Alpha And Omega Of Active Compasion Essays - Free Essays

Alpha And Omega Of Active Compasion Essays - Free Essays Alpha And Omega Of Active Compasion Alpha and Omega of Active Compassion Have you ever walked down a crowded city street and looked down to see a homeless man stretching out his soiled hand in hopes of a measly dollar? As human beings, are we obligated to give this man our earning? And just how much do we give him? A dollar? Our VISA card? We have a general responsibility, as residents of civilization, to our fellow man, as long as it doesnt interfere with our own personal progress. The ideals of welfare, charity, and the generous foreign policies are all prime examples of our aid to others, but the world is still uncertain on, how much do we give?. The idea of welfare was founded in the United States around the time of the great depression. It was meant to temporarily help the financially less fortunate. This was intended to get the ball rolling for the economy. The government would play Robin Hood by taking from those who had money, and giving it to help those who didnt. In time, they would put their feet back on the ground and would no longer need the relief of their government. This was a very kind and productive way to help our fellow man in his time of need. Unfortunately somewhere along the line the idea of helping the broke modified, and we were simply giving them money when they had no intention on recovering from the debts of poverty. And so we continued to show everyone else how to get money for free. This is an excellent example on how we exceeded our obligation to others. Instead of a few dollars of generosity to uphold others, we give up to half of our earnings to support those who choose not to help themselves. By doing this, we have slowed our individual progress in society. Charity is another form of helping the less fortunate persons on earth. That, unlike welfare, is to be executed at our own discretion. There is no forcing hand in charity, although sometimes we still do not know were to our responsibly begins and ends. Some individuals feel they have no responsibility toward others, and some feel they have no boundaries to their giving. How much should we give? Is it sufficient to toss a quarter or two into a cup of a broken man on the boardwalks of Atlantic City? Or should we take the man under our wings, feed, clothe and house him? The idea seems silly, but it helps us draw the line to where our responsibility to our fellow man begins and ends. The loss of pocket change wound not interfere with our lives, but the taking in of a strange man would certainly slow the progress of our success. That is where we stop giving. The stunning of development of one potentially fortuitous human being isnt worth the slight elevation of an already broken man. That would simply slow the growth of civilization. The foreign policies of the United States, in particular, are more than generous. Week after week, taxes are taken out of paycheck by the government. This money in turn does not always flow back to our masses, but the masses of other nations. It is understood that the poverty levels of the less flourishing countries are extreme. We know they are starving, freezing, and dying. So our government sends the taxes collected to those countries in need. That would be acceptable if we ourselves didnt have citizens starving, freezing, and dying. That is just one more example of how we have anchored our progress as a nation to help others, when we ourselves need the food, cloths and homes. We all have a responsibility to our fellow man. Otherwise, civilization would not exist. But we must all know we cannot help others until we achieve perfection within ourselves. We cannot give more than we can afford to give. We cannot stop our progression to aid others, so that, in turn, we are so disadvantaged that we need help ourselves. Compassion is the key to humanity, but survival is still the key to life. Bibliography none.

The Problem With Feudalism

The Problem With Feudalism Medieval historians arent generally bothered by words. In fact, the intrepid medievalist is always ready to leap into the rough-and-tumble milieu of Old English word origins, medieval French literature, and Latin Church documents. Icelandic Sagas hold no terror for the medieval scholar! Next to these challenges, the esoteric terminology of medieval studies is mundane, and no threat to the historian of the Middle Ages. But theres one word that has become the bane of medievalists everywhere. Use it in discussing medieval life and society, and the average medieval historian will screw up his face in revulsion. There might be some sighs, some head shaking, and perhaps even some hands thrown in the air. What is this word that has the power to annoy, disgust, and even upset the ordinarily cool and collected medievalist? Feudalism. Every student of the Middle Ages is at least somewhat familiar with feudalism. The term is usually defined as follows: Feudalism was the dominant form of political organization in medieval Europe. It was a hierarchical system of social relationships wherein a noble lord granted land known as a fief to a free man, who in turn swore fealty to the lord as his vassal and agreed to provide military and other services. A vassal could also be a lord, granting portions of the land he held to other free vassals; this was known as subinfeudation, and often led all the way up to the king. The land granted to each vassal was inhabited by serfs who worked the land for him, providing him with income to support his military endeavors; in turn, the vassal would protect the serfs from attack and invasion. Of course, this is an extremely simplified definition, and there are many exceptions and caveats that go along with this model of medieval society, but the same could be said of any model applied to a historical period. Generally, it is fair to say that this is the explanation for feudalism youll find in most history textbooks of the 20th century, and it is very close to every dictionary definition available. The problem? Virtually none of it is accurate. Feudalism  was  not the dominant form of political organization in medieval Europe. There was no hierarchical system of lords and vassals engaged in a structured agreement to provide military defense. There was no subinfeudation leading up to the king. The arrangement whereby serfs worked the land for a lord in return for protection, known as manorialism or seignorialism, was not part of a feudal system. Monarchies of the early Middle Ages may have had their challenges and their weaknesses, but kings did not use feudalism to exert control over their subjects, and the feudal relationship was not the glue that held medieval society together. In short, feudalism as described above never existed in Medieval Europe. We know what youre thinking. For decades, even centuries, feudalism has characterized our view of medieval society. If it never existed, then why did so many historians say it did for so long? Werent there entire books written on the subject? Who has the authority to say that all those historians were wrong? And if the current consensus among the experts in medieval history is to reject feudalism, why is it still presented as reality in nearly every medieval history textbook? The best way to answer these questions is to engage in a little historiography. Lets begin with a look at the origin and evolution of the term feudalism. A Post-Medieval What, Now? The first thing to understand about the word feudalism is that it was never used during the Middle Ages. The term was invented by 16th- and 17th-century scholars to describe a political system of several hundred years earlier. This makes feudalism a post-medieval construct. Theres nothing inherently wrong with constructs. They help us understand alien ideas in terms more familiar to our modern thought processes. The phrases Middle Ages and medieval are constructs, themselves. (After all, medieval people didnt think of themselves as living in a middle age they thought they were living in the now, just like we do.) Medievalists may not like the way the term medieval is used as an insult, or how absurd myths of past customs and behavior are commonly attributed to the Middle Ages, but most are confident that the use of middle ages and medieval to describe the era as in between the ancient and early modern eras is satisfactory, however fluid the definition of all three time frames may be. But medieval has a fairly clear meaning based on a specific, easily-defined viewpoint. Feudalism cannot be said to have the same. In 16th  century France,  Humanist  scholars grappled with the history of Roman law and its authority in their own land. They examined, in depth, a substantial collection of Roman law books. Among these books was something called the  Libri Feudorum- the Book of Fiefs. The  Libri Feudorum  was a compilation of legal texts concerning the proper disposition of fiefs, which were defined in these documents as lands held by people referred to as vassals. The work had been put together in Lombardy, northern Italy, in the 1100s, and over the course of the intervening centuries, many lawyers and other scholars had commented on it and added definitions and interpretations, or  glosses.  The  Libri Feudorum  is an extraordinarily significant work that, to this day, has been barely studied since the 16th-century French lawyers gave it a good look. In the course of their evaluation of the Book of Fiefs, the scholars made some fairly reasonable assumptions: That the fiefs under discussion in the texts were pretty much the same as the fiefs of 16th-century France- that is, lands belonging to nobles.That the  Libri Feudorum  was addressing actual legal practices of the 11th century and not simply expounding on an academic concept.That the explanation of the origins of fiefs contained in the  Libri Feudorum- that is, that grants were initially made for as long as the  lord  chose, but were later extended to the grantees lifetime and  afterward  made hereditary- was a reliable history and not mere conjecture. The assumptions may have been reasonable- but were they correct? The French scholars had every reason to believe they were, and no real reason to dig any deeper. After all, they werent so much interested in the historical  facts of the time period as they were in the legal questions addressed in the  Ã¢â‚¬â€¹Libri Feudorum.  Their foremost consideration was whether or not the laws even had any authority in France- and, ultimately, the French lawyers rejected the authority of the Lombard Book of Fiefs. However, during the course of their investigations, and based in part on the assumptions outlined above, the scholars who studied the  Libri Feudorum  formulated a view of the Middle Ages. This general picture included the idea that feudal relationships, wherein noblemen granted fiefs to free vassals in return for services, were important in medieval society because they provided social and military security at a time when  the central  government was weak or nonexistent. The idea was discussed in editions of the  Libri Feudorum  made by the legal scholars Jacques Cujas and Franà §ois Hotman, both of whom used the term  feudum  to indicate an arrangement involving a  fief. It didnt take long for other scholars to see some value in the works of Cujas and Hotman and apply the ideas to their own studies. Before the 16th century was over, two Scottish lawyers- Thomas Craig and Thomas Smith- were using feudum in their classifications of Scottish  lands and their tenure. It was apparently Craig who first expressed the idea of feudal arrangements as a hierarchical  system;  moreover, it was  a  system that was imposed on nobles and their subordinates by their monarch as a matter of policy.  In the 17th century,  Henry Spelman, a noted English antiquarian, adopted this viewpoint for English legal history, as well. Although Spelman never used the word feudalism, either, his work went a long way toward creating an -ism from the handful of ideas over which Cujas and Hotman had theorized. Not only did Spelman maintain, as Craig had done, that feudal arrangements were part of a system, but he related the English feudal heritage with that of Europe, indicating that feudal arrangements were characteristic of medieval society as a whole. Spelman wrote with authority, and his hypothesis was happily accepted as fact by scholars who saw it as a sensible explanation of medieval social and property relations. Over the next several decades, scholars explored and debated feudal ideas. They expanded the meaning of the term from legal matters and adapted it to other aspects of medieval society. They argued over the origins of feudal arrangements and expounded on the various levels of  subinfeudation. They incorporated manorialism and applied it to the agricultural economy. They envisioned a complete system of feudal agreements that ran throughout all of Britain and Europe. What they did  not  do was challenge Craigs or Spelmans interpretation of the works of Cujas and Hotman, nor did they question the conclusions that Cujas and Hotman had drawn from the  Libri Feudorum. From the vantage point of the 21st century, its easy to ask why the facts were overlooked in favor of the theory. Present-day historians  engage in  a rigorous  examination of the evidence and clearly identify a theory as a theory (at least, the good ones do). Why didnt 16th- and 17th-century scholars do the same? The simple answer is that history as a scholarly field has evolved over time; and in the 17th century, the academic discipline of  historical  evaluation was in its infancy. Historians did not yet have the tools- both physical and figurative- we take for granted today, nor did they have the example of scientific methods from other fields to look to and incorporate into their own learning processes. Besides, having a straightforward model by which to view the Middle Ages gave scholars the sense that they understood the time period. Medieval society becomes so much easier to evaluate and comprehend if it can be labeled and fit into a simple organizational structure. By the end of the 18th century, the term feudal system was in use among historians, and by the middle of the 19th century, feudalism had become a fairly well-fleshed out model, or construct, of medieval government and society. The idea spread beyond the cloistered halls of academia. Feudalism became a buzzword for any oppressive, backward, hidebound system of government. In the  French Revolution, the feudal regime was abolished by the  National Assembly, and in Karl Marxs  Communist Manifesto,  feudalism was the oppressive, agrarian-based economic system that preceded the inequitable, industrialized, capitalist economy. With such far-ranging appearances in both academic and mainstream usage, it would be an extraordinary challenge to break free of what was, essentially, a wrong impression. In the late 19th century, the field of medieval studies began to evolve into a serious discipline. No longer did the average historian accept as fact everything that had been written by his predecessors and repeat it as a matter of course. Scholars of the medieval era began to question interpretations of the evidence, and they began to question the evidence, as well. This was by no means a swift process. The medieval era was still the bastard child of historical study; a dark age of ignorance, superstition, and  brutality; a thousand years without a bath.  Medieval historians had a great deal of prejudice, fanciful inventions and misinformation to overcome, and there was no concerted effort to shake things up and reexamine every theory ever floated in the study of the Middle Ages. And feudalism had become so entrenched in our view of the time period, it wasnt an obvious choice of target to overturn. Even once historians began to recognize the system as a post-medieval construct, the validity of the construct wasnt questioned. As early as 1887,  F. W. Maitland  observed in a lecture on English constitutional history that we do not hear of a feudal system until feudalism ceased to exist.  He examined in detail what feudalism supposedly was and discussed how it could be applied to English medieval law, but never did he question its very existence. Maitland was a well-respected scholar, and much of his work is still enlightening and useful today. If such an esteemed historian treated feudalism as a legitimate system of law and government, why should anyone think to question him? For a long time, nobody did. Most medievalists continued in Maitlands vein, acknowledging that the word was a construct, and an imperfect one at that, yet going forward with articles, lectures, treatises and entire books on what exactly feudalism had been; or, at the very least, incorporating it into related topics as an accepted fact of the medieval era. Each historian presented his own interpretation of the model- even those claiming to adhere to a previous interpretation deviated from it in some significant way. The result was an unfortunate number of varying and even conflicting definitions of feudalism. As the 20th century progressed, the discipline of history grew more rigorous. Scholars uncovered new evidence, examined it closely, and used it to modify or explain their view of feudalism. Their methods were sound, as far as they went, but their premise was problematic: they were trying to  adapt  a deeply flawed theory to such a wide variety of facts. Although several historians  expressed concerns over the indefinite nature of the well-worn model and the terms many imprecise meanings, it wasnt until 1974 that anyone thought to stand up and point out the most basic, fundamental problems with feudalism. In a ground-breaking article entitled The Tyranny of a Construct: Feudalism and Historians of Medieval Europe,  Elizabeth A. R. Brown  leveled an unwavering finger at the academic community and roundly denounced the term feudalism and its continued use. Clearly,  feudalism was a construct that was developed  after  the Middle Ages, Brown maintained, and the system it described bore little resemblance to actual medieval society. Its many differing, even contradictory definitions had so muddied the waters that it had lost any useful meaning. The construct was actually interfering with the proper examination of evidence concerning medieval law and society; scholars viewed land agreements and social relationships through the warped lens of the feudalism construct, and either disregarded or dismissed anything that didnt fit into their chosen version of the model. Brown asserted  that  considering how difficult it is to unlearn what one has learned, to continue to include feudalism in introductory texts would do readers of those texts a grave injustice. Browns article was very well-received in academic circles. Virtually no American or British medievalists objected to any part of it, and almost everyone who read it agreed: Feudalism was not a useful term, and really should go. Yet, feudalism stuck around. There were improvements. Some new publications in medieval studies avoided using the term altogether; others used it only  sparingly,  and focused on actual laws, land tenures, and legal agreements instead of on the model. Some books on medieval society refrained from characterizing that society as feudal. Others, while acknowledging that the term was in dispute, continued to use it as a useful shorthand for lack of a better term, but only as far as it was necessary. But there were still authors that included descriptions of feudalism as a valid model of medieval society with little or no caveat. Why? For one thing, not  every  medievalist had read Browns  article,  or had a chance to consider its implications or discuss it with his colleagues. For another, revising work that had been conducted on the premise that feudalism was a valid construct would require the kind of reassessment that few historians were prepared to engage in, especially when deadlines were drawing near. Perhaps most significantly, no one had presented a reasonable model or explanation to use in place of feudalism. Some historians and authors felt they had to provide their readers with a handle by which to grasp the general ideas of medieval government and society. If not feudalism, then what? Yes, the emperor had no clothes; but for now, he would just have to run around naked.

Performance Review Memo Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Performance Review Memo - Essay Example The different writing styles are now deeply entrenched in my writing and can be selected interchangeably depending on various course requirements. For example, most of the assignments given required that we use either APA or MLA referencing styles. Moreover, the course has helped in the acquisition and improvement of such skills as teamwork that would have otherwise not been learned. The group work helped in learning how to collaborate with other members in achieving a certain goal. The nature of the work, for instance, allowed us to divide the various aspects amongst ourselves and later compiled the work together. Group members were given the liberty to choose the areas that they felt adeptly knowledgeable therefore making the quality of the work better. In addition, and most importantly, the course has improved the ability to develop good research questions and strategies for meeting the research objectives. This ability was enhanced by the step-by-step approach employed by the lecturer. To help in the effective functioning of the group, we broke down the assignment into four parts one for each of us. Delegation of duties is one role that we highly appreciated in a bid to hasten the process of research. All the group members were helpful in achieving the set objectives. Most importantly, each of us selected the areas of the assignment that we were most conversant with. I contributed highly in the area of consumer education as a response to reducing theft of beauty products at the fresh market. Ali’s contribution in the group was most visible in the aspect of employee education as an effective tool of reducing theft of beauty products at the Fresh Market. This is an area that he is well versed in and most of his points came from real experience coupled with supporting literature review. Sara’s contribution was as important as everyone else’s and she did her job

Organizational error that caused the failure of the space shuttle Essay - 1

Organizational error that caused the failure of the space shuttle Challenger launch - Essay Example Vaughan argues that NASA managers did not break any rules unlike reported before rather abided by them a bit too strictly. She has pointed out that rather it were the rules that kept on getting more and more accommodative each time a mission was accomplished successfully. Thus rules expanded like a rubber band, enclosing more and more dangers which previously turned out to be false assumptions. It was NASA’s culture where something which has worked once was assumed to work every time. O-ring seals were not a new problem but the previous successful launches prepared the managers’ mind that it is an acceptable risk. She argues that rather than developing new paradigms for unexpected consequences, people change the paradigms to accommodate the consequence or discard them at all. According to her, the same happened in the case of O-ring erosion where the risk level was reduced as the risk did not turn out to be as grave as previously thought. However the reduction in gravit y did not mean that the risk cannot become grave once coupled with some other risks. The O-ring erosion, sub-optimal temperatures & unexpected wind shears, all risks were expected to be less than grave, in the original paradigms but people failed to develop new paradigm for the combination. She has agreed that Challenger’s Disaster was a normal accident (p. 415) & normal accident always happen because of failure to develop new paradigms in extremely complex organization.

Racial Sensitivity in the Modern World Literature review - 4

Racial Sensitivity in the Modern World - Literature review Example In the research, individuals were asked to maintain their head below water and were promised that the longer they stayed under water, the more money their relatives would get. This was repeated with relatives of differing closeness such as brother, cousin, second cousin etc. The study found that the participants were naturally able to stay longer when doing it for those who were genetically close to them. The results of the study indicated why people are more likely to like those of their own race and distance themselves from those of other races or ethnic backgrounds. While it is not entirely clear whether race is a matter of genetics, it is obvious that people of the same race are more genetically related than those who are from different races. This difference in the race has brought many issues in the past to the point of warranting people to have better racial relations. Racial sensitivity is as a result of the conflict between the natural instinct that drives people to like the ir own race and place those of their own race before everyone else, and the rational part of the brain that tells one that that is no good. As civilized beings, humans are rational enough to know that they should not hate each other based on race, but still have to deal with an irrational, instinctive part within them that says otherwise. This indicates why there is so much racial sensitive in the social arena. At the same time, as a result of many years of activism, racial sensitivity has become very common especially in public life. Racial sensitivity can be seen in everything that people do. For instance, in most Hollywood movies, there is always a black man who in most cases is depicted as having some special abilities. This need to include only one person of the African American ethnic background and making him seem to have some special abilities can be seen as racial sensitive by the producers of the movie. For insane, in the movie Predators, the only black man in the movie wa s the only one who was able to detect the almost invincible predator. At the same time, he was the first character to die in the movie.     

The End Justifies The Means Philosophy Essay

The End Justifies The Means Philosophy Essay One of the major political thinkers known to us is Niccolo Machiavelli. He is well known for the phrase the end justifies the means which is continually being the subject of discussions and discourses today (Adams and Dyson). With Machiavellis principles, we are now faced with the issue whether the desired ends is justified by the means used to achieve them. The issue will be explored in the light of Niccolo Machiavellis The Qualities of the Prince and Martin Luther King Jr.s Letter from Birmingham Jail to ascertain the meaning of the phrase the end justifies the means. It cannot be denied that there are implications and difficulties when unworthy means are used to achieve worthy ends. However, one thing is sure: if an end or goal is worthy, any mean to achieve that end is justifiable provided that both ends and means are noble and good. The question whether the end justifies the means depends on the type of goal or end a person wants to achieve and the means they use. If both the means and the ends are equally noble and good, there is no question because the ends are justified by the means. This is the stand I have chosen to take. Although there are different views about the meaning of Machiavellis expression, I agree with the belief that both the ends and means should be good. Individuals are known at times to use Machiavellis phrase or expression as an excuse when they try to achieve their own goals no matter how immoral, illicit, and wrong their means are. For many individuals, it does not matter what means are used long as they get what they want. To justify their ends by some type of means sometimes involves doing a wrong thing when trying to achieve a positive end. They justify the wrong act by pointing to the outcome that was good. The wrong justification can be seen in some horrors in human history such as t he Holocaust, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagaski, the World Wars, and even the bombing of the World Trade Center. There are a lot of justifications made by many people about the ends these events serve, but one thing is true, the ends are noble but the means are not. To compare the two in what is considered wrong and morally right, one example is an individual lying about their qualifications on their resume when trying to get a good job. This individual would later justify the lying by saying that it is a means to receive a larger income to provide for his or her family more effectively. Another example would be justifying an abortion to save the mothers life. These two examples create a dilemma between what is done and what ought to be done. Machiavelli states, Because how one lives is so far distant from one ought to live, that he who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation; for a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil (Machiavelli, The Prince Ch. 15). Considering these two examples, the lying and taking of an innocent life can be viewed as both equally wrong. On the other hand, the end which is providing for ones own family and the saving of a womans life are both morally right. However, one must learn to distinguish what should be done in order to avoid the consequences of what is done. What if the individual lying about his or her resume was not given the job because he lied? What if the baby aborted has the cure for cancer in his or her mind? The wrong means used can lead to ruin rather than good. It cannot be denied that we all have taken part of the end justifies the means debate at some point in our lives. Means used must also be ethical, social, and morally upright. Therefore, if one mean in itself is morally bad, it cannot really serve an end that is good, even though it would appear good on the surface. A goal or purpose achieved through an upright approach is the thing justified, not those immoral, illicit, and wrong. One significant proof of a justified means to an end is exemplified in the nonviolent demonstration against segregation fought for by Martin Luther King Jr. There are a lot of ways for the African Americans back then to achieve equality and freedom in American society. They can bomb the White House. They can coerce the government through unlawful means and other immoral and wrong acts you can imagine. However, Martin Luther King Jr. and his followers chose to gain freedom through a peaceful means. Here, we can see that both the means and the ends are noble and good. His famous writing Letter from Birmingham Jail laid down the agenda of their non-violent campaign. In his letter, Martin Luther King Jr. showed that the unjust treatment of Negroes and their segregation can be solved through peaceful means. A non-violent campaign however can produce tension but it is up to the protestors to handle the tension. In his Letter from Birmingham Jail, King says, Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shock-ing. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word tension. I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth (Jr. 216). Martin Luther King Jr. died as a result of the demonstrations he started but the ends are met. His belief was opposed by the Whites during that time. The Whites also uphold the idea that the end justifies the means. They say that what they do to the Negroes is done because of self-preservation. The government during that time works to preserve the State so they acted on what to be done: give the African Americans what they want. The death of Martin Luther King Jr. proved that both the ends and means may be noble, that it can be justified. Martin Luther King Jr. is an example to be followed when applying the phrase the end justifies the means. As stated by Thayer, Be strong is therefore the first and last commandment for nations and princes to observe; and Machiavelli instructs them how to use their strength (Thayer 476). In this case, Martin Luther King Jr. knew what means to use for his desired end. No one can use bad means for any good end. In saying this, it can be compared to a person trying to build a good house from bad materials it does not work. The phrase the end justifies the means can fool us all if we do not look closely to what it says. What we fail to see in this statement is the end itself. Is it really good? We all fail to see and carefully examine the means and how they affect the ends. There are a lot of difficulties and complications when unworthy means are used to achieve worthy ends. An example would be the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazi regime (Gilbert 32). Is this end worthy after all the events that happened? Another example would be the two World Wars. Are the ends of such brutal means necessary? These complications are frequently seen in wartime situations and the political field. Governments do not care whatever means they employ just to win. They just think about victory although it means losing many lives, property, and even more morale. In these two situations, the only judgment is success and any means that would contribute to success is thought to be justified, but not by everyone. Any success can be used as the standard by which we all measure the benefit of the means. However, some benefits are superficial and do not last long. The misuse of the phrase the end justifies the means contradicts Machiavellis main point that a prince ought to think about future events and prepare for potential problems. If a person really thinks in a Machiavellian perspective, he or she would use necessary means to achieve an end to avoid future complications (Machiavelli, The Prince Ch. 14). People who pursue their dreams and their goals are more likely to take a path that is filled with obstacles. It is known that goals are achieved through very hard work. The means to attain such goals are different from the goals itself. One thing should be remembered though; both means and ends must be noble and good. What I have shown is that the ends or goals of any individual can always be justified by the means used to achieve it if only they are worthy enough. As Machiavelli points out, But to exercise the intellect the prince should read histories, and study there the actions of illustrious men, to see how they have borne themselves in war, to examine the causes of their victories and defeat, so as to avoid the latter and imitate the former (The Prince Ch. 14). There are a lot of horrific examples in justifying immoral, illicit, and wrong means but Machiavelli teaches us to learn from past experiences to achieve ends through noble and good means. In conclusion, we are all but humans who err most of the time. The values that we have as humans are what make us humans. Any means we use which violates our perception of morals and righteousness can never justify the end or the goals no matter how worthy they may seem to be. As seen in the Martin Luther King Jr. example, there are in fact a thousand ways to achieve one single end and it is up to you whether to use the noble means or the wrong means.

Egyptian Mummification: It’s History, Purpose, and Process Essays

Egyptian Mummification: It’s History, Purpose, and Process The history and tradition of Egypt is one of the most greatly studied and admired of all past world civilizations. The lure of the pyramids and the specter of the sphinx have led many archeologists to dedicate his/her life to unraveling the mysteries of ancient Egyptian culture. Arguably, the most captivating aspect of Egypt’s past is that of mummification. Why did the Egyptians mummify their dead? What beliefs did the Egyptians have regarding the after life? What portion of the Egyptian civilization was mummified? What was the Book of the Dead? This is a mere sampling of the questions that come to my mind when I think of ancient Egyptian culture. I hope to lay forth answers to these questions and many more in the following pages dedicated to the history and purpose behind Egyptian mummification. Mummification, with its long, storied history, has allowed archeologists to peer into the daily lives and beliefs of ancient Egyptian middle-class and royalty. The practice of mummification by the Egyptians seems to have started sometime before 3100 BC. However, lack of written evidence or significant physical proof from this Predynastic period is available to either confirm or deny this. One of the oldest surviving mummies is Ginger, currently stored at the British Museum. Ginger was buried in a shallow grave and wrapped only in light cloth but due to the hot, dry desert he survived intact to discovery in the late 19th century (Andrews 5). Ginger’s name comes from the color of his hair, fragments of which are still attached to his body. Evidence from his discovery supports the belief that even at this early age the Egyptians believed in the afterlife. Tools and pottery we... ...ould be very thankful to the Egyptian people for leaving us this gift, which paints for us such a clear picture of their legacy. Works Cited Aldred, Cyril. The Egyptians. New York: Thames and Hudson Inc., 1984. Andrews, Carol. Egyptian Mummies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984. Budge, E.A. Wallis. The Mummy: A Handbook of Egyptian Funerary Archaeology. 2nd ed. Cambridge: University Press, 1925. Casson, Lionel. Ancient Egypt. New York: Time Incorporated, 1965. Editors of Time-Life Books. Egypt: Land of the Pharaohs. Alexandria: Time-Life Books, 1992. El Mahdy, Christine. Mummies: Myth and Magic. New York: Thames and Hudson Inc., 1989. Montet, Pierre. Eternal Egypt. New York: The New American Library of World Literature, Inc., 1964. Peck, William H. Splendors of Ancient Egypt. Ann Arbor: University Lithoprinters, Inc.,1997.