Alexander, Klint. (2003). The implications of the “USA Patriot Act” and US counter- terrorism on international human rights law, Journal of the Society for Advanced Legal Studies. Amicus Curiae, 2003 (49) With the patriot act as the foundation for his argument, Dr. Alexander Lint looks at different facets of human rights. Basing her arguments further on development studies, human rights, politics and even law subjects, Lint explores the general field of international law in regards to how it applies to human right to life.
Badaracco draws examples from other writers on ethics and philosophy to reinforce how, which, and when to apply the teachings of such forward thinkers to everyday situations, with which we are faced. Each chapter examines and defines the right versus right decisions each of the characters face and how to ask the proper questions about that situation in order to conclude that will emanate the image they want to portray to the public. To fully understand how to tackle a right versus right conflict one must understand the individual philosophies and what questions need to be asked of the
How do advocates for the universalist perspective answer their critics in this particular area? 4. Western democracies are increasingly caught between accepted rights-based standards of behavior towards all individuals, and political pressures to effective and securely control their borders. Using examples discussed in this course, explain how this creates a tension between international human rights laws and the exercise of state sovereignty? 5.
An essential distinction between the cultures of Athens and Jerusalem could be in how they attained knowledge. Human reason was the bases of Athenian culture and Faith was the essence of Jerusalem’s culture. (Entwistle, 2010, Chap. 1) Entwistle uses these two cultures to introduce the theme of his book and the bases of his integration argument, which is “All truths are God’s truths.” (Entwistle, 2010, p.13) The emphasis Entwistle poses is an emphasis on how we need to adapt our worldviews so that we can understand and possibly accept the truth held in both disciplines. (Entwistle, 2010, Chap.
Nathan Huggins’ “The Deforming Mirror of Truth” goes to great lengths to explain his theory of what the deforming mirror of truth actually is. Huggins refers all the back to the founding fathers when explain this theory. The founding fathers, when framing the United States, decided not to openly address the issues of slavery or race that plagued the nation. Huggins suggested that the founding fathers may have concluded that if the atrocities were not mentioned, then they did not exist. This was just the beginning of the deforming mirror of truth.
For these political aggressors, war is not merely a metaphor or the equivalent of a sports analogy. It is far more profound and stems from the conflict of “world view,” usually described as a “Biblical World view” against everything else. It is explicitly understood by its proponents as a religious war and waged accordingly on multiple fronts, mostly in terms we have come to define as “cultural.” How the conflict plays out takes on political dimensions and sometimes physical conflict. This war is theocratic in nature, and seeks
The world’s Muslims differ substantially not only in their religious views but also in their political and social orientation, including their conceptions of government, law, and human rights; their social agenda (in particular, women’s rights and the content of education); and their propensity for violence. The defining characteristics of the main tendencies in Islam are summarized in a typology that we apply on a region-by-region basis. This methodology allows for a more precise classification of groups and for comparisons across regions and allows us to identify in a systematic way the sectors with which the United States and its allies can find common ground to promote democracy and stability and counter the influence of extremist and violent groups. Having begun to lay the foundations for what could be called a “religio-political map,” we explore the main cleavages in the Muslim world, primarily those between the Sunni and Shi’a branches of Islam and between the Arab and the non-Arab Muslim worlds and those deriving from membership in subnational communities, tribes, and clans.
Concurrently “Blade Runner” and “Frankenstein” present the audience with two differing worldspaces that both function as harbingers of admonition for the values of their time. This is done through probing ideas conveyed in both texts such as the consequences of the advancements at the time, exploration of the concept of humanity, and the result of feigning the role of God. This is achieved through the presence of differentiating circumstance and techniques that similarly aim to challenge established
The idea of Determinism is explored by many philosophers in the construction of arguments against free-will, morality, and liberty. Determinism is a philosophy that claims that all things are causally related to each other and there is a necessity behind every event that occurs and while Determinism as a term wasn’t coined as a term until the 19th century, David Hume explored these major concepts in his Enquiry, delving into the roots of humanity and questioning the truth of human freedom.1 In particular his exploration into human understanding leads him to conclude that there is no effect without a cause and liberty when opposed to necessity cannot universally exist.2 Hume’s discovery, the Causal Maxim, and is generally accepted among philosophers, though it is not enough in and of itself to prove that he fits the mold of a determinist. However, by delving further into his various arguments, I will prove that Hume’s philosophy, mainly the denial of induction and support of causation, follows the discreet specifications of Determinism. Essential to the understanding of Hume’s philosophy is his idea of the universal necessity of connection between cause and effect, though he aptly admits that this connection is unobservable and denies that humans can ever have a true understanding of cause and effect.3 To explain such a broad claim Hume addresses a situation in which causality could prove troublesome by illustrating that God, through an immense causality chain, could be the true author of crime and immorality. This approach at explaining the connection between human criminality and God is deterministic, though Hume quickly halts this explication by admitting that it is outside of the bounds of human reason to understand the will of God.4 Regardless of the incompletion of what would likely turn to the metaphysical side of philosophy, Hume readily admits that it is
While some may argue that other philosophes such as Rousseau or Montesquieu impacted the revolution the most, the enlightened thinker that influenced the French Revolution the most is John Locke. Locke’s influential teachings impacted the revolution not only directly, but indirectly as well. In Declaration of Independence, (U.S. 1776), Mr. Jefferson wrote ”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Compare this to John Locke’s “… that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions…” (Locke, The State of Nature) which is also very similar to article two of the Declaration of the Rights of Man, “2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and