The development of morality Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

The development of morality - Essay Example Often times, children will have placed a lot of trust in an adult which adds to their influence over their moral development. Educators such as teachers also are influential in the process of moral development. According to a book entitled â€Å"Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice,† â€Å"teachers are in a position to foster the necessary social skills to allow students to become autonomous and socially competent individuals†( Robert E. Slavin, 2010).This can lead to conflict as a teacher’s morals might not be the same as the parent’s who does not want their children to be influenced negatively by contradicting morals. According to the article entitled â€Å"Fostering Goodness: Teaching Parents to Facilitate Children's Moral Development,† there are a few ways that adults can foster moral development within children. One of the most effective ways is through modeling which is an adult demonstrates a particular moral element by ways of words, behaviors, or actions in the presence of the child(Berkowitz, 1998).

Adolf Hitler- Long Live Germany Essay Example for Free

Adolf Hitler- Long Live Germany Essay The ruler, commander, leader, â€Å"God like† image to all of German in between his rising years, 1928-1935, had great power over all living being in Germany at the time. German flags would be raised wherever you may travel in German; Nazi’s over-ruled the people in many streets Here is a poster of Adolf Hitler, during 1935, showing us how mighty and powerful he is. Showing us how he can change German individuals’ lives into a better life, and how he and his party, can make a change into German. Es lebe Deutfchland! † A phrase that has been used in front of the poster, meaning â€Å"Long live Germany! † We all know that Hitler’s rise to power between 1928-1933 made him a strong and well-known man. Everyone in Germany would look up to Hitler, and here shows how Hitler would die for his country, how he would do what so ever to protect his country. He is telling us in this poster that he himself would fight for Germany, he would be able to lead his country, and the people in it, and keep them from harm. Having an eagle hover against the light of heaven over Hitler in this poster connects back to Christ when a dove descended upon Him when He was being baptised by John the Baptist. This would give us a clue that Yes! Hitler was an idealized God to the Germans’, knowing that he has done a lot for them. Overcoming the great depression, helping the citizens of Germany get employed and many other offers. People would praise in Adolf Hitler’s name. They would die for Hitler. As you can see at the back of Hitler are his followers, much likely to be the Nazi’s and German people holding the German flag and hailing Hitler. Thousands, let’s say billions had gathered to support Hitler, and trying to persuade us that Hitler is a trustworthy man, and how he can help German citizens overcome anything when they are in deep crisis. We all know that in Hitler’s time, everyone idolized him, but for what reason? Hitler was a powerful and spellbinding speaker who attracted a wide following of Germans who were desperate for change in Germany. This poster tells us more of how Hitler won over, changed Germany and became successful in many things. To conclude this Visual essay, Hitler was successful in his days, knowing by the looks of this poster. He did have everybody fooled by his beauty and the way he structures himself, to make people think he is on their side, but in reality he’s just another beast getting revenge for his mother country, Germany. â€Å"Heil Hitler† they say, and have German flags flowing for him†¦ â€Å"Heil Hitler! †

The Sorites Paradox And The Epistemic Philosophy Essay

The Sorites Paradox And The Epistemic Philosophy Essay Soritic thinking that is based on reasoning, which is entailed in the sorites paradox plays an important role in some forms of weakness of will. Such reasoning based on soritic thinking leads to failures of behavior, however, these behaviors cannot be revealed to be irrational by ordinary means. Logical paradoxes are not expected to be important to the psychology of everyday life. However, the sorites paradox unlike other paradoxes actually leads to defeat and confusion, and plays an important role in some forms of weakness of will. I will illustrate a representative version of the sorites paradox, and in the conclusion obtained in this example, I will argue that the epistemic response runs into numerous difficulties, and as a result, does not successfully diagnose the problem with the paradox. Discussion The sorites paradox is a term given to several paradoxical arguments that arise because of the indeterminacy surrounding restrictions of the application of the predicates entailed. The following is a representative version of the sorites paradox. If we are to judge the height of four basketball players, observing them from a distance, which makes a difference in height invisible as long as it amounts to less than one inch. Tim Duncan is 7 feet tall. Shaquille is 71. He is also tall. Amare is 610. He is tall. Kevin is 611. He is tall. Rudy is 69. He is also tall. LeBron is 68 and he is tall. Using this sequence of reasoning, specifically, that if I deduct an inch off any persons height, it would not make much difference since somebody will only be one inch shorter than a tall individual would, supposedly, be tall himself. Thus, as I use this sequence of reasoning, I can keep creating more premises, namely that Jordan is 66, Kobe is 67 and so on till I reach somebody like Nate who is 5 9. Many individuals would hesitate to call Nate tall, because when compared to the other people like LeBron and Kobe, he is short. I can also reason to conclude that Bogues whose height is 53 and Boykins 55 are tall. However, most reasonable people would not classify these players as tall. The reasoning in the above case is a good example of the sorites paradox that results from common vague predicates such as tall. The sorites paradox can also be constructed using other predicates such as 100, 000 grains of sand is a heap of sand, thus 99, 999 grains is still a heap of sand, as is 99, 998 and so forth, till I am forced to conclude that one grain of sand is still a heap of sand. It is possible to also reconstruct the tall version of the sorites paradox to work the conflicting way. For instance, if I reason that Bogues whose height is 53, is short, then an individual who is just one inch taller would also be considered short, and I would also use this reasoning to work my way up LeBron, who at 68, would be deemed short. Thus, the paradox in argument form is: Premise 1: LeBron is 68, he is tall. Premise 2: If LeBron is tall, then someone else who is one inch shorter than LeBron is tall. Premise 3: if somebody one inch shorter than LeBron is tall, then someone one inch shorter than LeBron is tall. The conclusion is that Bogues whose height is 53 is tall. Such a conclusion is paradoxical if we are to consider our common notions about expressions like short and tall to be correct. In addition to this, if we have a common agreement that Bogues who is 53, is short, then the conclusion that stems from the sorites argument, to be precise, that Bogues must be tall, leads to a contradiction, since Bogues cannot have the properties tall and short at the same time. Therefore, there are three alternatives if we are to steer clear of this paradox of vague predicates: we can refute the primary premise that LeBron is tall; we can refute one of the other premises in the argument that anyone who is a certain height is tall if an individual an inch taller is tall, or refute the notion that the conclusion follows from the argument. I will discuss one approach to solving the paradox; the epistemic solution. I will also discuss difficulty in accepting the epistemic solution. The epistemic solution entails refuting one of the other premises. For instance, given the argument: (1) LeBron is tall for a person, (2) if LeBron is tall for a person, then someone who is 69 is tall for a person, and (3) if someone who is 69 is tall for a person, then someone who is 68 is tall for a person. Conclusion: Bogues who is 53 is tall for a person. We can refute one of the premises that will grant us a way out of the paradox. For instance, we can refute the premise that will ultimately result from the above argument that if Nash whose height is 63 is tall, then Ellis whose height is 62 is also tall. Or we can reject the premise that if Chris who is 60 tall, then Damon who is 511 is tall. The epistemic solution entails forming a hard line division, dividing people into two groups (not tall and tall). There would look as if there would be a cutoff point, if somebody who is nn is tall, and it would not follow that someone who is nn-1 is tall. So, if this dissimilarity was to be in place, it would provide an obstacle that the reasoning that led me in the first place to conclude that Bogues was tall. And if this dissimilarity was in place, then the group of tall individuals would have stopped before we got to Bogues. I think that this solution runs into a lot of difficulty. First and foremost, the dissimilarity would seem to be wholly illogical and dependent on a certain individuals idea of tall. For instance, I may want to specify that all individuals who are 60 and above, are tall. My younger brother who is 56 may want to stipulate that all individuals 57 and above are tall. In the same way, Kobe may want to stipulate that all individuals 68 and above are tall. All of these illogical lines are wholly logical, relative to each individual. I do not think that the epistemic solution successfully diagnoses the problem with the paradox as shown in the example of height. One can argue against arbitrariness by specifying that people should consider those above the average height for people as tall and those below this average height as shorts, and therefore, a fixed point would solve the problem. But this provision also runs into hypothetical issues. First of all, the average height for human beings is always changing. Today, human beings may be taller than people were 20, 000 years ago. Therefore, it would seem, a person would have been tall 20, 000 years ago would be short now. However, if can correctly guess, no one wants to accept that a person who is tall can become short without shrinking. Secondly, if are to refute one of the premises, then we should do reject it with good reason. We should give a reason why, for instance, it is better to refute the premise that if Amare who is 610 tall, then Kobe who is 67 is tall, instead of the premise that if Shaquille who is 71 is tall, then Duncan who is 70 is tall. Is there a logical reason why we should refute the former premise instead of the latter? Assume, for the sake of science fiction, the case of a shrinking person. Suppose the shrinking man was Shaquille, who shrank one inch each month, from a starting height of 71. If are to refute one of the premises, then we should also acknowledge that there is an exact spatiotemporal location where Shaquille changes from someone who is tall to someone who is not tall. Where is the point? 63? 64? 55? 511? Is there a good reason to dispense one of these heights over another height? If the answer is yes, then we should give an account for which particular moment in time, this change occurs, and why it is logical to opt for this moment instead of another one. It appears that nobody can practically choose of these moments over another one, and so, it appears, the epistemic solution runs into a barrier. The response that would probably successfully diagnose the problem would be the degree of truth solution that takes a modern approach towards the notions of falsity and truth, and seeks to annul the sorites argument. With the degree of truth solution, a person can make the claim that Nash is 63 tall. I can state the degree of truth for the claim that Nash is 63 tall is about .70 because he appears to be closer to the model for human tallness than the paradigm for shortness. The sorites paradox started by hypothesizing that if Shaquille is tall, and we reason that Bogues is also tall, we are stating that these two men have equivalent property of tallness and the truth of such statements are true to the similar degree. Thus, this theory appears to have the strength of removing all contradictions entailing vague predicates unlike, the epistemic approach, and thus would be more appropriate in explaining the sorites paradox example of who is tall and who is short. Conclusion The epistemic solution does not seem to be the closest solution to the example about height discussed. One can argue against unpredictability by specifying that people should consider those above the average height for people as tall and those below this average height as shorts, and therefore, a fixed point would solve the problem. It is clear that the epistemic solution is counter intuitive in nature, and this becomes a purported problem. From the example discussed, it is evident that there all kind of things that people do not know, however, ignorance in the case of indistinctness appears to be necessary ignorance. It is not that we do not know if someone is tall and another is short, we simply know it. But, for the person seeking the epistemic solution, the problem is harder, for there is something to know and it is simply that we cannot know it. Thus, the epistemic solution does not successfully diagnose the problem.

Young Lonigan by James T. Farrell :: Young Lonigan James Farrell Essays

Young Lonigan by James T. Farrell "After they had left the parlor, Studs sat by the window. He looked out, watching the night strangeness, listening. The darkness was over everything like a warm bed-cover, and all the little sounds of night seemed to him as if they belonged to some great mystery. He listened to the wind in the tree by the window. The street was queer, and didn’t seem at all like Wabash Avenue. He watched a man pass, his heels beating a monotonous echo. Studs imagined him to be some criminal being pursued by a detective like Maurice Costello, who used to act detective parts for Vitagraph. He watched. He thought of Lucy on the street and himself bravely rescuing her from horrors more terrible than he could imagine." (Young Lonigan, 62) Studs Lonigan lives in a different world from those around him. Chicago exists as different set of sensations for Studs, who communes with his environment in a language foreign to the masses. The heat and hardness of day are replaced by the creeping and overwhelming softness of the Chicago night; it pushes the toughness out of his body, eliminates the immediacy of things and dulls the viciousness of life as an Irish boy without a future. Farrell writes Studs as a contemplative soul who verges on artistic sensitivity. When he examines his environment he is lost its texture and physical existence. He simply does not belong to the city the way it owns the community, the â€Å"people that lived, worked, suffered, procreated, aspired, filled out their little days, and died† (Young Lonigan, 147). By nature Studs cannot accept the authority or possessiveness of the city, but he is incapable of escape. It is as much a part of him as he is of it; there is a symbiosis at work in Young Lonigan that depends very deeply upon the moments Studs shares with the fading day. Darkness provides us a view of Studs’ psyche that is intensely personal and crucial to understanding him as not only a character, but a representation of a developing personality and moral code. When darkness appears Studs is more vulnerable to both his hopes and his fears. At times he is overcome by visions of pain and hellfire; he is wracked by his Catholic guilt and a perceived lack of purity. â€Å"He puffed and looked about the dark and lonely place.

Differential Calculus: Maximum and Minimum Problem and Solution

An oil refinery is located on the north bank of a straight river that is 2 km wide. A pipeline is to be constructed from the refinery to storage tanks located on the south bank of the river 6 km east of the refinery. The cost of laying pipe is $200,000 per km over land to a point P on the north bank and $400,000 per km under the river to the tanks. To minimize the cost of the pipeline, how far from the refinery should P be located? (Round your answer to two decimal places. ) 1 year ago Report Abuse Colorado†¦ Best Answer – Chosen by VotersThis is a min-max calculus problem, where we want to minimize the cost function: We need a drawing of the situation: see https://docs. google. com/drawings/d/1PvkU†¦ where R is the refinery, O will be the x-axis origin, P is the point on the north bank, and x= distance from O to the storage tanks. [Note, we could have put R at the origin, but the algebra is a little simpler this way] The cost C(x) of the pipeline as a function of x is: C(x) = distance along north shore * pipeline cost over land + distance under the river * pipeline cost under land The distance along the north shore is 6-xThe distance (by Pythagorean theorem) under the water is sqrt( 2^2 + x^2) So, C(x) = (6-x)*200000 + sqrt(4 + x^2) * 400000 [You should graph this] To find the value of x where C(x) is minimized, we set dC/dx = 0, [Reminder – use the chain rule to differentiate the second term] Differentiating and simplifying, we get dC/dx = C'(x) = -200000 + 400000x/ sqrt(4+x^2) = 0 400000x / sqrt(4+x^2) = 200000 400000x/200000 = sqrt(4+x^2) Squaring both sides, we get 4x^2= 4 + x^2 x = sqrt(4/3) = 1. 15 So the distance from the refinery to point P is 6-x = 4. 85 km

CEO Simon Brocklebank Fowler

Logan McFarland Mrs.. Voss Strachey BAA 366 28 November 2013 CEO – Simon Breakneck Fowler 1 . Simon Breakneck Fowler is a great CEO and an even better leader. He can sell anything. Simon obviously has perfected many organizational behavior concepts as he has grown throughout his lifetime even though he did not elaborate on which ones specifically. Simon went to Cambridge, which is a top level secondary school in the ASK. Simon ended up switching from a history major to finance and ended up working for a bank. Simon also ended up running for Parliament but was unsuccessful, although he did learn a lot wrought that experience.Along with working for a bank, Simon also has worked for a consultant agency and as a price performance salesman. He worked for a failing franchise and had to sell things straight on his credibility alone. Simon stated that he had to do a lot of research to help sell his pitch to his consumers. He ended up being promoted in 3 months because he worked so har d on his pitches and was blowing all of the veterans out of the water. He then ended up going to Castigate, which is a smaller firm, but he actually had people working for him which gave him leverage.Castigate went from 200 o 2,000 people in 4 years in different countries making this company a global company. By making Castigate a global company, their profits grew significantly in size and increased the brand recognition of Castigate. Simon is a great leader in many ways. When he walks into a room, you can feel his presence. Simon does not only look in the presence, but in the future as well. He told our class, â€Å"ask yourself ever year what does success look like in 1 year? How about in 10 years? † Simon knows that the world is always adapting and is telling us we have to adapt with it if we want to be successful.Simon is also always trying to get better. He told us, â€Å"Is what your doing right now making your boat go faster? † This means that whatever your foc us is on today, is it going to help you succeed in life? I believe this bit of advice was awesome because I find myself being unproductive some days and my boat is not going faster but instead staying the same. Simon had led some of the most high profile financial and corporate communications and networking campaigns in Europe over the last decade. He has particularly worked as a CEO or another leader position and has succeeded with his unsurpassed networking ability in he eyes of stakeholders.Overall, I believe Simon is a great CEO and a natural born leader. 2. I believe that the company, Cubit Consulting, Simon is leading right now is successful. Although it has its up and downs, Simon is eager to hire brilliant people and grown his business. One marker that Simony's business is going well is that it grew significantly from 200 to 2,000 people in just 4 years. No business would grow that rapidly without a great demand for the business that they do. I also believe Simon has the abi lity to keep this company on top with his managerial skills along with his banking kills and salesman skills. 3. Eel like I would definitely want to work for this company because I would learn a lot. Simon has had an exponential amount of experience with many different aspects of business and I belief if I took away just 10% of what Simon has learned being in the business world, I will be close to ready to running my own business. Along with the experience would take from the job, would take the ideology of Simon along with me as well. Know no average person can turn a company back around faster than Simon. If could learn Simony's ideology on how he gets things back on track ND deals with conflict, it would do wonders for me.Overall, I believe if I worked for this company, it would prepare me for whatever I wanted to do in the business world. 4. This company does face some challenges in the next five years. The employees that are working for Simon as of now have no alternative to th e best at what they do. The employees might want to work in one aspect of the business but they might be the best at another aspect and Simon believes it is hard to convince his employees of that. Another thing would be building a group of people who challenge each other but share similar ideals within the company.The last challenge would have to be trying to build internal networks and alliances, which is very hard. Some of these challenges seem daunting but I believe Simon help to conquer these challenges in no time. 5. This company does face some opportunities in the next five years. Simon believes that his employees are getting better and better at work and thinks they are adapting and learning from the tasks that are assigned from them. Believe this is very important for a company because if you stay stagnant, you will not learn from previous mistakes.Simon also believes an opportunity he could grasp would to help his employees and himself would be to delegate and train more ra ther than just do. 6. Simon gave our class some great advice for business in the future. Some advice he gave was, â€Å"it doesn't matter how good you are, if the business is going the wrong way, you won't be successful – get into a business or industry that is going the right way and you are more likely to be successful. † I thought this was very reasonable advice. Another piece of advice he gave was, â€Å"to become a successful entrepreneur you have to have the confidence in yourself to believe you can make a difference. Simon also believes in repairing for the worst and said to build in your strategy that something will go wrong. He said, â€Å"10% of life is what happens to you. 90% of life is what you do about it. Always have a plan B, you never know what's going to happen. † I think this advice has really helped me with my thinking in maybe trying to manage conflict in the future. Sometimes I cannot effect what has happened to me but I can do something a bout it and respond positively to the negative things that happen to me in life. Overall, I think his advice and expertise has taught me a ton in this interview.