Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Why do the works of salvador dali hold such an appeal for teenagers
Salvador Dali
Salvador Dali was born in 1904 and passed away in 1989. He had been what the critics call an eccentric genius, a self proclaimed madman, and had lived a life of fame and fortune, mingling with the zenith of society and living what is popularly known as the high life. He was renowned for his insanity, the king of the absurd, and this came through in his paintings as much as it did through what he said. He has become the ambassador for surrealist art and surrealist philosophies, and his works are still causing controversy 11 years after his death. Or still being admired 11 years after his death.
Introduction
To try to capture Dali, his life, his art, his reasons and influences and everything else that comes as part of the package, in four thousand words is a task to impossible to embark upon. That is why, when I decided to study Dali as part of my A – Level course, I knew that I would have to choose a specific period of his life and artwork, or ask a specific question just to make it even a vaguely possible task.
A lot of my friends, myself, and lots of people within my age group with whom I have conversed, seem to share a liking for the works of Dali. He seems to appeal to this particular group in a way most other artists don’t. In this study, I intend to investigate the reasons behind this collective, yet mainly unspoken admiration for his work, through the analysis of some of his most famous and most popular works. I will try to find out what it is exactly which appeals to this age group, and why it appeals to them.
Why does Dali have such an appeal for adolescents?
This, at first, seemed to me a question that lacked relevance. Not because it is a silly question, or because it is not a worthwhile question, but more because I hadn’t noticed that it did appeal to adolescents. I knew that it appealed to me, but not in particular to others of my age group. But the more I listened to the thoughts and opinions of peers and acquaintances, the more I started to think otherwise.
In order to understand why O’Neill’s position is superior to Singer’s position on famine relief, I will present information on both sides. O’Neill gives a Kantian, duty-based explanation, that focuses on people 's intentions. One of the central claims of Kantian ethics is that one must never treat a person, either oneself or another, as mere
Peter Singer’s position in his work “The Obligation to Assist”, is that all people are morally obligated to help one another without it causing any additional harm. He refers to “comparable moral significance”, which means that helping another must not cause anything worse to happen, or be a morally wrong action in and of itself, and must also be done if a comparably awful event can be stopped. His first premise is that if absolute poverty is wrong, and it can be stopped without worse consequences, then it should be stopped altogether. His second premise is that if you were to see a drowning child, you would help them out of the lake, even if your coat happens to get wet. His third premise is that morals do not need to be examined, as the need to help others should be logical without examining the morality behind it. His final premise is that the First World is rich enough to reduce poverty, and can therefore feel obligated to help. The implication of this position is that no matter what situation surrounds the person in need of help, another person would be obligated to assist them. Thusly, people who could help without having to forgo “comparable moral significance” and refrain from
Based off our agreement of this assumption, Singer moves on to the second part of his argument to say that if we are fortunate enough to have our basic needs for life fulfilled, then it is our moral obligation to help those who are not as fortunate as long as helping does not result in something happening that is equally as “bad,” which he defines as anything morally wrong or not promoting of moral goodness (231). For the third part of his argument, Singer points out that since it is now within our power to help people from all over the world, we have a moral obligation to give them our aid regardless of their distance from us (232). Because of our modern technologies, we
This paper explores Peter Singer’s argument, in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, that we have morally required obligations to those in need. The explanation of his argument and conclusion, if accepted, would dictate changes to our lifestyle as well as our conceptions of duty and charity, and would be particularly demanding of the affluent. In response to the central case presented by Singer, John Kekes offers his version, which he labels the and points out some objections. Revisions of the principle provide some response to the objections, but raise additional problems. Yet, in the end, the revisions provide support for Singer’s basic argument that, in some way, we ought to help those in need.
I put him down on my timeline because I believed he was a very talented and morally righteous person, his work is very eye catching and interesting. Pablo Picasso lived a very long life, died at the age of 92. His artwork still lives on today, one of my favorite piece from Picasso is Les Desnoiselles d’Avignon. It is an oil canvas of five nude women prostitutes of Spanish century. Les Desoiselles d’Avignon also was the beginning of a new style known as Cubism. Cubism was an experimental art movement that changed the face of European painting and sculpture. The body of work that Picasso created throughout his lifetime is enormous, his works continue to invite and attract thousands of
Singer’s utilitarian theory points out his main arguments for his statement “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (375). He supports this by suggesting that were are morally obligated to prevent bad no matter the “proximity or distance” , “the number of other people who, in respect to that evil, are in the same situation we are” and that we ought to prevent hunger by sacrificing only their luxuries, which are of lesser moral importance (378). This meaning that we shouldn’t limit our aide to only those that we can see or that we know because morally there is no different between our obligation to them and our obligation to those overseas. Also, we should limit our aide to what we think ...
How much money is one morally obligated to give to relief overseas? Many In people would say that although it is a good thing to do, one is not obligated to give anything. Other people would say that if a person has more than he needs, then he should donate a portion of what he has. Peter Singer, however, proposes a radically different view. His essay, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” focuses on the Bengal crisis in 1971 and claims that one is morally obligated to give as much as possible. His thesis supports the idea that “We ought to give until we reach the level of marginal utility – that is, the level at which, by giving more, I would cause as much suffering to myself or my dependents as I would relieve by my gift” (399). He says that one's obligation to give to people in need half-way around the world is just as strong as the obligation to give to one's neighbor in need. Even more than that, he says that one should keep giving until, by giving more, you would be in a worse position than the people one means to help. Singer's claim is so different than people's typical idea of morality that is it is easy to quickly dismiss it as being absurd. Saying that one should provide monetary relief to the point that you are in as bad a position as those receiving your aid seems to go against common sense. However, when the evidence he presents is considered, it is impossible not to wonder if he might be right.
Art is a very important part of humanity’s history, and it can be found anywhere from the walls of caves to the halls of museums. The artists that created these works of art were influenced by a multitude of factors including personal issues, politics, and other art movements. Frida Kahlo and Vincent van Gogh, two wildly popular artists, have left behind artwork, that to this day, influences and fascinates people around the world. Their painting styles and personal lives are vastly different, but both artists managed to capture the emotions that they were feeling and used them to create artwork.
In this paper, I will argue against two articles which were written against Singer’s view, and against helping the poor countries in general. I will argue against John Arthur’s article Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Code (1974 ) ,and Garrett Hardin’s article Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor ( 1976); I will show that both articles are exaggerating the negative consequences of aiding the poor, as well as building them on false assumptions. Both Arthur and Hardin are promoting the self-interest without considering the rights of others, and without considering that giving for famine relief means giving life to many children.
Peter Singer, in his influential essay “Famine, Affluence and Poverty”, argues that affluent people have the moral obligation to contribute to charity in order to save the poor from suffering; any spending on luxuries would be unjustified as long as it can be used to improve other’s lives. In developing his argument, Singer involves one crucial premise known as the Principle of Sacrifice—“If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” . To show that such principle has the property to be held universal, Singer refers to a scenario in which a person witnesses a drowning child. Most people, by common sense, hold that the witness has the moral duty to rescue the child despite some potential costs. Since letting people die in poverty is no different from watching a child drowning without offering any help, Singer goes on and concludes that affluent people have the moral duty to keep donating to the poor until an increment of money makes no further contribution.
In the excerpt “Rich and Poor” from Peter Singer’s book “Practical Ethics,” Singer critiques how he portrays the way we respond to both absolute poverty and absolute affluence. Before coming to this class, I have always believed that donating or giving something of your own to help someone else is a moral decision. After reading Peter Singer’s argument that we are obligated to assist extreme poverty, I remain with the same beliefs I previously had. I will argue that Singer’s argument is not convincing. I will demonstrate that there are important differences between being obligated to save a small child from drowning (in his Shallow Pond Example) and being obligated to assist absolute poverty. These differences restrict his argument by analogy for the obligation to assist in the case of absolute poverty.
“Famine, Affluence, and Morality” is a piece written by a moral philosopher, Peter Singer, who places a challenge to our traditional notions of charitable giving. The essay argues in favour of donating, and of the moral obligation imposed upon us to contribute and help the global poor with humanitarian purposes. By critically assessing Singer’s writing, this reflection paper will study the main arguments advocated for from his work, as well as possible objections.
... fins (“Benjamin Franklin’s Inventions”). These “fins” were put on your hands. They are the predecessor of today’s feet fins. They helped you swim faster with less work. Franklin also made a glass armonica it made a harmony played in restaurants. Franklin made an odometer to measure the distance while he road in carriages. It led to future inventors learned how many rotation of the carriage wheels it took to travel a mile. In Franklin’s old age he had to get books of of high shelves. Being the person he is he made the “long arm” which enabled him to reach high places. Benjamin’s greatest invention is argued as America author Seymour Block argues. It took him and many others to make America but he did it and made a country people are proud of and support. Franklin was one of the founding fathers and he was also one of the greatest inventor and innovators of his time.
Singer takes on many assumptions, inferring that if one can agree with each assumption they will also agree with the conclusion. He observes that in a general sense, suffering and death due to a shortage on food, shelter and medicine is bad. The next is that if it is within our power to do something without something else bad happening and without ceding anything of equal moral consequence then we are therefore responsible to do it. This requires us only to keep out the bad and not necessarily to promote the good. Though the idea seems relatively uncontroversial, it is ambiguous. The principle does not take into account the space between those in need and the potential help or if there is only one person or a whole host of people with the ability to help....
Painting in the 19th century, still highly influenced by the spirit of Romanticism, proved to be a far more sensitive medium for the kind of personal expression one should expect from the romantic subjectivity of the time. At the very beginning of the “modern period” stands the imposing figure of Francisco Goya (1746-1828), the great independent painter from Spain. With much indebtedness to Velazquez, Rembrandt and the wonders of the natural world, Goya occupies the status of an artistic giant. His artistic range goes from the late Venetian Baroque through the brilliant impressionistic realism of his own to a late expressionism in which dark and powerful distor...