonetheless intolerable consequences. For example, amending Number Dampened Utilitarianism’s view that the negative disutility each person contributes to a possible world, is a decreasing function of the total population of said world, in order to satisfy Weakened Negative Pareto, will ultimately engender the ‘Absurd Conclusion’ . The Absurd Conclusion is the notion that the proportionate expansion of a world which contains people of both positive and negative utility, will result in that world becoming a worse place as the population expands. This can be seen by an example:

Imagine a world in which there are 99 incredibly happy people with positive utilities and 1 terribly miserable person with a negative utility. If we proportionately expand the population, maintaining a ratio of 99:1 (positive utility individuals: negative utility individuals), the world will ultimately become a disproportionately worse place, as we tend towards the limit of positive welfare. In summation, as the addition of individuals with positive utility will have a diminishing marginal impact, whereas the addition of individuals with negative utility does not decrease relative to the size of the population, the amended Number Dampened Utilitarianism models will mean that proportionate increases in the population of a world will make it a disproportionately worse place. This heavily undermines the legitimacy of Number Dampened Utilitarianism as a method of satisfactorily avoiding the Repugnant Conclusion, as when it has a limit on negative welfare, Number Dampened Utilitarianism violates Negative Weakened Pareto, but when it is amended, the asymmetry between the logic of the positive and negative welfare leads to The Absurd Conclusion.

Another factor of Number Dampened Utilitarianism that should be subjected to scrutiny is its reasoning behind happy people being of diminishing marginal value. Whilst the suppositions of the various philosophers who maintain that happy individuals are of diminishing marginal value aren’t obviously false, there is as much reason to suggest that their reasoning is false than there is suggesting that it is true . One such reason revolves around the logic behind the fact that instrumental goods inherently posses diminishing marginal value. If one maintains that this is because they contribute less intrinsic value, as one increases the number of goods consumed, then it can be argued that this shouldn’t be applicable to ‘happy individuals’.

A good illustration of diminishing marginal returns can be done by imagining a person who is holding their breath underwater. When the person comes up for air, the utility they receive from that first gasp of air that they were desperate for, will be much greater than the 100th breath of air they take, 2 minutes after they are done holding their breath. It can be argued that instrumental goods such as food, wealth, conversation or oxygen, in our example, are only subject to the principle of diminishing marginal utility, because they make diminishing marginal contributions to a person’s utility. But surely, one can’t justify utility having diminishing marginal returns by the same reasoning, for how could one plausibly argue that utility makes diminishing marginal contributions to utility (in our specific population model).

Whilst, Huemer’s suspicion about the diminishing marginal values of worthwhile lives doesn’t prove that they don’t have a diminishing marginal value, it would be seemingly incoherent and ‘ad hoc’ to ascribe worthwhile lives properties such as we would with instrumental goods, without grounding such reasoning in strong ethical foundations.

In assessing the degree to which Number Dampened Utilitarianism satisfactorily avoids the Repugnant conclusion, one can reasonably state that it offers a logical, methodical, and coherent solution to avoiding the Repugnant Conclusion. However, one must remember that Number Dampened Utilitarianism is not a theory devised solely to avoid the Repugnant Conclusion. Therefore, as Number Dampened Utilitarianism’s avoidance of the Repugnant Conclusion will inevitably violate one or more of the principles relating to Theory X (anonymity, Pareto, continuity, etc.), or, worse, engender the Sadistic Conclusion, one can conclude that the degree to which it does so ‘satisfactorily’ is minimal.

In the years following Parfit’s introduction of Theory X, the Repugnant Conclusion and the Mere-addition Paradox to the world of modern philosophical debate, there have been various attempts to develop a concept of beneficence, that can solve the non-identity problem whilst avoiding the problems outlined by Parfit. However, there is yet to be a conclusive notion of Theory X. Attempts to avoid the Repugnant Conclusion whilst satisfying Theory X have yielded limited success. Similarly, challenges to Parfit’s reasoning, and even arguments that our intuition is misguided and we should thus, accept the Repugnant Conclusion, have been unproductive.

Perhaps there is no situation in which the Mere-addition principle and non-anti-egalitarian principle can combine to avoid the Repugnant Conclusion as well as other intolerable conclusions.

Given the inconclusive nature of the debate surrounding Theory X, one should acknowledge that whilst Number Dampened Utilitarianism doesn’t satisfactorily avoid the Repugnant Conclusion, the likelihood to which any theory could is negligible.

Ray Bradburry creates a society that is run by a government that manipulates its people by providing them with a happy and simple life. Instead, of allowing their own people to think independently, the government tells its society how to shape their lives. In order to keep control, the executives controlling the town, enforce their own mindset through the brutal use of technology. Adam Gopnik quote illustrates the idea that people tend to forget everything in order to stop constant change. This provides readers with a separation between Montag’s logic and that of the average human being in Fahrenheit 451. Throughout the novel, Bradburry suggests that the use of technology in a modern society, creates an environment that uses machinery that is more animated than humans, and filled with distractions, and is run by a government that tells people what to think instead of allowing them to think for themselves.

In Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradurry envisions an environment where the society has a very strong connection with technology. This deep connection causes people to stop interacting with one another, and instead to interact with the animated technology. Mildred is described as a character who is obsessed with technology and develops a deep connection with it because of its more relatable and lively ways. This can be seen through her actions and needs as a person living in this extreme society. When Montag feels sick, he asks Mildred, ‘Will you turn the parlour off?’ he asked. ‘That’s my family,’ she replied. ‘Will you turn it off for a sick man?’ he asked once again. She countered with, ‘I’ll turn it down.’ She went out of the room and did nothing to the parlour and came back. ‘Is that better?’ she asked. ‘Thanks,’ Montag responded in a helpless manor. ‘That’s my favorite program,’ she said’ (Bradburry, 48-49). Eventually, readers realize through this quote, that her bond with her so called ‘family’, becomes stronger than any other of her human relationships, thus causing her to put her supposed ‘family’, who she watches on the parlour walls, ahead of her own husband. Here, she replaces reality with a virtual world, because it seems more animated than real life. Montag is aware that Mildred has not bothered to lower the volume and accepts it, which shows that he has accepted the lack of intimacy in their marriage. This creates a separation between the married couple, and shows readers just how much Mildred values her so called ‘family’. Another example of machines being more animated than humans is when Mildred and her friends, Mrs. Phelps and Mrs. Bowles come to visit. This is important, because the sole reason why the friends come over is to watch the parlor walls. They speak in a basic manor and never go into detail with one another because they are too invested in the animated programs on the parlor walls. It is easy to tell how basic their interactions are when one of the friends visiting Mildred say the following, ‘Doesn’t everyone look nice!’ ‘Nice.’ ‘You look fine, Millie!’ ‘Fine’. ‘Everyone looks swell!’ ‘Swell’ (Bradburry, 93). The conservations between the women are empty and superficial, just like the programs the friends love watching. They may say, you look fine, but they lack interest in any topics with more depth. This occurs because Mildred and her friends are distracted from real life, and instead are attached to their more lively and animated programs. The TV parlors that take over Montags apartment are a crucial product that represents machinery being more animated than a human’s real life.

Moving on, Bradburry illustrates a society that confuses distraction with happiness, where people refuse to acknowledge faults and corruptions of society. This produces an environment that allows people to remain extremely complacent and elusive to the outside world. This can be represented by Montag’s transition to realizing the problems of society and how mistaken he lives his life. At first, Montag is just like most of the other society, distracted from real life and the troubles of the community. He finally is asked the question: ‘Are you happy?’ (Bradburry, 10), by Clarrise. He soon realizes that he is not happy by responding with, ‘I’m so damned unhappy, I’m so mad, and I don’t know why. I feel like I am putting on weight. I feel fat. I feel like I’ve been saving up a lot of things, and don’t know what. I might even start reading books’ (Bradburry, 64). After Montag is asked that question, he immediately question people and mainly, the things around him. Montag uses the comparison of feeling fat because it generally leaves someone unhappy with themselves, and people can respond to that unhappiness by being satisfied or creating change. Montag has been satisfied in his life by accepting and settling with the way life is supposed to be according to the society he lives in. This analogy is key because it represents Montag’s resilience to the society. By opening a book and gaining knowledge from it, would be similar to someone exercising their body to lose weight. Here, Montag doesn’t want to settle, but instead, he wants to be happy. Another major example of a distraction are the Seashells, especially the ones that Mildred wears. Seashells are Ray Bradberry‘s, form of headphones. They bring music, news, and entertainment to not just her but everyone else in the city as well. Not only does Mildred use them during the day, but she also uses them as a way to fall asleep. Mildred is making breakfast with her Seashells in, and as a result does the following, ‘Mildred watched the toast delivered to her plate. She had both ears plugged with electronica bees that were humming the hour away. She looked up suddenly, saw him and nodded. ‘You all right?’ he asked. She was an expert at lip reading from ten years of apprenticeship at Seashell ear-thimbles. She nodded again’ (Bradburry, 18). When Montag wakes up in the morning after Mildred’s attempted suicide, he observes her making breakfast in the kitchen. This description shows Mildred wearing the Seashell ear-thimbles so frequently that she is used to reading Montag‘s lips instead of actually listening to him. Her simple not to Montag‘s question of the weather she is all right, indicates she has no memory of taking the pills the night before. This situation describes just how much of a distraction the Seashells are, and how much they take you out of the real world. They isolate you and keep you trapped in a bubble that forces you to obey governments rules, that Mildred cannot escape. Overall, the Seashells are only one component of the society that keep you distracted from the outside world and its corruption.

Throughout the novel, Bradburry uses technology that is more animated than humans, and distractions from this technology, to force people to follow the way that the government runs the society. The nameless government that runs the society, controls its people by limiting their power to think by themselves. Instead, the government tells them what they want to think, through the manipulation of technology. Bradburry writes, ‘It had an Eye. The impersonal operator of the machine could, by wearing a special optical helmet, gaze into the soul of the person whom he was pumping out. What did the Eye see? He did not say. He saw but did not see what the Eye saw’ (Bradburry, 14). The technology in this society is so advanced, that Mildreds overdose can easily be taken care of, by two average people, smoking a cigarette. Bradburry uses the eye of a snake to represent personification that symbolizes the evil government and the cruel technology used to manipulate its people. He describes the society that Montag lives in and uses this wording to show how the government can look into an individual’s personal information, which interferes with their privacy. Towards the beginning of the book, Beatty senses some suspicion with Montag and his behaviour after a terrible incident during the job, when a lady burns her house down herself. He pays him a visit and after a deep conversation with Montag, Beatty responds with this, ‘If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, topheavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it. Peace, Montag’ (Bradbury, 61). Beatty explains this corrupt society to Montag in a perspective that the changes in society are positive. He describes the ideas of a massively controlling government as good things. The government clearly interferes with the right to be informed of important things, and takes away true happiness and judgment rights from people. Since people cannot think for themselves, the government takes advantage of this, and forces the society to follow their rules.

By taking away the people’s ability to think, the government manipulated technology that is more animated than humans and filled with many distractions, to make the society follow their rules. Bradburry predicts a future that is very similar to the society we live in today. With technology such as TV’s and phones taking over our everyday life, Bradburry writes about a society just like the one we live in today.

In the previous decade, arriving at the bottom of the pyramid, the world’s most minimal financial levels, has become an undeniably significant arranging guideline for experts working in universal turn of events. The guarantee of deliberately saddling the market capability of the world’s most unfortunate individuals has demonstrated persuasive, as enormous organizations, social business people and even non-benefits look for money related returns while bringing new market access to those some time ago prohibited. In light of the present on the PowerPoint introduction, I can consider scrutinizing the ventures. Accomplish they work globally and have enthusiasm for connecting new clients who live in neediness? Are their association finding sudden difficulties as they look to serve the poor in developing markets?

To arrive at the base of the pyramid in a practical manner, I contend, organizations need to improve their edges by diminishing variable expenses, and raising value focuses on single exchanges. ‘Organizations must grasp the truth that high edges and value focuses are not only a top of the pyramid wonder; they are additionally a need for guaranteeing feasible organizations at the base of the pyramid.,’ On the off chance that your business is simply in its revenue driven, government and common society will stand up to. If you center around principally on doing social great, you have just made another brief corporate social obligation venture. The way to progress is proportional up from the earliest starting point to make a prudent pattern of the financial turn of events, which drives interest for items and administrations. As it were, ‘organizations must connect their own money related accomplishment with that of their bodies electorate.’

For what reason should a business be genuinely worried about the earth? The environment is the last, yet surely not the least, a stakeholder that an organization needs to take into genuine thought while working together. Regardless of whether individual or corporate, should rehearse social obligations towards the earth due to the accompanying reasons. The Environment is the main source of raw materials for production and it serves as the main dumping ground for wastes generated by production and consumption patterns. Environmental compliance costs are steadily rising in many countries. A growing number of individual and institutional investors are considering a company’s environmental and social performance in making investment decisions. In many industries, rules and regulations have been put in place to assist provide coaching and direction, and public coverage takes into account issues inside quite many fields of natural resources, conservation, and environmental protection. Environmental concerns impacting companies can include negligence and liability, land rights, and basic ethical principles such as privileges and responsibilities; Which of nuclear waste, for example? While modern-day society is increasingly relying on nuclear energy, we nevertheless want to determine how to dispose of nuclear waste properly and securely. In such cases, resolutions to such troubles are left to our kids or grandchildren. Discussions on social principles as nicely as ethical standards have to continue as regards environmental obligations.

For instance, many of us choose to lean toward retaining natural habitats because they are beautiful, whilst others are allowed to be used and destroyed due to the fact they supply little in the manner of beauty, leisure, or usefulness per se. Thus, social responsibility means walking a first-class line between market demand and conservation. It’s no longer a handy venture to balance environmental duties with monetary considerations, however, it’s one that many corporations are struggling with well into the 21st century. Making social responsibility a phase of the company surroundings is now not constantly a black-and-white rely however upon is stuffed with grey fields. While many consider that choices on enterprise ethics and social responsibility are not so difficult, the implications and consequences of extraordinary selections can have a massive effect on nearby consumers, communities, and even global implications. Making wonderful selections and choices in the fields of productivity and worker rights can also have a positive effect on business.

Moreover, this paper has confirmed that company social responsibility is a fundamental factor for many firms and at work. It has been proven that there are many ones of a kind area where a non-public and public sector can pick to the center of attention to their corporate social responsibility. The environment is the first area of focus on corporate social responsibility. Education, health, nutrition, and employment are different areas that ought to be considered in the improvement of corporate social responsibility programs. ‘Investment in social responsibility combines the monetary goals of buyers with their obligation and dedication to factors that make sure society’s well-being, such as environmentally friendly practices, monetary growth, and social justice.’ These factors are no longer only factors of company social responsibility but also a demonstration of a company’s ethical standards. To very own so lots and earn so much, at the fee of different struggling contributors of society, is unethical to some individuals. It is also unethical for the place of job to interact in environmentally unfavorable practices which lead to illnesses and existence loss. It can be argued that company social duty and the enforcement of high ethical requirements are no longer a choice however a duty for each the public and non-public sectors.

Overall, I found the presentation quite interesting. The Powerpoint presentation gave an important amount of information about moral principles in business ethics. It was very clear and easy to read. However, I want also to see on the presentation the problems encountered by the companies, how they handle the situation if there is a conflict of interest, injustices in the workplace. Same with the environment, how the companies preserve nature without destroying it.

No matter where you work, whether it is a small company or a big company, there is a need to live and follow by moral principles. Similar to what happened to Enron and other businesses that they did not adhere to moral principles so that they were bankrupt. Companies have to meet financial expectations, they additionally have moral responsibilities. Everyone, from the bottom to the top management, must meet these responsibilities.

In a PowerPoint presentation of Dr. Jose Mario B. Maximiano gives an in-depth discussion about the different types of moral principles in business ethics and the issues regarding corporate social responsibility. Paramount in the slide of PowerPoint is the author’s view regarding the importance of applying the moral principles in every organization. Based on the presentation, there are six moral principles. First, Human Dignity in the priority of Labor Over Capital; second, Respect for Basic Employee Right; third, Social Justice; fourth, Social Dimension of Private Property; fifth, Option for the Bottom of the Pyramid; lastly, Earth Responsibility and Sustainable Development.

The first ethical principle emphasized how important human beings are in the organization. The Author insists the principle applies regardless of whether capital is owned and controlled by public companies or private companies. So the priority of labor over the capital that all these who work should make certain that all they do is directed to benefiting labor itself humans rather than capital. Most importantly, it is the capability that any and each company has a responsibility, to make sure that its employees are being enabled by using their labor to emerge as greater human, to enhance their human fulfillment. This principle matters because in reality most companies, their priorities are capital over labor. However, they do not even think that without labor, money, land, and machinery are useless. This is the principle of human dignity – but, as our route in the direction of searching at this, we think about the biblical idea that people are made in the image of God.

Respecting employee rights is now not simply a touchy-feely way to hold your employees contented and happy—it is the law. Businesses need to recognize these rights to keep away from being sued for workplace harassment, discrimination, pay discrepancies, and etcetera. In connection with respecting employees, rights are social justice. The word “social justice” has come to be simply as distinguished as “human rights.” What is social justice exactly? It is genuinely wondering of fairness inside society. That applies to equity in wealth, opportunities, basic needs, and more. It is elevated over the decades, and now you will hear the term in discussions about gender, race, and the environment. Moreover, social justice is a topic that some people may additionally find uncomfortable. By touching on problems like race, gender, and income, it is effortless for people to grow to be shielding and resistant to change. That said, social justice has become increasingly more vital in our world. Diversity and equality are ideas that sincerely cannot be ignored. But by using pursuing social justice and working to make these thoughts greater prominent in our society, we can heal many of the divisions that are plaguing our country.

Another moral principle is the Social Dimension of Private Property. Now, how does justice relate to personal property? Everyone has the right to own, possess, or dispose of any property. With this moral right, no one can take your property due to the fact you are the rightful owner. However, this personal property is a conditional right. It is conditional right because the natural right to private possession is not absolute. The right to personal and private property has evolved, as it has become a necessity for the modern-day social life. Exceptions to this right, however, are possible if demanded through a higher law like, for example, when common good and public interest demand it. By advantage of the inherent prioritization of rights, property right is not unlimited. The right to private property is not an absolute right, for it is a proper conditioned using two factors: one, our personal needs, and second, higher needs of the community.

In the previous decade, arriving at the base of the pyramid, the world’s most minimal financial levels, has become an undeniably significant arranging guideline for experts working in universal turn of events. The guarantee of deliberately saddling the market capability of the world’s most unfortunate individuals has demonstrated persuasive, as enormous organizations, social business people and even non-benefits look for money related returns while bringing new market access to those some time ago prohibited. In light of the present on the PowerPoint introduction, I can consider scrutinizing the ventures. Accomplish they work globally and have enthusiasm for connecting new clients who live in neediness? Are their association finding sudden difficulties as they look to serve the poor in developing markets? To arrive at the base of the pyramid in a practical manner, I contend, organizations need to improve their edges by diminishing variable expenses, and raising value focuses on single exchanges. ‘Organizations must grasp the truth that high edges and value focuses are not only a top of the pyramid wonder; they are additionally a need for guaranteeing feasible organizations at the base of the pyramid.,’ On the off chance that your business is simply in its revenue driven, government and common society will stand up to. If you center around principally on doing social great, you have just made another brief corporate social obligation venture. The way to progress is proportional up from the earliest starting point to make a prudent pattern of the financial turn of events, which drives interest for items and administrations. As it were, ‘organizations must connect their own money related accomplishment with that of their bodies electorate.’

For what reason should a business be genuinely worried about the earth? Environment is the last, yet surely not the least, a stakeholder that an organization needs to take into genuine thought while working together. Regardless of whether individual or corporate, should rehearse social obligations towards the earth due to the accompanying reasons. The Environment is the main source of raw materials for production and it serves as the main dumping ground for wastes generated by production and consumption patterns. Environmental compliance costs are steadily rising in many countries. A growing number of individual and institutional investors are considering a company’s environmental and social performance in making investment decisions. In many industries, rules and regulations have been put in place to assist provide coaching and direction, and public coverage takes into account issues inside quite many fields of natural resources, conservation, and environmental protection. Environmental concerns impacting companies can include negligence and liability, land rights, and basic ethical principles such as privileges and responsibilities; Which of nuclear waste, for example? While modern-day society is increasingly relying on nuclear energy, we nevertheless want to determine how to dispose of nuclear waste properly and securely. In such cases, resolutions to such troubles are left to our kids or grandchildren. Discussions on social principles as nicely as ethical standards have to continue as regards environmental obligations.

For instance, many of us choose to lean toward retaining natural habitats because they are beautiful, whilst others are allowed to be used and destroyed due to the fact they supply little in the manner of beauty, leisure, or usefulness per se. Thus, social responsibility means walking a first-class line between market demand and conservation. It’s no longer a handy venture to balance environmental duties with monetary considerations, however, it’s one that many corporations are struggling with well into the 21st century. Making social responsibility a phase of the company surroundings is now not constantly a black-and-white rely however upon is stuffed with grey fields. While many consider that choices on enterprise ethics and social responsibility are not so difficult, the implications and consequences of extraordinary selections can have a massive effect on nearby consumers, communities, and even global implications. Making wonderful selections and choices in the fields of productivity and worker rights can also have a positive effect on business. In conclusion, this paper has confirmed that company social responsibility is a fundamental factor for many firms and at work. It has been proven that there are many ones of a kind area where a non-public and public sector can pick to the center of attention to their corporate social responsibility.

The environment is the first area of focus on corporate social responsibility. Education, health, nutrition, and employment are different areas that ought to be considered in the improvement of corporate social responsibility programs. ‘Investment in social responsibility combines the monetary goals of buyers with their obligation and dedication to factors that make sure society’s well-being, such as environmentally friendly practices, monetary growth, and social justice.’ These factors are no longer only factors of company social responsibility but also a demonstration of a company’s ethical standards. To very own so lots and earn so much, at the fee of different struggling contributors of society, is unethical to some individuals. It is also unethical for the place of job to interact in environmentally unfavorable practices which lead to illnesses and existence loss. It can be argued that company social duty and the enforcement of high ethical requirements are no longer a choice however a duty for each the public and non-public sectors.

Introduction

The focus of this essay will be to show the moral suggestion of separating morality from politics, shortly, Italian diplomat Niccolò Machiavelli is best known for writing The Prince, was a 16th century Florentine philosopher known primarily for his political ideas the ‘father of modern political theory” (Machiavelli , 2019).Approximately Machiavelli is the first one who separate moral from politics. Before him in Ancient Greece there was attempts to separate by Socrates and Plato. Niccolo Machiavelli is a great influence on many poloticians, philosophers, and leaders alike. His name has also come into Machiavellism meaning a brutal or realist view of something perhaps not the most moral of methods but it is effective. “Machiavellianism is a construct based on the writings of Machiavelli and describes individuals who are ambitious, strategic, capable of delaying gratification, manipulative, and amoral” (Lyons, 2019).Also, the researcher in this essay will explain what are the both concepts polities and morality, after that, according to Machiavelli goals important prince should be trying to get his goals , also he says that going on any path to achieve goals it is normal, Also, Machiavelli made a very strong case for morality to be separated from politics since history has shown that a good end has a way of justifying an evil means in governance. Taking a signal from Machiavellianism and the Nigerian political involvement from the independent era to the present time. Much emphasis will be put on proving answers to the following thought inciting questions which are at the base of Machiavellian political thought.

What is Morality?

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and behaviour. The word carries the concepts of: such as moral responsibility, referring to our conscience, moral standards, with regard to behaviour; and a moral identity, or one who is capable of right or wrong action. Therefore, morality means rightness., virtue, and goodness. Ethical quality has become a complicated issue within the multi-cultural world we live in nowadays. Let’s explore what ethical quality is, how it influences our behaviour, our conscience, our society, and our extreme fate (allaboutphilosophy, 2019).Ethnic (morality) explain that morality is the human attempt to define what is right and wrong about our actions and thoughts, and what is goodness and badness about our being who we are. However, the opposite of morality is immorality, which is actually the opposite of what is right or good( Jones, 2018).

What is politics?

Wherever you find individuals living together, you may find power relations: a certain individual or organization sees to it that another organization or individual carries out a certain activity that it something else would not carry out. The primary person has control. In order to create this clearer, fair envision simply are sitting on a couch at the, side for occasion, your partner (politicalscience, 2019).So what is politics ?the science of government; that portion of morals which has got to do with the direction and government of a country or state, the preservation of its security, peace, and prosperity, the defines of its presence and rights against outside control or colonialism, the augmentation of its strength and resources, and the security of its citizens in their rights, with the conservation and improvement of their ethics (definitions, 2019).

Morality and Polities

Morals and politics are complex concepts, and there’s a close relationship between them, which is revealed within the titles of the various studies that take after. Upon analysing the texts I chosen to raise a few reflections which will appear difficult, but I will make an exertion to present them clearly. Researchers, political scientists, philosophers claim that politics and morality are not connect because politics continuously persuaded to satisfies their possess needs and interests and uses most successful ways and implies, and the ethical satisfies the needs of most people. Based on the theory, able to say that the policy administering all public areas of life society a state. This could be considered a positive factor, that’s the great policy side. However, In the modern world of the leading role play politics. Morality is formed under political impact which clears out a clear imprint onthe ethical sees ofeach person. Incase weconsiderthe policy positionsof great and evil, atthatpoint it means that diplomacy isthe art of arrangement. Since politicians ought to arrange. It is this brought them the intuitive for survival since or they try to compromise or diplomatic death. In our society, this instinct isn’t work. However, there is some long conversation about morals in politics. Some scholars are accepting that’s difficult to separate them and it would be really impulsive to do so, whereas there are others who accept that separation of morals from religion is necessary to ensure proper political growths and improvements. Between the political philosophers who were the authors of thought of separation of morals from politics in advanced political think about was the Italian political philosopher and politician, Machiavelli (Sherzai, 2014).According to Machiavelli, politics is fundamentally concerned with protecting and furthering the intrigued of the state. He attempted to arrange political activity in an independent domain, free from the obliges and confinements of ethical judgment. Here Machiavelli attempts to demonstrate the inconsistency between the requests of traditional ethical quality and power politics. It means that terms politics is generally concerned with arrangement of enactment in arrange to decide who will pick up most financially in any given society or organization, and as such political handle is generally characterized by strife of intrigued among diverse classes that make up the society. such the concept of morality and the creation of great life. Politics for me ought to be almost the collective choice of how the state ought to be composed with the point of bringing almost common happiness. But, the notion of morality may be a universal feature of human life. That is difficult to understand and literature. The complex nature of morality makes it helpless to conflicting analysis, positions and debatable issues which have remained uncertain. But be that because it may, a few working definitions have been given that might help one in having knowledge to what morality stands for The thought of morality is equally used to allude to a system of standards and judgment shared by social, devout and philosophical communities with common conviction of what constitute right and wrong. Machiavelli’s argument that morality and politics cannot exist within the same gathering. However, when analysing Machiavelli’s different concepts in profundity, one can conclude that maybe his proposed savagery and fiendish is fuelled by an ethical conclusion of sorts (Törnström).

Can morality be separated from politics?

Niccolò Machiavelli clearly differentiate between moral and political and he believes in that moral avoidance is to get some of our goals (The prince).The view of the separation of ethics from politics is more explicitly associated with Machiavelli. He not only insists on this dichotomy but also recommends, in his concise and famous thesis named, The Prince, to the ruler or prince to trample upon every ethical consideration so as to fortify his power(islam, n.d.).

What is moral meaning? Moral is consisting from all those form which composed in the society. For instance, lying is a bad thing in a society but depends of Machiavelli and The prince book it is normal for prince to do lie with his nation, moreover this leads to make obvious break between moral and politics. Machiavelli advices the prince it is better his nation has fear from than they have love to him, because in fear usually people do less treason and coupe but in love there are many treason, coupe and apostate. Gathering love and fear together very difficult, that is why he advices prince to obligate his nation to have fear instead love for him. Machiavelli does not relate these things to morality, and that is not mean Machiavelli does not believe in moral but he attempts to differentiate between politics and moral. For Machiavelli separation between moral and politics based on that politics those works and do not have any relation with moral. What is moral principles for the prince? Which behaves should prince do for those works. Machiavelli says that going on any path to achieve goals it is normal, it means the moral substituted by goals. (Dara, 2019).However, These two contradicting camps are ably spoken to by the Aristotelian sees and the Machiavellian views. For Aristotle, the trademark of human actions counting politics is the interest of ethical ideals, which in turn will guarantee common happiness for the person and the society at large. But in differentiate to this, can be the Machiavellian advice to the “The Prince”, he saw the got to lift up the idea of morality in politics as superfluous, since both human nature and the instrument of politics don’t warrant it. He exhorted rulers and imminent lawmakers against any thought of a conceivable put for morality in politics. Whatever position one might choose to require, the truth remains that there appears to be a conceivable relationship between morality and politics. Both morality and legislative issues offer assistance to direct and coordinate human behavior. As a controller morality is concerned with interpersonal relation and intuitive between individual and bunch, though politics directs relations between bunches, distinctive socio-political organizations and the state, with the control of state power as the centre. what affect would politics have on the lives of individuals living in a society when the key actor in politics have no moral qualms?

According to both Aristotle and Plato made no distinction between these two concepts in their moral and political thoughts. For them “ethics is at the same time politics” (OGBONNAYA OKOMBA, 2006).Aristotle said that problems of individual morality can’t be separated from the problems of political institutions and organizations. Aristotle’s view was teleological in that human actions ought be judged by their consequences. Also The idea here is not to discredit Machiavellian form of politics but rather to suggest that the game of politics will bring about more of common good if given moral backing. Therefore, politics should be viewed in terms of generating common happiness which will in turn bring about the good life we all desire. I believe politics should be for man and not man for politics(OGBONNAYA OKOMBA, 2006).Therefore, if morals is needed for the individuals, it can only be kept when the individuals feel that the government is, also steadfast and committed to the principles of morals. Something else, there will be no guarantee for the survival of morals in society, and in turn, survival of the government. However, Machiavelli argued that stresses on the need for the government to behave morally. “Just as good law is needed for the preservation of good morality; good morality is also necessary for the observance of law.”

Conclusion

conclusion, in this essay the researcher got that Machiavelli’s argument that morality and politics cannot exist in the same forum. according to Machiavelli morality obstruction is to get some of goals. because the most important thing prince to do that it is achieve goals. Also the researcher believes that sometimes morality and politics are adapting together. For example, a country caused crisis (flood, famine, earthquake, volcano and immigration) there are some reasons for cooperation between countries, that is both morality and politics. Machiavelli believes that individuals should to do in the same time fears and loves prince. Another point, the conclusion of the claimants of this is that the principles of ethics should not be allowed to interfere in politics.

References

1. Jones. (2018, May 2). What is Morality? – Definition, Principles & Examples. Retrieved November 5, 2019, from study: https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-morality-definition-principles-examples.html
2. al-islam.org. (n.d.). View on the separation of ethics and politics. Retrieved November 26, 2019, from www.al-islam.org: https://www.al-islam.org/imam-khomeini-ethics-and-politics-sayyid-hasan-islami/view-separation-ethics-and-politics
3. allaboutphilosophy. (2019). Morality Defined. Retrieved November 1, 2019, from allaboutphilosophy: https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/morality.htm
4. Dara, H. (2019, November 1). separation morality from politics by Machiavilli. (B. Issa, Interviewer) Soran.
5. definitions. (2019). what is politics. Retrieved November 15, 2019, from definitions: https://www.definitions.net/definition/politics
6. islam. (n.d.). View on the separation of ethics and politics. Retrieved November 19, 2019, from islam.org: https://www.al-islam.org/imam-khomeini-ethics-and-politics-sayyid-hasan-islami/view-separation-ethics-and-politics
7. Lyons, M. (2019). Machiavellianism. Retrieved November 22, 2019, from sciencedirect: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/machiavellianism
8. Machiavelli , N. (2019, April 16). Niccolò Machiavelli Biography. Retrieved November 20, 2019, from biography: https://www.biography.com/scholar/niccolo-machiavelli
9. OGBONNAYA OKOMBA, O. ( 2006). THE ETHICAL IMPLICATION OF SEPARATING MORALITY. Retrieved November 22, 2019, from https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:21990/FULLTEXT01.pdf
10. politicalscience. (2019). What is political science? Retrieved November 12, 2019, from politicalscience: https://www.ru.nl/politicalscience/profile/what-political-0/
11. Sherzai, D. (2014, November 22). Politics and Ethics. Retrieved November 18, 2019, from Politics and Ethics: http://www.outlookafghanistan.net/topics.php?post_id=11310
12. Törnström. (n.d.). THE ETHICAL IMPLICATION OF SEPARATING MORALITY. Centrum för tillämpad etik, pp.7-10. Retrieved November 11, 2019, from https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:21990/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Could our love for animals slaughter them? Is it conceivable to state our eagerness and selfishness could influence their physical and mental health. Humanity often overlooks that animals have emotions similar to us humans. Humans and Animals have evolved together for quite some time. Wherever people are found around the world, there is a high assurance that various animals are discovered close by. Humanity has exploited animals in different ways including entertainment, transportation, scientific testing, food and clothing. Humans often find pleasure in watching animals, this developed the growth of wildlife in the entertainment industry.

The wildlife entertainment industry attracts between 20% or 40% of all tourism worldwide. “About 3.6 to six million people visit these wildlife attractions.” according to a recent study coordinated by Oxford University’s Wildlife Conservation Research Unit. It was established that every year about two or four million tourists financially support attractions that cause harm to these animals. Most humans enjoy traveling to these places because it provides guests with unique opportunities such as feeding,citing,wildlife encounters, and learning activities. However, the majority of people are insensible that they are supporting certain wildlife attractions that mistreat these animals daily. For Example, if animals are doing unusual activities they don’t normally do in the wild then it’s improper. Animals are trained to perform and to operate in these artificial habitats. However, animals in entertainment is quite a lot more than looking at animals in cages or circus ring. Animals in entertainment is accounted for any act that uses animals for performance, acting, fighting, or killing for the purpose of human enjoyment. This includes swimming with dolphins or turtles, touching stingrays, bullfighting, hunting animals, and movies that feature these animals,as well as circuses, zoos, and aquariums.

For a very long time, animals have been drugged, beaten in submission, and ripped away from their families or natural habitats to be held in cages, chained, and to live in poor conditions. The mistreatment of these animals are caused to show power and obedience during their training and living conditions. Large wildlife attractions such as zoos, aquariums, and circuses seem to be educational but if you look closely guest spend a few minutes observing these animals in small cages before moving on, the information that is shared about the animals is very little.It includes their name, diet, and their natural habitat. “While zoos and aquariums may appear to be educational and conservation-oriented, most are designed with the needs and desires of the visitors in mind, not the needs of the animals. Many animals in zoos and aquariums exhibit abnormal behavior as a result of being deprived of their natural environments and social structures.” as the Wildlife Rescue Vision Organization states. This is an example of how zoos are used for entertainment and for display than to treat animals with care. Wildlife animals should have their own freedom and their own space to express themselves. Zoos generally neglects that for them, instead of being in an open space they are in cramped cages or their enclosures are too small which causes these animals to appear uneasy. Millions of animals are inhumanely forced into inadequate and man-made environments as a source for entertainment. The treatment that they receive is cruel and inhumane, they are forced to live and breed in poor conditions which causes them to exhibit psychological disorders and physical deformities.Wildlife attractions are supposed to provide a safe place for animals to live and prosper but instead their life is endangered for money.

The phrase “ Animals Used” is deeper than what it seems, behind the scenes the trainers for these attractions mentally & physically abuse animals to break their spirit and make them scared enough to listen. Animals who do not obey their trainers often become whipped, beaten, choked or their teeth are pulled out. The forms of punishment they received is sickening and inhumane. During performances, some are drugged to become weakened and make them “manageable.” They often use tools such as whips, muzzles, electric prods, bullhooks to keep them performing. One of the most harmful attractions is the circus due to the fact that they do not typically stay in one location for a period of time, these circus animals have to travel in chains, small cages and they must be crated. Aside from being captured and witnessing their loved ones being murdered, wild animals are being poached. Poaching is when an animal is killed illegally for their fur, horns, and what is considered a valuable body part. According to the article (“https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/reference/poaching-animals/ by Jani Actman) “Poachers sometimes kill or capture animals to sell them locally or for the global trade in wildlife. Wildlife trading is a major black market that has increased alongside rising wealth in Asia—a major consumer of wildlife—and the advent of e-commerce and social media websites.” Poaching is the primary reason why animals are becoming extinct. Although, there are laws made to protect animals, they are not strictly enforced according to “https://aldf.org/article/laws-that-protect-animals/ for example “ The Animal Welfare Act: Signed into law in 1966, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is the primary federal animal protection laws. The AWA mainly involves animals kept at zoos and used in laboratories, as well as animals who are commercially bred and sold like those in puppy mills.The AWA directs the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture to set minimum standards regarding these animals’ “handling, care, treatment, and transportation.” Dog fighting and cockfighting are also prohibited under the Animal Welfare Act, so long as the activity in some way crosses state lines. However, many feel as if it was not a true animal protection law because the AWA regulates the use of animals used in research. It does not protect animals from being harmed or used.

Animal Rights and Animal Welfare is an extreme social issue that is happening today. Humans and human activities impose and impact the wildlife life. As our human population and resource grows, we are leaving less space for wildlife. Humanity is destroying these beautiful habitats for their own selfishness and enjoyment. There are many ways to make a difference, such as volunteering at a local wildlife refuge, rehabilitation hospital and more. We can also do little things such as picking up litter, educate ourselves, don’t purchase products from threatened or endangered species, limit hunting or donate money to organizations that support this. As stated in (https://sentientmedia.org/animal-cruelty/)“Speciesism is the cause of these kinds of abuses. Because people see animals as “less valuable” than humans, these atrocities continue to happen over and over. It happens to all different types of animals and in every corner of the world. It’s also preventable and unnecessary.

Animals are sentient creatures who deserve our respect and protection. They aren’t aggressive toward human beings unless they’re threatened, and we’ve already stolen much of their wildlife space for our own needs.” As more humans gain knowledge of animal cruelty, we will be closer to end it.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was the only president elected to four terms and was related to many other presidents. Roosevelt was the thirty second president during the Great Depression and World War Two. He had great ideas to help the Great Depression, and many war strategies. Franklin D. Roosevelt was a brilliant person starting in his youth and personal life, his political career, until his death and memory.

Roosevelt’s early life was filled with adventure. Roosevelt was born on January 30, 1882 his mother was Sara Roosevelt, she had many servants but took care of her son all by herself. Sara Roosevelt was twenty-eight when Roosevelt was born and his father James Roosevelt was fifty-four. Roosevelt first lived in Hyde Park, New York. He was home schooled by private tutors and was taught how to read and write by his mother. He worked hard and had lots of time to play, but he was not allowed to play with his neighbors. He either played alone or with his many cousins. Roosevelt’s father taught him to ice-skating, swim, and ride a horse. He also enjoyed taking photographs with a camera, his parents gave him. As a young boy Roosevelt’s parents took him on many trips, he was only three when he went to Europe. When he was nine, he spent a summer in Germany. He met with many people, listening closely to everything they said. He went to boarding school when he was fourteen, he was prepared for school so he received good grades. He was teased for being too well behaved and for not being good at sports. While at school, he became a skilled speaker and won many debates and in 1900 he graduated and went to Harvard University. At Harvard Roosevelt spent lots of time at the school newspaper, he was very serious about the Harvard Crimson. He became editor of the newspaper during his last year. He also spent lots of time thinking about a woman named Eleanor. He was engaged to her during his last year at Harvard and was married in 1905. He had six children, two of them were elected into the House of Representatives. He had an affair with his social secretary, Lucy Mercer. His wife offered a divorce, but did not go through with it. After a weird night Roosevelt said, “when I swung out of bed my left leg lagged, but I managed to move… Presently the left leg refused to work, and then the other”. At the age of 39, Roosevelt had cut polo, a contagious disease. At first, he refused to accept that he was permanently paralyzed, He tried many therapies and then bought warm springs resort in Georgia seeking a cure. He then established a foundation to help with polo. His wife took care of him during his disability brought by polo. Roosevelt received good grades and did have personal business but also had a political career.

Roosevelt was a politician, he was a governor, a senator and a president. His first political action was in 1910 when he ran for New York state senate. He called himself a Democrat and attacked the corrupt bosses in both parties. He defeated his Republican opponent 15,708 votes to 14,568 votes becoming Senator of New York. In 1912 Roosevelt joined other Democratic reformers in supporting New Jersey Governor Woodrow Wilson for president. In April 1913, President Wilson appointed Roosevelt assistant Secretary of the navy. In 1920 he won nomination for vice president. He focused on his campaign making many speeches to the public. He lost to his competitors but was happy with the friends he made. Roosevelt then ran for governor of New York and took office on January 1, 1929. On August 31, 1931, he established the temporary emergency relief administration to direct aid to families and other people who needed help. In 1932 advisers began bringing in support for a presidential run. After three ballots his campaign team convinced Garner to give his support to Roosevelt. He won the nomination on the fourth ballot and Garner received nomination for vice president. Roosevelt’s acceptance speech was “I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people”, a ‘New deal’ was the theme of his campaign. On November 1932, Roosevelt won 22.8 million votes to 15.8 million. He won forty-two of the forty-eight states. In the first hundred days as president, he started to improve America. He helped introduce legislation protecting workers rights. “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself” this is part of a famous quote by Roosevelt in 1933. On March 16, 1933 he asked for federal banking on loans to farmers, subsidies for those who reduce the size of their crops to bring their output into balance with demand. On the twenty-first of the same month, he asked to create the civilian conservation corps which gave 250,000 young men work in the national parks and he received 500 million dollars to provide immediate relief to out of work men and their families. He then received authority to raise the rich taxes from fifty nine percent to seventy five percent in the highest income bracket. One of Roosevelt’s new programs was the social security system it made sure that retired people would have an income after they stopped working. In the fall of 1935, he took a ‘nonpolitical’ 3000-mile trip to inspect new deal programs. He was elected in 1936, before the stock market crashed the second time, he then asked for more emergency money but was denied. He created the Works Progress Administration (WPA) federal theatre project which gave work to actors and stage technicians. In Washington the new deal was stymied, the congress was angry. Roosevelt was tiered, his polo-weakened muscles ache. He planned to retire at the end of his second term in 1940. During World War two he negotiated a generous lend-lease program which helped Great Britain financially. In 1940 he began a series of measures to help defend France and Britain from Nazi aggression. In 1941 with heavy war in Europe, he pushed to have the U.S factories become an ‘arsenal of democracy’ for the allies. After Pearl Harbor in 1941 Roosevelt declared war on Japan and Germany. He developed a strategy for defeating Germany in Europe through a series of invasions. He also helped encourage people during the Great Depression and World War II with his radio fireside chats. Together with Churchill and Stalin the Big Three helped lay the foundation of the post-war period. During his fourth inauguration ceremony his grandchildren joined him, and that was the last time they would all celebrate his victories. Roosevelt lived a life in politics and so after he died a memorial was built.

There are many known and unknown facts about Roosevelt. In March 1944, hospital tests indicated he had atherosclerosis which led to his death on April 12,1945. He died unexpectedly from a massive brain hemorrhage and died just before the first meeting of the United Nations. A train carried his body along the east coast to his funeral in Washington, thousands of people watched the train pass. In 1997 the Roosevelt memorial was opened in Washington, D.C. It had four galleries, one for each of his presidential terms. On the walls are some of Roosevelt’s inspiring statements. He is now the face on every dime. He was remembered for his politics but had many other personal things in his life. He collected about 1.2 million stamps throughout his life. The collection was large but it was not necessarily selective or valuable. But he did have several unique pieces created especially for him by foreign heads of state. Roosevelt was remembered for all the things he did in his life.

Roosevelt lived through a rough time in history. He was homeschooled with tutors until he was fourteen when his parents sent him to boarding school. He became a senator for New York, after that he ran for president and won. He encouraged America with his fireside chats during the Great Depression and World War II. After he died, a memorial was built in his honor and is filled with many of his statements. Roosevelt was a brilliant person who was remembered for all the things he did in his lifetime.

Jacques Derrida came to prominence in the late 1960s and early 1970s with the publication of Of Grammatology, Writing and Difference and Margins of Philosophy. Derrida’s name is inextricably linked with the term ‘deconstruction‘. Largely because of this, or rather because of some interpretations of what deconstruction is, he must be counted as one of the most controversial of contemporary European thinkers. The controversy surrounding Derrida can be traced back at least as far as the late 1970s, when he was engaged in a dispute with the American analytic philosopher, John Searle. The dispute concerned one of Derrida’s essays, Signature Event Context. In this essay Derrida offered a reading of the English philosopher J.L. Austin‘s theory of ‘speech acts‘. According to Derrida, Austin makes great play upon the role that intentions and literal meaning have in securing meaning. But, Derrida points out, neither intentionality nor literal language alone are sufficient conditions for the generation of meaning. What also needs to be attended to, Derrida argues, is the issue of ‘iterability‘. Iterability is the possibility of repetition. A word can be repeated many times and must be susceptible to being repeated in order to be a word and hence be meaningful. However, this repetition is never the ‘same’ in as far as all utterances of necessity occur in specific and ever changing contexts. Due to these contextual factors the possibility of repetition cannot be governed solely by a speaker’s intentions or by way of reference to literal language. In Reiterating the Differences Searle criticised this argument by seeking, among other things, to reaffirm the role of intention in meaning in a manner that he thought was true to the spirit of Austin’s work. Derrida’s response, sought to point out that Searle had not really grasped his argument. However, Derrida made this point by comprehensively citing and at one and the same time (at least as far as Searle was concerned) distorting the arguments in Searle’s text by situating them in a different context. Whatever the merits or otherwise of Derrida’s and Searle’s positions, one effect of the dispute was to contribute to the already marked divisions that characterise the relationship between continental and analytic philosophy. At its worst, this has led some analytical philosophers to deny Derrida the title of’philosopher’ at all.

Derrida is a controversial figure for other reasons more worthy of consideration. Foremost among these is that he is a thinker who has sought to challenge a number of what he argues to be deeply rooted presuppositions that dominate philosophical practice. This challenge, or more accurately the perception of its importance on the part of some readers, led to Derrida’s popularity in the late 1970s and early 1980s with an audience that one would not readily define as ‘philosophical’ in the institutional sense of the word. Many English readers of Derrida came from university literature departments in the USA and UK. Perhaps this readership perceived in Derrida’s approach a means of challenging the importance that philosophers sometimes claimed for their subject within the university system. Whereas studying literature, for example, in the end depends upon the existence of fictional works that the critic then analyses, philosophers have generally thought their subject to be free of any ‘literary’ aspect and have got on with inquiring into the nature of knowledge, truth, metaphysics, morality and so forth. Thus, they have tended to view literal language as the principal tool for arriving at precise and reliable accounts of these issues and metaphor as a secondary issue, susceptible to literal paraphrase or conceptual analysis. Derrida’s emphasis of the stylistic and literary aspects of philosophical discourse could therefore be seen as having an instrumental value for those with an interest in challenging philosophy within the university system. Derrida’s writings are also marked by an engagement with structuralism, a field familiar to literature scholars due to its increasing importance in the literary criticism of the 1970s. In spite of this, Derrida’s work situates itself within the context of philosophy, and demonstrates an especial interest in the work of canonical philosophers, such as Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, Kant, Nietzsche, Husserl and Heidegger.

Derrida’s engagement with structuralism in some ways allows him to be counted among those who are called ‘post-structuralist‘, although this is not necessarily a helpful term for understanding Derrida’s work. Primarily, Derrida mounts an attack upon the purported ‘objectivity’ of structuralist methodology. Thus, in the essay Force and Signification, he seeks to decode the significance of the structuralist movement and at the same time question its key presuppositions. The structuralist project seeks to present meaning as a totality that can be easily comprehended, in the sense in which one can overlook the structure of a building while ignoring those who might live or work in it. But in order to do this, Derrida argues, structuralism must negate those elements of meaning that are not susceptible to being analysed in terms of form. To put it another way, structuralism is indebted to something that cannot be accounted for within the structuralist paradigm of meaning. In Force and Signification, Derrida refers to this ‘something’ as the ‘living force’ of meaning. This living force is linked to the metaphorical substitution that occurs when structuralist analysis thinks of the nature of meaning by way of the metaphor of structure. For Derrida, meaning is at work in the ‘movement’ of metaphor itself, i.e. when the substitution of one word for another occurs. But this metaphoric process of substitution is not something inherently structural, for, necessarily, it is fluid, and what is fluid cannot be fixed or frozen in form. In turn, Derrida holds the structuralist view to be characteristic of the Western metaphysical tradition. This tradition, Derrida contends, thinks in a manner that privileges structure. By way of support for this argument we need, perhaps, only to think of the work that the foundational metaphor does for Descartes’ epistemology, or likewise of the formalised conception of the transcendental subject that Kant presents in the first Critique.

Privileging structure is for Derrida a key characteristic of the Western metaphysical tradition not merely in so far as it allows for talk about the ‘foundations’ of knowledge, etc., but also because the structural metaphor foregrounds the role of the image in thought. The Western tradition, he argues, thereby cleaves to the view that thought is first and foremost ‘representational’ in nature. Truth, in consequence, is taken to be a matter that concerns the literal and hence formally correct representation of’things’ by way of concepts. On this conception, concepts are by their very nature endowed with the power to ‘illuminate’ the world. In order to conceptualise reality Western metaphysics hence resorts to a metaphorical opposition between ‘darkness and light’. It is this opposition, Derrida argues, which is ‘the founding metaphor of Western philosophy as metaphysics’. Derrida also refers to this mode of thought as embodying a ‘heliocentric metaphysics‘. This is a metaphysics in which force is regarded as being secondary to the power of the representational image, in which intensity gives way to the primacy of representation.

For Derrida, metaphor is necessary to all philosophical discourse. Derrida argues that a series of oppositions have been constructed by philosophers that in equal measure depend upon and suppress the role that metaphor plays in philosophical language. The tendency to suppress metaphor is evident when philosophers engage in the analysis of truth and meaning. Philosophers, Derrida claims, traditionally display a tendency to separate the metaphorical language that pervades everyday language from the literal or fact-stating language that they rely upon for elucidating concepts of truth and meaning (a case in point being speech act theory, mentioned above). On the traditional view, literal meaning is taken to embody the proper or ‘true’ meaning of a word. This propriety signifies the consonance between a word and what it refers to. However, for Derrida, privileging literal language in this way ultimately depends upon the metaphorical propensities inherent in everyday language (it is, after all, necessary to define ‘literal’ language negatively: it is not metaphorical). A philosophy that privileges the literal must therefore suppress metaphor as a prelude to equating the literal with the true. Western philosophy, Derrida argues, does just this. It has generally regarded metaphor to be a secondary phenomenon susceptible to being conceptualised within the stable structure or ‘economy’ of literal language.

For Derrida, however, metaphor is no mere ‘accident’ within ‘the text of philosophy’. Metaphor is, rather, essential to this ‘text’. What is at stake when philosophers assert the opposition between literal and metaphorical language is the relationship between philosophical talk and everyday language and the extent to which philosophers would like to distance their utterances from the ambiguities inherent in such language. But, if philosophers are already caught up in everyday language as a precondition of their being able to philosophise at all, then one ought to consider whether philosophical concepts are essentially ‘contaminated’ by everyday speech. This issue has cultural and historical implications since, although metaphor as such does not have a history (simply because it is a feature common to all languages and cultures) the conceptual understanding of metaphor is culturally specific and hence has a history. This history is exemplified by Western philosophical thought, the heliocentric discourse that equates universal Reason with ‘natural light’. Derrida notes that this discourse has tended to regard other cultures and their languages as being primarily metaphorical rather than literal/rational. Hence, philosophy has exhibited a propensity to view other cultures as being divorced from the very discourse of the true which it claims to epitomise. In making this claim, Derrida’s reading of heliocentric metaphysics enacts a shift of emphasis away from the purely ‘philosophical’ domain into that of historical, cultural and political relations. To put it another way, engaging in a critical analysis of heliocentric thinking necessitates a critical engagement with the historical and cultural dimension of philosophical language and concepts.

Western metaphysics, Derrida argues, does not merely prioritise form over force and light (reason) over darkness (unreason). It also emphasises the role of the speaker in the generation and securing of meaning. Thus, this metaphysics also understands meaning as arising from the living presence of a speaker who ‘uses’ language intentionally. In this way, it effectively endorses the view that a timeless conception of the self is the origin of meaning. Western metaphysics, therefore, is also a ‘metaphysics of presence’: it holds that the meaning of words is ultimately linked to the intentions, and hence living presence, of a speaker/subject. For this reason, Derrida also refers to heliocentrism as embodying a ‘logocentrism‘, in other words, it holds meaning to reside in ‘living’ speech (logos) rather than ‘dead’ writing. One could again turn to Derrida’s treatment of structuralism to illustrate this point, especially to the account of Saussurean linguistics offered in Of Grammatology. Here Derrida seeks to show that by conceptualising meaning in terms of the structural paradigm Saussure privileges not only form over force and literal over metaphorical language but also ‘speech’ over ‘writing’. In other words, writing is conceived as a mere adjunct of living speech when it comes to the analysis of meaning. Speech, in contrast to writing, is taken to exhibit all the defining features characteristic of authenticity and originality. As such, speech is taken to ground the concept of truth. On such a model, language is taken to be a ‘vehicle’ of thought that can be manipulated by the living speaker in order to communicate his or her beliefs, intentions, etc.

For Derrida, as we have noted, the stakes of the metaphysical tradition are essentially linked to the question of culture, since this tradition expresses a belief in its own superiority when it comes to establishing the nature of meaning and truth. The ‘phoneticization of writing’, that is, the rendering of the significance of writing in terms of the priority of living speech, marks this cultural epoch. It is an epoch with a lineage that can be traced from Plato to Heidegger. Derrida’s criticism of this tradition is mounted by way of the claim that what has hitherto been designated as ‘writing’ is not secondary. Writing, as he redefines it in Of Grammatology and elsewhere, is given an equal or even primoridal role both in the production of meaning and philosophical discourse. Of Grammatology announces the ‘death of speech’ as it has been traditionally understood (i.e. as the source of meaning). Against the traditional view, Derrida argues, we need to acknowledge the fact that ‘the concept of writing exceeds and comprehends that of language’, since language is already, in a very specific sense, ‘writing’. In making this claim, Derrida uses the term ‘writing’ in a very precise way, namely to designate the condition of the possibility of meaning. Derrida’s introduction of writing the precondition of speech questions the purportedly ‘natural’ status of the relation that is assumed to inhere between thought and language. Language, when it is no longer considered merely as ‘speech’, does not find its essential precondition in the intentions of a speaker — in their presence — but in the possibility of ‘inscription’. This condition of possibility is in turn discussed by Derrida in terms of what he variously refers to as the ‘trace’, the logic of the ‘supplement’, or ‘differance‘. Of Grammatology offers this observation concerning the trace: it is ‘the absolute origin of sense in general The trace is the differance which opens appearance and signification [. . .] no concept of metaphysics can describe it. Discussing the trace, therefore, takes us to the limit of metaphysical discourse, although not beyond it. Meaning, Derrida argues, is founded upon a ‘movement’ of difference. To put matters more simply, meaning for Derrida emerges out of ambiguity and ‘undecidability’, not from clearly definable conditions. Meaning, it follows, is not reducible to so-called ‘literal’ language, since inherent in its production is a process of simultaneous differing and deferring akin to the process of substitution that typifies metaphorical language. Derrida’s notion of the ‘trace’ represents an attempt to signify this condition. The trace, Derrida argues, is what provides the condition of possibility of meaning, signification, speech, speakers, and even thought. But the trace is none of these. Rather, the term indicates a fundamental possibility of repetition (iterability) inherent in the production of meaning. Such a possibility cannot be derived from notions of consciousness or presence, or from their purported opposites (unconsciousness or absence), for what it designates is ‘irreducible’. What Derrida is discussing here can perhaps best be grasped in terms analogous to what he discusses under the name of ‘force’ in the essay Force and Signification. The trace is not ‘opposed’ to anything, since it is a term that does not signify a determinate concept, still less something structural. Rather, the trace is what ‘must be thought before the opposition of nature and culture, animality and humanity, etc., belongs to the very movement of signification’. The trace, in other words, is what allows us to speak of the human and the non-human, of what is ‘inside’ (the self-reflexive moment in which we assert our consciousness or our own culturally specific identity) and what is ‘outside’ (the world of empirical experience and also other cultures). In other words, if language involves the giving of names to ‘things’, then the trace is the process of signification that makes this giving possible. The trace thus indicates that meaning itself is, in Derrida’s very specific sense, always already ‘written’ before it can be spoken.

Derrida’s conception of deconstruction can be seen at work in his reading of Western metaphysics. Deconstruction is a form of critical engagement that aims to reveal the underlying presuppositions upon which structures of meaning depend. Importantly, Derrida stresses that such an engagement is not to be confused with a form of relativism, since it does not entail the abandonment of a concern with the notions of truth and value. What deconstruction does do, however, is question the kind of metaphysical absolutism that is exemplified by the metaphysical tradition. Thus, Derrida notes, it operates ‘without claiming any absolute overview’ of reality. As such, deconstruction does not espouse a universal ‘method’ that can then be applied indiscriminately to any text or argument. In other words, it would be wrong to merely invoke terms like ‘differance’ or the ‘trace’ and use these as if they were instruments that of themselves enable one to ‘deconstruct’ a text. This is because it is the very adequacy of an instrumental view of concepts and terms that is questioned by Derrida’s work. From this it follows that ‘no one, single deconstruction’ exists. Deconstruction thus enacts a form of pluralism with regard to meaning and politics alike. Indeed, deconstruction is not inherently ‘political’, if’political’ implies the advocacy of one specific political agenda above another. There is, Derrida argues, a political aspect to deconstruction, but only in so far as the politics of any interpretation will depend upon the context in which it is formulated.

The notion of context is fundamental to Derrida’s view of deconstruction. Deconstruction attempts to show that all concepts are context dependent. Yet it is, at the same time, committed to the view that concepts are governed by conditions that render any determination of meaning according to a universal rule (and hence any single, privileged context) impossible. Derrida’s discussion of his attitude toward Western philosophy is significant in this regard. We should not, he argues, undervalue the importance of tradition, which should be regarded as worthy of jealous conservation’.Derridean deconstruction, it follows, does not entail an abandonment of the values that pertain to the philosophical tradition. On the contrary, deconstruction itself, Derrida claims, both acknowledges and cleaves to the value of truth, the conventions that justify notions such as ‘good’ and ‘bad’ interpretation, the importance of conceptual clarity, etc. In this sense, Derrida’s writings are not merely of necessity situated within the conventions and norms that constitute Western discourse; they also remain faithful to that discourse. In so far as Derrida’s works acknowledge this compulsion they effectively endorse an ethical imperative. Thus, we must, he claims, regard the conventions that determine the value of truth as having value precisely because they constitute the inescapable terrain of our own speech, writing and reading. In this, at least, Derrida remains a self-avowedly ‘classical philosopher’.

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

One of the scopes of political science is international relations. Analysis of national interactions with each other, with international organizations, and with several subnational entities such as political parties, bureaucracies, and even interest groups. Applied political science, the history of civilization about a country, history, economics, law, human psychology, sociology, and philosophy of life are some of the disciplines of academic and other educational resources related to it. (Pfaltzgraff, R, 2019). Political science and international relations are interrelated and interconnected disciplines that investigate power and politics in a variety of contexts. They provide definitions for explaining, justifying, and criticizing the modern world. They see philosophies like colonialism and socialism. They see new rights, moral fundamentalism, and postmodernism as thought processes. They see initiatives for justice, progress, gender equality, and environmental conservation. They help us in understanding political competition, governance, and the law-making process as in New Zealand as well as other countries around the world. They explain the mechanisms and agendas that support international cooperation, terrorism, destruction, and war. Power, competition, diplomacy, international peace, sovereignty, transition, extremism, democratic politics, democratic institutions, human rights, foreign affairs, humanitarian aid, and the global economic crisis are all topics they explore to gain such knowledge.

People, cultures, and nations have never been more interconnected than they are today as a result of globalization. International relations are studies of national-to-national relations, as well as the position of governments, non-governmental organizations, and multinational corporations. People who understand and can handle dynamic relationships have a huge advantage in a world that is now increasingly global.

Controversy in International Relations goes beyond the issue of how to name a very under-described study area — or ‘non-fragmentary’ (James Rosenau, 1993). IR is often described as a separate intellectual endeavour from political science, or as an interdisciplinary field of research, especially in the English-speaking world. It is usually considered one of the major political science (or sub disciplinary) studies in the country. Although the terms disciplines and courses of study are often used synonyms, disciplines refer to clearer areas that make the outer boundaries flexible and permeable while stressing that the centre is more stringently outlined and in a certain way strong enough. Of course, such an assessment of the area can be debated on its own. More precisely, any exercise in the ‘mapping’ field of research should be approached to two limitations in mind.

For example, the effect of detail on international relations, which claims that almost all previous international affairs experts rejected the information revolution as a force for tangible progressive reform is now reconsidering their position. As indicated by (Westcott, 2008), intelligence has always been an important component in international relations. Knowledge, according to Webster, 2006), is a major feature of the contemporary world. The economy used to be based on manufacturing and conquest, but now knowledge is the driver behind them. Information and photographs are distributed among communities by local, regional, and foreign news media, which forms a link between individuals from local to world level (Boyd Barrett and Rantanen, 2001). Data, technology, and structural flexibility have gained importance in international relations, as strength in the modern information environment is less dependent on borders, military strength, and energy wealth. Furthermore, (Handon, 1997) claims that the demand for highly skilled intelligence has replaced the selection of the best agricultural or coal mines in international relations.

By making knowledge more accessible than ever before, the Internet has increased the value of information in international affairs. The capacity for information to travel around the world in seconds, as well as the availability of high-speed internet, has changed the essence of international relations and politics dramatically (McGlinchey, 2017). Knowledge is becoming increasingly important in politics and foreign affairs. ‘The new era’s realpolitik is cyberpolitical,’ according to Rothkopf (1998), in which ‘its participants are no longer just states of state, and physical energy can be overcome or enhanced by the power of information. According to Deakin (2003), ‘digital devices and production processes have heightened the importance of intelligence, which has now become the essence and representation of competition, conflict, and battle.’

Intelligence has arisen as a security concern affecting all facets of human having the opportunity to monitor flow of information as a role essential to maintain sovereignty and independence and improve national security (Agnew and Corbrige, 1995, Malec, 2003). When defensive details, national and government agencies (state actors) using operations against all other nations, even if they are state or non-state targets, and the identification and protective operations can be complicated, affecting sometimes delicate international relations (Hearn, Williams and Mahncke, 2010). The purpose of this research was to find out how important digitalization is in international relations.

Information is critical in the growing influence of global localism (also known as globalisation), which connects and manages international and local problems and interests (Webster, 2006). The very architecture of international relations is evolving significantly, according to Bollier (2003), as the volume of information rises, and the variety of publicly accessible information diversifies. State and sub-state authorities from a variety of countries collaborate to exchange information, establish standardised guidelines and standards, and minimize globalization-related friction (Bach and Newman, 2010). Besides that, it believes that growing the dissemination of information among countries reduces mutual distrust and the possibility of misconception by removing uncertainties regarding each other’s motives and increasing clarity. Information flows, according to Webster (2006), are a requirement of a globalized economy, especially those financial and service systems that connect and promote distributed actions.

Nations all over the world are improving infrastructure electronic surveillance capabilities in order to obtain privileged intelligence, primarily for military purposes. Enhancements in firepower and lethality, controllability, command and control, force integration, and precision deployment of forces can all be aided by good data. When national and government agencies (state actors) use aggressive intelligence operations against all other countries, whether state or non-state targets, identification and protective activities can be complicated, affecting sometimes delicate international relations (Hearns, Williams and Mahncke, 2016). According to Simmons (2011), the Modern World has provided governments with a variety of options for weakening their adversaries. Under the guise of freedom of expression, Russia can use democracy towards democracy and freedom of data to spread misinformation to a variety of target groups.

The North’s cultural and political supremacy is reinforced by disproportionate access to knowledge (Sawyyer, 2004). The ‘intelligence forces’ control information in developing countries through the export of ICT goods, posing a threat to their self – sufficiency (Kshetri, 2014). Uneven access to relevant data and contemporary information threatens the majority of societies, resulting in unequal growth and exchange in global trade, narrowing the development gap in between relevant data and the information-poor amongst and within countries around the world. According to Kalathil (2002), the knowledge transition has aided in the creation of a multicentric, fractured world wherein the principle of authority has given way to a neo-medieval a-territorial structure of governmental entities and allegiances.

Internet sources

1. Web Title: International Relations. Encyclopaedia Britannica.
2. Web Link: HYPERLINK ‘https:www.britannica.comtopicinternational-relations’ https:www.britannica.comtopicinternational-relations
3. Author: Pfaltzgraff, R. And Mcclelland, Charles A.
4. Date: 2019, October 15.Web Title: Political Science and International Relations. Issue No 75.
5. Web Link: https:www.wgtn.ac.nzhppipublicationsCareer-View-PSIR-2014.pdfDate: 2014.Web Title: Political Science Research. International Relations
6. Web Link: https:political-science.iresearchnet.com
7. Author: James Rosenau.
8. Date: 1993
9. Web Title: The Importance of Information in International Relations. Library Philosophy and Practice. Journal
10. Web Link: https:www.researchgate.netpublication325653511_The_Importance_of_Information_in_International_Relations
11. Author: Khumalo, Njabulo And Baloyi, Miniyothabo.
12. Date: 2018, Jun

Executive Summary

The main purpose of this assignment is to explore the main political parties of the Canada and also their voting system. This assignment will cover the topics about the right of people to vote and what information to think when voting. What are the political values to think when choosing the political leaders? Besides this, this report will also cover information about the current issues that are affecting the Canada. If we focus on Canada, there are four main political parties:

• Conservative party of Canada
• Liberal party of Canada
• New democratic party
• Green party of Canada

Furthermore, there will be more detailed information about the backgrounds and policies of these political parties in the assignment.

1) Elections Canada Website:

A) Importance of Vote: Vote is the right of every person. Everyone can vote to anybody by their choice. There is government in different locales of the country like Federal, Provincial and Municipal. Voting is a method for a group, in order to make a decision usually following discussions and debates. From my point of view, I think voting is important because:

• It is the most important way to make your voice heard.
• Voting will gives you the opportunity to be the part of decision making.
• As we know that every vote counts, it provides the financial assistance for the political party or candidate.
• The word ‘every vote counts’ means that our elected candidate can do a better job.
• Vote is also the moral duty of every person to make the nation better.
• It make you more engaged and informed citizen. For example: Municipal elections have the significant role in our daily life like housing, transport options, education and cleanliness.
• A good leader will make sure that the next years will be more productive.

As we can see that there are number of reasons for voting, it is the responsibility of each person to vote.

B) Politics means the different activities that are related to the governance of a country. the study of government; that piece of morals which has to do with the guideline and legislature of a country or express, the conservation of its well-being, harmony, and success. The main politics issues are following:

• Domestic policy issues:

• Gun Control: As we all know that gun violence is increasing day by day there is the need to put the restrictions on the gun purchasing.
• Muslim Surveillance: Because of the terrorism, there are more questions on the surveillance.
• Drug Policy: Nowadays, as we know that Cannabis is legal in Canada but there are also other drugs like cocaine. Government has the need to put the restrictions on the overwhelming of the drugs because drugs has the bad effects on youngsters.
• Social Security: Should government increase the age of retirement.

• Economic Issues:

• Paid Sick Leave- This means that is businesses are required to pay during the birth of child and there is a lot of argumentation on this.
• Taxes: This is also a major issue because here in Canada there is tax on everything. Most of the money earned from the job goes to pay the taxes.
• Bills and mortgage: Most of the money earned goes to pay the bills. Houses are so expensive and it is very difficult to afford a house especially in GTA area.

• Environmental Issues:

• Climate Change: Government should increase the environmental regulations to protect the environment from climate change.
• Renewable energy Sources: These must be popular among the people so they will use more these environmental friendly sources.
• Oil drilling: There are also consequences about the drilling of oil in the seaside because this can be a danger to sea life.

• Healthcare Issues:

• Dental Coverage: Dental expenses are high as compare to the other medical services.
• Drug Price Regulation: The government should regulate the prices of health care drugs and medicines.

2) Discovering Elected Representative:

• Federal Riding: Ontario
• Provincial Riding: Brampton
• Ward: 9
• MP: Maninder Sidhu
• MPP: Gurratan Singh
• Municipal councillor: Gurpreet Dhillon

Impressions about the elected officials:

Maninder Sidhu: He is the liberal candidate for the Brampton East. He is living in Brampton from last 30 years and he is husband, father, and entrepreneur. He has the passion to make Brampton a better place. He has a graduation degree from the University of Waterloo and he has a brokerage business at the side. Maninder has the determination to help young people here and find more success. He feels humble and grateful to stand as the liberal candidate.

Gurratan Singh: He is born in 1984. He is the MPP candidate in the Brampton east from the New Democratic Party. He is also the brother of federal NDP leader Jagmeet Singh. He has a degree in Liberal arts course from the McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario and later then he goes to the York University. He has spent near about 10 years in serving the Brampton communities through pro–bono legal advice, youth mentorship, organizing and advocating for young people.

Gurpreet Dhillon: He was born in Windsor, Ontario and then raised in Brampton. Gurpreet Dhillon he is a father, husband and a youth leader. As a Councillor, a portion of Gurpreet’s accomplishments incorporate effectively expanding the city’s business development by 25,000 occupations, a reasonable seniors’ travel pass, and having every single recorded vote presented online on increment straightforwardness and responsibility. Dhillon has established ‘Councillor Dhillon’s Drop-in Basketball’, which is made as a free youth activity, to keep kids off the boulevards and out of packs through game. Gurpreet unequivocally puts stock in the requirement for a more attractive, equivalent, and moderate society in which everybody can succeed.

3) Federal Political Parties:

In the last federal elections of October 2019, there were 20 parties registered for the federal elections.

Canada’s Fourth Front: For our assignment we choose this political party because it is not well-known. Mr. Partap Dua is the leader of the company and the main motive of this company is to reduce the cost of living in Canada. The main focus of this political party are:

• Creating more jobs to improve the future of our educated youth
• Revamping outdated policies of the three main parties
• Improving retirement benefits and economic security for seniors
• Curbing the rising cost of living
• Improving the welfare of indigenous peoples of Canada, farmers and veterans

4 Major Parties:

• Conservative party of Canada
• Liberal party of Canada
• New democratic party
• Green party of Canada

The platforms for the major parties are:

Conservative Party of Canada: Andrew Scheer is the leader of this political party. This party was founded in 2003 on the principles of peace and freedom. The gathering sits at the middle right to the conservative of the Canadian political range, with the Liberal Party of Canada situated focus to focus left. In the last elections of October 2019, Conservatives won 121 seats making their strong position in the House of Commons. The main aim of the Scheer is to decrease the tax rates so that common people will be free from the burden of tax. This thing makes a good image of the party in front of the people.

Liberal Party of Canada: It is the one of the oldest and long surviving party of Canada. It was founded in 1867 by George Brown. Justin Pierre James Trudeau is the leader of this political party. In the 2015 government political decision, the Liberal Party under Justin Trudeau had its best outcome since the 2000 political race, winning 39.5 percent of the famous vote and 184 seats, increasing a dominant part of seats in the House of Commons. Notwithstanding, in the 2019 government political race, they lost their share, winning 157 seats, yet despite everything they remained the biggest party in the House with the minority government. The main policies of this party implementation of pension plans, Education loans, Health care benefits and Multiculturalism.

New Demographic Party of Canada: This party was founded in 1961. Jagmeet Singh is the current leader of this party. He was born on in Scarborough, Ontario. The main belief of this company is to create more affordable housing and the mountain pipeline. This party also have the motives of lower cellular charges and the plans to fight the climate changes.

Green Party of Canada: It is a French federal political party founded in 1983. This party mainly supports the democracy, nonviolence, social justice, sustainability, respect for diversity and ecological wisdom. Elizabeth May, she is the party leader. This party focuses towards the environment, which is personally I think is a good thing. Currently, this party is also focusing towards the Kinder Morgan Pipeline because that pipeline is the threat to the environment.