The Australian Legend and Feminism :: essays research papers fc

The Australian Legend And Feminism Until recent years it has been believed that there are two sexes, being male and female, and with these there are two genders, with these being masculinity and feminity. It may also be argued that sex is biology determined where as gender is socially and culturally constructed as studies of societies, both present and past, have shown that there is no relationship between social roles and biological sex (Abercrombie, Hill & Turner, 2000). With the introduction of post modernist feminist theories we have begun to question whether or not there are only two genders and how to classify transgender (Flax, 1990). It can be argued that masculinity has socially and culturally been constructed as dominant within the public world. In western countries, such as Australia, it is upon men that â€Å"autonomy, control over the world and mastery of others† (Porter, 1998, p. 27) has been placed. Parsons (Porter, 1998) suggested five alternative sets of positioned values which are structured as being either expressive or instrumental. Parsons (Porter, 1998) was of the belief that men embodied the instrumental values of affective neutrality (capable of unemotional and impersonal interaction), self-orientation (primary pursuit of own interests), universalism (making objective evaluations when interacting with others), achievement (ability to achieve set goals and related status) and specificity (interacting or working within a specific role). Parsons theorized that these five instrumental values were associated with western ‘advanced’ societies (Porter, 1998). In Australia, women and children are seen to be subservient to the male superiority. Parsons (Porter, 1998) believed that women embodied the expressive values of affectivity (highly emotional), collective orientation (putting others interests before your own), particularism (responding differently towards different people), ascription (having status ascribed regardless of intrinsic qualities), and diffuseness (role covers a wide range of interests and is non-specific). To Parsons these roles were seen to belong to primitive society and in modern times were to be associated with women and private life (Porter, 1998). These roles have been reinforced through popular media, for example by the bible which is the worlds’ best selling and most distributed book (Guinness World Records). Within the bible the word "man" may be found 5,335 times in 4,536 verses whilst â€Å"woman† may be found 379 times in 347 verses (Christ Unlimited Ministries, n.d.). Passages of the bible may also reinforce the notion of male superiority for example in Genesis 1:26-28 (Christ Unlimited Ministries, n.d.) which tells of god creating Adam in his own image and then creating for Adam a helper, Eve, whom God calls Woman as she is created from the rib of man.

Ethics. Cultural relativism and Divine command theory Essay

Ethics Introduction            Societies have different beliefs that are considered as the basis of their existence. They are the morals that govern the behaviour patterns and as far as the community is concerned, they also serve as the grounds of what is right and what is wrong. In philosophy, there are certain theories that have been formulated to describe extensively on the ethical virtues that the community upholds. They justify morality and immorality. The theories include; relativism, utilitarianism, divine command theory, deontology and virtue theory. This paper will focus on the five ethic theories by describing them and major solely on one theory that supersedes the others and justifying the reasons why it is commonly considered. Relativism            Cultural relativism is the descriptive view that different groups of people or cultures, have different ways of evaluating what is right and what is wrong. In different cultures, even when we would anticipate to agree on some issues of morality, diversity is evident (Ruth, 2010). Ethical relativism, an action is right or wrong depending on the moral norms that are practised in a society. Cultural relativism describes the way people actually behave, while ethical relativism describes the fact that a society learns from the previous generation, how to behave, think and feel. A well -known evidence of cultural relativism is the way people behave around the world. For instance, eating beef is moral in USA while it is immoral in India, or killing new born females is moral in China and India whereas it is immoral in USA. Ethical relativism argues that the ethics of a society evolve with time and change to fit circumstances. This paper will focus on the five ethic theorie s by describing them and major solely on one theory that supersedes the others and justifying the reasons why it is commonly considered.            Utilitarianism states that an action being morally right or wrong is dependant wholly on its consequences. An action is right if the outcome is best and wrong if the outcome is bad. In this theory, an action is right if it promotes the happiness of the performer of the action and everyone affected by it (Boylan, 2009). An action is wrong if it brings the reverse of happiness, that is, pain and sadness. This theory makes it possible for the right thing to be done from a bad motive. The utilitarianism theory is often associated with John Stuart Mill, a philosopher who stated that â€Å"actions are right to the degree that they tend to promote the greatest good for the greatest number. Divine command theory            Divine command theory views that moral obligation consists in obedience to God’s commands. An act is moral if God commands us to do it and it is immoral if God prohibits us from doing it (Brown, 2001). Therefore to say that it is good to tell the truth is semantically equivalent to saying that God commands us to tell the truth. Similarly, to say that it is evil to steal is the same as saying that God prohibits us from stealing. The divine command theory is however wildly improbable for reasons demonstrated by the Euthyphic dilemma. As it states, â€Å"is an action morally good because God commands it or does God command it because it is morally good?† By saying that God commands an action because it morally good, threatens the independence of God. It means that the unprejudiced ground of morality is outside of God, and He is indebted to adhere to his standard, and thus He is not sovereign.The characteristic Christian rejoinder to the Euthyphro Dilemma is to ground goodness in God’s nature. Therefore, it is God’s nature to do good and He never acts divergent to His nature and also, the ground of morality is not some peripheral ordinary to which God must observe.            Deontological ethics can also be referred to as duty-based ethics. It arbitrates morality by scrutinising the nature of actions and the agents will instead of the goals achieved. For deontology, whether a situation is right or wrong depends on the action that resulted in the situation for example, a deontologist would argue that it is wrong to lie to a murderer about the location of a victim. As long as we are following our duties, we are behaving morally and vice versa. In order to make the correct moral choices, we must understand what our moral duties are and what correct rules exist to regulate those duties. Deontological theories have been named as formalist due to their central principle lying in the conformity of an action to some rule or law.            The first philosopher to define deontological principles was Immanuel Rant, who held that nothing is good deprived of experiences with the exception of a good will, which is one that wills to act in concurrence with the moral law and out of respect for that law, rather than out of natural dispositions. The important thing is whether the person is expressing good moral virtues or not. The issues whether the intention is right, the correct rule is being followed or whether the consequences of the action are good, are not relevant. A virtue atheist is likely to advise you to act in the same way as a virtuous person in the given situation. The character of a person is the outcome of his or her character traits which can either be good, bad or somewhere in the middle. Virtues are the admirable character traits while the opposites of virtues.            Ethical relativism indorses right and wrong rooted in an individual’s culture and not an individual’s beliefs whereas virtue ethics acquaints a person’s character as indication of inherent goodness, rather than gauging the results of actions executed by that person. It supports the theory that a bad person can have good actions. The motives of an action regulates the value or goodness of that person in spite of the outcome of the actionEthical relativism discards absolute moral values because of a lack of proof. People’s behaviour finds provision from where and how they live, unlike the virtue theory where people’s behaviour finds provision from their character traits and goodness.            According to utilitarian theory, the one thing that brands an act morally right or wrong is whether or not the consequences are beneficial. On the other hand, virtue ethics is of the impression that a morally right act in some state calls for a moral choice is what a virtuous person would do in that state. For example, if a person is sick and goes to the hospital for treatment, the doctor is morally right to kill the patient and give his organs to other patients who need them to survive. This, is in accordance to utilitarian theory. However, this is wrong because it is taking away someone’s right to live for the motive of making other people happy.            Even though deontology and utilitarianism are categorised as â€Å"ethics of conduct,† they differ in their ethical theory. Deontology indorses an action based on a moral law or code, while for utilitarianism an action that gives the best consequences or happiness to the action is right. Virtue ethics is categorised as â€Å"ethics of character† and it is focused on how people should be instead of the actions people should perform (Moore, 2009). Virtue ethics should be the ethical motivation in a person’s life. He or she should use levelheadedness abilities to regulate their duties based on virtues and also the universal rules and schemes that guarantee justice and fairness for everyone. Listening to one’s intuition in order to determine the greatest good as well as the virtues that will best serve the society is the best way to ensure this justice and fairness. A human being should not have right over another person’s life becaus e everyone is equal. References Ruth Benedict, Martin T.K 2010.. Patterns of Cultures. The Eagle publishers Boylan, M. (2009). Basic Ethics (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Brown, C. (2001). Ethical Theories Compared. Delaine publishers Moore, B. N., & Parker, R. (2009). Critical Thinking (9th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Source document

the yellow wallpaper disscuss mental illness - 2208 Words

DISSCUSS THE WAY IN WHICH GILMAN WRITES ABOUT MENTAL ILLNESS Charlotte Perkins Gilman s The Yellow Wallpaper, relays to the reader something more than a simple story of a woman at the mercy of the limited medical knowledge in the late 1800 s. Gilman creates a character that expresses real emotions and a psyche that can be examined in the context of modern understanding. The Yellow Wallpaper, written in first person and first published in 1892 in the January edition of the New England Magazine, depicts the downward spiral of depression, loss of control and competence, and feelings of worthlessness that lead to greater depression and the possibility of schizophrenia. The beginning emphasis will be on the interaction and roles of the†¦show more content†¦John could have obtained council from someone less personally involved in her case, but the only help he sought was for the condition of the house and the baby. He obtained a nanny to watch over the children while he was away at work each day: It is fortunate Mary is so good with the baby. He also had his sister Jennie take care of the house. She is a perfect and enthusiastic housekeeper. There is one instance, however, when he does talk of taking her to an expert for assistance, John says if I don t pick up faster he shall send me to Weir Mitchell in the fall. Nevertheless she took that as a threat since Dr. Mitchell was even more domineering than her husband and his brother. Perhaps, if she had been allowed to come and go and do as she pleased her depression might have lifted, I think sometimes that if I were only well enough to write a little it would relieve the press of ideas and res t me. It seems to her that just being able to tell someone how she really feels would have eased her depression, but her husband would not hear of it because of the embarrassing consequences it could bring to the family name. Thus, John has made her a prisoner in their marriage where her opinions are pushed aside, and her self-worthiness questioned. She does have a rebellious spirit in her and the fact that this spirit is being crushed is the final nail towards her insanity. Her desperation is almost like someone being buried alive and screaming knowing that there are people