The English language is at a steady diminishing value. Many words can solely be described as over-complex and vague with respect to our modernized English writings. George Orwell elaborates on the idea of modernized English as he believes that the English language is beginning to constitute fewer words for the principal of their meanings and more writings are characterized as complex phrases compatible of being put together. The English language has become misunderstood due to technicalities. He states that there is no critical thinking involved with creating such vague and inconsistent “jargon” in texts because the over-complexity of the words involved with modernized English leaves the intention of the writing unclear.
Critical Evaluation of Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Firstly, the language used in the Offences Against the Person Act (OAP Act) 1861 has been criticised for being antiquated, unclear and out-of-date. Terminology such us ‘grievous’ and ‘malicious’ which is used to describe s20 and s18 of the OAP Act isn’t generally used in the modern day language. Lord Steyn commented in Ireland and Burstow that the ‘Victorian legislator would not have in mind psychiatric harm’ with regard to grievous bodily harm. Furthermore, it would appear that the word ‘malicious’ is related to evil or hatred however in legal terms it refers to intention or recklessness. Although the judiciary may understand those terms, the defendant and the jury may not which may in turn lead to uncertainty.
Non-Fatal Offences Evaluation Recommendations for the reform of this area of the law have been made by both the Criminal Law Revision Committee and the Law Commission. The Law Commission pointed out that there are three main problems with the OAPA 1861. These are that: the Act uses complicated old fashioned language, the structure of the act is complex and that non-lawyers find the Act completely unintelligible. As the Act was written in 1861 much of the language is obscure and old fashioned, for example, the words 'maliciously' and 'grievous'. Many words do not have the same meaning now as they did in 1861 and some words are no longer used or have a specialist legal meaning.
Thomas Nagel’s “Moral Luck” Nagel begins his argument by explaining the problem with moral judgment upon individuals is that it does not take into consideration the actions that are not within one’s control, or is not their fault. That when we place the moral judgment upon a person as an object, independent of the external forces involved, and whether the outcome is good or bad, this would be considered ‘moral luck’. This brings in to question the validity of any moral judgment, because the more one looks into the given situation and what factors were outside the control of the person being judged, the more one sees that any moral responsibility is diminished. And with this statement, the addition that even our system of belief that we use to make these moral judgments is also largely based upon things, internal and external, that are beyond our control. Nagel’s basic thesis of this issue
Dear Editor, Garrett Hardin’s essay, “Lifeboat Ethics,” although a compelling read, is an appalling example of sloppy conservatism which seeks to manipulate the reader through erroneous, contradictory, bigoted, self-important, and cruel statements. “Lifeboat Ethics” is undoubtedly one of those opinion pieces that is meant to show readers the error of their ways. He all but begs the reader to set aside his or her “kind-hearted liberal” feelings, and provides many examples to walk the reader through his own viewpoint—as any good op ed should. (p. 134). Nonetheless, the omissions and baseless presumptions present in this piece insult the intelligence enough that it is impossible to seriously consider Hardin’s point (which is stunning in its brutality).
Charles Krauthammer attacked just wage strategy as an “avalanche”(Krauthammer, 1984)because of the “absurd” and “capricious” study it based on , the “chaos” it may cause to the society. 2. About the emergence of comparable worth On the topic of emergence of comparable worth, Amott and Matthaei offered a detailed and clear description about the history, the background and the strategies utilized by pay equality advocates. However, Krauthammer in the essay The just wage: From bad to worth shared little room for the depiction of the history of comparable worth or just wage strategy. He only covered a little about the status quo of comparable worth as “an island in the sea of well-intended ambiguity and evasion”.
The theory is objective, it gives objective standards, independent of our own interests, cultures etc. Therefore it can be proven whereas the consequences and motives are uncertain. The theory isn’t consequentialist; Kant shows the flaw of Utilitarianism- a bad act can have good consequences. Kant’s theory doesn’t make this mistake. The theory is rational; it is not controlled by emotion.
2. Examples: a) ”the notion of duty” A good will is a will that is for duty and what you do is only moral if it is done for duty. Doing something with duty being your only reason to act is morally right, and it does not have to be enjoyable only morally right. b) ”I would express thus, Duty is the necessity of acting from respect for the law. I may have an inclination for an object as the effect of my proposed action, but I cannot have respect for it, just for this reason, that it is an effect and not an energy of will.
His skepticism exists because a priori “truths” exist don’t necessarily pertain to the real, material world. Knowledge gained by experience is also suspect for Hume. He believes that knowledge gained by experience is unfounded because inductive reasoning is based on the habit of constant conjunction, or the assumption that patterns from the past will repeat themselves in the future. He is skeptical about this because the argument for inductive reasoning is circular—you have to assume the conclusion (that inductive reasoning is a reliable method of acquiring knowledge) to reach the conclusion. In other words, it is necessary to use inductive reasoning to prove inductive reasoning.
It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug (Orwell 209).” Orwell uses powerful but invective language to argue that current writing habits are ineffective in affecting the audience in any meaningful way. He shows the weakness of the English language while displaying a powerful alternative to current writing styles. Another reason for his use of invective language is due to the dishonest nature of political writing. Orwell stated that political writing was formed “to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind (Orwell 214).” This