Russ Shafer-Landau provides us with two separate arguments about the death penalty in his academic book The Ethical Life, fundamental readings in ethics and moral problems. In the first argument, Justifying Legal Punishment, Igor Primoratz gives us substantive reasoning that opts favorably toward the necessity of the death penalty. Contrasting Primoratz, Stephen Nathanson, through An Eye for an Eye, provides us with an argument that hopes to show us that capital punishment, like murder, is also immoral and therefore, unjust. By the end of this essay, I intend to show that while capital punishment may not be the easy choice for a consequence and punishment to murder, it is, however, the necessary one.
Suzan Harjo’s, “Last Rites for Indian Dead”,is a student persuasive essay criticizing the destruction of Indian remains. She strongly believes that this is an injustice to American Indians and their remains should be protected by law. She uses rhetorical appeal along with facts and her opinions to why Congress should pass a bill to make sure that her, along with her other families relative’s remains aren’t put up for show in museums. Harjo employs the rhetorical appeals of pathos and ethos effectively. However, her use of logical appeal causes her readers to doubt her claim.
This means not how we see things or are prospective but how things really are. Reality is unbiased platform that isn’t defined to a specific person. It does not depend on any one-person experience but what is there.
In Maxfield’s essay, “Journalist Michael Pollan offers readers a simple solution: quit obsessing over the French paradox and start obsessing over the french fry,” can be identified as the claim. Maxfield clearly uses Pollan as a reference and states a clear, not too detailed, claim. This in fact is a strength point for Maxfield. In Zinczenko’s essay, “lunch and dinner, for me, was a daily choice between McDonald’s, Taco Bell… then as now, these were the only available options for an American kid to get an affordable meal,” can be identified as the claim. Zinczenko gets a little distracted with the details, instead of just giving an overlook of his position.
In order to support his argument, George J. Sanchez uses many examples to discuss the
Furthermore, the type of examples Kluger, Aciman, and Steinmetz utilize involve strong data and facts to support their piece and make it more convincing. To illustrate, they describe, “ Just since 2004, the share of Americans who identify themselves as optimists has plummeted from 79% to 50%, according to a new Time poll. Meanwhile, more than 20% of us will suffer from a mood disorder at some point in our lifetimes and more than 30% from an anxiety disorder. By the time we 're 18 years old, 11% of us have been diagnosed with depression” (Kluger, Aciman, and Steinmetz 2). Given that their audience consists of more educated, well-read people, this evidence is particularly useful due to the fact it contains numbers and data that prove the writer 's’ main point and persuade their readers.
Interestingly, Captain Kirk displayed examples of liberalism and realism simultaneously. It is these actions of the two warring enemies in which the conflict begins and appropriately ends. To move on, the theories of realism and liberalism must be expounded upon. Realism, as a theory, deals with how the world is perceived, and it predominantly focuses on the true nature of man. The state of the world is anarchy according to this theory.
The effectiveness of Chomsky’s argument is based upon his reasoning, explanation, use of historical documents and footage, and the tone development of the film. The film “Requiem for the American Dream,” is divided into 10 sub categories called principles, each supporting the claim that the concentration of wealth increases the concentration of power. Consequently, this results in an increase in the concentration of wealth, causing the process to start over again in a system
Looking back over the development of the Security Studies field, there can be no doubt that the realist tradition has exercised enormous influence. Even the harshest of critics can acknowledge that with their focus on power, fear, and anarchy, realist theories have provided centrally important explanations for conflict and war (Williams, 2013). One interpretation of realism that is unbroken amongst most commentators of the theory is that realists are individuals that believe the State is the principle actor in international politics and that they are very concerned with the balance of power (Marsalis, 2013). They argue that all the State’s actions and choices are a reflection of the collective will of the people, which is also an argument
The theory unleashes such dynamic forces that from the time of its inception up till now it has governed the international system of the world however things one day itself fall apart. The Realists mark the State as the locus of different international circles and these sovereign states have vested interests which are always selfish. Realism is a heartless theory, man is not supposed to be selfish in the way exaggerated by the Realist thinker however [he] is a seeker of knowledge and what so ever he stumbles upon, he keeps
On the other hand, theists like Swinburne, believe that evil is necessary for important reasons such as that it helps us grow and improve. In this paper I will argue that the theist is right, because the good of the evil in this specific case on problems beyond one’s control, outweighs the bad that comes from it. I will begin by stating the objection the anti-theodicist gives for why it is wrong that there is a problem of evil. (<--fix) Regarding passive evil not caused by human action, the anti-theodicist claims that there is an issue with a creator, God, allowing a world to exist where evil things happen, which are not caused by human beings (180-181).
Realist Perspective of the War: According to realists, the International Political system is anarchical. There is no sovereign entity ruling above the sovereign states in the world. Whilst this anarchy needs not to be chaotic, for various member states of the international
This means there is no term mentioned as an International Organization but merely the State. Realism also believes the State is deciding on the future of the people. In connection with it, the state is certainly confident that whatever actions are correct and appropriate, even if it is done by means
Idealists see realism as a set of assumptions about how and why states behave like they do, rather than a theory of foreign relations. They strongly criticise the realist thesis that the struggle for power and security is natural. They reject such a fatalistic orientation claiming that power is not natural, and simply a temporary phase of human history. They believe that by adhering completely and consciously to moral values moral values in behaviour, power struggle and war can be eliminated.
Also, Realism ideas believe that state would act according to their own ideas and needs when Liberalism believes that state would act according to citizens ideas and needs. Realism believes in conflicts, aggression, militaristic expansions and Liberalism believes in measuring of power trough countries economy, in the cooperation and peace, in the nation/people`s rights and in ideas of political and nations/peoples freedom. Also, Realism believes that United Nation is pointless because organization cant keeps another state what it wants for example: (Russian annexation of Crimea and Russian occupation in Georgia) but actually Liberalism believes that United Nations can`t force states to obey the organization, but Liberals think that UN is still important in our reality. Liberalism just believes that international organizations like United Nations, give states the ways in which to cooperate with each other and to gain one another's trust. Also Realists argue that all states have same interests and all countries are interested in increasing
