Presence Of Evil Shows God Doesnt Exist

Presence Of Evil Shows God Doesnt Exist Evil can be defined as anything that is painful, malicious or disastrous. There is much evil in the world, which can be split into either natural or moral evil. Natural evil refers to suffering caused by natural disasters whereas moral evil refers to suffering which has been caused by human selfishness.  [1]  I believe that the existence of these evils in the world disproves the existence of God. These evils would not exist if there was a perfectly good, all loving, omnipotent, omniscient God as He would want to prevent all evils and would be able to do so. In this essay I am going to look at the logical problem of evil, looking at the arguments put forward by Epicurus, Hume and Aquinas. I will also look at the evidential problem of evil, in particular the arguments put forward by William L. Rowe and Paul Draper which support the claim that the existence of evil disproves the existence of God. I will also look at Augustines and Irenaues theodicies against these arguments. Then fi nally I will look at problems with these theodicies and why I believe the existence of evil as well as the existence of God is incompatible. The logical problem of evil put forward by Epicurus states that evil could not exist if god was all loving and omnipotent. Thus, because there is evil in the world God cannot exist. He argues that an all loving god would not tolerate the suffering of his creatures therefore he would have created a world in which this suffering does not exist in the first place, or would step in to prevent it.  [2]  Similarly if god was omnipotent he would have been able to create a universe without evil and suffering to begin with. Therefore, the existence of evil in the world supports the claim that either God does not exist, or that he is either not omnipotent or not all loving. Humes similarly argued that the existence of evil in the world meant that God would need to be either not omnipotent or not all-loving. As it is not possible for God to be either of these things Humes concluded that God does not exist. Aquinas saw evil as the absence of good, or failure to achieve potential. In his book Summa Theologica, Aquinas states that the name of god means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.  [3]  This argument is similar to that of Epicurus and Humes, stating that the existence of evil in the world contradicts the idea of an all loving, omniscient, omnipotent god. Thus again supporting my claim that the existence of God is incompatible with the existence of evil in the world. There is also the evidential problem of evil which contends known facts about evil as evidence against the existence of God.  [4]  William L. Rowe argued that there exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.  [5]  He then goes on to argue that such a God would want to prevent such suffering and would be able to do so and concludes that because this kind of suffering exists then God cannot. The existence of gratuitous evil in the world can similarly be used to disprove the existence of God according to Paul Draper. Evil which is without apparent reason or justification would not exist if God existed as He would not allow it. Therefore because there are cases where gratuitous evil can be said to exist God does not exist. Theodicies have been put forward in an attempt to justify the existence of God alongside the presence of evil in the world. Augustine argued that Gods creation was faultless and perfect and that evil came from within the world.  [6]  As an explanation for the existence of evil in the world Augustine blamed the fall of man from the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3). Disobeying God in the Garden of Eden is seen by Augustine as a moral evil leading to the evil within the world. The cause of this is free will and the allowance of man to have control over their actions and freedom of choice, including the ability to choose evil instead of good. Thus Augustine argues that God is still all loving, omniscient and omnipotent therefore he allows us to have free will and it is our fault we choose to do moral evil. To take away our free will would be unloving as it would take away our ability to choose good and to love God. Natural evil, on the other hand, can be seen as a consequence of the dishar mony of nature brought about by the fall.  [7]   The presence of evil does not necessarily disprove the existence of God according to Irenaeus. In his theodicy, Irenaeus attempts to justify the existence of evil as a sign of Gods goodness. He claims that evil and suffering in the world are useful as a means of knowledge, vital for character-building and provide a predictable environment. It is claimed by Irenaeus that without the presence of evil these attributes would be unobtainable. Therefore an all loving, omniscient, omnipotent God has allowed for evil to exist as a means for humans to learn and ultimately reach perfection. Although providing a possible explanation of the existence of evil in a world created by an all loving, omniscient and omnipotent God, Augustines theodicy does have some problems. Firstly, the theory of natural selection could be seen to contradict the idea that the Garden of Eden existed in blissful ignorance as it relies upon the selfishness of creatures as vital to their survival.  [8]  Also, God must still be responsible for the evil that has come from within the world as he created it. An omniscient God would have been able to foresee the evil which would come about and have been able to prevent it. Augustine also claimed that we are all being punished for Eves actions in the Garden of Eden which contradicts the bible itself should the childrens teeth be set on edge because the Fathers have eaten sour grapes? (Jeremiah 31:27-34). The existence of hell also shows that God must have foreseen the need for punishment therefore showing that God cannot be all loving and that mank ind cannot be held fully responsible for the fall of man. Similarly, there are problems with Irenaeuss theodicy. The main issue with this theodicy is whether suffering and evil is really necessary in order to achieve the desired goals. Surely an all loving, omnipotent, omniscient God would be able to devise a way in which humans could learn and develop without the need for evil and suffering. It is also not in the nature of an all loving God to allow certain people to starve to death in order to provide the knowledge to others to feed them. I therefore do not believe that these theodocies provide a conclusive defence for the existence of evil alongside the existence of god in the world. In conclusion, throughout this essay I have attempted to prove why the existence of evil within the world shows us that God does not exist. By looking at the arguments of famous philosophers I have found evidence to support this claim. I have also looked at theodicies which disprove my argument and found possible errors with these arguments. I believe that the existence of an all loving, omniscient, omnipotent God is simply incompatible with the existence of evil. In order for evil to exist God cannot be all of these things, if God is not all of these things then he simply isnt God. Therefore God cannot exist. Although the existence of God and evil may not necessarily be logically and evidentially compatible, I believe that God is necessary for many people across the world to understand why evil and suffering occurs and to have someone to blame. Thus regardless of what evidence is available I dont think it would ever be completely possible to disprove the existence of God in its enti rety as believers would still come up with situations in which an all loving, omniscient, omnipotent God would allow for the existence of evil. Word Count: 1483

The Non-Proliferation Treaty: Its Establishment, Issues

The Non-Proliferation Treaty: Its establishment, Issues, and Current Status On March 21, 1963, President John Kennedy warned in a press conference, â€Å"I see the possibility in the 1970s of the president of the United States having to face a world in which 15 or 20 or 25 nations may have nuclear weapons. I regard that as the greatest possible danger and hazard. † Kennedy made this statement a month after a secret Department of Defense memorandum assessed that eight countries: Canada, China, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Sweden, and West Germany would likely have the ability to produce nuclear weapons within the next 10 years after 1963.It was further assessed that beyond those 10 years, the future costs of nuclear weapons programs would decrease and provide way for several more states to pursue nuclear weapons, especially if unrestricted testing continued. Fear of the spread of nuclear weapons to vast nation states and superpowers including their military and ideological alli es is what urged the creation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Signed on July 1, 1968 and actually implemented on March 5, 1970, the NPT is a result of a compilation of efforts at enforcing international non-proliferation.With President Dwight D. Eisenhower calling for a new international agency to share nuclear materials and information for peaceful purposes with other countries in his â€Å"Atoms for Peace† address to the UN General Assembly on December 1953, the way was made for the Non-Proliferation Treaty to come into existence when the UN established The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on July 29, 1957 as result of negotiations sparked from Eisenhower’s proposal.President Dwight Eisenhower proposed to the UN General Assembly the negotiation of a treaty that would seek to control nuclear activities around the world and prevent, if possible, the spread of nuclear weapons to additional countries. However, President Eisenhower’s speech to the U N General Assembly came after the failure of earlier U. S. nonproliferation efforts. When the United States stood as the only true nuclear power in the world at the end of World War II, President Harry Truman proposed to destroy the U. S. uclear arsenal if other countries would agree not to acquire nuclear weapons and would permit inspections to verify that agreement. This proposal was presented as the Baruch Plan in 1946 and implied that the United States turn over control of all its enriched uranium, including that in any nuclear weapons it had, to a new UN body over which the United States and the other permanent members of the Security Council would have a veto. In addition to already seeking its own nuclear weapons, the Soviets rejected this plan on the grounds that the United Nations was dominated by the United States and its allies in Western Europe.Therefore, the Soviets argued it could not be trusted to exercise authority over atomic weaponry in a fair manner. They proposed that America eliminate its nuclear weapons before considering proposals for a system of controls and inspections. On the other hand, the United States, would not surrender its weapons to the agency until inspectors were on duty in the Soviet Union and in other countries with nuclear potential (Bellany 1985). With the Baruch Plan not going as planned, the U. S.Congress enacted the 1946 Atomic Energy Act which encompassed provisions designed to keep nuclear technology secret from other countries but then was amended to authorize nuclear assistance to others alike the IAEA which was created to provide both assistance and inspectors for peaceful nuclear activities after Eisenhower proposed providing assistance to other countries in the peaceful uses of atomic energy. The United States, followed by the Soviet Union, France, and others began providing research reactors that used weapons-usable highly enriched uranium to non-nuclear-weapon states around the world.These transfers and the t raining that accompanied the reactors helped scientists in many countries learn about nuclear fission and its potential uses other than in good measure. As these scientists became more versed in the uses of nuclear energy through the resources being provided to them, global support increased for controlling the spread of the new technology in order to prevent its use for weapons. This led to Ireland proposing the first resolution at the United Nations on October 17, 1958 to prohibit the further dissemination of nuclear weapons.On March 21, 1963, the UN General Assembly unanimously approved Resolution 1665, based on the earlier Irish draft resolution, reads that countries already having nuclear weapons would undertake to refrain from relinquishing control of them to others and would refrain from transmitting information for their manufacture to states not possessing them. In addition, countries without nuclear weapons would agree not to receive or manufacture them. These ideas formed the basis of the NPT (Bunn 2008).The United States then took another step toward non-proliferation and submitted a simple draft treaty of the NPT based on the resolution to the Soviet Union when a new eighteen nation Disarmament Conference opened in Geneva in 1962. Adversely, the Soviet response insisted that the treaty prohibit the arrangements between the United States and NATO allies such as West Germany for deployment in their countries of U. S. nuclear weapons under the control of U. S. soldiers.The stated purposes of these weapons were to protect these countries if ever in the event of an attack on them by the Soviet Union and its allies. The U. S. also proposed for implementation of a multilateral force in which would be a fleet of submarines and warships each manned by international NATO crews and armed with multiple nuclear armed Polaris ballistic missiles. The proposal was inspired by the complaints of NATO countries which voiced that the nuclear defense of Europe was beh olden to the Americans, who held the bulk of nuclear capability.Instead of an array of different independent forces ultimately acting under their own domestic banners on the waters, the result would be a fleet of warships manned and operated by general NATO command in broader cooperative efforts but the Soviets opposed to this. Later, a compromise was reached where US eventually gave up on efforts toward the multilateral force and the Soviets gave up on a prohibition against U. S. deployment of nuclear weapons in West Germany and other allied countries under the condition the provided weapons remained under sole control of U.S. personnel (Bellany 1985). On June 12, 1968 The UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 2373 which endorsed the draft text of the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. The vote was 95 to 4 with 21 abstentions. The four no votes were Albania, Cuba, Tanzania, and Zambia. The treaty was signed by the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, and the United States. Article IX of t he treaty established that entry into force would require the treaty’s ratification by those three countries and 40 additional states.It was by this time, five nations had developed a nuclear weapons capability: the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, France, and China. On February 13, 1960, France conducted its first nuclear test explosion, establishing it as the the world’s fourth nuclear armed state after the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom. Then China conducted its first nuclear test explosion on October 16, 1964 placing it as the world’s fifth nuclear armed state and leading to the acceleration of India’s nuclear program ( Bunn 2008).China and France were recognized as nuclear-weapon states under the treaty but did not sign it. China argued the treaty was discriminatory and simply refused to adhere to it. On the other hand, France implied that it would not sign the treaty but would behave in the future in this field exac tly as the states adhering to the Treaty. The treaty distinguishes between obligations of two parties such as nuclear-weapon states who are defined as those states parties which exploded a nuclear device prior to January 1, 1967 and non-nuclear weapon states which are all other states.The treaty called prohibition on non-nuclear-weapon states from having nuclear weapons and called for the IAEA to be permitted to carry out inspections to guarantee that their nuclear programs were limited to peaceful uses. In particular, the resolution asked the countries possessing nuclear weapons to refrain from relinquishing control of nuclear weapons and from transmitting information necessary for their manufacture to nations not possessing nuclear weapons.Second, it recommended that states not possessing nuclear weapons, â€Å"undertake not to manufacture or otherwise acquire control of such weapons. † In addition, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and the United States agreed to provi de assistance to non-nuclear weapon NPT members in their pursuit of peaceful uses of nuclear energy and agreed to conduct future negotiations to halt the nuclear arms buildup and reduce their nuclear weapons with a goal of achieving nuclear disarmament.Negotiations then raised aiming efforts towards gaining acceptance of these provisions by important non-nuclear weapon governments and their parliaments along for the allowance of the inspections that would be conducted by the IAEA in accordance to the NPT. India was one of these non-nuclear weapon governments of interest but despite much active participation in the NPT negotiation, it refused to join because it wanted to retain the option to produce its own nuclear weapon as its adversary then, China had. Also, Pakistan which was another adversary of India refused to join because India would not.Israel, which the United States had tried to restrain from acquiring nuclear weapons in separate negotiations during the 1960s, also refused to join. China and France didn’t participate much in the NPT negotiations but had acquired nuclear weapons before its negotiation was completed. The NPT draft permitted them to join the treaty with the same rights and duties as the other nuclear-weapon states when they eventually did accede to the treaty in 1992 (Bunn 2008). The practice of inspections for non-nuclear weapon parties weighed as a major concern in the egotiations at the IAEA for several years and many countries including West European allies of the United States did not ratify the treaty until these negotiations were completed to their satisfaction. Till this day, this concern is still a pressing matter at hand. In its establishment, Article X of the NPT called for a conference of its parties to be held 25 years after the treaty’s entry into force in 1970 to determine whether the treaty would remain in force indefinitely or for other additional periods of time.This conference was held on May 11, 1995 an d began with much uncertainty regarding the nature of any extension. Leading up to this, parties of the treaty enacted review conferences every five years to revise the treaty according to the current state of nuclear arms at the time. During the 1995 review conference, non-nuclear weapon states expressed disappointment with the lack of progress toward nuclear disarmament and feared that extending the treaty indefinitely would enable the nuclear-armed states to hold on to their nuclear arsenals and disregard any accountability in eliminating them.In a different light, Indonesia and South Africa proposed efforts to tying the treaty’s indefinite extension to a decision to strengthen the treaty review process such as establishing of a set of principles and objectives on nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament to hold NPT states-parties, particularly the nuclear-weapon states, accountable to their commitments.Indonesia and South Africa’s proposal included completion of th e Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty of 1996 which banned all nuclear explosions in all environments for military or civilian purposes along with negotiations on the cutoff of fissile material production for weapons purposes. The conference also adopted a resolution calling for establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East with the goal to win support for the indefinite NPT extension from Arab states which objected to Israel’s status outside the NPT and its assumed possession of nuclear weapons.During the 1955 revision conference of the NPT, the decision was made to extend the NPT indefinitely and with its last revision conference held in 2010, is still on its mission to global non-proliferation (Gunter 2010). The NPT consists of a preamble and eleven articles and is interpreted as a three part pillar system as non-proliferation being the first, disarmament the second, and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology as the third. Currently there are 189 countries as state parties under rovisions of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The major issues that the Treaty of Nuclear Non Proliferation is facing are loopholes in NPT withdrawal, non-compliance with state parties, particularly Iran, and in a safeguard system. Also, the future utility of the treaty will be dominated by its ability to attract the major non-parties into membership. Another flaw in the Treaty is that if diversion of fissile material is discovered, then no mechanism for sanctions exists other than taking the issue to the UN Security Council.The treaty is silent on how to deal with a situation where a non-nuclear weapon state acquires unsafeguarded weapon material for reasons not permitted under the Treaty (Kaplan 2005). Israel regarded NPT adherence and the IAEA safeguards system as an insufficient guarantee that Iraq would not use nuclear technology it was acquiring to make nuclear weapons and proceed to destroy that technology. This discouraged other Arab states from becoming NPT parties, as this appeared to offer no protection against unilateral Israeli action.With the notion that one state such as Israel could claim the NPT technically meaningless and allowed to act on that belief without sanction, the credibility of the Treaty in the eyes of many non-nuclear weapon states became undermined and brought up for much speculation. The NPT itself is silent on how to assess compliance, how to resolve compliance disputes, and what procedures to follow in the event of non-compliance. Specifically, there is no verification of the obligations in Articles I and II not to transfer or receive nuclear weapons.The treaty contains no language on verification other than to require states to accept nuclear safeguards in Article III. One precedent for handling non-compliance was in the case of North Korea. North Korea announced it would withdraw from the NPT on March 12, 1993 but suspended its withdrawal in June. Ten years later on February 12, 2003, the Board of Governors declared North Korea in non-compliance with its nuclear safeguards obligations, and referred the matter to the Security Council. The Board called upon North Korea to acknowledge its non-compliance, and fully cooperate with the Agency.North Korea stated it would withdraw from the NPT on January 11, 2003, and its official status is still uncertain. The legality of North Korea's withdrawal is debatable but as of 9 October 2006, North Korea clearly possesses the capability to make a nuclear explosive device. However, other states complain of U. S. noncompliance because the United States continues to conduct research and development new types of nuclear weapons and still has yet to accept much deeper reductions in its nuclear forces.Several additional measures have been adopted to strengthen the NPT with attempts to broader the nuclear nonproliferation regime and make it difficult for states to acquire the capability to produce nuclear weapons, including the export controls of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the enhanced verification measures of the IAEA Additional Protocol. However, critics argue that the NPT cannot stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons or the motivation to acquire them.They express disappointment with the limited progress on nuclear disarmament, where the five authorized nuclear weapons states still have 22,000 warheads in their combined stockpile and have shown a reluctance to disarm further. Several high-ranking officials within the United Nations have said that they can do little to stop states using nuclear reactors to produce nuclear weapons (Kaplan 2005). An issue that will require new and better strategic thinking is how best to proceed with efforts to make the Middle East a Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) – free zone.This was a controversial issue on the table during the most recent 2010 NPT Review Conference. The final document produced from the conference addressing the matter calls on all state s in the region to participate in a conference in 2012 based on the terms of the 1995 resolution. The United States announced after the conference that it, Russia, and the United Kingdom, along with the UN secretary-general, will co-sponsor the meeting, determine a country to host it, and identify a person to organize it.The issue with this is that Egypt and other states may want to use a conference in part to criticize Israel’s nuclear weapons program. Also, the language of the document calls on all states in the Middle East to participate which includes a number of states that do not recognize Israel and in the past have not been willing to sit with Israeli officials in formal settings. To name a few, Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria are some of these states. Therefore, such a conference would pose challenges to Israel. Iran and major Arab states would all have to reach the same satisfying terms and recognize Israeli de facto.If the conference is viewed strategically and handled carefully, it could advance the cause of peace and security in the region. In summation, President Barack Obama in Prague called for the â€Å"peace and security of a world free of nuclear weapons† on April 2, 2009. A Year later on April 8, 2010, President Obama returned to Prague a year later with President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia to sign a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that committed both countries to reduce their deployed strategic nuclear warheads and delivery systems in accordance with agreed principles of verification.President Obama also convened a special session of the UN Security Council on September 24, 2009, which adopted Resolution 1887, which focuses on nuclear security and nonproliferation and seeking ways to enhance its means. Though the NPT has its weaknesses, it still has managed to link many countries together and has dodged the predicted amount â€Å"15 or 20 or 25 nations may have nuclear weapons† that President Kennedy warned i n his press conference in 1963.Today, we have nine counting North Korea but not Iran outside of the treaty. As we progress down the road to expanding non-proliferation, it is important for policy makers to keep in mind that for most states the demand for nuclear weapons is likely to derive from security considerations, and security consideration under conditions of uncertainty, especially if the states have lacking faith in the Treaty’s ability to make effective use of the safeguard system as we approach the 2015 NPT Review Conference.

Moral Relativism Essay

At first glance, moral relativism appears to be an appealing, well though out philosophical view. The truth of moral judgments is relative to the judging subject or community. The basic definition of moral relativism is that all moral points of view are equally valid; no single person’s morals are any more right or wrong than any other person’s. As you look closer at the points that moral relativists use to justify their claims, you can plainly see that there are, more often than not, viable objections that can be made against the moral relativist’s arguments. Moral, or ethical, relativism is made up of two types of relativism: cultural and individual relativism. Cultural relativism says that right and wrong, good and evil, are relative to a culture, to a way of life that is practiced by a whole group of people. Individual relativism says that right and wrong, good and evil, are relative to the preferences of an individual. Cultural and individual relativism support the claim that there are no â€Å"universal moral truths† in the world. Universal moral truths are morals that apply to all societies and cultures. I believe that morality is relative to culture simply since our morals develop from the surroundings in which we are raised. Our parents, culture and societal experiences build our individual views on what is moral and immoral. Perceptions are formed through example, especially when we are children as we learn what is right and wrong through our parents and how they react to situations. The theory behind ethical relativism states that ethical standards are not concrete for all societies and times, but rather are relative to the standards of individual societies and time periods. I disagree with this theory because societies should be judged by their moral beliefs on the foundations that time doesn’t change what is morally right and wrong and their should be more emphasis based on the individual rights as opposed to respecting the morals of that individual’s society. Allowing us, as a society, to say that a time or a location makes any ethical belief or theory practiced by the masses of that time/place right and that should be respected by people of other cultures is ignorant. There are a set of universal rights all human beings should enjoy no matter the location or time period, and those cultures that violate these rights shouldn’t be embraced for being different but rather shunned upon for not recognizing the universal basic rights of the indi vidual, despite the fact that it is hard to say what are ALL of these basic human rights. Ethical relativism places more emphasis on the society and not enough on the individual of that society. For example lets say that in some imaginary culture it is perfectly normal to kill or maim people if they annoy you. Ethical relativism says that being of a culture where this is not an accepted practice I cannot say that this is wrong, rather I must respect their culture thereby placing more emphasis on respecting a culture then the rights of the individuals to life no matter how annoying they happen to be. In a system where everything is relative there can be no set ethical belief because then no one is bound by any universal set code of ethics. Nothing is ever immoral since actions can’t be compared to a standard and thus nothing is immoral and nothing is moral. Societies should be judged by their moral beliefs because time and place doesn’t change what is morally right and wrong and more emphasis should be given to the individual rather than to the society. Ethical relativism contradicts the point of ethical theory in that there is no universal standards therefore n o action is moral, and vice versa no action is immoral. Society defines what is moral at a certain point in time. Morality is adaptive and can change over time, however it is still dependent upon its culture to decide whether it is accepted or not accepted. For example, in the early twentieth century, pre-marital sex was considered a huge sin and looked down upon with disgrace. A person’s entire character was jeopardized if they had participated in pre-marital sex. Today however, although pre-marital sex is not considered virtuous, society does not cast aside those who have sex before marriage. It is considered normal as a matter of fact to have several partners before marriage, that is, if you even decide to get married (another topic that has lost importance over time). Benedicts also gives an example to further prove her point that morality and or normality is culturally relative. She gives the example of a man in a Melanesian society who was referred to as â€Å"silly and simple and definitely crazy† because he liked to share and to help people and do nice things for them. In the United States, these are virtuous qualities. If you are stingy and not helpful you are looked down upon, but in this contrasting society, to share and be helpful is so disgraceful that one is ridiculed for possessing those traits or even condemned for them. One who believes that morality is relative could give further example of traits that are despised in one culture but admired in a different culture. History and evolution provide codes of what is accepted in a culture, things such as sorcery, homosexuality, polygamy, male dominance, euthanasia, these things are completely dependent upon its society to define its morality. Within this world that we live on, there is an enormous amount of people. Each of these people belongs to different cultures and societies. Every society has traits and customs that make it unique. These societies follow different moral codes. This means that they may have different answers to the moral questions asked by our own society. What I am trying to say is that every society has a different way of analyzing and dealing with life’s events, because of their cultural beliefs. This claim is known as Cultural Relativism. Cultural Relativism is the correct view of ethics. (a) Different societies have different moral codes. (b) There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another. (c) The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is merely one among many. (d) There is no â€Å"universal truth† in ethics-that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all peoples at all times (e) The moral code of a society deter mines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society. (f) It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures (Pojman). Above are six claims that help explain the notion of Cultural Relativism. In Rachel’s article, the Eskimos practice infanticide as well as the killing of elders. The elders are too feeble to contribute to the group but; they still consume precious food, which is scarce. This practice is necessary for the survival of the group. The males within the Eskimo tribes have a higher mortality rate because they are the hunters and food providers. The killing of female infants helps keep the necessary equilibrium for the survival of the group. So, this infanticide and killing of elders does not signal that Eskimos have less compassion for their children, nor less respect for human life; it is merely recognition that murder is sometimes needed to ensure that the Eskimos do not become culturally extinct (Pojman). To continue with the subject of murder, there are many questions about murder that our own society faces. Within our own society there are conflicting views on topics such as abortion, capital punishment and, euthanasia. To some these acts are considered to be murder, to others they are necessary to our society. The point of this conflict is that even within our own society, there is a discrepancy between what is morally right or wrong. There is an exception to every so-called moral absolute. This eliminates the possibility of Moral Absolutism, and proves there is no universal truth (Pojman).Ruth states that homosexuals deal with many conflicts that are culturally based (Pojman). For example, in our western society, the Catholic religion believes that is a sin for individuals to partake in homosexual activity. By this I mean, the tendency toward this trait of homosexuality in our culture exposes these individuals to all the conflicts that coincide with this choice of lifestyle. Some of these conflicts include hate groups that partake in â€Å"gay bashing†, public ridicule and even laws against homosexuals taking wedding vows. This differs from what Ruth explains about how in American Indian tribes there exists the institution of the berdache (Pojman). These are men who, after puberty, take up the dress and occupations of women and even marry other men. These individuals are considered to be good healers and leaders in women’s groups. In other words, they are socially placed and not ridiculed by other members of their society. This is an example of how different societies have different moral codes. Ruth states within her article how every society integrates itself with a chosen basis and disregards itself with behavior deemed uncongenial (Pojman). This means societies will choose their own moral standards and ethical codes and, disregard actions that do not lie within the boundaries of these moral standards and ethical codes. She goes on to say that our moral codes are not formed by our inevitable constitution of human nature. We recognize that morality differs in every society. Our own culture and environment will dictate these codes. This explains why different people have different moral standards, because behavior is culturally institutionalized.

Sample Weak Supplemental Essay for Duke University

What should you avoid when writing a supplemental essay for college admission? Duke Universitys Trinity College offers applicants the opportunity to write a supplemental essay that answers the question: Please discuss why you consider Duke a good match for you. Is there something in particular at Duke that attracts you? Please limit your response to one or two paragraphs. The question is typical of many supplemental essays. Essentially, the admissions folks want to know why their school is of particular interest to you. Such questions often generate remarkably bland essays that make common  supplemental essay mistakes. The example below is one example of what not to do. Read the short essay, and then a critique highlighting some of the mistakes made by the author. Example of ​aWeak Supplemental Essay I believe the Trinity College of Arts and Sciences at Duke is an excellent match for me. I believe college should not be merely a gateway to the work force; it should educate the student in a variety of subjects and prepare him or her for the range of challenges and opportunities that lie ahead in life. I have always been a curious person and enjoy reading all kinds of literature and nonfiction. In high school I excelled in history, English, AP psychology, and other liberal arts subjects. I have not yet decided on a major, but when I do, it will almost certainly be in the liberal arts, such as history or political science. I know that Trinity College is very strong in these areas. But regardless of my major, I want to receive a broad education that spans a variety of areas in the liberal arts, so that I will graduate as not only a viable job prospect, but also as a well-rounded and learned adult who can make diverse and valuable contributions to my community. I believe Duke’s Trinity College will help me grow and become that kind of person. Critique of the Duke Supplemental Essay The sample supplemental essay for  Duke  is typical of what an admissions office frequently encounters. At first glance, the essay may seem just fine. The grammar and mechanics are solid, and the writer clearly wants to expand his or her education and become a well-rounded person. But think about what the prompt is actually asking: discuss why you consider Duke a good match for you. Is there something  in particular at Duke  that attracts you? The assignment here is not to describe why you want to go to college. The admissions office is asking you to explain why you want to go to Duke. A good response, then, must discuss specific aspects of Duke that appeal to the applicant. Unlike a  strong supplemental essay, the sample essay above fails to do so. Think about what the student says about Duke: the school will educate the student in a variety of subjects and present a range of challenges and opportunities. The applicant wants a broad education that spans a variety of areas. The student wants to be well-rounded and to grow. These are all worthwhile goals, but they dont say anything that is unique to Duke. Any comprehensive university offers a variety of subjects and helps students to grow. Also, by talking about the student and using phrases such as him or her, the author makes clear that the essay is presenting generalities rather than creating a clear and specific relationship between Duke and the applicant. A successful supplemental essay must clearly articulate what specific features of the school make it the right match for your personality, passions, and professional goals. The admissions folks need to see a clear and sensible reason for your desire to transfer. Is Your Supplemental Essay Specific Enough? As you write your supplemental essay, take the global replace test. If you can take your essay and substitute the name of one school for another, then you have failed to address the essay prompt adequately. Here, for example, we could replace Dukes Trinity College with the University of Maryland or Stanford or Ohio State. Nothing in the essay is actually about Duke. In short, the essay is filled with vague, generic language. The author demonstrates no specific knowledge of Duke and no clear desire actually to attend Duke. The student who wrote this supplemental essay probably hurt his or her application more than helped it.