Weber believed it was linked to the type of job people could get, Weber thought differently to Marx about this, as marx believed it was due to owning factories or other resources, and weber thought it was due to skills and qualifications. Weber’s idea of class influenced the ideas of other sociologists, such as goldthorpe (1980). Goldthorpe derived a stratification scale which includes the Weberian concept of market position. This was felt by sociologists to be a more accurate technique of studying stratification, as a pose to just studying peoples jobs. Weber was skeptical about the possibility of the working class bonding together for revolutionary purposes, for example becoming class-conscious because of differences in status would always undermine any common cause.
For example, achievement is greatly influenced by class background rather than ability. Furthermore, interactionist Dennis Wrong(1961) argues that functionalists have an ‘over-socialised view’ of people as mere puppets of society. Functionalists wrongly imply that pupils passively accept all they are taught and never reject the school’s values. Marxists, on the other hand, argues that education is mainly there to serve the needs of capitalism. Althusser, sees education as an ideological state apparatus that reproduces and legitimates class inequality, ensuring working-class pupils end up in working-class jobs, and that they accept their exploited role.
Individuals tend to search for others who have the same personality as their own. Extraverts are social and enjoy developing and maintaining interpersonal relationships (Personality and Interpersonal Relationships, n.d.). Extraverts seek out relationships and hold them to a higher quality. Individuals with the agreeableness trait are altruistic and strive for good relationships with others. They are sympathetic and provide emotional support for others in their network.
Rand says “Reality, the external world, exists independent of man’s consciousness, independent of any observer’s knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears…” (qtd. The Ayn Rand Institute 1). Consciousness, therefore, is to distinguish reality, not to fashion or form it around a personal belief. Consequently, Objectivists reject all forms of a supernatural or any beliefs unfounded in fact. In the quote below Rand explains why she rejects religion outright, and she believes man himself deserves the attention: Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man’s reach.
He decided that not taking any action is the best action. While source one and source two feel like they have a collective responsibility to the world, source two believes that if he does nothing to harm the world he does not need to do anything to help make it better. Source two also leads on source three’s statement that cannot find the correct explanation and theory as to why the world is the way it is. Source two believes the world is a mess because of what people DO to it and does not think that maybe it is a mess because of the people that DON’T do anything. Therefor he is only just acting on his theory and doing nothing, whilst source three would argue that maybe he should go back a look at the situation again and look for a different theory as to why the world is the way it is and act on the new theory.
He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice. Henry David Thoreau’s position on civil disobedience is neither morally irresponsible nor politically reprehensible. Civil disobedience is technically illegal, and is punishable, but who is ultimately responsible for determining what is right or wrong? Van Dusen strongly believes that defiance of laws go against the democratic nature of our government: “Bit civil disobedience, whatever the ethical rationalization, is still an assault on our
According to hard determinism we are not free in the sense required for moral responsibility, and therefore, what happens cannot be affected by choices that are free in the sense. But what happens may nevertheless be caused by the decisions we chose and the choices we make. A reaction to hard determinism is that if it were true, we would have no reason to attempt to accomplish anything, to try and improve our lives because our decisions and choices would make no difference. If everything we do is pre determined then why try hard to achieve anything, if you are meant to do a certain something, it will happen, it is already determined for you, so the hard determinist would say. In the hard determinist’s judgement, this feeling of freedom is an illusion.
This is because Creon did not care about morals he wanted to add insult to injury by not burying Polyneices. In our society today we have a fairly good justice system. A group of intelligent people vote on the laws that need to be held up instead of one dictator making the laws that he chooses. Also, if there is ever a question of justice the people who made the laws do not make the punishment or decide whether
So something besides the fact that these people do not have health care, makes it morally right for them to receive it. And that would be up to Kant to decide. Kant is not the type of philosopher that would be in favor of this because he uses rational principles to think and make his final decisions on things. Which essentially means that an action follows a logical principle; Is it logical or not?. In this case with healthcare, based on what Kant is about and the way he goes about ethics, I do not see him being in favor of this act of giving healthcare to all citizens of the United States.
In response to the option in which God creates a world with free agents and no evil, a world with no evil would mean a world with no good, so it would be impossible for God to create a free agents that only choose good, since evil does not exist. It would limit free will, and limited free will is not free will. The reason why it would be impossible for good to exist without evil existing is that we need evil to exist so that we can define it and understand what it is and how it works. After we find out that information, we could base what good is off of what evil is not, which is what we do now with