Chipko Movement Case Study Essay Example

Chipko Movement Case Study Essay Case Study on Chipko Movement The Chipko movement of the Uttarakhand region in the northwest part of India began as a communal reaction of local villagers to protect their forests from commercial deforestation practices. The term Chipko which literally means to embrace, was designated to these villagers who reacted by actually hugging the trees. It became so popular that the movement spread throughout all of India and different parts of Asia. Local women of the region are central to the movements success and continue to be its backbone. In fact over the decades, Chipko has been known for its ecofeminist strategies. This case study will examine the development of the envrionmental problems over the decades and study the social and cultural elements implicit in the communities of the Uttarkhand Himalyan region. From 1815 to 1949 Uttarakhand was divided into two kingdoms, Tehri Garhwal state and the colonial territory of Kumaun (Shiva, 7). The political structure of hill society in those two kingdoms was distinct from the rest of India in that along with the prescense of communal tradition, there as an absence of sharp class division (Shiva 14). The land was understood to belong to the community rather as a whole even though there was a caste system in place. The natural environment for the hill people consisted of a system of tillage and methods of crop rotation (Shiva 15). The production was directed towards subsistence in which the surplus was exported to Tibet and southwards to the plains. In fact, the communities living in the hill usually had six months of stock in grain with supplement of fish, fruit, vegetable, and animal meat (Shiva, 15). We will write a custom essay sample on Chipko Movement Case Study specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Chipko Movement Case Study specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Chipko Movement Case Study specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer The hill district constituted over 60% of owner-cultivators and 80% of the total population farmed with the help of family labour. By the turn of the century, nine-tenths of the hill men cultivated with full-ownership rights . The absence of sharp inequalities in land ownership within body cultivating propietors who formed bulk populationwas basis for sense solidarity village community. Because those who owned worked community together to sustain their existence. men not only maintained household economy by collecting fooder fuel and food family they equally with husbands field cultivated reared cattle as well. The absence of intermediaries and class divisions within the villages is also due to the ecological characteristics of mountain society. look at page 30 for the way tradition played a role in the preservation of the environment and the way villagers worked with nature. The building of railway network that began the science forestry and social change of the community. Forestr y in Gharwal Forestry in Kumaun Early Resistence to the forestry techniques and rules. In the recent decades, the availability of natural resources to the rural communities of the Uttarakhand region as well as in other rural communities has eroded tremendously due to two linear, interrelated processes that have undermined the traditional institutional arrangement of resource use and management which existed in many of the areas: 1) the degradation of the forests both in quantity and quality and 2) the appropriation of land by state to preferred ndividuals and the privatization of land to timber or profit-seeking corporations. As a result there has been a shift away from community resource management and control which was proven to be more effective in ecological regeneration and deteriorating soil conditions, depleting water resources, and disappearing forests. Although there is no exact data as to the extent of the degeneration, there is enough that indicates the depletion of the resources as real and substantial, increasing at a rapid rate under the control of external hands.

Glenn Seaborg essays

Glenn Seaborg essays There are many great chemists in this world; one of the greatest is Glenn T. Seaborg. Before he reached the age of 40, he won the Nobel Prize, he discovered radioisotopes that are used to treat millions of cancer patients, he founded the element that makes atomic bombs explode, and many people sought out his advice. Seaborg also holds the Guinness Book of World Records for the longest biography in Who's Who in America. There is no doubt that Seaborg was a brilliant man, and will never be forgotten. Seaborg was born on April 19, 1912 in Ishpeming, Michigan. Ishpeming is a small iron-mining town in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Seaborg was of total Swedish decent. His mother was Selma Olivia Erickson, his father Herman Theodore Seaborg. Seeing as how his parents were Swedish immigrants Glenn learned to speak Swedish before he learned English. When Glenn was ten years old his family decided to sell all of their belongings. They bought one-way tickets to California, in hopes of providing a better life for Glenn and his younger sister Jeanette. Seaborg then attended Watts high school, in the suburbs of Los Angeles. The school was racially and ethnically diverse. This helped Seaborg in his later years to be able to interact well with many different people. It was in Seaborgs junior year that he was introduced to chemistry, and found his lifelong love. The man to introduce him to this was his science teacher Dwight Logan Reid. Seaborg worked his way through college. He was able to pay his undergraduate tuition at UCLA by working as a stevedore, a farm laborer, and an apprentice Linotype operator for the Los Angeles Herald. He was elected Phi Beta Kappa in his junior year of college and was graduated in 1934. Seaborg transferred to the University of California-Berkeley for his graduate studies. In 1937 Seaborg received his Ph.D. in chemistry, but it was a year earlier that his career as a nuclear chemist actually begun....

The US Foreign Policy Respond to China's Rise in 2000-2010 Research Proposal

The US Foreign Policy Respond to China's Rise in 2000-2010 - Research Proposal Example America has been championing for the honoring of human rights and democracy. China’s one-party dictatorship has proved to the main problem affecting United States’ efforts to institute democratic principles in the country. China has engaged in human rights violations as well as suppression of political freedom. As a result, the United States policymakers have faced pressure to encourage the Chinese Leadership to show more respect for human frights a promote a freer political realm. However, China sees opposition leaders as being supported by the United States to cause disunity in China. The U.S foreign policy toward China moved from a containment policy at the height of the cold war to an engagement policy. In essence, the ideology of American foreign policy has long been based on two concepts of â€Å"Whiteman’s burden’ and â€Å"manifest destiny’. â€Å" Whiteman’s burden’ refers to American policy for world liberalization and the improvement of human condition. America has demanded the institutionalization o democratic principles and rule of law in China. â€Å"Manifest destiny† refers to the lack of mutual respect to international market forces. The United States sees China as a major rival in the world economy. America no longer views China as the most promising trade partner. In the year 2000, President Bush made it clear that China had become a rival and a competitor, the president further noted that China was no longer a constructive strategic partner. The United States has since emphasized on the need to have Jap an as an ally and downplay the contribution of China. Tensions between the United States and China emerged in April 2001 when EP-3 spy plane got involved in Hainan incident. The incidents could have led to military confrontation.The United States demand that Chinese leaders honor human rights and promote political freedom.  

Homeostasis and pain management in patients with multisystem failure Research Paper

Homeostasis and pain management in patients with multisystem failure - Research Paper Example Therefore, as the number of old people suffering from chronic diseases increases; the cases related to chronic pains in hospitals also increase. In addition, several old patients in hospitals experience multi system failures. There are several measures being put in place by health organizations to manage the pain experienced by the old generation as a result of multi system failures. Pain management is the practice by medical practitioners, nurse practitioners, physiotherapists and clinical nurse practitioners to reduce the pain or totally get rid of the pain that patients go through. Pain management is always done through the administration of medicine to the sick or injured patient (Hardy & Paul, 1997). This will help in reduction of pain in the patient. Homeostasis management is the practice of maintaining a stable and constant internal environment of a patient. This may involve maintaining constant body temperatures. Geriatric patients are often old people and they also undergo p ain. This paper discusses expansively the pain management that can be administered to Mrs. Elli Baker, a 73-year-old geriatric patient who was transferred to an emergency room after collapsing. Assessment of Patient. The assessment of Mrs. Baker should include all the problems that she experienced. The assessment talks about her homeostasis, oxygenation and her level of pain. The assessment also includes the physical observations made on her, observations made through technology and in the laboratory. Mrs. Baker was on two medications: lisinopril and hydrochlorothiazide. These two medications often result to the collapsing of geriatric patients. It is these two medications that led to her collapse. Mrs. Baker had problems with her oxygenation. This can be as a result of diabetes that she had experienced previously. Her oxygenation problem can be solved by introducing arterial gases into her body. Her body temperature is also an issue of concern. Mrs. Baker collapsed in her backyard may be because she was up to some difficult tasks such as physical exercises that could have led to an increase in her temperature. Mrs. Baker was also dehydrated. She had past history of diabetes and this always involves having too much sugar in the body. This can later lead to dehydration in an individual. This could be solved by administering water into the circulation system of Mrs. Baker. Mrs. Baker experienced high level of pain. This was evident because, when talking to the nurse, she had problems responding and this may have been caused by the pain she was feeling. When observed, it was evident that Mrs. Baker was undergoing pain. This was because she tended to be uncomfortable in bed, she was grunting and she showed grimace on her face. This was a clear indication of the pain that she was in. She experienced hypertension and had respiratory problems. The cause of these could be seen by introducing her to an X-ray to observe any blockages in the arteries and veins and in the respiratory system. Technological Tools. In treating Mrs. Baker’s condition, various technological tools would be used. One of the tools that would be used in treating her is a stethoscope. A stethoscope is essential and would be utilized to know the rate or speed of her heartbeats. Mrs. Baker had respiratory problems and she collapsed at her backyard. Knowing the speed of her heartbeats will be essential since this will help in knowing the kind of activity she was doing before she collapsed. In case she was doing physical exercise, the stethoscope would read her fast heartbeats and this would help the medical practitioners in solving her problem. The other technological tool that would

Kant, irrationalism and religion Essay Example for Free

Kant, irrationalism and religion Essay Abstract Kant is a philosopher, which dealt with human recognition. He has been considered as an irrationalist. Many philosophers think that he used the irrationalism to justify the trust in religion and to protect the religion from the science. In this paper I shall take a view to the philosophy of Kant on recongition and to the question if Kant is an irrationalist or not. Did he use the irrationalism to protect the religion from science? This paper shall show that Kant wasn’t an irrationalist, but he simply tried to determine the limitations of the recognition and to distinguish between what we recongize and what we simply believe. His philosophy of recognition didn’t aim at protecting the religion from the science. He tells us in some pasages of the book â€Å"The critique of pure reason† that when his theory would be accepted, the men wouldn’t concluded of what they couldn’t know really, and maybe the religion would have some benefits from it. But I think that he meant the trials to prove either the existence of God or the non-existence of God. Kanti, Irrationalism and Religion Kant was firstly influenced in his philosophy by Leibnitz and later by British empiricism. By Locke and Hume he came to the conclusion that recognition stems from the senses and he also received from Leibnizs belief that although the mind does not have any idea born, she has the innate abilities that give shape to the experience brought to it by the senses. Fundamental problem that Kant raised was on how to reconcile the absolute security that gives us mathematics and physics with the fact that our knowledge comes from the senses? Kants goal was to build the foundations of a new rationality that would be incontestable. In efforts to achieve security he assumed that the mind has three skills: 1. Reflection 2. Will 3. Feelings and he devoted a critique to each of them. Kants critique created for both rationalists and empiricists a method of transcendent or critical method, by which he meant a study of its reason, an â€Å"investigation of pure reason† to see if its judgments have universality beyond human experience and again, are necessary and related to the human experience. The logic involved in these trials may be absolutely safe and can also be applied to the world of things. Kant believed that the thought, feeling and the will are forms of reason and he decided the transcendental principles of the reason in the realm of thought, the transcendental moral principles to the will and the transcendental principles of beauty in the realm of feeling. In this paper we will try to treat if Kant is an irrational that used irrationalism to justify the religion. To clarify this we must first demonstrate his theory of knowledge and whether Kant was indeed irrational and then if he used this irrationalism to make room for faith in religion. Kant says that his goal of writing the Critique of Pure Reason was to put Metaphysics on the basis of sound and to transform it into a science. In the first entry of Critique of Pure Reason he writes: Our age is the age of criticism, to which everything must be subjected. The sacredness of religion, and the authority of legislation, are by many regarded as grounds of exemption from the examination of this tribunal. But, if they on they are exempted, they become the subjects of just suspicion, and cannot lay claim to sincere respect, which reason accords only to that which has stood the test of a free and public examination. † (Kant,2002 pg. 7,) Kant sought for the metaphysics to achieve the security of mathematics and logic. He was not a skeptic who saw the world as mere sensory appearance, but quite the contrary he was prompted to write this book as a response to the skepticism of David Hume. Kant aims to determine whether it can reach a metaphysical knowledge, and if so whether it can be arranged in a science and what its limits are. The main aim of th Pure Critique is to demonstrate how the answers to these questions can be achieved, provided that the subject is reviewed under a new angle. Kants own words regarding this are: â€Å"This attempt to alter the procedure which has hitherto prevailed in metaphysics by completely revolutionizing it . . . forms indeed the main purpose of this critique. . . . It marks out the whole plan of the science, both as regards its limits and as regards its entire internal structure† (Kant,2002). â€Å"The critique of pure reason . . . will decide as to the possibility or impossibility of metaphysics in general, and determine its sources, its extent, and its limits—all in accordance with principles. . . . I venture to assert that there is not a single metaphysical problem which has not been solved, or for the solution of which the key at least has not been supplied† (Kant, 1998). Kant divided metaphysics into two parts: the first part deals with problems that are knowable by experience such as causality, while the second part deals with the whole in general and as such we do not refer to an object that we are able to perceive, because we cannot perceive the universe as a single thing. According to Kant we can have confidence only in the first part of metaphysics (general metaphysics) and it may have scientific certainty because its facilities are given in experience and is subject to verification. On contrary, the metaphysics of the second part (special metaphysics), which is so abstract that it overcomes any kind, cannot achieve scientific safety because its concepts are blank. In the first part, metaphysics deals with everything within the universe and that it is accessible to the senses, while the metaphysics in the second half deals with the universe as a whole and undetected by the senses. Of the first questions can get a correct answer while the latter not, even though these questions is well to be made. Kant was primarily interested in clarifying whether metaphysics is possible as a science or not. He was convinced that mathematics and natural sciences were true science. But is metaphysics a science? What Kant must do to achieve a scientific metaphysics was to identify the criteria for a science and then to produce metaphysical conclusions that met these criteria. Kant believed that the first criteria of a true science were that its conclusions were both necessary and universal, as much as judgments in mathematics, and geometry are. To have such universal judgments, it’s necessary to find out how they are produced, and to do this we need to see how mathematicians and scientists achieve this. When Kant asks how metaphysics is possible, he is asking how a science of everything that exists can reach the safety of pure mathematics and natural sciences. To understand this we must understand what the concept of science is and what its elements to Kant are. We must understand the use of this concept as the standard for determining whether metaphysics in both its parts is a real science. Kant conceives the science as a system of real judgments in a specific field of research. All judgments Kant divides into two types, empirical and a priori. An empirical judgment is the judgment coming from experience and can be verified by the observation itself. Kant calls all not empirical judgments as a priori. Example of an a priori judgment is: All triangles have three angles . We verify this by observing not all triangles, but by analyzing what the subject to the judgment triangle means. We find that the real concept of the triangle is already incorporated to the concept of triangle, which is predication of our judgment. It would be contradictory to deny that the triangle has three angles. A trial verified in this way is called by Kant analytical; predicate simply explains the concept of the subject without adding anything new to him. All analytic judgments are a priori known without recourse to any particular type of experience. If all a priori judgments are analytic is another matter entirely. On the other hand we get judgment â€Å"the apple is red†. Analysis of the concept apple is not leading us to the concept red†. We need to see the apple to understand the subject. This is an empirical judgment and all empirical judgments Kant called synthetic, because they connect the subject with the predicate of the ways that are not analytical, the predicate adds a new recognition of the concept of the subject. All empirical judgments are synthetic; the survey supports the connection between subject and predicate. If all synthetic judgments are empirical-in other words if the observation is always the one that provides the link for the synthesis- is from Kant’s view of a very different matter. If metaphysics is a science consisting of judgments, these judgments are empirical or a priori? First they need to contain any existence as such, so they must be universal and necessary. For example, lets look at a judgment of metaphysics in the first part: â€Å"everything has a cause†. We cannot allow any exception to this judgment. The opposite of it would be contradictory. Lets see a judgment that belongs to the metaphysics of the second part: â€Å"the universe is eternal. Even this judgment does not allow exceptions. This means that any empirical judgment is not metaphysical. They are a priori, but are they analytical? Lets see once more the judgment â€Å"every event has a cause. † Predicate here is not included in the concept of the subject. Lets see another judgment: the universe is eternal. Even here the predicate is not included in the subject. So the typical judgments of metaphysics are synthetic and a priori. Even though they are necessary and universal, their predicates are not related to the subjects either by empirical observation or by logical connections. What makes them universal and necessary? What relationship may exist between subjects and predicate that comes neither from the experience nor is conceptual? How are synthetic judgments possible a priori? To explain the a priori synthetic judgments Kant introduces the notion of pure intuition and differentiates it from the thought. He declares that there are two basic skills of human consciousness, intuition, which is directly aware of a specific individual unit, and the thought which is indirectly aware of things through their abstract types. Each of these skills is to recognize conditions that are a priori limitations on what you can know and what cannot know from their use. A priori conditions of intuition are time and space. A priori conditions of thought are, first, a priori conditions of valid conclusions, and secondly, the conditions a priori to think about objects, forms of judgment and categories. Kant claimed that he had managed to put metaphysics of the first part in the way of science. As for Kant metaphysics is the study of everything in general, it is the study of everything that can be recognized. In this way, its findings will be a priori synthetic judgments applicable to anything that can be recognized. Kant called these researches for these a priori synthetic judgments transcendental investigation , while he is in search of conditions for recognition of all. To discover these terms means to discover to what extent is metaphysics possible as science. In the first part of metaphysics we seek transcendental conditions, universal and necessary knowledge of all things, and we are committed to stay within the limits of possible experience. The knowledge in this area consists of a final judgment S is P. We are dealing with things or objects and therefore judgments cannot be simply concepts and hence must be synthetic, adding to our knowledge. Our goal in the first part of metaphysics is to bring these items under the categories. But the categories are in themselves as empty files. They can be filled only if we look them by experience. How can one give to an abstract concept an experiencing filling? It is easy to illustrate with a first empirical content. Kant states: â€Å"The possibility of experience is . . . what gives objective reality to all our a priori cognitions. Experience, however, rests on the synthetic unity of appearances, that is, on a synthesis according to concepts of an object of appearances in general. Apart from such synthesis it would not be knowledge, but a rhapsody of perceptions which would not fit into context according to rules of a completely interconnected possible consciousness. . . . Experience, therefore, depends upon a priori principles of its form, that is, upon universal rules of unity in the synthesis of appearances. (Kant 1998). Have we arrived at the essence of metaphysics of the first part? Since the categories are a priori concepts that apply to each item, the corresponding rules for their application should be a priori rules with sensory content, unlike empirical content, a rule whose application is a retrospective sensory content. Kant is fulfilling his promise by providing us metaphysical principles which are synthetic a priori. Since all our perceptions are temporarily connected to each other, rules of application of the categories will be expressed in terms of different temporary connections that we know are a priori possible. Each of these predications, Kant calls the schema. The Schema of the category of reality is being in a specified time. The Schema of substance category is consistency of real in time. The result is vindication of metaphysics in its first part and the production of current metaphysical conclusions in this discipline. Kant believed that he had found the conditions that make possible empirical knowledge of things in general, and furthermore to show that metaphysics is possible as a science in the first part. But, what about the constituency for metaphysics in the second- in other words the study of all things considered collectively? This includes rational cosmology, the study of the universe as a whole, rational psychology, the study of the soul as something which refers to any possible knowledge, and rational theology study of the Creator and manager of everything. Kant argues that the attempt to demonstrate each of these issues is pointless. The major difficulty is that we cannot have an intuition of the universe as a whole, of the soul or God as a whole. Consequently, there is no possibility to connect the subject with the predicate in a synthetic judgment about these things, no way to verify or refute them. His conclusion is that although we may have certain knowledge in the first part of metaphysics we are excluded from the recognition in the second part of it. He reached this conclusion from a general argument, but he gives particular argument against the possibility of recognition in the second part of metaphysics. All of the alleged evidence for or against the thesis of the so-called science lead to logical absurdities. The whole universe, God, soul, his own free will and immortality can be thought of, but cannot be recognized, and the same can be said about things in themselves. All these things are noumena or simply understandable. Kant made the distinction between phenomenal and the noumenal reality. There is a difference between things we perceive and those that really do exist. The things we perceive he calls a phenomenon, while those that actually exist he calls noumena. Not only a phenomenon can be addressed to two different noumena (when two different things look the same) but also two different phenomena can be addressed to a single phenomenon (when the same thing looks different in different perspectives). Noumenon is a physical object and the phenomenon is how it looks. We cannot have any idea, what noumena are. We cannot know what is behind appearance, behind the information we receive from our senses. We cannot talk about what exists, if we don’t refer to phenomenal reality. We cannot know neither where nor noumena are, if they exist. We do not know for sure, if there is any different reality outside the reality we perceive. We cannot ever have real knowledge about noumenon in Kant’s opinion. Kant uses the word â€Å"knowledge† to refer more to what we know about the phenomenon than what we know about noumenon. This may seem like a contradiction: should not recognition be for real things, rather than simply for their appearance? But, the recognition for real things is impossible according to Kant, because we have no transcendental insight. We can think about real things, we can form beliefs about it, but we cannot have any knowledge about it because our knowledge of the world has only one source: the sensory data. (There are also other types of recognition but they do not apply to the world but only on the concepts and abstractions as mathematics. ). Since all our knowledge about the world is created by the sensory information and the sensory data are all phenomenal, then all our knowledge about the world is knowledge about the phenomena and not about noumena. I think Kant meant that although the phenomenon may be reason to talk about how something really is, only phenomena are not sufficient to show that something exists because the existence is the only feature noumena. To tell the truth one cannot have certain knowledge to show that something exists, we can only have faith that it exists. This means rocks and trees, as well as means God and the soul, but the difference is that for the trees and rocks it is not important if noumena actually exist. Even if a stone is nothing but a phenomenon, it kills again if someone hits with it, so I have to bow to avoid. Ultimately even my own head is also a phenomenon. No matter what is beyond what we know, because everything we have in the physical world are only phenomena, and this is what really counts. What can we know about things in themselves and other noumena as: God and soul? It is possible to know something about things in them, that they may not be space-time or be recognized by the application over to the categories. But this does not tell us how they are. Kant thought that we have a secure knowledge of things in themselves, that they exist, that they affect the way they affect the senses and contribute (help) content as opposed to the empirical form of recognition. We know that they exist by the fact that it would be absurd to talk about appearance if would not be out of something. We don’t know anything else about noumena. We do not know whether God exists or if everything is fixed or if we have free will, etc.. This does not mean that these concepts do not have a function. The concept of the universe as a whole, the concept of a legislator to the concept of rule and power over the universe, even though unverifiable, can serve as ideas of reasoning – as Kant calls them, that are regulatory to unify all knowledge into a system. Let us assume that we cannot know anything about noumena: is there any justification for believing that they exist or have this or that feature? By doing this question Kant did the distinction between belief and verification of a justification to accept it. The verification provides a full justification for accepting a belief and a refutation provides a justification to reject it. As long as we can prove or retort, the theoretical knowledge prevails and we are justified in accepting its results. But Kant thought he had shown that there are some things that cannot ever be prove or rejected. Then a question is arisen: is there any justification for believing than knowing? Kant said that once to the theoretical reason is given to what is up, the priority of practice asserts its interests. Where theoretical reason is concerned with what is, practical reason is concerned about what should be. The theoretical reason could not give us knowledge about subjects that go beyond the experience, therefore we should deny all its claims in this area and give these practical reason issues to the people. Kant says, â€Å"I must, therefore, abolish knowledge, to make room for belief† (Kant, 1998). Deny the knowledge and no reason, for practical reason is part of the reason, and because it limits the confidence in the minimum of required arguments, in Kants view, it is done to protect the morale -existence of God, freedom and immortality. Kant condemns the faith based on religious feelings. If we understand Kant upon his words, it will be said that he was defending the Enlightenment, the reason and the warning of disaster to come, if these will be abandoned in the name of feeling. Kant doesn’t deny the recognition, it is not a irrationalist. Kant raises a theory of knowledge, which wants to create a scientific metaphysic, rather than makes room to believe in God (religion); he tells us what we can know and what is beyond the scope of human knowledge. Kant had understood that his method would help religion. He writes that once one accept his theory, people will not disclose to unjustified conclusions on things that they cannot recognize and that religion would benefit from this, but I think he meant this as attempts to validate the idea that God exists or to prove that God does not exist. What Kant tells us is: we cannot ever know for sure that God and soul exist because we cannot have accurate knowledge of the noumenal existence. This is not an expression of irrationality, but quite the contrary, is an attempt to use rational thinking in order to distinguish it from what we know and what we simply believe. References Kant, I. (2002). Kritika e mendjes se kulluar. ( Ekrem Murtezai, Trans. ) Prishtine. (Original work published 1787) Kant, I. (1998). Critique of pure reason. (J. M. D Meiklejohn, Trans). Electronic texts collection. (Original work published 1787) Kant, I. (2002). Kritika e gjykimit. ( Dritan Thomollari, trans. ). Plejad. Bonardel, F. (2007). L’irrazionale. (Lucias della Pieta, Trans. ) Mimesis edizioni. Sgarbi, M. (2010). La logica dell’irrazionale. Studio sul significato e sui problemi della Kritik der Urteilskraft. Mimesis Edizioni(Milano-Udine)

How to Train for Football :: Papers

How to Train for Football In football you should warm up because if you don't most of your muscles could be damaged during a match e.g. your Gastrocnemius could tense up and you would be in a lot of pain. A good warm up should include Running a distance and stretches from your head to your toes or the other way round cause most of the muscles can be injured and you use them in a match, so they should be warmed down after a match so that you don't get cramp, most parts of the body are used like the arms for the throw ins, your legs and feet for kicking the ball and your stomach muscles for twisting and turning away from other or opponents. What is circuit training? Circuit training is a method of training. A circuit usually has 8 to 15 stations, where at each station a different exercise is carried out for a certain amount of time. Circuit training can improve muscular endurance, cardiovascular endurance, aerobic fitness, muscular strength, speed and agility. A circuit-training program may also be designed for a certain sport. Circuits for this purpose will include exercises to improve all the muscles and skills associated with the sport. Example: A circuit training program for basketball should include skills like jumping, catching or throwing. Specificity My circuit-training program is for football and it is based over a six-week period. The 10 stations are specifically suited to what is needed to play football. The Circuit is specified for an outfield player as there are no goalkeeping skills involved in this circuit. My circuit is aimed to improve the following over a six-week period: muscular endurance, muscular strength, speed, agility, cardiovascular endurance, andball skills. These are all needed for an outfield football player. For example: Muscular Endurance - To keep the muscles contracting for the full length of the match without them becoming tired or weak. Muscular Strength - the force your muscles exert when they contract.

Law and Morality

Law and Morality Sir John Salmond described the law as ‘the body of principles recognised and applied by the state in the administration of justice’. They are a set of rules and boundaries that are established by authorities which must be obeyed, otherwise, a sanction may be given. Morals are beliefs, values and principles that are set by society or part of a society, determining what is right and wrong. Phil Harris stated that they are â€Å"standards of behaviour†.Unlike legal rules, compliance with moral rules is voluntary, that are often informally enforced through social or domestic pressure. Law and morals are both normative; they specify what should ideally be done and mark the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable conduct. However, the ways in which they both do this are different: laws are codes of conduct which a superior power has decided should be compulsory. They are formally enforced by appointed authorities and relate to all members of soci ety.One example is the ‘smoking ban’ which was introduced by the Smoke-Free (Premises and Enforcement) Regulations 2007 and more recently the proposed change to the legislation regarding same-sex marriage under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, which previously meant that gay marriage was prohibited. Morals can be seen as a set of values which are not enforced by law. They define how one ought to act not how one must act and whilst they are not subject to moral enforcement, they can be informally imposed.There are significant differences between moral rules and legal rules; whereas Laws can be introduced almost immediately by Parliament or the Courts, morals tend not to be backed by legal sanctions and are often reinforced by social pressures; such as family and friends. They can have powerful influences on people’s behaviour, and develop over many years; often heavily embedded in religious and social history. Compliance with moral rules is voluntary and ther e are often no formal punishments.Today we live in a diverse society which has meant that as morals have developed: they have become pluralistic and between individuals or social groups opinions on moral codes now vary. Within Christianity, acts such as abortion and euthanasia are strongly opposed, while other religious groups may not deem these as wrong. Similarly, in Hindu and Muslim communities arranged marriages are encouraged whilst in non-religious communities these are disfavoured.Furthermore, legal rules can enforce strict liability, such as the requirement of wearing a seatbelt in a car or not exceeding a speed limit, whereas moral rules cannot- they can only be broken voluntarily. Legal and moral codes can coincide; law can often be seen reinforcing and seeking to uphold our moral values. For example, Lord Atkins’ ‘neighbour principle’, which is the basis of the tort of negligence and is thought to have derived from the biblical command to ‘love t hy neighbour’ which is also believed to mean do not harm thy neighbour.However, this can be seen as a major problem as morals will consistently change over time, to reflect a change in attitudes, and the law must attempt to keep up in these situations. An example of this can be seen in R v R (1991), which changed the law, so that rape within marriage became a crime. It was viewed that the wife was legally seen as almost the property of the husband, via the marriage agreement. This was view was morally outdated and wrong, yet the law was very slow in adapting this moral view. Another example of how moral change has led to legal change is the case of Diane Blood. Mrs Blood’s husband died from meningitis.They had been trying to start a family and she arranged for sperm to be extracted from him. Following his death she attempted to use the sperm to become pregnant, but this was banned under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. She won the right to have the inseminat ion carried out abroad. Under UK law their births had to be registered with a blank where their father’s name should have been. This was held to be incompatible with the human right to private and family life and the law has since been changed. With actions like theft and murder, they are classed as ‘wrong’ both morally and legally.But for crimes such as parking violations they are not seen as immoral, whilst immoral acts such as adultery are not a criminal offence under UK law. If laws enforce morals, then we are faced with the problem that what one person considers immoral, another might not, making it harder to decide which viewpoint it should sanction. This is established in the case of Gillick, where Mrs Gillick sought a declaration that what she saw as an immoral activity (contraceptive advice and treatment available to girls under the age of consent) was illegal regarding its immorality.There was a conflict, as some saw this as immoral (as it would encoura ge underage sex) whilst others felt that it was moral (as underage sex would occur anyway, but this would help prevent unwanted pregnancies). This shows that if such conflict can arise between law and morality, then the two cannot be viewed as equal. There are further disputes that the law should respond to the changing moral attitudes on euthanasia; the British Social Attitudes Survey 2007 found that 80% of people are in favour of legalising it and despite this, there has been no further change.There are various theories on what the relationship of law and morals should be. The first theory is natural law, which is based on morality. This states that there is a higher law to which laws must conform and one should disregard an immoral law, unless doing so would lead to social unrest. Another theory is positivism, which holds a more scientific view of the law and states that if legislation has been correctly made it should be obeyed even if it is immoral. The Hart/Devlin Debate follo wed the publication of the Wolfenden report in 1957.Lord Devlin was a prominent judge and a supporter of natural law whereas the academic Professor Hart was a positivist. The report recommended the legalisation of prostitution and homosexuality ‘should not intervene in the private lives of citizens or seek to enforce any particular pattern of behaviour further than necessary’ to protect others. Hart, who was influenced by the earlier theories of John Stewart Mill, supported the report’s approach, stating that legal enforcement of morals was unnecessary as it interferes with individual liberty.He believed that law and morals should be separate and the state should not intervene to restrict the freedom of individuals. Mill stated that one should not have to follow society’s morals; they should be free to act as they wish, provided their acts do not harm others and Hart only added to this so that their acts also do not harm themselves. Devlin, on the other ha nd, was strongly opposed to the report on a natural law approach. He felt that society had a certain moral standard, which the law had a duty to support, as society would disintegrate without a common morality and this morality should be protected by the law.In this debate Devlin stated â€Å"individual liberty could only flourish in a stable society; disintegration of our society through lack of shared morality would, therefore, threaten individual freedom†. This highlights his beliefs that law and morality are inseparable and the law should in fact intervene in order to support morality. Jeremy Bentham, a philosopher and jurist, rejected natural law theories as ‘nonsense upon stilts’ and concluded that the validity of law does not depend on whether it is good or bad.Ideally, the law should aim to provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, but even if it doesn’t, it may still be a valid law. He added that what the law is and what it should be are different issues. Contrary to Bentham, Aristotle a 4th century Greek philosopher based his ideas on the laws of nature. He stated that ethics is all about learning to be a ‘good person’ and you should not do anything wrong unless there is a very good reason to do so. These views have been perceived as a ‘balancing exercise’ as it is necessary to determine the correct way to behave by weighing up the benefits against the consequences.The Wolfendon Report supported Professor Hart’s view that law and morality should be separate, however, various cases decided since the report show that judges are imposing their moral views in their judgements, such as in the case of R v Brown and Others, the defendants had willingly consented to sado-masochistic practices. Despite that this act was chosen, they were prosecuted and convictions were upheld based on public policy to defend the morality of society. The law is therefore seen to attempt to upho ld what it considers to be public morality, even if some may dispute the correctness of that moral code.This is a contrast to the case of R v Wilson, at her request the defendant branded his initials on his wife with a hot knife. The scars led to him being charged with ABH S47. COA held his conduct amounted to â€Å"tattooing† and that it was not in the public interest to impose a criminal sanction, still showing that the public and their moral views still influence our law. The differing approaches in these cases clearly show that judges are letting their own moral values affect their judgements. The courts often find themselves at the centre of hugely difficult moral decisions involving life and death.They are often forced to decide between individual rights and moral codes. Diane Pretty contracted motor neuron disease and was confined to a wheel chair. She required no treatment to keep her alive, but had great difficulty talking, eating and sleeping. She was concerned that her husband would be convicted of a serious criminal offence if he helped to end her life and sought the permission of the court for active euthanasia. The courts reluctantly refused her request. This relates to euthanasia which can be seen as both morally and legally wrong, reinforcing the idea that certain views in ociety share the same moral and legal opinion. On the other hand, only a year later it was decided that ‘Miss B’, who was suffering from a terminal illness and receiving medical treatment keeping her alive, had the right to refuse to continue with the treatment. This was allowed as it amounted to passive euthanasia which is legally acceptable. Society considers it wrong to take the life of another human being and these two cases reflect this moral viewpoint. In the case of Re A (2000), Siamese twins who had their major organs conjoined were both at risk of dying.However, separation of the twins would have led to the death of one of them. The parents were a gainst the operation and wanted to put the girls fate in the hands of God. The courts however, intervened and decided the operation should go ahead; it was considered a successful operation if one girl survived while her weaker sister died. This follows Bentham’s views that overall more people would benefit if the operation were to go ahead, although this has caused controversy over which individuals moral code should have applied to the situation.The influence of both Hart and Devlin has continued into more recent cases further fuelling the debate as to whether law should enforce moral values or not. In Shaw v DPP the influence of Devlin was seen in the decision with the court describing the ‘fundamental purpose of the law, to conserve not only the safety and order, but also the moral welfare of the state. ’ This was also seen in Knuller v DPP which raised the issue of outraging public decency.Hart has had influence on the infamous Sexual Offences Act 1967 as we ll as reforms in legislation such as the Obscene Publications Act 1968 and the Divorce Law Reform Act 1969. A substantial body of English law is based on moral rules: there is a close relationship between law and morals, as the law does uphold moral values: the existence of laws that serve to defend basic values, such as laws against murder, rape and fraud prove that the two can work together. They both influence each other to a certain extent with the highly moral Ten Commandments being the basis for the UK legal systems most fundamentally important laws.On the other hand, alcohol or smoking restrictions do not reflect a moral code as they have no negative effect on other people. The extent to which law should be influenced by morality remains topical, as mentioned before with laws regarding same-sex marriage and euthanasia. While it can be argued that a significant section of society has come to adopt the view taken by Professor Hart, there nevertheless remains a widely shared bel ief that weakening of the moral basis of the law is dangerous.