Morals concern what is right and wrong. Right and wrong usually vary depending on what is normal in a specific culture or society. Many people would agree that what is “right” is moral, but it is James Rachels that explores what makes something right. Rachels argues that it is the cultural normality’s of a society itself, that makes an action morally right, while others would disagree and claim that there is a set of “universal moral codes” that people should live by. In different societies and cultures what is morally right and wrong can be determined only within the individual mind of a person.
The article indicates the inconsistency with an “all or nothing” view and instead reminds us to interpret it on a more “how much?” basis. I strongly believe that both nature and nurture play an important role in our upbringing and well into our adult lives. There are arguments throughout this article and many others that state intellectual ability is solely an inherited trait. While I beg to differ the concept of Galton when he suggested that human society would be improved by “better breeding,” I can understand the viewpoint. I can more easily relate to the reasoning that the differences in intellectual ability are a product of social inequalities.
It is during this visit among the Gebusi that Knauft introduces two concepts which must be kept in mind when trying to evaluate or understand any culture. The first concept that Knauft introduces is cultural values, which are notions of morality that a group of people or society embraces and emphasizes. While the second is what Knauft calls the underside of culture, these are beliefs and practices that occur, but which directly contradict the cultural values a society normally emphasizes. For example the Gebusi use the term Kogwayay to explain their culture “ … the term represents their concept of culture itself- the beliefs, practices, and style of living that are special and unique to the Gebusi people” ( p.17). However, this term when deconstructed only presents the positive aspects of Gebusi culture, such as togetherness/ friendship, pleasant conversation and joking/cheering.
Camus discusses the estrangement - and later development - of an individual in a benign and indifferent universe, one in which conformity prevails. Camus not only satirizes the conformity of society, but religion and the legal system as well. These cultural contexts allow the reader to have a better understanding of the protagonists (and hence the authors) perceptions and beliefs. These cultural elements are conveyed through the use of both dialogue and symbolism. The cultural context set also allows the reader to see contrasting opinions/ beliefs which help in gaining a better understanding of the relationship between the authors beliefs and their beliefs of their society.
Then, how can we determine what is okay from that which is not according to our human nature? The nature of human beings is a very complex definition. What human nature may mean to me may not fit with one’s ethical reasoning of what human nature means to another. In this regard, however, human nature to me is anything in which the person freely chooses to do, think, and act on. However, going back to human nature and ethics, we need to clearly define that although human nature differs among different cultures and societies, human nature must not be raped of its value for choosing good, and behaving on what brings the best solution for one’s problems in life.
It was during these lectures that Foucault coined the term ‘governmentality’, the term was used to describe the intrinsic relations between the roles of the state and the population. Foucault’s conception of governmentality is defined by the slow movement of the principality and sovereign state to the distribution of power through localised structures; taken from this is the movement through the sovereign to the government by way of the family. The purpose of Foucault’s text is to widen our own perspective of power and to understand the intrinsic functions it plays in all walks of life. He wants people to know that the power governments hold over a population have the ability to shape and encourage certain behaviours of a population while also expanding the governments own knowledge of said population. He also explores the forms of
According to Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, its famous mantra, “form follows function,” was actually meant as a reference to how nature’s designs emerge from the creative pressures of evolution (2). This interest in using nature and science to improve architectural design grew exponentially during the little studied interlude of the Bauhaus in 1930s London. During this period, members of the Bauhaus, including Moholy-Nagy, Walter Gropius, and Herbert Bayer, began working closely with leading British ecologists, most notably Julian Huxley. Anker argues that their work with Huxley in his Political and Economic Planning
I looked at Goffman’s theory, he believes social order is produced through actions of individuals and their practises through living there lives. (Cited Goffman in Silva 2009) Foucault believes that social order is produced through discourse and the power of knowledge) in disciplining individuals. (Foucault cited in Silva 2009) These two theorist whilst asking the same question of how social order is made and remade, they drawn upon different ways of gathering evidence and the end outcome is two completely different theories that even though they are quite different ,both explain the connections between society and how individuals make and remake social order. The differences of these two theorists are very contrasting in that Foucault uses Macro social experiences in where large scale structures, patterns or systems and discourse affect the ordering of social life. He focuses with the historical side of social order and why, how and by who these interactions are authorized through power and knowledge.
Integration is, however, generally conceptualized as a process (or processes), not an end state Penninx (2004) and as taking place in differing spheres: economic, social, cultural and political. According to the United Nations Social Integration, Social Policy and Development Division, social integration refers to a dynamic and principled process in which societies engage in order to further human development. Social integration represents the attempt not to make people adjust to society, but rather to ensure that society is accepting of all people by respecting differences consciously and explicitly putting great value on maintaining diversity. Cultural Factors The complexity and diversity of social norms contrary to what rational choice economics assumes that individuals don’t have generic attitudes toward risky activities but instead evaluate them according to the context of specific norms that determine what risk-taking connotes about their values and attitudes. Migration is considered as a possible adaptive response to risks associated with climate change (Mcleman and Smit, 2006).
Together, these rules are based upon the importance of empathy and this ethic of reciprocity has been what many different cultures have resolved conflicts with. However, the Golden Rule is no panacea. Think about it: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This is based upon the assumption that other people would like to be treated the same way that you would like to be treated. And we know instinctively that this cannot always be true, because everyone is different and has differing tastes and preferences. So now what?