This paper aims to clarify the strengths of Parsons’ arguments, such as the functionality and effectiveness of certain systems within our culture, while contrasting the outdated viewpoints which he presents that might not be as applicable in today’s modern times considering the amount of social changes and open opportunities that are now available to both sexes. Parsons introduces his ideas on the “kinship system” by discussing the family structure, focusing in on the various life stages that a child goes through to emancipate themselves from the ties they have gained from their parents and other family members. The familiarity and comfort of such ties eventually become a burden and must be cut off in order for an individual to become a fully functional member of our society. The article goes on to state that one of the most difficult stages of growing older would be adolescence, where a “youth culture” is practiced, allowing for a passageway meant to ease “the difficult process of adjustment from childhood emotional dependency to full ‘maturity’” (Parsons 1943: 301). This serves to provide one
[ 9 ]. Straube, Denise. ``Macroeconomic Impact of Military Spending``. Costsofwar.org. October 24th, 2011 [ 10 ].
I will be looking at two views: They are both justified, or that none are justified. “I always go back to Harry Truman: Should we drop an atomic bomb to save 100,000 lives? That's a hell of a decision to make.” ~ Lee Iacocca In my opinion both bombs are justifiable because America saved more lives- more people would have died in an invasion. Japan was not going to just surrender. The Japanese believe in fighting to the death.
Arguably the most controversial experiment ever conducted in Social Psychology, Milgram’s Experiment, drew much criticism for not only being unethical but also for downright being ambiguous. Many thought that parts of Milgram’s Experiment were rather unclear. For instance, the participants were told that the “shocks” were painful but not lethal, when in fact they were extremely dangerous. Also, many believed that the form of punishment used in the experiment was rather “old-fashioned,” since psychological violence is much more prominent in today’s world than physical violence. In 1983, nearly two decades later, Meeus and Raaijmakers decided to replicate Milgram’s basic study but wanted to improve on these problems within the study.
What we don’t know before Milgrams experiment’s is just how powerful the tendency is. And having been enlightened about our extreme readiness to obey authorities, we can try to take steps to guard ourselves against unwelcome or reprehensible command’(p.73)”’. This just shows that people don’t realize the effect of obedience from people from a higher authority. With Milgrams experiment there were many problems, consisting of the biases parts like the environment. The laboratory was an unfamiliar environment for the participants, and they may have felt embarrassed.
Asch’s Conformity Experiment Conformity refers to the tendency of a person to go a long with rules or behaviors of a social or larger group, even if it is believed that the behavior is wrong, because of a desire to fit in, be correct or be liked. There have been many researchers who have studied the power of conformity, including Solomon Asch whose experiments about line judgment are famous. In these experiments, Asch sets up a situation to see if study participants would conform to a task even though they realized that the outcome was wrong. However, it is likely that the Asch experiment results do not show an accurate view of conformity in our society today. Do you think Asch’s experiment shows an accurate view of conformity in our society today?
Is utilitarianism too demanding? Utilitarianism in its most basic form directs moral agents to maximise the aggregate welfare and to do what produces the greatest benefit for all moral agents. The utilitarian theory is susceptible to various objections; this essay will focus on the issue of unrealistic demands. I will argue that utilitarianism is too demanding as it implies that we must always act in order to maximize happiness. This is a strict requirement, as it demands too much from individuals to always be motivated to promote the general happiness.
Yet the numbers cannot be avoided if we are to paint an accurate picture. The challenge for the historian lies in bringing statistics to life so they tell a story with some of the human qualities that Lange and Steinbeck invested in their subjects. In looking at the 1930s in particular, historians are lucky because social scientists and government officials tried hard to quantify the human circumstances of the era. In particular, historians of the Dust Bowl era have been able to benefit from the federal population count of 1940, which was the first modern census. The federal census had been taken every decade since 1790, because its data was needed to apportion each state's seats in the House of Representatives, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
Considering the Oneida Indians owned all of New York State and some surrounding areas and now they own thirty two acres in Oneida New York they got a bum deal for all the help they gave the United States. Don Troiani intended to get a response similar to mine from white people but also he instilled pride into the Native American in his painting. He wanted people to remember the sacrifice the American Indians made for a country that just stabbed them in the
“The Case against Free Will" Recall: In the “The Case against Free Will” James Rachels makes important points about The Case against Free Will. The article illustrate several examples that shows our behavior most likely comes from our family or the environment we live in. After discussing all of their major claims and points, the authors conclude that there are two reasons to be concern about our freedom. One is that “we come equipped by nature with deep-seated desires that we can only resist with difficulty.” These desires can sometimes be irresistible so it is hard to see that their behavior is their fault. Secondly, they authors state, “We need an explanation for why some people, but not others, are able to resist the impulses that nature has given them.” Because we don’t know why someone does something and another person do not, brings us down to a matter of choice.