1.

Modern Culture and Ethics: Problems, Dilemmas,

and Issues
Important questions regarding ethics, morality and social behavior as they relate to issues
raised in modern culture - for example reality television, prostitution, copyrights, and more.

Godless Morality & Ethics: Being Good Without Gods or Religion is Possible and P
Can there be a godless morality? Can we assert a superiority for a godless morality over
traditional, theistic, and religious morality? Yes, I think that this is possible. Unfortunately,
few people even acknowledge the existence of godless moral values, much less their
significance. When people talk about moral values, they almost always presume that they
have to be talking about religious morality and religious values. The very possibility of
godless, irreligious morality is ignored.

Human Handicaps: Society Adjusts for the Dominant Preferences

Disability is, by definition, a relationship between a person and their ability to perform some
action; disabilities are thus not intrinsic. Instead, they are relative to a person's physical
context - if they have a means for doing the action, they aren't disabled anymore. If you look
around, you'll find that we all have technological aids to help us do things we couldn't do on
our own.

Repression vs. Expression: What Should We Do With Negative Emotions?

Most people seem to think that it's better to express your negative emotions in order to work
through them rather than bottle them up and ignore them. At least, that's seems to be the
common belief in the modern West; most cultures through history have, at most, sanctioned
a brief period for venting and then encouraged setting them aside. This may be the best
option, medically speaking.

Reason vs. Emotions: When Are Emotions Unreasonable?

Our emotions are visceral reactions which occur outside reasoned deliberation. Is it therefore
not possible or reasonable to evaluate emotional reactions against standards of reason? No -
emotions can be evaluated because they are conditioned by our assumptions, beliefs, and
culture. Emotional reactions may not be planned in advance, but they aren't inevitable or
unavoidable.

Animal Suffering & Religious Obligations: Questions of Morality and Ethics

Devout religious believers are generally given a fair amount of leeway in society when it
comes to their ability to follow the dictates of their conscience and their religious obligations.
They are not allowed to willfully ignore general laws, at least not usually; but in turn those
laws are often framed in such a way as to provide space for religions to operate. Should this
hold true when it comes to ritual animal slaughter, or should traditional religious methods of
killing animals be banned?

Professors on the Take: Selling Out Students to Publishers

Everyone who has taken any college classes is probably familiar with the ordeal of purchasing
textbooks. Some books can cost in excess of a hundred dollars while the full textbook
requirements for some classes can cost a student two or three hundred dollars total.
Presumably these books are chosen by the professor because he feels that they are the best
and most appropriate for that class in that subject - but what if that isn't the only factor in
such choices?

What are we, who produce 'art'? Art, Technology, and Humanity
The creation of human art has always been deeply intertwined with questions about
technology, in part because technological development has helped drive the sorts of art
possible, and in part because it causes us to reconsider just what we think art is supposed to
be. But at every stage there has continued to be a human element to the production of 'art' -
technology's role, as medium or mediator, has remained only partial. What happens when the
human element is removed?

Why Be Civil? A Look at the Ethics of Civility

Civility is the deliberate practice of courteous and polite behavior in our relations with other
people. There are values in such courtesy because politeness Is type of lubricant in the social
gears. But does that mean that civility is simply a facade to keep people from strangling one
another, or are there more substantive ethical issues at stake as well?

Ethics of Reality TV: Should We Watch?

Media both in America and around the world seem to have "discovered" that so-called
"reality" shows are very profitable, resulting in a growing string of such shows in recent
years. Although not all are successful, many do achieve significant popularity and cultural
prominence. That does not mean, however, that they are good for society or that they should
be aired.

Public Research, Private Profits

It's considered unfair when a person is expected to pay twice for the same product, but that
situation has become enshrined in American law. The public funds research efforts at
universities through massive scientific grants, but the fruits of that research can be patented
by those universities, allowing them to charge hundreds of millions of dollars in fees then
passed on to the public.

Mercy vs. Justice: A Clash of Virtues

True virtues are not supposed to clash - at least that is the ideal. Our personal interests or
baser instincts may at times conflict with the virtues we are trying to cultivate, but higher
virtues themselves are always supposed to be in harmony with one another. How, then, do
we explain the apparent conflict between the virtues of mercy and justice?

Keep Armageddon Secret: Do you want to know when the end is near?
We can be quite certain that, at some point in time, an asteroid or comet will collide with our
planet and wipe out much of its life - including us. We can also be certain that governments
with large enough telescopes will find out earlier than the rest of the population, but too late
to do anything about it. Should the world's people be informed of their imminent
armageddon?

Homosexuality and Libel: Is it an insult to be called gay?

It is possible to falsely accuse people of things like pedophilia or theft and be found guilty of
slander or libel. According to the law, you aren't permitted "defame" someone by claiming
without basis that they do or have done something generally considered repugnant or illegal -
especially when those accusations can damage a person's reputation.

Copyrights & Copywrongs: Ethical Considerations

Copyrights exist so that a person who creates a new work (song, picture, story, etc.) can
derive some profit from it. After a period of time, the rights to the work are supposed to go to
the public (public domain) so that everyone can benefit from it and to encourage people to
produce new works. At least, that was the situation until large corporations entered the
picture.
Baths for Baptisms: Bribing Soldiers in the Desert
As reported in the Miami Herald, an Army chaplain in Iraq has used a supply of clean water to
bribe soldiers into being baptized. Josh Llano of Houston, a self-described ''Southern Baptist
evangelist,'' will allow soldiers to use some of his 500-gallons of pristine water - but at a
price.

Affirmative Action & Ethics: Evaluation of Aguments Against

Affirmative Action is a moral and political question which divides Americans more than it
unites them. On the one side are those who regard it as a type of program designed to rectify
racism and reverse the effects of both past and present discrimination; on the other side are
those who simply see it as another form of discrimination, giving one group extra advantages
based upon their skin color.

Modern Culture & Ethics

Principles, Problems, and Questions

What are ethics? What is moraliy? How can one behave in a moral
manner? These are among the most difficult and most interesting
questions which face people of any age. Today, however, with
advancing technology, difficult moral situations come upon us
faster than we can even create the questions, much less find the
answers. This FAQ will address both general issues and specific
questions in the area of moral philosophy.

Affirmative Action
Affirmative Action is a moral and political question which seems to divide Americans more
than it unites them. On the one side are those who regard it as a type of program designed
to rectify racism and reverse the effects of both past and present discrimination; on the other
side are those who simply see it as another form of discrimination, giving one group extra
advantages based upon nothing but their skin color. Who is right? Is Affirmative Action
unethical and unjust or not? Review some of the most common arguments against
Affirmative Action and an evaluation of how successful they are.

Baths for Baptisms: Bribing Soldiers

An Army chaplain in Iraq has used a supply of clean water to bribe soldiers into being
baptized. Soldiers interested in a bath must attend an hour-and-a-half sermos and receive a
baptism which involves an hour of quoting from the Bible. Is this moral? Is it constitutional?
Does it reflect Christian charity and ethics?

Copyrights & Copywrongs: Ethical Considerations

Copyrights exist so that a person who creates a new work can derive some profit from it.
After a period of time, the rights to the work are supposed to go to the public so that
everyone can benefit from it and to encourage people to produce new works. Have current
laws undermined this relationship?

Homosexuality & Libel

It is possible to falsely accuse people of things like pedophilia or theft and be found guilty of
slander or libel. According to the law, you aren't permitted "defame" someone by claiming
without basis that they do or have done something generally considered repugnant or illegal -
especially when those accusations can damage a person's reputation.
Keeping Armageddon Secret
Would you want to be informed about an approaching cataclysmic event, like an asteroid or
comet, even if nothing could be done about it? Or would you rather be kept in the dark?
Would you want everyone else to know, too?

Mercy vs. Justice: A Clash of Virtues

True virtues are not supposed to conflict - but mercy and justice apparently do. Both are
certainly virtues, but both also typically demand differents sorts of actions. How do we
navigate our way between the different obligations while remaining true to ourselves and
truly moral?

Public Research, Private Profits

The American public finances a great deal of scientific research through tax dollars - but then
private companies and universities claim patents over those technologies and charge the
public in order to use the fruits of the public research. Is this ethical?

Reality TV - Should We Watch?

Media both in America and around the world seem to have "discovered" that so-called
"reality" shows are very profitable, resulting in a growing string of such shows in recent
years. Although not all are successful, many do achieve significant popularity and cultural
prominence. That does not mean, however, that they are good for society or that they should
be aired.

RFID Tags: The End of Privacy?

Imagine this: you walk into a local store and within seconds the people on duty know your
pants size (and how much it fluctuates), that you prefer chocolate ice cream, that you buy a
new tube of hemorrhoid cream every three months or so, which stores you usually shop in,
your credit rating, and the number of miles currently on all four of your tires - and that's just
for starters. Science fiction? No, science fact: the technology is already here. It's just a
matter of deploying it.

Sexual Autonomy
Prostitution has long been called the oldest profession in the world, and there is probably
good justification for that. It seems likely that humans have always traded whatever they had
in exchange for something they needed - and the one thing that a human always has is his or
her own body. Everyone trades something about their body for the necessities of living, so
why not sexual activity as well?

Why Be Civil?
Incivility and rudeness are common in society - and even more common on the internet.
Some are disturbed by this but many others don't seem to care - or even believe that honest
rudeness is preferable. It is arguable, however, that civility is very much an ethical issue and
that we have a moral obligation to exhibit some basic civility towards others.
What Are Social Ethics
Social ethics come from someone’s collective experience of people and cultures throughout life. While ethics are
typically driven by individual morals that determine right or wrong, ethics within society focus more on what may be
considered appropriate behavior for people as a whole, rather than individual behavior. However, since people
perceive things differently, and various cultures share different beliefs, what is deemed right for one may not
necessarily be right for another. Therefore, defining social ethics as an absolute may be tricky.

Nonetheless, there are certain behaviors or standards in which members of a society are expected to practice in order
to successfully deal with one another. These are normally based on current values or principles that dictate how
people should act—such as with the Judeo-Christian teachings of the Ten Commandments, such as “Thou shall not
steal.” Not only is it ethically wrong for an individual, but all members within society, including businesses, should
not take part in this immoral behavior.

Since societal standards vary, the rights of the majority can only be enforced to the extent that the rights of others are
not impeded upon. There are many aspects to consider within the ethics of society as a whole: language, race, gender,
culture, religion, education, etc. The standards used to enforce social ethics are also numerous: family values,
religious beliefs, morality, integrity, and so forth.

In order for societal standards to work in lieu of such differences, certain practices, which are deemed acceptable by
the majority, are generally heeded within a society. This may include sharing with others, doing good deeds, and
acknowledging different viewpoints. Social ethics also involves acceptance. People, as a whole, should respect the
rights of all others, regardless of individual beliefs.

Personal Values

As the years went by I started to open up and began making friends in high school. I tried to
be with the "in crowd" at the same time trying to be nice to the other not so popular students.
Often times I felt a "gut" feeling about doing the right thing, other times I went with the
popular decision; right or wrong. But as I was growing up, I started to realize that the right
decision was always the best for me. It helped me become ethical not only in my personal
life, but also in my professional life. It started to define my personal values and has guided
me through tough decisions, popular or not, for which I haven't regretted.

Personal values are something I believe is learned. It goes back to the continual debate over
nature versus nurture. I believe my values came from both. I grew up in a two-parent home
with an older sibling. Both of my parents worked for a living and I learned most of my values
from them. They brought me up to be respectful, hard working, and honest and most of all
treat everyone the way you want to be treated. I learned not to take money for granted
because we didn't have much. I wore hand-me-down clothing from friends and relatives. It
taught me that money isn't what makes you happy but you need to like yourself for who you
are and not what you own.
Now as a hiring manager for Compass Bank, I look for similar values in the potential
employees. I ask them questions about their childhood, past experiences that changed their
values and what are they looking for in their career. I also like to share my values of who I
am and how I advanced my career. Finally I ask them what are some of the values they are
looking for in an organization?

Organizational Values

Every organization, big or small has a set of organizational values. Some of these values are
in line with our own values and clearly defined, other are vague.
In the paper Finding Talent: A Study of Contacts and Careers (Hines, 2003) shows four
different methods used on hiring employees from entry-level to executive positions. Each of
the individuals interviewed stated they don't follow their organizational values when
interviewing and hiring employees. For entry-level positions, 80% use job postings in the
newspaper or the Internet, career fairs and employee referrals. For middle to upper
management, more then 50% say the hire based on word of mouth and not so much of past
experience. And even others stated they try to hire previous employees they worked with
before at other corporations. Are these personal values of these individuals? Does the
organization stand behind these types of values? Or does cultural values come into play?

Cultural Values

Cultural values are a part of what makes up the world. The United States is called the
"melting pot" since it became independent from the British in the 1700's. Many individuals
came to America looking for a new beginning at the same time they brought their cultures or
traditions with them. As we become more of a multi-cultural society some of the traditions
that were predominate during the early periods of American history are not so clear today. In
early years, Italians only married other Italians, Germans only married other Germans, so on
and so forth. Now, cultural or traditions are not a factor.

I view cultural values as a great way to understand someone's values. It brings into light some
of their personal values and the potential employees up bringing. I was raised in two different
parts of the country. I was born in Western Pennsylvania and raised in West Palm Beach,
Florida. Both parts of the country have different cultural values. In Pennsylvania, cultural
values were placed on tradition. My grandfather on my dad's side of the family was a skilled
craftsman. He was very handy in his trade for which he used to provide for his family. He
built his own homes. He worked very hard everyday in manual labor. On the other hand,
being raised in Florida, the cultural values were different in the respect of not keeping
traditions. They wanted to be different and on the leading edge of new things. These were not
the same values I was use to being exposed to in Pennsylvania.

As an adult, I enjoy learning about different cultures and the values they place on individuals.
It gives me an insight to what type of person they were in the past and hopefully what type of
employee they will be in the future. But is cultural values a good tool to use when hiring?
Based on reading of The Role of Literacy in Individuals and Nations (Berryman, 1994), some
cultures view experience and education in different ways. Emphasis on continuing education
or continual heritage depends on your cultural. It could also depend on whom you know in
the company that could help you get hired or promoted. For example, in the former USSR,
only gifted students were given the opportunity to continue their education passed the eighth
grade. Those whom didn't display exceptional intelligence either went into the military
academy or continued a trade or skill needed in the economy. This is opposite of our own
culture and the opportunities provided to everyone.

Ethical Dilemmas

As I stated in the beginning of the paper, I still have a difficult time trying to hire candidates
for open positions at Compass Bank. We try to hold regular job fairs each month with the
Maricopa Department of Economic Security. During these job fairs, I have the opportunity to
speak to individuals from all walks of life. Most of them are middle to late age workers who
lost their job because they couldn't keep up with changing technology. I spend about fifteen
minutes with these individuals to see if their personal values and past work experience will be
a fit for our organization. It is a very difficult ethical dilemma trying to look past maybe the
way they are dressed or how many jobs they had in the past. But my personal values help
guide me in those decisions. I usually will get a gut feeling that someone isn't telling me the
truth or they won't fit into our organizational culture. It is hard to see these individuals sitting
in front of me knowing they need a job to support their families. It tugs on my emotions but
knowing I had the opportunity to let them know not to give up and share the same
experiences I had when I was out of work helps them to continue their pursuit to work.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our personal, organizational and cultural values play a big part in our everyday
lives. By trying to align your personal values with your organization values and not so much
the cultural values, it provides a road map to help guide you with ethical decisions. Until
someone writes a book that is 100% accurate on hiring the right person for the job, we will
have to depend on our values.

Social Contract Theory

One theory about how political authority can arise is social contract theory.
According to social contract theory, consent is the basis of government. It is
because people have agreed to be ruled that governments are entitled to rule.

Social contract theorists envisage a transation from a state of nature to a state

of government. Individuals come together and form contracts which serve
their interests, and these contracts establish rule. Social contract theory has
recently been restored to the fore of political philosophy by John Rawls,
whose version of the state of nature is the original position.

Social Contract Theory

According to social contract theory (SCT),

“morality consists in the set of rules governing behavior, that

rational people would accept, on the condition that others
accept them as well.”

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

“A State of Nature” = anarch

Makes life “poor, nasty, brutish and short”

 This is because of 4 features of the human condition:

• equality of need

• scarcity

• the essential equality of human power

• limited altruism

In a “state of nature”, there are no social goods… No

Farming

Industry

Education

Housing

Technology

Etc.

….because the social cooperation needed to produce these things

doesn’t exist.

In order to avoid this fate,

(1) there must be guarantees that people will not harm one another, and

(2) people must be able to rely on one another to keep their agreements.

Only a government can provide for (1) and (2). Therefore, we

need a government. In establishing a government, people give up some
of their personal freedom (the freedom of anarchy, such as it is) and give
the government the authority to enforce laws and agreements.

Those living under a government are parties to a social contract.

Each person agrees to follow the laws of the state on the condition that
everyone else does the same. That way, we are all relatively safe from
each other and we all benefit from the other social goods that will
result.According to SCT, “the state exists to enforce the rules necessary
for social living, while morality consists in the whole set of rules that
facilitate social living”. (Rachels, p. 144) Thus, government is needed to
enforce the basic rules of social living (e.g. don’t rob people, don’t break
agreements), while morality may encompass some rules that are
important for social living but are outside the scope of the state (this
might include, for example, “Don’t insult people for no reason”.

The Prisoner’s Dilemma and SCT

You are accused of conspiring with Smith to commit treason. (see p.

145)

By the argument on pp. 146-7, it is in your self-interest to confess, even

though this isn’t the best possible outcome (you will each do 5 years).

You and Smith would do much better (one year in jail) if you each do
what is not in your own self-interest. Notice that if you could make an
agreement with Smith and knew that it would be enforced, then it would
be rational not to confess, and you will both be better off. Essentially,
this is what the enforcement of a moral code makes possible. It makes
cooperative behavior rational

The conditions under which Prisoner-Dilemma type situations arise

1. It must be a situation in which people’s interests are affected not only

by what they do but by what other people do as well

2. It must be a situation in which, paradoxically, everyone will end up

worse off if they individually pursue their own interests than if they
simultaneously do what is not in their own individual interests.

Example: Suppose you live in a society that has highly polluting cars.
You can install a device that will stop the pollution from your car, but it
will cost some money. If others use the device, then the air will be clean
(your car isn’t going to make the air very dirty by itself). Therefore, if
others use the device, then it is in your interests not to, in order to save
money. On the other hand, if others aren’t using the device, then the air
will be dirty even if you use it. Therefore, you had might as well not use
it, since you only put yourself at a disadvantage if you do. This
argument follows the same pattern as the Prisoner’s Dilemma argument.
Since everyone can follow the same reasoning, no one will use the
device and everyone will be worse off due to pollution. Unless, of
course, we are all parties to a binding contract which requires us to use
the device so that we all benefit.

According to SCT, morality is just such a contract.

Implications of SCt

Imagine that people were living in a “state of nature” as Hobbes

describes. Everyone has an interest in getting out of this state, for the
reasons discussed earlier. Now, suppose that everyone could sign a
contract with each other governing how people are to treat each other.
The aim of the contract is to create social order, ending the state of
nature and making it possible for people to cooperate and produce
social goods. In order for the contract to best achieve its aims, it is
important that everyone, or nearly everyone, to be party to the contract
(otherwise we have anarchy or civil war). So, what things should
everyone (or just about everyone) agree to as part of the contract?

The Basics -- These are things that are necessary for the survival
of any society.

• Protection of life and property. This means there will be prohibitions

against murder, assault, theft and vandalism. A police force will be
needed.

• Other rules needed to secure the benefits of social living. This means
there will be prohibitions on breaking contracts (e.g. promises) and a
general requirement of truth-telling.

• Protection of society against outside threats. An army might be

needed.

Other important stuff – These are things that, arguably, should be part of
the social contract (i.e. it would in everyone’s interest to have them
included). However, a society might be able to survive (if not thrive)
without them.

Civil Rights:
• It is in everyone’s interest that the police and army not take advantage
of their power and abuse us. This means that they must follow rules that
protect us. For example, it is in everyone’s interest to have a criminal
justice system that is effective at prosecuting lawbreakers while at the
same time protecting rights of the accused and providing for fair trials
and reasonable punishments.

• Freedom of speech

• Freedom of religion

• Freedom from arbitrary discrimination (e.g. based on race, gender,

etc.)

• Protection of the environment. Obviously, it is in everyone’s interest to

have breathable air and a clean, healthy environment in which to live.
Prohibitions against damaging the environment or claiming it as private
property seem to be in order. How extensive this is, though, is unclear.
Also, the self-interested justification for environmentalism does
necessarily cover protecting endangered species or anything that is only
of interest to some people.

Does social contract theory justify the creation of a social “safety

net”?

Those who are well off have no need of welfare, public education, and
government assistance in general. So, on the face of it, it is not in the
interests of these people to pay taxes in order to support government
assistance. But the social contract is supposed to be in everyone’s
interest. For this reason, conservative social contract theorists
sometimes argue that a social safety is not part of the contract.

There are two kinds of replies to this argument. (1) Some forms of
government assistance are in everyone’s interest. Even the wealthy are
advantaged by the existence of public education; they may not go to
public schools, but they benefit from living in a society with a high level
of education. (2) The wealth that people have now depends on the
existence of society. When we ask, “What kind of contract would self-
interest people agree to?”, we do not mean to ask what they would
agree to right now, given that society already exists. Rather, we are
asking what people who are on an equal footing would agree to. People
in such a position might well agree that there should be a social safet net
just in case they end up in need of it. (This line of argument is central to
the liberal social contract theory of John Rawls

What is, arguably, not included in the social contract

• Prohibitions on abortion (because fetuses can’t be parties to a

contract)

• Prohibitions on harming animals (for the same reason)

• Establishment of any particular religion (it would not be in

everyone’s interest to have any one religion enforced). A possible
exception may exist if there were a society where everyone
subcribed to the same religion.

• Paternalistic laws. Paternalism: forcing another party to act (or

refrain from acting) because it is believed to be in the best interest
of the other party to do so. Remember, self-interest is what drives
the need for a social contract. If other people don’t harm you by
engaging in a certain type of behavior, then you don’t have a self-
interested reason for banning that behavior as part of the contract.
If you want to hurt yourself, that’s your business. For this reason,
seatbelt laws, laws against taking certain drugs, gambling,
prostitution etc. are all suspect. (That is not to say that they
couldn’t be justified, just that they would not be justified on
paternalistic grounds).

• Anti-sodomy laws. In general, SCT suggests that personal

choices that don’t directly harm others are not subject to legal
constraint. Just about any consensual sexual practice, for
example

*This list is not complete and may not be entirely accurate. It can be
argued that certain activities (e.g. drug abuse, animal torture) have
negative side-effects that are harmful to society in general, and so it
would be in everyone’s interest to prohibit them
Other Features of SCT
• Explanation of Moral Motivation: We can reasonably be expected to
follow the rules because, on the whole, they are to our own advantage.
Breaking the rules tends to undermine them and thereby endangers our
own well-being (this much is true even if the rules aren’t enforced).

• Unlike utilitarianism (or any form of consequentialism for that matter)

SCT does not assume that there is one correct conception of the good.
People can agree to a social contract because it is rational to do so
given that the contract will help them to pursue the good as they see it,
whatever that happens to be.

• It is rational to obey only on the condition that others are as well

(otherwise we are a “sucker”). This can explain why we treat those who
break the rules—criminals—differently. “Thus, when someone violates
the condition of reciprocity, he releases us, at least to some extent, from
our obligation toward him.” In other words, if you break the contract then
others aren’t bound by it (with respect to your part in it).

• SCT explains why some actions, while laudable, are considered

supererogatory and not morally required (point on p. 151)

• Civil disobedience. SCT provides a plausible account of when civil

disobedience is justified

Objections to SCT

• It is based on a fiction: there is no actual contract.

Reply: There may not be a physical, signed contract, but there is

still an implicit contract that we enter into when we willingly participate in
society and enjoy its benefits. Also, even if a state of anarchy existed, it
would still be true that it would be in our interests to form a social
contract. Thus, the justification for the state, and for morally generally,
would still exist.

• The social contract is an implicit agreement among self-interested,

rational agents. This seems to imply we have no duties to beings who
are not able to participate (even implicitly) in the contract. Examples:
nonhuman animals, those with mental disabilities.

Those simply outside of one’s society may pose a similar kind of

problem. If a social contract is for a given society, then it applies only to
its members. Those in other societies would be outside of its bounds.
This raises a deep question for Rawls: who enters into the original
position in order to decide on the principles of justice? Since the parties
are doing so out of self-interest, it does not make sense for the
negotiations to include everyone in the world (why would it be in our self-
interest to enter a binding social contract with the people of Timbuktu?)
People who are likely to affect our lives (by helping us are harming us)
are the people we have an interest in contracting with. In some ways
this feature of SCT might be viewed as a good thing (it would explain, for
example, why many of us do not feel morally obligated to engage in
costly nation building). On the other hand, it seems monstrous to
suppose that we have no obligations to those outside of our society at all
--for example, we agree that we have an obligation not to engage in
wanton destruction of other societies.

Socialism Theory
Charles Pearson has written as a freelancer for two years. He has a B.S. in Literature from
Purdue University Calumet and is currently working on his M.A. He has written three ebooks
so far: Karate You Can Teach Your Kids, Macadamia Growing Handout and The Raw Food
Diet.

By Charles Pearson, eHow Contributor

Capitalism has been the dominant economic system in the West for 300 years. Those who
follow socialism believe that socialism theory can provide a better economic system that will
better take care of the poor and solve social problems.

Capitalism vs. Socialism

o Capitalism is an economic system in which individuals trade goods and
services and where supply and demand dictate economic policies. Under socialist
theory, the economy is planned and the free market is not the deciding factor over
what gets produced.

Means of Production
o Socialist theory states that workers are exploited by capitalists because
capitalists own the means of production and force workers to work for them. Since
workers are in an exploited position, socialists state that these workers can be easily
manipulated under poor working conditions.

Public Ownership
o Under socialism, large businesses and corporations will be put under
democratic control of the workers.
Socialism and Capitalism
o Both socialism and capitalism can exist simultaneously. Governments can
have some control over large corporations while still allowing private ownership to
ultimately make decisions.

Human Nature
o Since incentives are more difficult to dispense in a socialist society, socialism
requires individuals to work hard for the betterment of society and put their own self-
interests aside.

Idealism
Idealism is the philosophical theory which maintains that experience is ultimately based on
mental activity. In the philosophy of perception, idealism is contrasted with realism, in which
the external world is said to have an apparent absolute existence. Epistemological idealists
(such as Kant) claim that the only things which can be directly known for certain are just
ideas (abstraction). In literature, idealism refers to the thoughts or the ideas of the writer.

In the philosophy of mind, idealism is the opposite of materialism, in which the ultimate
nature of reality is based on physical substances. Materialism is a theory of monism as
opposed to dualism and pluralism, while idealism might or might not be monistic. Hence,
idealism can take dualistic form and often does, since the subject-object division is dualistic
by definition. Idealism sometimes refers to a tradition in thought that represents things of a
perfect form, as in the fields of ethics, morality, aesthetics, and value. In this way, it
represents a human perfect being or circumstance.

Idealism is a philosophical movement in Western thought, but is not entirely limited to the
West, and names a number of philosophical positions with sometimes quite different
tendencies and implications in politics and ethics; for instance, at least in popular culture,
philosophical idealism is associated with Plato and the school of platonism.

[edit] Types of Idealism

Subjective Idealism (or phenomenalism) is a theory which describes a relationship between

human experience of the external world, and that world itself, in which objects are nothing
more than collections (or bundles) of sense data in those who perceive them. Proponents
include George Berkeley,[1] Arthur Collier,[2] A. A. Luce[3] and John Foster.[4]

Idealism in religion is known as "a theory that the essential nature of reality lies in
consciousness or reason."

Objective idealism is the view asserting that the act of experiencing has a reality combining
and transcending the natures of the object experienced and of the mind of the observer.[5]
Proponents include Thomas Hill Green, Josiah Royce, Benedetto Croce and Charles Sanders
Peirce.[6]
Actual Idealism is a form of idealism developed by Giovanni Gentile that grew into a
'grounded' idealism contrasting the Transcendental Idealism of Immanuel Kant and the
Absolute idealism of G. W. F. Hegel.

Transcendental idealism is a doctrine founded by German philosopher Immanuel Kant in the

eighteenth century. Kant's doctrine maintains that human experience of things is similar to
the way they appear to us — implying a fundamentally subject-based component, rather than
being an activity that directly (and therefore without any obvious causal link) comprehends
the things as they are in and of themselves.

Monistic idealism is a metaphysical theory which states that consciousness, not matter, is the
ground of all being. It is a monistic theory because it holds that there is only one type of thing
in the universe, and a form of idealism because it holds that one thing to be consciousness. In
India this concept is central to Vedanta philosophy. Proponents include Amit Goswami [7] and
the Hindu philosophy Kashmir Shaivism.[8]

Absolute idealism is an ontologically monistic philosophy attributed to G. W. F. Hegel. It is

Hegel's account of how being is ultimately comprehensible as an all-inclusive whole. Hegel
asserted that in order for the thinking subject (human reason or consciousness) to be able to
know its object (the world) at all, there must be in some sense an identity of thought and
being.

British idealism was a species of absolute idealism it was a philosophical movement that was
influential in Britain from the mid-nineteenth century to the early twentieth century. The
leading figures in the movement were T.H. Green, F. H. Bradley, and Bernard Bosanquet.
They were succeeded by the second generation of J. M. E. McTaggart, H. H. Joachim, J. H.
Muirhead, and G. R. G. Mure.

Pluralistic Idealism is the view that there are many individual minds which together underlie
the existence of the observed world. Unlike absolute idealism, pluralistic idealism does not
assume the existence of a single ultimate mental reality or Absolute. According to pluralistic
idealism, it is individual minds which make possible the existence of the physical universe.[9]
Proponents include Gottfried Leibniz.[10]

Personal Idealism also known as Personalism is the view that the minds which underlie
reality are the minds of persons. Proponents include George Holmes Howison,[11] Borden
Parker Bowne[12] and J. M. E. McTaggart.[13]

Epistemological idealism is a subjectivist position in epistemology that holds that what one
knows about an object exists only in one's mind. It is opposed to epistemological realism.
Proponents include Brand Blanshard.

Theistic Idealism was founded by the 19th-century philosopher Hermann Lotze. It is a theory
of the world ground, in which all things find their unity, it has been widely accepted by
theistic philosophers and Protestant theologians.[14]

Hindu idealism is essentially monotheist, espousing the view that consciousness, which at its
root emanates from God (Brahman, Purusha or Svayam bhagavan), is the essence or meaning
of the phenomenal reality. The presence of idealist concepts in Indian thought has been
emphasized by Rupert Sheldrake and Fritjof Capra. These ideas have also been developed by
P.R. Sarkar and advanced by his disciple Sohail Inayatullah, notably in the theory of
Microvitum.

Dimensional Idealism is the belief that in all existance there is mutiple dimensions, each
slightly different from another, all based around human thought. Some are based on the
choices we make every day and others based on human creation, such as Star Wars for
instance. The belief as applied to human creation, means that in another dimension, the
events of the Star Wars movies are actually happening and forming new dimensions based on
the character's choices after the scripted timeline. In the sense of human choices, this idea
takes a whole new face. For example, you have a choice between two candy bars(A and B),
you choose A but this creates another dimension in which you choose B. This idea draws
upon the ideas of Antiphon and Anaxagoras with some modern idealism.