Huxley was concerned over the community’s value on conformity as he believed it didn’t allow free thought, dissent, or uniqueness. He also feared that conditioning would overcome the importance of the individual. Huxley was intelligent and rational, but people debate if his fears came true in accordance to present day times. With free thought comes disagreement, and with disagreement comes change in society. That is why, when Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World, he emphasized the terrors of having no dissension in a civilization.
Braverman’s deskilling concept According to Attewell (1987) Braverman starts with an argument that was made by Marx (1967), which stated that employees sell only their ability to work. Management must ensure that this ability is turned into work performed by the employees which will lead to profitability. Additionally, Braverman takes into consideration three implications that result from the argument made by Marx. Firstly, Adam Smith (1970) makes an argument about how managers can increase productivity by dividing work so that employees can perform different work activities at the same time. Braverman (1974) does not agree with the theory of division of labour as proposed by Adam Smith and argues that the efficiency gains explained by Smith
While ethical relativism has its advantages because it could create a peaceful society, that is not always the case. Relativism does not accept that certain moral values are universal. Just because cultures differ, that does not mean there are no moral values and norms, like murder or child abuse. Determining what is morally right or wrong is an difficult thing, and each individual has a different belief about it. So, by allowing everyone to follow their own moral code, it could lead to chaotic society.
It is difficult to try to balance the two in harmony. A feared leader has less probability to be taken from power, murdered, and more of a chance to be respected, and have loyal armies. A leader that is loved is more easy to be seen as weak, as a feared leader would be seen as cruel, but needed in order for them to survive. A feared leader may not be what the people want, but it is something that they truly do need. A leader cannot have too much mercy because his people will not take him seriously, but he would be loved for doing so.
Human genetic engineering is a cause that will expand the belief in what is justifiable in the areas of philosophical, moral, and ethical backgrounds. Despite the benefits human genetic engineering, it can also lead to negative social and psychological consequences such as a creation of an underclass (Napolitano, Oladele), and a loss of individuality. Human genetic engineering will cause more social consequences that will evidently outweigh its benefits. The future for human genetic engineering is one of an economic powerhouse. In a society based on capitalism and materialism, the desire to have the next designer genetic trend is almost to be expected.
Furthermore, the statesman is more focused on the long-term impacts that their decisions will make on the institution rather than the immediate satisfaction of the public because the well-being and longevity of the institution is prioritized over what the public desires. This form of leadership requires a different view of the elected executive in the sense that, unlike the popular leader, the statesman is not a tool to execute the desires of the public, rather they are elected with the assumption from the voters that they are to make decisions using their discretion for the betterment of the state regardless of what the voters want. This can be an effective style of governing because often the public’s desires do not align with what is best for the country because a great majority do not possess the experience or knowledge that is required to successfully govern an entire country. The strong executive Publius calls for in Federalist 70 cannot be influenced by public opinion too heavily because that would inhibit their ability to exercise the required executive energy. A truly strong and energetic leader is one who can overlook the desires of the public to do what is right for the country
Many people felt that all power rested with the politicians and businessmen, but the Progressives attempted to undo these problems caused by industrialization. The Progressive movement sought to end the influence of large corporations, provide more rights and benefits to workers, and end the control possessed by party leaders. The Progressive Era was a period in American history in which improving working conditions, exposing corruption, improving the way of life, expanding democracy, and making reforms were the objectives at hand. Woodrow Wilson was the ideal leader to help bring new reforms that could really help the working class, he believed that leaders should make decisions that is at its best interest for the public and during his time as president he really took the time to
Realists are attuned to the idea that the international system is anarchic and that serious threats emerge all the time, requiring states to secure resources for survival. This involves periodic use of force; security represents the unique and main goal of foreign policy. Idealism, on the other side values morality as the basis of all relations among nations. It rejects the separation between the mind and the soul in politics. Idealists see the role of power as an undesirable factor to be eliminated.
He understood an economic model for the base of his theoretical work. This further devloped the types of societies (whether it be primitive communist or a capitalist society)- and how individual classes formed a social relationship. Weber on the other hand argued the study of social action. He combined a lengthy effort of disciplines and aspects in a methodlogical approach that underpinned an interpretive view of sociology. He understood what needed to make social science meaningful- starting with the individual experience and devloping ideas onto what would later become an undrestanding of the system of modernity.
(Tsakiris, "Max Weber 's Theory of Rationalization" ) This concept was introduced by Max Weber, one of the founding fathers of Sociology. Rationalization was first seen in the creation of bureaucracies (Wikipedia,"Rationalization of Society") This idea was a concern to sociologist and others because it had a negative and dehumanizing effect on society, moving modernity away from the central tenets of enlightenment. They believed that decisions should not be made without emotions and sympathy. For example, the Nazi’s, their insistence on efficiency and calculability caused what were once men into killing machines. This is an example of why sociologist believed rationalization to be dehumanizing.