Individualistic Countries Essay Example for Free

Individualistic Countries Essay The Rise of Collectivism â€Å"Harmony And The Dream† by David Brooks emphasizes that the ideal of collectivist societies like China become more appealing than individual societies. Brooks defines Americans as individuals and Asians as contexts by some experiments. There are obvious differences between individualistic countries and collective societies. The former emphasizes rights and privacy, but the later prefer harmony and duty. The author also lists the example of the opening ceremony in Beijing. The example shows that harmonious society contributed to the fast speed of China. Therefore, the influence of harmony is larger than the impact of American Dream. â€Å"If you show an American an image of a fish tank, the American will usually describe the biggest fish in the tank and what it is doing. If you ask a Chinese person to describe a fish tank, the Chinese will usually describe the context in which the fish swim.† Brooks uses comparison to explain the different views between American and Chinese. Americans pay more attention to the only one, but Chinese focus on the context. The example helps us to understand the divide between individualist mentality and collectivist mentality. Definition is also used in the article. â€Å"The individualistic countries tend to put rights and privacy first. People in collective societies tend to value harmony and duty.† This definition deepen the understanding of differences and shows the thesis of the article. The last one is transition. Before paragraph12, the author prefers Eastern collectivist societies. But Brooks also narrates the reasons why individualism can sweep the field. The author thinks subconscious influences and permeability of human’s brain are two essences. Western people are deeply influenced by individualism. In conclusion, Brooks tend to approve the ideal of collective collective. He also admits the success of western individualism.

Death: The End or a New Beginning Essays -- Loss of Life, Perspective

What is death? Looking up the meaning in the dictionary would probably read â€Å"the loss of life† or â€Å"ceasing of all vital functions†. As human beings the word could mean one of many things depending on what you believe in. To most of humanity throughout history it meant the end of a life, to others a shortcut to avoid the inevitable, or even what might be the beginning of something new. Unfortunately, today in our modern time our conception of death has changed drastically throughout history. Many like you and me will never truly understand death’s true meaning unless experienced firsthand. â€Å"The subject of death is shrouded in mystery, folklore, and different meanings from every culture on this planet†. Although death should not be something to be feared, for it’s a natural part of life. Nevertheless it shouldn’t be taken lightly; it could happen to any of us at any moment, but it shouldn’t stop you from living your life to the fullest and making every last second count. â€Å"Throughout history, specific cultural contexts have always played a crucial role in how people perceived death. Different societies have held widely diverging views on the â€Å"breath of life† and on â€Å"how the soul left the body† at the time of death.† In the past, death was embraced and was believed to be caused by some sort of divine intervention. In ancient Egypt, Egyptians believed that preparing for their death will allow them to cross into the afterlife. It was popular amongst the people even the Pharos of Egypt would undergo a mummification process and be buried with their belongings to ensure their place in the afterlife. Many other cultures would perform similar or other rituals to hold on to their belief that death wasn’t the end. If they had a strong eno... ...ays with Morrie: An Old Man, a Young Man, and Life's Greatest Lesson. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Print. Bryan, Susan Montoya. "NM Ruling Will Allow Doctors to Help Patients Die." Santa Fe New Mexican. 14 Jan. 2014: n.p. SIRS Issues. Web. 20 Feb. 2014. http://sks.sirs.com. Wood, Daniel B. "When Does Life End? Two Emotional Cases Probe the Complexities." Christian Science Monitor. 19 Jan. 2014: n.p. SIRS Issues. Web. 20 Feb. 2014. http://sks.sirs.com "Death." Britannica School. Encyclopà ¦dia Britannica, Inc., 2014. Web. 20 Feb. 2014. . "Death Rite." Britannica School. Encyclopà ¦dia Britannica, Inc., 2014. Web. 20 Feb. 2014. . "Capital Punishment." Britannica School.Encyclopà ¦dia Britannica, Inc., 2014. Web. 20 Feb. 2014. .

Is the term ‘Just War’ now outdated? Essay

Debates about what we now call ‘Just War’ go back as far as the Greek philosophers Aristotle and Cicero. In Christian understanding, the theory was developed by St Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan in 374, and his student Augustine. Drawing on Roman ideas and the Old Testament, they marked out that only a legitimate governmental authority has the right to declare war; it must be aimed at restoring peace and ideally should be a last resort. The political situation was such that war was constant, and there was a need for a set of principles in order for the state to support the Church. Pacifism was declared for the clergy and monks only, and it became permissible to wage war on certain grounds, for instance if unjustly attacked. However war for revenge and to get reparations was also allowed, which questions whether it is at all possible to ever fulfill the criteria of either ‘jus ad bellum’ (the six requirements that must be satisfied by the heads of state) or ‘jus in bello’ (justice in the conduct of battle). Later, Thomas Aquinas connected and organized the theory; in the Summa Theologicae he discussed the justifications for going to war. The legitimate authority principle prevented civil uprisings and feudal wars. Originally, the King was anointed and seen as responsible before God for his military actions; thus only the King had the right to wage war on God’s enemies. However throughout history this has been challenged; for instance, the Communist revolution violently established new authority over the previously existing autocratic ruler. Furthermore, in a democratic country, where the prime minister has been elected, the concept of the governmental leader having some sort of a connection with God is inappropriate. The atrocities of the First World War, although declared by legitimate authorities, are clearly not what the Just War Theory ever intended. Thus it seems reasonable to suggest that the theory is outdated, for technological advancements magnified the potential violent impact of war. However, supporters of the United Nations Security Council would say that the Just War theory evolves overtime and adapts to pressing needs; for instance after the Second World War much authority was give to the UN in order to minimise countries waging war in order to satisfy their own demands and pursue their own aims and reactions. Approaching the end of the war at the Yalta Conference (1945) it was decided to ensure a third party could regulate the military affairs of the superpowers. However the UN could not prevent further military conflicts; between the 1980s and 90s the Eastern superpower weakened and the USA, as the remaining paymaster of the UN, gained a lot of support. For instance the carnage committed by Israel, America’s ally, has been largely overlooked, whereas the pre-emptive strike on Iraq was approved. Thus the concept of ‘Just War’ remains impracticable. The issue of terrorism has also proved to be a challenge for the Just War theory. Terrorists are essentially illegitimate authorities trying to bring about political change through violent means; their conduct is often extreme, including the use of shakhids in Chechnya (female suicide bombers, often very young). In the light of 09/11 it is fair to say that when such brutal and inhuman methods are being used, a proportionate response by definition will not be a just one either. This puts certain states in a difficult position in terms of following the Just War principles. The organization identified as responsible, Al-Qa’ida, are not representative of any one country. The members are hard to track and the US cannot cope with its strategy, despite the military and nuclear powers at its disposal. It is particularly difficult to satisfy the demands of ‘jus in bello’ when the threat of Nuclear warfare is apparent once more since the Cold War. Back then the American Roman Catholic bishops condemned the use of nuclear weapons because they are indiscriminate and disproportionate. But even if it is possible to maintain diplomacy between countries and avoid NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical weaponry) it is impossible to control non-governmental sources and rogue states that may obtain NBC and use it to threaten and blackmail. The just war theory cannot provide a clear cut response to the problem of proportionality with regards to nuclear weaponry. The above problems are characteristic of our time; the term ‘Just War’ seems out of keeping with the scale and nature of modern warfare. Resources are growing scarce, world economy is unstable, and political differences drive nations to extreme military measures – no cause is fully just and no major state can be ‘innocent’. However, there are other issues that are not discussed as often in terms of just war – such as the division between the rich and the poor countries, and whether the latter would be justified in waging war to establish a fairer system than the one existing right now. Overall, the Just War theory can be modified and updated; it should not be dismissed because there is a desperate need for peace and justice in the world today.

America s Free Trade Agreement - 1614 Words

Most people from Mexico, just like in Veracruz, lived a simple life. Their means of income was through farming, so obviously this was their bread and butter, but not until when NAFTA, the North America Free Trade Agreement, was implemented between the United States, Mexico, and Canada (The Other Side of Immigration). Urrea states â€Å"you’d think that at least there would be beans to eat, but the great Mexican bean-growing industrial farms sold much of their crop to the United States† (45). Since then, most Mexicans, especially those people from Veracruz, was affected. Even though the primary reason for this agreement was to eliminate trade and investment barriers between Canada, U.S., and Mexico to make produce less expensive, this brought a†¦show more content†¦Although the agricultural sector of Mexico was affected by NAFTA, the country has another source of income to keep their economy running gasoline and oil, tourism, and the remittance that is being sen t through Western Union by families, who earn money in the United States, to their loved ones in Mexico. It was documented in 2008 that there were $25 billion that was sent back to Mexico (The Other Side of Immigration), but even though the country [Mexico] earns through oil, tourism, and remittance, it was still not helpful for the Welton 26 and most Mexicans who migrated illegally to have job opportunities. That is why many Mexicans like the Welton 26 illegally migrated to the United States for better opportunities and to earn more money to provide for the ones they left behind. Another sad truth why the Welton 26 and most Mexicans chose to migrate illegally here in the United States was because the economy of Mexico is in a dilapidated situation because of the corruption of their government officials. Most Mexicans would say that they are suffering because they are neglected by their politicians no matter how hard they work (The Other Side of Immigration). Urrea shares, â€Å"and in the economy of hunger, which the fat men of the governments did not understand, more mouths meant more