Analysis Of At The Abbey Theater By Rory O Neill

At the Abbey Theater in Dublin, Rory O Neill, a LGBT activist and drag queen known as Panti, confessed that he was a homophobe like everyone else. Panti explained that to grow up in a society that is overwhelmingly homophobic and to escape unscathed would be miraculous.† As a black man, I am very aware of racism and how it operates whether institutionally, internally or personally mediated. As a gay man, something I am still trying to deconstruct, I have been oblivious, perhaps intentionally, to my internalized homophobia. This dissonance in self-awareness is partially due to the fact that I knew I was black from early childhood but did not realize I was gay until sixth grade and did not begin to even accept it until twelfth. Many people compare the struggles of being black to that of being gay. In my opinion, despite some similarities the struggles are completely different. One is rooted in the legacy of over 200 years of slavery and the other in the tradition in people trying to cure homosexuality. One is more of an external conflict, the other internal. When I am followed around in stores like J.Crew or Saks, I am outraged and speak up. Realizing that ignorant people need to be educated, I usually write a letter to the VP of the company or loudly claim that I am being racially harassed in front of other customers. And it works. The VP s call me back and apologize, the staff goes through a sensitivity training, and I usually get a gift card with a hefty sum. On

Finnis’s Natural Law Theory Free Essays

Basically, Finn’s’s natural law theory are divided into three main parts, each with its own purpose and function. According to Finnis, there are first, a set of notions that â€Å"indicate the basic forms of human flourishing as goods to be pursued and realized† and that every human being should have the idea on how they should act. Secondly, Finnis further argued on the notion of â€Å"a set of basic methodological requirements of practical reasonableness †¦ Which distinguish sound from unsound practical thinking and . We will write a custom essay sample on Finnis’s Natural Law Theory or any similar topic only for you Order Now provide the criteria for distinguishing between [reasonable and unreasonable acts]. Thirdly, a methodological requirements that allows one to distinguish between acting morally right or morally wrong and â€Å"to formulate . .. a set of general moral standards†. 1. First Main Part of Finnis Natural Law Theory : Basic Human Goods Finn’s’ naturalism is both an ethical theory and a theory of law. Finnis introduced the theory of basic goods in human life as the first part of his natural law theory. Based on the set of notions that, â€Å"indicate the basic forms of human flourishing as goods to be pursued and realized† which according to Finnis, every reasonable person would ssent to the value of these basic goods as objects of human striving, and these basic goods are â€Å"indemonstrable but self-evident principles [that shape] our practical reasoning. â€Å"Finnis distinguishes a number of equally valuable basic goods namely, life, practical reasonableness, knowledge, play, friendship, religion, and aesthetic experience. Finnis argues that the list of basic goods is exhaustive in that â€Å"other objectives and forms of good will be found †¦ to be ways or combinations of ways of pursuing .. and realizing †¦ one of the seven basic forms of good, or some combination of hem. † His argument basically means that in order to achieved the basic good, the elements of seven basic goods must be fulfilled. A person is said to achieved basic goods even if he achieved either one of the basic forms or combinations of the basic forms, he don’t need to pursue all of the seven basic goods at the same time. Since the human basic goods does not provide any hierarchy between the seven forms, hence, the basic goods are incommensurable. According to Finn’s, none of the basic goods â€Å"can be analytically reduced to being merely an aspect of any of the others, or o being merely instrumental in the pursuit of any of the others,† and â€Å"each one, when we focus on it, can reasonably be regarded as the most important. In simple words, Finnis argues that, each of the forms of basic goods are to be distinguished from each other because each forms has intrinsic values. 1. 1 . Knowledge Stating that knowledge is good, or thinking of knowledge as a value, is not the same as saying that knowledge is a moral value. By saying knowledge is to be pursued† since it is ag and that goods are to be pursued†Finnis is not saying that a moral obligation has been created. Finnis’s basic goods are to be thought of as intrinsically good in that all of these values should be considered good for their own sake and not for an instrumental purpose Finnis more particularly describes the good of knowledge as that of speculative knowledge, explaining that this good is the good of knowledge being â€Å"sought for its own sake. This reference to knowledge can also be articulated as truth†so that one can say that this is truth sought for its own sake in the same manner as knowledge. Here, Finnis is not describing an instrumental use of knowledge, but rather â€Å"the pure desire to know’ merely out of curiosity and â€Å"an nterest in or concern f or truth and a desire to avoid ignorance or error † Finn’s’s primary argument for the value of the knowledge, as for the value of other items on his list, is by appeal to the reader’s intuition: It is obvious that those who are well-informed, etc. simply are better-off(other thing being equal) than someone who is muddled, deluded, and ignorant, that the state of the former is better that the state of the latter, not Just in particular case of that, but in all cases, as such, universally, and whether I like it Otr not. Knowledge is better that ignorance How to cite Finnis’s Natural Law Theory, Essays

Essay on the Throes of Power free essay sample

Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill. Each name promotes a different sentiment within us. At the sound of Hitler and Stalin, chills might erupt over your body as you picture thousands of decayed corpses, barely discernable under a grimy coat of blood, all there for a man’s fear and greed. Churchill produces an altogether different image. Hearing this name, one may experience a feeling of intense admiration and gratitude for this brilliant leader, who kept his country united in the bitter face of war. These three leaders, who at first glance appear as different as night and day, have one crucial, simply obvious thing in common: Power. Each man has had a fine taste of power. They have demonstrated authority over a nation, and have held the very future of that nation, including its people, in the palms of their hands. Power is, ultimately, also the major distinction between these men. We will write a custom essay sample on Essay on the Throes of Power or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page How they used the power which they’d gained, and how they are remembered in history because of this is what distinguishes Hitler from Stalin from Churchill. Power is shaped by the hands that are holding it; it can essentially be a great tool or a powerful weapon. Our 16th President, Abraham Lincoln, once stated that â€Å"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power† (Lincoln). This statement is for the most part true. In this world, power, more than anything else, is the great divider between persons of sturdy and selfless character, and persons of selfish and weak character. People of a strong character are often the ones purposefully not seeking power, because they are aware of the catastrophic effects it poses on a society. Those noted few inclined to seek it do so for the betterment of a certain group of people, or a nation, instead of for personal gain and glory. For individuals with a selfish nature, however, power is all about the advancement and prosperity of their selves. When these certain people set out attain it, they first and foremost see the different ways in which they can put it to use to satisfy their individual greed. Power can be a great asset to those who are well-intentioned and exhibit restraint over it. In the allegory Animal Farm, for example, Snowball the pig assumes the post of leader over the other animals, knowing that the newly revolutionized farm needs a leader, and knowing that he is best suited for the job. He embraces this role purely for the benefit of Animal Farm and its inhabitants, and continuously strives for its general improvement. â€Å"Snowball had made a close study of some back numbers of the Farmer and Stockbreederand was full of plans for innovations and improvements. He talked learnedly about field-drains, silage, and basic slag† (Orwell 53). When good leaders hold power, they do so with the thought of others foremost in their minds. They have a vision about the way the state of something should be, and then strive to complete that vision by using their power as a tool to aide the process. If all leaders acted in this way, our world would be quite unrecognizabl e, and our history books much less thick. Power and tyrants: our history is tainted with these two words, often side by side. More prominent figures include Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao Zedong, but the list goes on and on. Many people want power-some for good, and some for bad-yet few are willing to take the path that leads straight into its clutches. Unfortunately for us, a great majority of those who do choose to seek power are doing so with their own interests taking first priority. David Brin, an engineer, states â€Å"It is said that power corrupts, but actually it’s more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power† (Brin). These corruptible men, drawn to power with their desires first in mind, will never willingly yield their authority. For the most part, desires of these leaders include war, land expansion, money and the murdering of millions who allegedly pose a threat. Power hungry leaders that hold these interests dear to their heart use the ir power as a deadly weapon, inflicting it upon whoever should oppose them or their ideas, and becoming tyrants in the process. In general, these individuals that go after power for personal progression are often the ones whose names get written down in history beside large death statistics. Power can be used for good, and it can be used for evil. It is like an instrument in that it assists its user in completing some given task, whether that task be noteworthy or not. How power, as an instrument, is applied is completely reliant on the possessor, and his or her state of character and priorities. Baltasar Gracian said â€Å"The sole advantage of power is that you can do more good† (Gracian), and this is the absolute truth. We must rely on the honest and pure to use their influence and power over others so that a state of unity and overall goodness can be reached in a particular place. Otherwise, the power- hungry beings out there will seize it and abuse their authority, effectively earning the title of a tyrant. William Hazlitt, an English essayist, sums up the essence of power suitably: â€Å"The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of ourselves† (Hazlitt).