3. So, if third party candidates are not effectively electable given the current American voting system and if third party candidates are an ineffective means of achieving any meaningful change and if one believes on ought to vote, it would seem that one ought to vote for one of the two primary parties. However, what if one dislikes both parties and neither are particularly good representations of one 's views? Consider how much one likes a given candidate on a scale from 0 to 10. If one liked (in the sense that the candidate mirrors your views, keeping in mind how you prioritize your own views) candidate A with a rating of "a" and candidate B with a rating of "b" and a≠b, there must be a candidate, A or B, who more accurately represents your views and who you would rather have elected than the other.
The essence of decision making – and, in turn, the essence of politics – is compromise: compromise in both positive and negative aspects of a possible solution. And in every decision- making process, the most efficient way may not be the one that is most followed. People may follow suit to others, depending on their beliefs, on their personal inclinations, and their opinions on the matter. And yes, these idiosyncrasies in every individual eventually show themselves as they decide on the matter as a whole. Less-informed people, on that matter, are more likely to choose a less efficient solution, yet there are exceptions for both parties: more informed people are also likely to give out more convoluted solutions to simple problems.
To some extent, I do believe this claim has some circumstances that are justifiable under D’Cruz and Kalef’s understanding of promising to try, but I don’t think it can be applied towards every type of promise made. Such things as external motivators and internal factors, such as mental health and will power, do certify the idea of promising to try instead of promising. When an agent is aware of some of the complications that could arise, it’s on the promiser to let their promisee be aware of these complications and are given the opportunity to possibly make other arrangements. On the other hand, promising to try in a situation where one is fully aware that they lack the motivation to fulfill that promise, is not a genuine promise to
When we compare democracy to socialism, the main difference between the two systems is their ideals, specially the fact that socialism is an economic system while democracy is a political ideology. But there is a more significant difference between these, as Alexis de Tocqueville once implied, “Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” This surely is stating that even though both systems have some things in common, equality, there is a great difference between them because the method they use to obtain that equality is dissimilar from each other. Both systems have pros and cons, but democracy is the best for the way that it controls society in a good and secure
A Rogerian Argument takes a subject that two sides differ on and instead of arguing directly for one side without referring to the other, the author states the opposing view point. By taking a “your side is valid but my point is valid as well and here’s why” approach to the structuring of the essay or writing, the author takes a less aggressive approach and empathizes with the other side in order to reach a middle ground. This type of argument is a better approach to conflict resolution since the author sympathizes or recognizes the other side’s point of
Conciliation The practice of bringing together the parties in a dispute with an independent third party, so that the dispute can be settled through a series of negotiation. (businessdictioary) Advantages Disadvantages Cheaper option than litigation Heavily relies on skills of conciliator Private and confidential process The process could be considered too informal so parties may not take it seriously Identifies and clarifies main issues in dispute. Parties may feel the conciliator is not neutral and may not lead to a resolution Guide book on conciliation (1999) To conclude, I will suggest it be best for the dismissed project manager and my client to use the conciliation method because comparing all three ADRs, in conciliation, there is a trained, impartial person to help make the final dicision.it is less expensive and also save the relationship between the Ghana government and both my client and the project manager. It is also a Private and confidential
Throughout the piece, Gilbert explores the ethicality of downsizing through the use of important methods in the attempt to study the ethics of utilitarianism, privileges and responsibilities, and fairness and equality. Gilbert explains that the unitarianism method finds downsizing an ethically and legally moral actions because the overall effect of the layoffs are for the greater good for majority of the people. The privileges and responsibilities method finds downsizing to be fair because these workers’ jobs are not promised to them. The justice and fairness method does not find the downsizing to be moral because they do not terminate workers based on each individual’s working ethnics and good
Within the given extract from Aristotle's ‘Nicomachean Ethics’ one’s interpretation is that Aristotle aims to continue the discussion on what makes a Good Life, which specific focus on what exactly the Good is. Aristotle starts by explaining that cultured men, educated and successful, “identify the Good with honour” as this is perceived to be the “goal of the political life”. Aristotle disagrees with identification, justifying this by explaining honour to be a superficial argument, being that it focuses on the gaining of something (ie power) over others, which is ultimately not Good motivation. Aristotle sees it that “People[...]seek honour in order to convince themselves of their own goodness”. Many would argue that to act only to justify one's own actions is not the entirety of the Good Life, as it has selfish motivations and selfishness is not part of the true nature of the Good Life.
The colonial past and stemmed from it sentiments for “decolonization, development, and disarmament” along with relatively strong economy contributed to the strengthening of the vision of Brazil being “another West”, a leader of so called Third World, leading actor in G-77. In short, the perception of Brazilians that despite much of historical, ethnic, religious similarities with the Western countries they are different from them resulted in that the country pursues substantially different foreign policy strategies than their Western counterparts. Although Lafer’s work is focused on Brazil’s case, the work nevertheless gives valuable insight on how different factors build each respective country’s own perceived identity, which in turn affects its behaviour on international arena. Such authors as Prizel and Telhami with Barnett seem to support Lafer, and also argue that countries’ foreign policies are shaped by those countries’
However, instead of arguing in favor of absolute equality, he qualified it. Aristotle had this idea about proportionate equality and counter proportionate equality. The former was supposed as just, and the latter was said to be unjust. He thought that equals should be treated equally, while those who are “unequal” be treated unequally (Capeheart and Milovanovic 13). Aristotle was mostly interested in the political aspect of justice rather than the economic side.
Socrates believes that justice is the best life to live, but Glaucon is not satisfied by this answer and instead creates an improved defense of Thrasymachus’ argument that life of injustice is better than living a life of justice. Glaucon argues that people are just because it is convenient, it is a title that people have been taught to be, however, it is much easier to be unjust than just. Justice is set up like a competition in which the result is merely a compromise of the best and worst of a group of individuals. What constitutes something as just or not lies in the consequence. Justice is merely a system which is instrumentally valuable.