Is Rawlss Critique Of Utilitarianism Fair Philosophy Essay

Is Rawlss Critique Of Utilitarianism Fair Philosophy Essay The question we are going to deal with immediately draw my attention; as Rawls work on justice not only turns out to be theoretically relevant, but even particular considering the time it was published, it results being determinant from a historic point of view. Indeed A theory of justice was written in 1971, in these years as we know cold war reached its climax and contrast between the Soviet Union and the United States was severe. These conflicts implied not only a political (and fortunately not military) conflict, but at its deepest layer a difference in ideology, beliefs, thought. As well known the soviet model had its roots in Karl Marxs (1818-1883) communist philosophy while the western countries found their attachment mostly in utilitarianism. These philosophies oppose in its assumptions and appear not to be compatible witch each other. What Rawls proposes us is an innovating solution to conjugate social justice and utilitarianism in an innovating if not revolutionary theory of justice. He is considered to be the father of the third way among a centralized economy and laissez-faire. As previously anticipated the theory of justice also has a fundamental theoretical value as it marks the turning point in some very important and discussed conceptual differences which became part of nowadays political agenda. Rawls famous theory of justice criticized utilitarianism at its roots. After a brief introduction about the topic of discussion, my attention is going to focus on the basic ideas of utilitarianism as it is the philosophical theory which opposes most to Rawls theory of justice. We will then analyze Rawls attack to utilitarian philosophy as explained in his book: A theory of justice. Furthermore we will place our attention on the reasons why Rawlss judges utilitarianism wrong, and on other arguments against it. John Rawlss thought John Rawls is widely considered one of the most innovative and influential thinker of the twentieth century. Put in Amartya Sens words:By far the most influential and I believe the most important theory of justice to be presented in this century has been John Rawls Justice as fairness (Sen, 1992:p. 75) He was born in 1921 in the city of Baltimore, made his studies in Princeton and Oxford, before becoming a professor in one of the most known universities of the United States: Harvard. He is mostly known through his famous book A theory of justice (1971). The philosopher claims that justice is the first requisite of social institutions, just in the same way as the pursuit of truth is the final aim of any philosophy. His basic claim is that as a theory a needs to be discarded or at least changed in its missing parts if it is not true, in the same way institutions or laws have to be abolished or reformed if they are not fair. He goes on saying that even if society as a whole might profit from certain institution, they cannot be accepted and left in place if even only one person gets an unfair treatment as a consequence of their operation. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many.( Rawls, John A Theory of Justice  (Belknap Press of Harvard University Press), 1971, p 3.) As he defined his idea about justice, he wanted to give a rational foundation to it. He wanted to ensure that his justice assumptions were rational and shared by all members of society. Given the fact that individuals are different and have different aims in life it is necessary to find some principle which could be agreed on by all members. The way by which people could find a general agreement is very well known in philosophy and social sciences as public law. What is being referred to is the idea of original position and veil of ignorance. Part of its great success is due to the fascinating representation given by the author. He imagines a so called original position in which the single individuals decide the rules which will govern society. What is crucial is the fact that they do this choice in absolute ignorance concerning some relevant information of their future lives in society. The agreement is so being made in a condition of a veil of ignorance. This avoids the fact that some which might be born in a very rich family would obviously be against high income taxes to transfer some wealth to the worse off. The poor one on the other hand would definitely welcome such taxes as they could profit from them. The people making the choice are thus presented as rational and not interested in others. No one could get an advantage from the choice of certain principles which would advantage a certain category, as they would not know which role they are going to have in society. To sum up we can say that the veil of ignorance has to exclude people from the knowledge of facts which would bring them to have conflicts. Al the parties are equal in this position, indeed everyone would have the same rights in proposing rules and accepting them. The outcome of this decision leads to a fair agreement because it is conducted in fair conditions. This is the reason why this theory is known as justice as fairness. He states that the philosopher which contributed most to the development of his theory has been Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), since Kants ethic is based on the personal choice of free, rational and equal individuals. Therefore he arrives to claim that the principles of justice are to be seen as categorical imperatives in the Kantian way. Indeed by categorical imperative Kant means these moral principles which are to be rationally respected and accepted from a free and rational individual. Opposed to these we find hypothetical imperatives which are the ones which aim at certain specific goals. Concerning the principles which have to be expected from the decision take under the veil of ignorance, we should not consider them as defined principles for actions but as general guide lines for practical political decisions. It is to be noticed that some critics might emerge at this point, authors like Sen criticized the fact that exactly these principles would emerge from the contracting under the veil of ignorance: The outcome might be a different one. The first principle states the following: Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. (Rawls, 1971) What is exactly meant as basic liberties has to be defined more precisely, indeed they are: a) The active and passive right to vote; the first refers to the possibility to choose a political actor according to our preferences (what is commonly understood as right to vote). The second one (passive right to vote) refers to the fact that we have the possibility to candidate for elections and possibility be elected. b) Liberty of conscience, which is basically the faculty to choose or decide by your own, your future life, your way of being and your own destiny. c) Freedom of speech and assembly, so the possibility to express your own ideas and make them public even if they do not fit and are not coherent with the current political situation and its majoritys ideas. The freedom of assembly indeed refers to the possibility to arrange political assemblies to discuss political and practical issues. d) Freedom to personal propriety, which is to be understood as the possibility to have the personal private propriety on your goods (although he states that the private propriety of means of production is not necessarily to be seen as a primary good). e) Freedom from arbitrary arrest, which means the fact that the public power has not the freedom to arbitrary (so without a reason), arrest individuals because they might oppose or disagree with the public power itself. The second principle: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that (a) They are to be of the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society, consistent with the just savings principle (the difference principle). (b) Offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of  fair equality of opportunity (Rawls, 1971, p.302) The first part of the second principle (a) holds the idea that the first goal in a choice should be to maximize the least well off rather than to maximize in general. (Maximin) This means that arrangements which imply inequalities might only be accepted if they increase the position of the poorest too. It is well explained by this graphical representation: C:Documents and SettingsRoberta SimeoneDesktoprawls function.jpg This graph is to be interpreted as if there were two individuals; giving freedom to our imagination let us call them: 1 and 2. The social utility of both is to be measured on the 45 degree line in the point of interception with the L curve. A few of them are marked in increasing utility order to give a general idea, I Already this argument (Maximin) proves the effectiveness of Rawls critique to utilitarianism because it gives attention to the distribution of wealth rather than considering merely the sum of all the agents utilities. This will be clear in the paragraph about utilitarianism. The justification for this argument is due to the fact that the randomness of the condition in which one is born is not linked to a moral entitlement. For instance the financial conditions of ones family or even the talents one has are merely casual. That is why it is right to increase first the worse off who had been unlucky in the lottery of life. Utilitarianism Utilitarianism was mainly born by Jeremy Benthams (1748-1832) work. His biggest innovation compared to previous thinkers was to found moral philosophy on a rational basis. This reflects the theoretical innovations of his time, which is the scientific method brought by enlightenment. He therefore tried to make ethics an analytical science which can be proven by logical and mathematical principles. This philosophy is founded on the basic idea that actions should only be judged from the value of its outcome. The key point if we assume this way of thinking, becomes to define precisely how we might value the effects of our actions. We could try to value different things which we generally assumed as good, such as happiness, satisfaction, wealth or even simple pleasure. Not giving any value judgment about this methodology to chose the right action, it is already possible to note that this part is particularly problematic as all these things turn out to be extremely difficult (if not impossible) to measure. The general principle is the so called utility, according to utilitarian philosophers it can be measured by calculation and thus it allows us to compare between actions leading to higher and lower utility outcomes. Bentham believes it is possible to possible to calculate pain and pleasure by using equations, this should be the way to define utility according to the duration and the strength of a feeling (positive or negative). Founding this principle of utility is a general assumption believed to be true by utilitarianism, it is the fact that any activity leads to two basic feelings, which are pleasure and its opposite: pain. Judgment about how to act should only be left to these two. In Benthams words: that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happinessorto prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness  (Jeremy Bentham Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation  ,1789). As we saw in this paragraph this basic understanding of utilitarianism does not allow us to go beyond a personal, individualistic judgment. How should indeed societys utility be considered? The definition of utility states that it should be considered compared to the part whose interest is concerned. If we consider society as the interested party which might be societys interest? In this philosophy social utility is simple: the sum of all individuals utilities. (As we saw, Rawls position criticizes exactly this simplicity by which utilitarianism simplifies individuals and the general social utility. Which effectively is a fair argument against it). An individualistic approach by which each person maximizes its own utility does not appear to be compatible with collective utility. The way utilitarian philosophers think that it is possible to enforce public interest is trough legislation as a tool, the law should define the principles society wants to respect and the actions which maximize social utility. A well planned legislation will lead to harmonize individual interest to social one by making obedience to laws more convenient than breaking it. This means that the expected utility of committing an action against the law should be lower than the possible advantage to commit a crime. Indeed Bentham tried to find a way to define particularly the penal code, in this way anyone would know the punishment applied for breaking the law which would be leading to a lower utility than respecting it. To give another graphical representation to be compared to the Rawlsian one we can have a look at the following graph: C:Documents and SettingsRoberta SimeoneDesktopUtilità  ut.jpg Again we have our 1 and 2 (individuals) determining social utility, the parallel lines have again a slope of 45 degrees this time turned through 90 degrees. The social utility is on the interception where the two individual ones cross. We can note the fact that even if one has all and the other any (interception between x axis u1 and W1) we still stay on the same social utility: W1. Critical points in utilitarianism Utilitarianism was all but left without critics, already Benthams successor John Stuart Mills (1806-1873) who was the second innovator in utilitarianism started to criticize different approaches and assumption used by Bentham. Indeed Benthams approach used to be focused on the theory by which the public actor should act. Mills on the other hand was focusing more on the personal morality of actions. Compared to Bentham he assumes an approach which is more internal, he tries to focus on the psychology of the agent. Here we find the first critic to utilitarianism; Mills believes utility maximization assumption to be too narrow to explain agents choices. An interesting critique is the one moved by Bernard Williams (1929-2003) it is well explained by an anecdote by Williams himself known as Jim and the Indians: Jim finds himself in the central square of a small South American town. Tied up against the wall are twenty Indians, in front of several armed men in uniform. A heavy man in a sweat-stained khaki shirt turns out to be the captain in charge and () explains that the Indians are a random group of inhabitants who, after recent acts of protest against the government, are just about to be killed to remind other possible protesters of the advantage of not protesting. However, since Jim is an honoured visitor from another land, the captain is happy to offer him a guests privilege of killing one of the prisoners himself. If Jim accepts, then as a special mark of the occasion the other Indians will be let off. Of course, if Jim refuses, there will be no special occasion, and the captain will do what he was about to and kill them all. () The men are against the wall and the other villagers understand the situation and are obviously begging him to accept. What should he do? (B. Williams, A Critique of Utilitarianism in Smart Williams, Utilitarianism: For and Against, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1973) Since utilitarianism only considers the utility of the outcome of an action there is no choice. It is much better in terms of general utility to kill only one person rather than having 19 others been killed. This would simply be better because utilitarianism considers that each one counts for one and only one. What Williams argues is different: that it is not the same consequence if a person is killed by my direct action or if he is killed because of my indirect behavior, which in this case would be an act of not taking participation. Killing actively one person would not preserve our personal moral integrity because indeed we would have killed a human being. This would harm our own personal moral integrity even though it might be a better outcome in terms of social utility. That is the reason why this objection is known as the integrity objection. Rawls critique Rawls position is deeply against utilitarianism, as this philosophy is accepting to give up individual interests for majoritys ones. The utilitarian assumption that individual interest might be given up for society, is criticized even if the sacrifice of someones interest might lead to greater efficiency. For Rawls it is more important to ensure justice before efficiency. It is claimed to be wrong if the majority would get an advantage but the one who has to take the sacrifice is the worst of, and this is unjust. Accordingly, in a just society we have to assume equal citizen rights, which again according to him are an absolute right under any circumstance. The only admissible injustice would be the one which would prevent a worse injustice. The first critical point of utilitarianism he identifies is the fact that it tends to make the individual disappear. Utilitarianism has a very narrowed view of human beings only considering its utility, to the point that once the individual utility is calculated there is no other relevant information concerning the person. This kind of reduction leads utilitarianism to be a philosophy which is indifferent to identity and individuality of people. Further, another critical point is the one concerning distributive justice, utilitarianism tries to maximize the social outcome as a whole, what it still fails to take into account is the distribution of that utility.(As explained by the second graph). If we abstract and consider wealth as utility it does not make a difference it one individual has a lot and most others only a little: the general sum of all the utilities is still maximized. Between two actions, one leading to a utility of six for the first individual and an utility of one for the second, and another leading to three for each ,utilitarianism would choose the first because seven is greater than six. This is because all what matters is the sum of utility, although this leads to profound injustice. Finally he claims that each desire is to be calculated and compared to other desires although they might differ in their nature, what is to be understood as a qualitative versus quantitative difference. Conclusion What Rawls criticized in utilitarianism appears to be right for general principles of social welfare. Utilitarianism has to be awarded with the innovation to apply rationality to moral philosophy. Although it forgets the distribution of wealth problem. This latter one appears to be the most effective critique to utilitarianism. It is undeniable that the utilitarian view of each individual maximizing its own utility as he best believes also implies a higher grade of freedom of choice. This choices should thou be made in a way which is not interfering with social purposes. An action should not only be valued from the utility it brings to the single individual but society as a whole. Because in the end even the single individual is staying in society and thou being influenced from the status quo he stays in. Social welfare is not only profiting the ones who directly gain from it but the whole systems stability. Injustices are the seed of contrasts, the French aristocrats living the French Revolution might agree with this view. Not only is the critique effective but also fair on a moral basis. Society should not be led by individualistic principles, such an assumption would mean to put social morality on the same layer as individual one. But societies emerged from collaboration between individuals to achieve something more. This is the reason why the state should try to be better than individuals particularly concerning morality. On the other had it has to be stated that utilitarianism has the great advantage of being practical and effective to apply. The use of calculation implies an incredible advantage in terms of efficiency in decision-making. Further it is not clear why the two principles of justice should necessarily emerge from the original position, this is basically the critique moved to Rawls by many, among them Amartya Sen. The idea is that other principles might emerge from the choice made under the veil of ignorance.

Examining Hamlet and The Great Gatsby Essay

According to Roger Lewis, â€Å"The acquisition of money and love are both part of the same dream, the will to return to the quintessential unity that exists only at birth and at death† (41). In both William Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet, and F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel, The Great Gatsby, the protagonists are willing to sacrifice all that they have in order to achieve their unrealistic objectives and ambitions, resulting in their tragic demises. While there are many themes and concepts relevant to both Hamlet and The Great Gatsby, their parallels regarding their aspirations stand out for further evaluation. The concept of sacrificing all that a person has, not limiting to their own life, is ever present in these works. Both Hamlet and Gatsby make evident that they are willing and are capable of sacrificing all that is themselves to possibly reach their ultimate goal. Throughout William Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark is set on his goal of achieving vengeance and justice for his father’s murder, without the realization that his obstinate aspirations eventually lead to his own downfall. Unlike many other characters, Hamlet is very analytical; he makes very calculated and thoughtful moves before he acts, ultimately leading him to his death. â€Å"Hamlet represents the type of man whose power of direct action is paralyzed by an excessive development of his intellect† (Freud, Sigmund). This is furthermore supported when Hamlet is given a golden opportunity to attain vengeance for his father, but does not kill Claudius, the king of Denmark, for Hamlet mistakenly assumes that Claudius is praying. Hamlet: Now might I do it pat. Now he is a-praying. And now I’ll do’t. And so he goes to heaven. And so am I revenged, That would be scanned. A villain kills my father, and, for that, I, his sole son, do this same villain send, To heaven. Oh, this is hire and salary, not revenge. (Hamlet, III, iii, 74-80) Hamlet misses an opportune chance to complete his mission, one to which he would have no opposition, but loses his chance due to his over-excessive thought process. On the other hand, Jay Gatsby is a person who appears to be motivated by only his urges and emotions; no other forces drive him more than his ultimate love lust. â€Å"Gatsby does not appear as a man of ordinary disposition acting under the direction of ordinary, explicable impulses. He appears instead as one under the spell of some enchantment† (Langman, F.H.). In other words, Gatsby himself was driven by a mighty inner need to reattain his once lost love. Through this, we see that Gatsby was not controlled by anything but his heart; his heart controlled his actions and thought process, and had completely consumed his entire life since his breakup with Daisy. Gatsby was willing to adjust himself to what Daisy seemed to desire at that moment. He hadn’t once ceased looking at Daisy, and I think he revalued everything in his house according to the measure of response it drew from her well-loved eyes. Sometimes, too, he stared around at his possessions in a dazed way, as though in her actual and astounding presence none of it was any longer real. Once he nearly toppled down a flight of stairs. (Fitzgerald, F. Scott, 112) In F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel, The Great Gatsby, Jay Gatsby has made it his life mission to donate all of his possible energy and resources to attempt to acquire his love once lost. According to Carla Verderame, â€Å"The novel concerns itself with the struggles of reinventing oneself to attain the dreams and pleasures of one’s youth. In Gatsby’s case, the effort goes terribly awry.† Gatsby, throughout the novel, strives to retrieve his long lost love; he is willing to conform himself to whatever means he must conform to in order to achieve his end desired goal. â€Å"The poor boy who becomes a millionaire by extra-legal activities endeavors to recapture Daisy Buchanan by means of his newly acquired wealth. This ostentatious, mysterious character becomes the exemplar of the American dream and its flaws† (Bruccoli, Matthew J.). Jay Gatsby spends years of his life involved in illegal activity in order to accumulate enough wealth to be able to throw many parties, all for a possible chance to see his love once lost, Daisy. In this, both Jay Gatsby and Prince Hamlet are willing to sacrifice all that they have, not limited to themselves, in order to achieve their unrealistic goals. In comparison, Hamlet is content with altering his life and his current relationships, all for the sake of being closer to his ultimate goal, vengeance for his father. â€Å"Hamlet lacks faith in G-d and himself. Consequently he must define his existence in terms of others†¦ He would like to become what the Greek Tragic hero is, a creature of situation. Hence his inability to act, for he can only ‘act’†, i.e., play at possibilities† (Auden, W.H) Hamlet is willing to act mad, ruining all of his relationships, not limited to his romantic life, for a futile opportunity to get close enough to Claudius to kill him. Although both Jay Gatsby and Prince Hamlet are willing to sacrifice all for their aspirations, Gatsby puts on a false front, while Hamlet covers his; Gatsby pulls a facade as though he had been wealthy throughout his entire life, while Hamlet feigns insanity. Gatsby has attempted to pull a facade of him having always been wealthy, thus allowing him to be part of Daisy’s circle. Gatsby claims to have inherited his vast sum, hiding that he had actually self accumulated it over the years. By pretending to be wealthy to belong in an elite class, he is hoping for the opportunity and chance to have the ability of mixing in with Daisy, his lost love. â€Å"Past the last door to the last room and Gatsby’s facade is still up; he is still marshaling, even in his bedroom ‘many colored disarray’, literally pilling up: there is no end to his ‘soft rich heap’†¦But despite all the wealth they embody, they remain piles of things† (Lhamon Jr, W.T., 58). Though Jay Gatsby indubitably pretends he fits into the elite rich’s circle, he did not belong there in the least. Gatsby goes so far as to change his name, the one part of a being that will always be himself infinitely. He had gone so far as to change his name and identity as though it could be almost impossible to separate the fake facade from the real being. While delving so deep into a lie and false pretense, one can presume that likely at a point the two merged, creating a sort of equilibrium state, as though there had genuinely existed a ‘Jay Gatsby.’ â€Å"[Gatsby’s] parents were shiftless and unsuccessful farm people- his imagination had never really accepted them as his parents at all. The truth was that Jay Gatsby of West Egg, Long Island, sprang from his Platonic conception of himself. He was a son of God†¦ he must be about His Father’s business, the service of a vast, vulgar, and meretricious beauty. So he invented just the sort of Jay Gatsby that a seventeen year old boy would be likely to invent, and to this conception he was faithful to the end.† (Fitzgerald, F. Scott) In contrast, Hamlet has dissembled his true noble self in order to feign madness to draw Claudius near. Hamlet is far superior than any other characters in Hamlet, intellectually and with a potent inner strength. He embodies many incredible capabilities and abilities; Hamlet can be considered a paradoxical character, being both witty and cautious, kind but stern, etc. â€Å"[Hamlet] is endowed with the finest sense of propriety, susceptible of noble ambition, and open in the highest degree to an enthusiastic admiration of that excellence in others of which he himself is deficient. He acts the part of madness with unrivaled power† (Schlegel, August Wilhelm Von). Hamlet is inherently a noble and imperial being, therefore, for him to dissemble himself and conceal it enables him to feign his insanity, for insanity is much less noble than nobility. Hamlet appears to be a strong character, both physically and mentally. He is a very elegant thinker, who is by far more intellectual than his peers. â€Å"The character of Hamlet stands quite by itself. It is not a character marked by strength of will or even of passion, but by refinement of thought and sentiment† (Hazlitt, William). Hamlet is a very unique character in regards to his highly mature and noble sophistication. While it seems that Gatsby was not deserving of his vastly enourmous wealth along with the status that accompanied it throughout the book, on the contrary it is possible that he might in fact had been. One could argue that in reality he was a nobel character, deserving of his status in elite circles . Whether or not Gatsby had indeed inherited his sum or had invested legally or illegally, he truly did acquire an enormous sum of cash. Gatsby had come into life with almost nothing to his name, and had left it with enormous wealth. He was an honored individual who served his country and truly can be referred to as the epitome of the American Dream throughout his life. Gatsby ‘represented everything,’ Nick says, for which he feels â€Å"an unaffected scorn.† Even when he tells Gatsby, on their last meeting, that he’s ‘worth the whole damn bunch put together,’ Nick continues to disapprove of him on a social level. Gatsby has redeeming qualities, however†¦ Parts of his fantastic story turn out to be true. He had been a war hero, and has the medal from Montenegro to prove it. He had actually attended Oxford—for five months, as a postwar reward for military service, and produces a photograph in evidence. Above all, there was nothing phony or insincere about his dream of Daisy (Donaldson, Scott). That being said, it is important to also reanalyze Hamlet’s position; Hamlet could well possibly have not been concealing his true self, but rather trying to develop his plan cognitively. Although the question remains if he had truly become consumed by his ‘madness charade‘ or if it had been an act all along, William Shakespeare gives no indication in his work. â€Å"Hamlet, a very unconventional hero whose eloquence and endless deliberation on why he cannot consummate the revenge his father desires underscores his essential rhetorical role in the play. While Hamlet so eloquently describes his feelings, the question remains as to whether he actually feels them† (Bloom, Harold). Although it may appear that he had lost himself, if not beginning with his escapade concerning his old girlfriend then with his seemingly drivel conversations, it is highly likely that Hamlet had just been playing a part. This is seen when Hamlet is able to not only save his own life from the decree put forth by his uncle, but to complete his mission in the end as well. While there are many germane ideas present in both literary works, their parallels to each-other regarding their willingness to achieve their aspirations are regarded as a main point to be extracted for further assessments. Both protagonists were willing to do about anything, including altering their destinies, in order to achieve some aspiration of theirs, regardless of how unrealistic it may be. According to Khalil Gilbran, â€Å"To understand the heart and mind of a person, look not at what he has already achieved, but at what he aspires to.† (97) This being said, both Gatsby and Hamlet are intricate characters with much to delve and dissect on; though they both died tragic deaths, their deaths were not in vain for their legacies continue onward. Works Cited: Auden, W.H. Hamlet. qtd in Lectures on Shakespeare† ed. Arthur Kirsch. New Jersey: Princton University Press, 2000 Bloom, Harold, ed. â€Å"Background to Hamlet.† Hamlet, Bloom’s Guides. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishing, 2003. Bruccoli, Matthew J. New Essays on The Great Gatsby. Cambridge: Cambridgeshire, 1985. Donaldson, Scott. Fool for Love: F. Scott Fitzgerald qtd. on â€Å"On Gatsby and the Historical Antecedents for Gatsby.† Bloom, Harold, ed. New York: Chelsea House Publishing, 2006. Freud, Sigmund. The Interpretations of Dreams. qtd. as â€Å"Hamlet’s Deepest Impulses† Harold Bloom, ed. Shakespeare’s Tragedies, Bloom’s Major Dramatists. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishing, 1999. Fitzgerald, F. Scott. The Great Gatsby. New York: Scribner, 2004. Print. Gilbran, Khalil. qtd in A Toolbox for Humanity ed Lloyd Albert Johnson. Victoria, Canada: Trafford Publishing, 2003. Hazlitt, William.Characters of Shakespeareâ€℠¢s Plays qtd. as â€Å"Hamlet’s Power of Action† in Harold Bloom, ed. Shakespeare’s Tragedies, Bloom’s Major Dramatists. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishing, 1999. Lewis, Roger. Money, love, and aspiration. qtd. in â€Å"New Essays on the Great Gatsby† ed. Matthew J. Bruccoli. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. 1985 Lhamon Jr, W.T. Style and Shape in the Great Gatsby.† Critical Essays on F. Scott Fitzgerals, Cambridge. ed. Scott Donaldson Bostom: Hall, 1984 Schlegel, August Wilhelm Von. Hamlet’s flaws. qtd. in Shakespeare’s Tragedies, Bloom’s Major Dramatists. Harold Bloom, ed. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishing, 1999. Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992. Verderame, Carla. The Great Gatsby. McClinton-Temple, Jennifer ed. Encyclopedia of Themes in Literature. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2011.

The Fast Food Restaurant Mcdonalds - 1713 Words

The fast food restaurant McDonalds and a Walmart Super Center were selected for the observations for the following reason: I engage in this service almost every day, therefore, this sphere seems very familiar. I was not overly impressed with either company. However, both of them are convenient and inexpensive so they end up being my choice on a daily basis. Besides, in the conditions of tough competition, the managers of fast food restaurants are forced to imply more and more refined strategies to attract new customers and succeed in business. It is valuable to observe which strategies give the best results and which fail to provide the expected outcome. In some service encounters, the company approaches the customer with the most†¦show more content†¦Marketing consists of efforts to push products in the market. Looking into the management mindset of these organizations, we usually find a interest in cutting costs, increasing quantity and decreasing service time. The need for speed is important: Competition is usually closing in with similar products, fast delivery, and lower prices. In this kind of competitive scenario, profit margins are thin and companies succeed only through continual increases in volume. So far so good, but if we look into the management of an organization, we find a different way of thinking that doesn’t help improve service quality. Frontline service employees, trained to follow all procedures, and encouraged by management to achieve more results in less time, find themselves answering a phone, opening the mail, or meeting the next customer in person saying to themselves, â€Å"I hope this next customer isn’t a pain in my neck! Customers with questions and unusual requests generally require increased time, lead to increased errors, and can result in a slowing down of the system. Small wonder many customer requests for anything out of the ordinary are met with retort. Leading many employees to say â€Å"We do not do it that way† or â€Å"That is not how our procedures work here.† Marketing Mix of McDonalds The marketing mix of McDonalds consists of the various elements in the marketing mix which form the core of a company’s marketing system

Revisionist Socialism - 1088 Words

Revisionist Socialism What is it? Revisionist socialism seeks to reform or tame capitalism rather than abolish it. †¨It seeks to reconcile socialism with capitalism. It seeks social justice in the sense of narrowing the economic and social inequalities (to varying degrees) within capitalism through welfare and redistribution. Social democracy is the most obvious example of revisionist socialism. Revisionists are invariably parliamentary, not revolutionary, socialists. Bernstien Beginning in the late 1890s a diverse group of so-called revisionist thinkers increasingly questioned the validity of a number of fundamental Marxist theorists. They particularly objected to how rigidly Marxs doctrine was being interpreted by his†¦show more content†¦It seeks to reconcile socialism with capitalism. It seeks social justice in the sense of narrowing the economic and social inequalities (to varying degrees) within capitalism through welfare and redistribution. The key emergence from this view was the idea of social democracy, which majority of Scandinavian countries still follow today. One key concept that led to a greater a following for revisionist socialism was that socialist projects like ‘New Harmony’ had failed due to lacking in sound economic policy and it only capitalism that in their eyes offered a secure economic policy. In order to achieve their goals they needed to gain access to the place where economic policy was formed, parliament. Therefore, revisionists are invariably parliamentary, not revolutionary, socialists. In the example of Bernstein he went on to become a key founding figure in the SDP (German Social Democratic Party), in which the party campaigned for social democracy and still does today, the idealism of social democracy also appealed to the German public with the party having 9 of the last 16 prime ministers. In stark contrast to revisionist socialism is revolutionary socialism which in itself has a number of divides i.e Marxist vs Trotskyist. One common belief that they all share is that capitalism is wrong and a bad economic policy, in the sense that a few become richer whilstShow MoreRelatedThe Link Between the Industrial Revolution and Socialism Essay663 Words   |  3 PagesIndustrial Revolution’s changes were physical. A new ideology arose from the sweat of the working class: socialism. Socialism is a political theory advocating state or collective ownership of property and industry opposed to private ownership. To fully understand the relationship between the Industrial Revolution and socialism, one must first be comfortable with the Revolution and its changes, socialism itself, and the fine line of events linking the two together. The Revolution began in Britain andRead MoreTo What Extent Have Socialists Disagreed About the Means of Achieving Socialism?948 Words   |  4 Pagesdisagreed about the means of achieving socialism? Socialism along with many other ideologies has a vast number of different strands and with a couple of different roads to achieving what is fundamentally socialism. Socialism being the ideology that utilises collectivisation to bring people together and to unite people by their common humanity. The two most obvious roads of socialism would be that of revolutionary socialism and also that of evolutionary socialism. This are taken on by two differentRead MoreLabour Party Today2604 Words   |  11 Pages1945- 1979 Core Principles of Socialism: Positive attitudes to human nature; critical analysis of capitalism; class inequality and poverty, equality, justice, liberty, community, cooperation, internationalism, collectivism public ownership . Variants of Socialism: Marxism, Anarchist Socialism, Democratic Socialism, Social Democracy, New Labour? Revolutionary Socialism and Evolutionary Socialism Fundamentalist Socialism and Revisionism Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy Old LabourRead MoreSocial Democrats And Neo Liberals1611 Words   |  7 Pagesabandoned the goal of abolishing capitalism and sought instead to reform or ‘humanize’ it. Being based on a compromise between the market and the state, social democracy lacks a systematic underlying theory and is, arguably, inherently vague. This revisionist socialism has been primarily concerned with social justice, a just or fair distribution of wealth in society (Heywood 2012, pp. 125-129). In contrast with many liberals, social democrats believe that freedom has financial and social preconditions. ItRead MoreLenin s Theory Of Revolution3171 Words   |  13 Pages1903, claimed to be a traditional Marxist. People such as historians debated Lenin was not an orthodox Marxist but a type of revisionist. However, he did not make any major alterations to Marx s ideas but instead decided to add his own to fit to benefit him and his country with modern times and he was the key defender of Marx whe n his theories were attacked by revisionists such as Bernstein, Lenin defended Marx s work due to his respect of his theories. The theories revolving around Lenin changedRead MoreTo What Extent Was Stalin Truly Marxist?1656 Words   |  7 Pagesactions were directly linked to him, his motivations and desires rather than an ideology which he was trying to pursue. A conflicting view is upheld by Marxist historians who are highly critical of Stalin, seeing Stalinism as a betrayal of true socialism and thus not following Marxism. These historians include Isaac Deutscher, who dismisses Stalin’s views as incoherent crude and contradictory in his political biography of him (Deutscher, 1967). Additionally, the structuralist approachRead More Communism Essay2765 Words   |  12 Pagesbelieved that violent revolution was all but inevitable; in fact, they thought it was â€Å"predicted by the scientific laws of history.† They called their theory â€Å"scientific socialis m,† or communism. In the last half of the 19th century the terms socialism and communism were often used interchangeably. However, Marx and Engels came to see socialism as merely an intermediate stage of society in which most industry and property were owned in common but some class differences remained. They reserved the term communismRead MoreEssay about The Causes of the Cold War1683 Words   |  7 Pagestheir views are: The Orthodox Historians believe the conflict originated from the Soviet Union and was caused by Russian expansionism; this also coincides with Marxist/Leninist ideology, which encourages the world victory of Socialism over Capitalism. A lot of the evidence to support this view comes from the influence of George. F. Kennan’s telegram from 22 February 1946[1]. Kennan was very much against communism and was intimately involved with the USSR who he believedRead MoreEssay on Examining the Possible Causes of the Cold War1309 Words   |  6 Pagesstruggles in history have been subject to much debate and consequently a number of schools of thought have developed as to the origins of the Cold War. These proposed explanations to the causes of the Cold War have consisted of the orthodox, revisionist and post-revisionist theories. Each theory demonstrates a different viewpoint as to how a variety of political, economic and militaristic factors instigated the Cold War The Cold War was the political, social, economic and militaristic struggle betweenRead MoreThe Feminist Movement Of Women Essay1739 Words   |  7 Pagesbe decent mothers or women. This led to a counter-movement by the Union of Catholic Women of Mexico that â€Å"asserted that women place was in the home, and equated socialism with free love and feminism.† Miller’s book fits well with the other revisionist history work that is going on during the late 1980s and 1990s. She notes that revisionist work has been going on in all disciplines, not just history, â€Å"For nearly two decades, scholars and activists have painstakingly reexamined every field of human