Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Capitalism and socialism compared
Contrast socialism, communism and capitalism
Capitalism and socialism compared
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Capitalism and socialism compared
Federalism - The Perfect Balance of Individual and Collective Interest
I have arrived at some temporary solutions to problems regarding political philosophy in the real world. For the most part, the debate over the ideal political philosophy has been narrowed down to two choices: socialism and capitalism. I agree with this. However, blending in with that debate my own conviction that toleration and moderation are the keys to success in any situation, I have concluded that there are, for purposes of this discussion, two types of political philosophies, and each is best served by a compromise between socialism and capitalism.
Individual Political Philosophy. I believe there can be no question that individualism is the political philosophy that best serves the individual. By its definition, which follows, one can see that individualism advocates effort and responsibility as a price for freedom. If all individuals in any given society earnestly tried to be productive for themselves (and/or their family, business, country, etc. -- whatever serves the individual's interest), the result would be an emotionally and materially prosperous society, as well as free and secure.
individualism: the belief in the primary importance of the individual, in the virtues of self-reliance and personal independence, in the freedom from government regulation in the pursuit of economic and social goals, and in the priority of individual interest over collective interest.
One should note that the inherent selfishness of individualism is not the same type of selfishness as the typical, derogatory form, characterized by a general disregard for anyone but one's self. Rather, the selfishness of an individualist with a solid moral foundation -- whi...
... middle of paper ...
...y particular individuals or groups of individuals.
Call it collective individualism, or merit-based socialism, or something in between. But know this: in order for such a philosophy to represent its own best interests, the greatest autonomy must rest with the individual, and the collective interest must allow individual freedom only to the limits at which it would encroach on the health of the collective.
To find an example of such a system established, read the "Declaration of Independence", The Federalist Papers, and The Anti-Federalist Papers. In those documents lie the foundations of federalism, the only form of government which allows for the perfect balance of individual and collective interest.
Only through federalism may the tenets of liberalism truly be followed in an equitable fashion, so as best to serve the individual, the collective, the world.
Stem cell research is a heavily debated topic that can stir trouble in even the tightest of Thanksgiving tables. The use cells found in the cells of embryos to replicate dead or dying cells is a truly baffling thought. To many, stem cell research has the potential to be Holy Grail of modern medicine. To many others, it is ultimately an unethical concept regardless of its capabilities. Due to how divided people are on the topic of stem cell research, its legality and acceptance are different everywhere. According to Utilitarianism, stem cell research should be permitted due to the amount of people it can save, however according to the Divine Command of Christianity, the means of collecting said stem cells are immoral and forbidden.
Abstract: Religion has played a key part in the battle for embryonic rights. Pope John Paul II has spoken out against stem cell research; however, Buddhist leaders and the Episcopal Church have taken a stand for stem cell research. Different religions have different opinions about stem cell research. However the controversy can never really be solved because it is so hard to define the line of morality when talking about stem cells and embryos.
Siegel, A. (2008). Ethics of Stem Cell Research. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/stem-cells/.
- this may be achieved through a parliamentary system of government or a constitutional monarchy of through the separation of governmental powers into agencies such as executive, legislative and judiciary, the classical example being the U.S, government
It is human nature to see those who are different and group them into distinct categories. The distinction of Individualism versus Collectivism is one that is currently being studied extensively. On one side, individualism sees individuals as the fundamental unit of a society. Individuals are supposed to be unique, independent, and most importantly, willing to put their own interests above all others. On the other hand, collectivism views the basic building block of society as social groups, stressing the interpersonal bonds between people. Collectivist values dictate that group goals and values have higher precedence than an individual’s. Due to the seemingly polar opposite nature of these ideologies, it is inevitable that they will be compared to see which is more beneficial to the country and its people. Some might point to the success of the US, an extremely individualistic country, in support of individualistic values. They will point to the freedom of choice and diversity that individualism boasts of. Others stress the flaws of the US in response, and while both sides do have their truths, the costs that come with individualistic values are too great to be ignored. Highly individualistic attitudes have caused many large scale problems which have long been identified as difficult to resolve issues. These problems include, but are not limited to, promoting aggressive acts, creating an obsession with social power, and allowing a system of injustice to be born.
The notion of individualism is extremely important in exercising the duty people have to cease from the...
Robertson, J. (2010). Embryo stem cell research: ten years of controversy. Journal Of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 38(2), 191-203. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2010.00479.x
“In November of 1998, scientists reported that they had successfully isolated and cultured human embryonic stem cells a feature which had eluded researchers for almost two decades.”(The center for bioethics & human dignity, n.d.). This announcement kicked off an intense and unrelenting debate between those who approve of embryonic stem cell research and those who are opposed to it. “Some of the most prominent advocates of the research are scientists and patients who believe that embryonic stem cell research will lead to the development of treatments and cures for some of humanity’s most pernicious afflictions (such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, and diabetes).”(The center for bioethics & human dignity, n.d.). Among the most vocal opponents of the research are those who share the desire to heal, but who object to the pursuit of healing via unethical means. CBHD’s view is that because human embryonic stem cell research necessitates the destruction of human embryos, such research is unethical regardless of its alleged benefits. Ethical alternatives for achieving those benefits should be actively pursued.
Within the past few years, scientist have made several breakthroughs with human stem cells. These breakthroughs have catapulted the issue of stem cell research into the middle of a national debate. Most people have no problem with the research itself, however the source of the stem cells (adult or human embryos) used in research is the primary cause of the debate. Some people feel that destroying an embryo is comparable to murder, even if the research it promotes may help people with serious illnesses. Other believe that an embryo is not a person and therefore research on an embryo is the same as research on any other group of cells.
The cloning of human embryos for biomedical research has be an ethical issue ever since the opportunity presented itself. To get a better grasp of the issue, Human Cloning and Human Dignity: An Ethical Inquiry was read to see what the moral issues were involved with the cloning of human embryos. The paper discusses two main points: the cloning of human embryos should be used for biomedical research and the cloning of human embryos should not be used for biomedical research. The paper has broken the section for the use of cloning embryos into two positions, so there are really three positions provided in reading. I have chosen to agree with position one in the paper.
I never even thought about this word “individualism” before I came to America. Instead of collective, normal is the way I considered as my culture, and for American culture, I would say they are selfish and unkindly sometimes back then. However, after my 2-year study here and all the research I’ve been read for this paper, now I say that neither individualism nor collectivism is purely bad or good.
The proper relationship between the individual's interests and the common good is a delicate balancing act that political philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Sophocles have tried to define. For philosophers such as Socrates and Plato, the common good trumps the individual interest when those interests interfere with what they believe is right for society as a whole. For others like Aristotle and Locke, a consensus on what the common good is must be defined within the reality that individual interests exists; meaning, they cannot be completely discarded for the good of society. I believe that in a free society, where the common good to doesn't have to be forced upon its citizens, the common good should impose upon the individual's interest only as much as citizens will allow without feeling such impositions are unreasonable restrictions on their lives.
Federalism, by definition, is the division of government authority between at least two levels of government. In the United States, authority is divided between the state and national government. “Advocates of a strong federal system believe that the state and local governments do not have the sophistication to deal with the major problems facing the country” (Encarta.com).
The change process within any organization can prove to be difficult and very stressful, not only for the employees but also for the management team. Hayes (2014), highlights seven core activities that must take place in order for change to be effective: recognizing the need for change, diagnosing the change and formulating a future state, planning the desired change, implementing the strategies, sustaining the implemented change, managing all those involved and learning from the change. Individually, these steps are comprised of key actions and decisions that must be properly addressed in order to move on to the next step. This paper is going to examine how change managers manage the implementation of change and strategies used
Federalism is a legal concept that is centered around the concept that law is best handled as a two layered responsibility. Federalism is also built on a belief that sharing power with the local government is key to a successful governance. According to the text book, “the United States was the first nation to adopt federalism as its governing framework” (pg83). The following are a few examples of some advantages, as well as disadvantages of Federalism.