Abortion - Ethical or Unethical - 1680 Words

Abortion â€Å"Ethical or Unethical† In my paper I will argue on why I feel that abortions are unethical and why they should not be allowed. As you are reading this paper I really hope that I don’t start to contradict myself. Let me begin by saying there are several different reasons why abortions should be prohibited. The first reason why I feel that abortions should be prohibited is because of religious laws. The bible says that â€Å"thou shall not kill†. By aborting babies we are disobeying god and we are breaking the six of his ten commandments. I am a very religious human being who tries to live by the book. I won’t say that I base my ethics on religion, but I will say that it does play a major role. I think that killing other human†¦show more content†¦You would probably think that if she didn’t it would violate some kind of right of hers. In 2010 more than 600 measures were presented to the legislature to lessen abortions. There are two primary positions to abortions. There is Pro-Life, which means you are against abortion and then there is Pro-choice which mean you are for abortion. Have you ever ask your self which one are you? Most may feel that abortions are okay, but only due to certain situations. When I hear the word abortion I’m kind of disgusted, but I do look at it from all stand points. Lets take a look at this situation if a women was pregnant through rape would you want t o keep the child. For one I would look at it like a total stranger and then who wants to raise a born that was produce through being taking advantage of. I really think that that is a hard decision. We have all kind of Pro- choice members who try to convince people that abortions should be banned. Personally I feel that abortions should be banned because o the other options such as adaption. I strongly feel that an innocent life should not be taken because of something committed by sin. There are a lot of states who banned abortion and feel that they are unethical, but at the same time there are still some states that feel if a woman wants an abortion than should be able to get me due to fundamental rights protected by Roe vs. Wade. Those rights ables a woman to make her own decision while bearing a child. As you may notShow MoreRelatedIs Abortion Ethical Or Ethical?907 Words   |  4 Pages Is abortion ethical? There are certain situations where it could be, such as not being able to carry the baby to term due to health concerns, emotional, personal concerns, and financial stability. However, there are certainly many situations where abortion is not ethical due to immature and careless reason between to sexual partners having sex. I believe Abortion can be ethical depending on the circumstances one is in. â€Å"Most of us believe that women are entitled to abortions if they want them,Read MoreAbortion : Ethical And Moral1495 Words   |  6 PagesAbortion Introduction Is it ethical and moral to have an abortion? The definition of abortion is â€Å"deliberate removal or deliberate action to cause the expulsion of a fetus from the womb of a human female, at the request of or through the agency of the mother, so as in fact to result in the death of the fetus† (Merriam-Webster, 2016). What about the morality of un-coerced, human abortion for our purposes abortions are voluntary, deliberate removals of a human fetus (Objections to Warren, 2016)Read MoreThe Ethics And Ethical Ethics1739 Words   |  7 Pagesthe turn of the 4th Century BC, the study of ethics and ethical behaviour has occupied human thought, with various philosophers exploring the fundamental issues of practical decision making, determining the nature of normative theories (Aristotelian virtue ethics), and applying these principles to pragmatic moral issues. Approximately 2040 years ago, Aristotle published, what is considered to be the foundations of modern day ethics and e thical frameworks, the â€Å"Nicomachean Ethics†. Through this publicationRead MoreEssay on Why Ethics Matter1338 Words   |  6 PagesWhy Ethics Matters There are many situations in which ethical perspectives are in contrast to another persons opinion on the same subject matter. Every person has found themselves looking over his shoulder asking himself am I doing the right thing? Ethics is what a person does when no one is watching. Whether it is a corporation or a government entity, they all expect their employees to behave ethically. What are ethics? Webster defines ethics as a set of moral principles or a theory orRead MoreThe Ethical Justification Of Abortion Essay1095 Words   |  5 PagesIntroduction Ethical justification of abortion is a controversial subject consisting of numerous significant theories that have been presented based on studies and researches. Basically, abortion refers to termination of pregnancy through removal of the undeveloped fetus. Seemingly, the act is highly condemned by majority sociologists and health practitioners due to violation of humanitarian ethics and morals. However, this particular perspective is orientated by the normative ethics system entailingRead MoreEthical Dilemmas Of A Drug Company s Regional Sales Manager1748 Words   |  7 Pagescan be hard to make a decision, especially when an ethical dilemma is involved. Ethical dilemmas pose a challenge because there is good to be found with both choices. The problem arises when one’s personal ethics are challenged. This paper will discuss an ethical dilemma with which a drug company’s regional sales manager was faced. It will discuss: the case and explain the ethical dilemm a; the four functions of management; ethical issues; ethical relativism; four values; case resolutions; and ChristianRead MoreShould Abortion Be Legal?867 Words   |  4 PagesABORTION Abortion is a deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. There are series of legal, moral and ethical issues which may arise about abortion. Most arguments about abortion are often focused on political insinuations and the legal aspect of such actions. Some frequently asked questions’ regarding the issue is if the practice should be outlawed and regarded as murder or should women have the right to practice it. For example, prior toRead MoreThe Death Of An Unborn Fetus Should Be Viewed Through The Same Moral Standards1523 Words   |  7 Pagesdestructor of peace was â€Å"abortion, because it is a war against the child- a direct killing of the innocent child- murdered by the mother herself.† In the United States, four in ten of unintended pregnancies result in abortion culminating in approximately 1.21 million abortions each year.1 Abortion, defined as the removal of a fertilized egg from the uterus, has been a con troversial issue in our society. On January 1973 the Supreme Court of the U.S gave the right to abortion on Roe vs Wade. This monumentalRead MoreThe Debate About Abortion And Abortion1709 Words   |  7 PagesThe practice of abortion is an issue that has sparked controversy for many years. One of the initial problems that lead to the debate about abortion is the fact that, the definition of the term abortion varies from one field to another. The controversy arises because the language used to describe abortion â€Å"is a reflection of the societal beliefs of the people in that area† (McFarlane Meier 65). Generally, the World Health Organization defines abortion as induced or spontaneous termination of pregnancyRead MoreEssay on Abortion is Unethical1004 Words   |  5 PagesAbortion is Unethical The Center for Bioethical Reform states that on lifetime average there will be one abortion per woman in the world. This makes abortion a very relative point of ethical discussion. According to the World Resources Institute there are about 3,155,945 females world-wide, and if you used crude mathematics to make a rough estimate you would have potentially 3,155,945 lost lives. We can no longer ignore an issue with such impact. I believe that abortion is an unethical act and

The Downside Risk of Essay Topics for Interview Pdf That No One Is Talking About

The Downside Risk of Essay Topics for Interview Pdf That No One Is Talking About The Essentials of Essay Topics for Interview Pdf That You Will be Able to Learn From Beginning Today When you're in a conversation, have a moment to consider about which conversation you are in fact in. Nowadays TV has turned into an important part of life. Your opening may be suggested by a number of the comments from your interviews or you may want to describe a situation which causes your question. 1 approach to guarantee interview success is To have a great idea of what sort of questions could be asked. The energy at the event can be quite different to the realities when you go back to the office the next Monday. Interviews can be hard sometimes, so preparation in advance is always beneficial. The only difference, obviously, is they won't be testing your voice. As it's Adaptive your questions are likely to acquire increasingly more tough. Consider the huge decisions you have made over the past 12 decades. You always have to be on time in the area in which you meet with all interviewees. The Essay Topics for Interview Pdf Pitfall Essay writing is normally practiced is schools. Words may be an incredibly beneficial tool! Learning a new language for an early age is helpful for kids. If you've got over 30 days I would suggest world famous Word Power Made Easy'. Finding the Best Essay Topics for Interview Pdf Some people believe that keeping pets is fantastic for kids while some think that it is dangerous and unhealthy. More than a billion adults legally smoke tobacco every single day. Some people believe that teachers should be liable for teaching students to judge what's right and wrong so they can behave well. They think that schools should select students accor ding to their academic abilities, while others believe that it is better to have students with different abilities studying together. Reading over your interview essay is a great beginning, but it's helpful to ask different individuals to do that same because they're more likely to catch distinctive repetitions, errors, and unclear pieces. The option of compare and contrast essay topics isn't a simple task because you have to demonstrate your analytical skills. Make certain your essay will receive the interest of your readers by supplying the essential information needed to be known. The subject for discussion needs to be manageable, i.e. you ought to be in a position to talk about this issue in the most detailed way based on the amount of pages you need to write. You literally don't need to utilize your mind. The quantity of work which you put in to every program is outstanding. Although two students may attend class daily together for numerous decades, there is a clear probability they may know practically nothing about one another. The best thing about it's detailed answers and wide range of questions. The topics for argumentative essays are often quite self-explanatory they're common understanding. You need to understand how to compose an effective essay as it is a typical foundation for a student's grade. Two topics will be provided in each section and you need to choose a single topic from each. If you wish to choose nice and interesting American history essay topics, you have to be mindful they ought to be specific and fairly narrow so that you're able to reflect on a particular problem or issue. The rise of use of IT and its tools within the field of Education has seem tremendous increase in the recent past. Such a degree of engagement was reached so as to convey a quite straightforward principle. Occasionally it could feel since there's a requirement to output a particular amount of lines simply to appear professional. With what has been gathered, a person may then compose a comprehensive essay about the exchange.

One Must Decide The Meaning Of “progressive Historiography. Essay Example For Students

One Must Decide The Meaning Of â€Å"progressive Historiography.? Essay One must decide the meaning of â€Å"progressive historiography.† It can mean either the history written by â€Å"progressive historians,† or it can mean history written by historians of the Progressive era of American history and shortly after. The focus that was chosen for this paper is more in keeping with the latter interpretation, if for no other reason than it provides a useful compare-and-contrast â€Å"control† literature. The caveat is this: the focus of this report is on the predominant question of the historiographical period: was the war a revolution or a war for independence? One could choose many other questions to argue, questions that historians have for years disputed about the revolution, but there are a number of reasons why this report was chosen for this particular assignment; the two best follow. First, it is an old and time-honored question that professors and instructors have posed to their students for years; of pre-Civil War historiographical questions, it is perhaps second only in fashion during the last twenty to twenty-five years to the Jefferson-Hemmings paternity controversy. Second, the revolution-or-independence question is one of those which must be answered through interpretation. A case cannot be made that is so utterly conclusive as to exclude all others; it is that very fact that makes history at once so frustrating and so fascinating. What better way could there be to loo k at the writings of a specific school of historians? Therefore, in the pursuit of â€Å"personal truth,† we must proceed Perhaps the most famous of all progressive historians is Frederick Jackson Turner. His most famous argument is not devoted strictly to the American Revolution, but instead to the effects of the American frontier. In a sentence, his argument is that the frontier was the chief determinant in American history. This is not to say that Turner did not write about the war; he did, in his seminal work, â€Å"The Frontier in American History,† there are discussions of the frontier’s effect on the coming of the revolution. It is worth noting, before exploring Turner’s arguments, that the frontier in this period was only about one hundred miles from the Atlantic coast. Of course, as the period under scrutiny approaches the war chronologically, the frontier moves away from the ocean. But it is important to remember that Turner defines the Jamestown of Captain John Smith in 1607 as the frontier in its initial stage. So, in this context, it makes sense to the almost-twenty-first-century reader when Turner refers to the frontier as defined by the Proclamation of 1763 as the â€Å"Old West.†Turner gives an idea of his world-view near the end of the book:The transformations through which the United States is passing in our own day are so profound, so far-reaching, that it is hardly an exaggeration to say that we are witnessing the birth of a new nation in America. The revolution in social and economic structure of this country during the past two decades is comparable to what occurred when independence was declared and the constitution was formed, or to the changes wrought by the era which began half a century ago, the era of Civil War and Reconstruction (Turner 1920, 311). This point bears further examination in the context of all the historians being compared in this paper, but in a later section. It is more important at this point to continue with the discussion of Turner’s examination of the war as it relates to his frontier thesis. Briefly, Turner argues five points specific to the war in his overall treatment of the frontier. First, a fighting frontier had been established from Georgia to New England as a result of the colonial wars with the French. Second, a primitively agricultural and democratically self-sufficient society had been established on the frontier that was profoundly and fundamentally different from the society from which the frontiersmen’s progenitors had sprung; it is of course because those progenitors were different from their fellows that they came across the ocean in the first place. Third, the frontier developed home markets for the growing—though still small—colonial industrial base, lessening the importance of the triangular trade. Fourth, non-English settlers had caused an unintended and at first informal breach with the mother country that later fueled separatist sentiment; it is no great thing in the thick of rebellion to forget that the war was at first a war fo r the rights of Englishmen when one is not an Englishman in the first place. Fifth, the frontier by its very nature reflected a contest between the privileged and the non-privileged; Turner maintains that this dichotomy was more in evidence outside New England and was more of a democratic revolution outside that region than inside (Turner 1920, 106-111). Of course, one is tempted to minimize, or even belittle this last observation by pointing out that the New Englanders provided the bulk of the troops for the rebel army In any case, Turner’s arguments foreshadow those of another historian, J. Franklin Jameson. Both argue a geographical or quasi-geographical determinism. Both argue that the war was a revolution that resulted in greater democracy, though their definitions of democracy are rather broad. Before turning to Jameson, however, another work by Turner should be mentioned, entitled â€Å"The Significance of Sections in American History,† which was published in 1932, at the height of the Great Depression. This book is not exclusively about the American Revolution. Instead, it discusses several important factors in American history from a demographic perspective. Turner echoes his own frontier thesis in this work, citing instances in the West that shaped the character of the Revolution. The behavior of the earliest pioneers was important in understanding the later evolution of the country, he argued, and focused on the North Carolina frontiersmen. He concluded that the Association desired â€Å"not to be arded as a lawless mob,† and their petition for annexation to North Carolina led to a regularization of the political status of the frontier districts (Turner 1932, 97). This pattern would be repeated again and again in the decades after the war, but Turner’s point is that the frontier districts were just as important to the political and social nature of the struggle as were the established eastern districts and towns which have received so much more â€Å"press† in the literature. Another factor of consequence in Turner’s view was early sectionalism (indeed, that is the focus of this particular book, much more so than the American war for independence). â€Å"The West,† which in the middle nineteenth century meant such lands as Iowa and Indiana, instead meant in pre-Revolutionary years the western regions of the existing colonies. Turner specifically discussed the western regions of Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas. He suggested that the geography of the regionrocky and mountainous, in distinct contrast to the alluvial plains of the tidewater regionmade for an order much more like New England society than the planter-led society of Virginia and the rest of the South. He contended that the frontier communities were more democratic. An informed reader can today easily infer that Turner was writing not just of the revolution, but of the beginnings of the sectional competition that culminated in the American Civil War (Turner 1932, 293). But it is the geographical determinism that Turner advances that is of the most interest to this paper; one sees the same sort of argument again and again while reading the works of Turner and his fellows in the progressive school. J. Franklin Jameson wrote a landmark work in 1926. More accurately, it was a collection of four lectures that were subsequently collected into a hundred-page book. His basic premise was that the war was a social revolution. He made four main arguments (coincidental with the four lectures), which follow. First, Jameson argued that the status of persons was changed. He maintained that slavery was ended in a significant region by the war, and that abolitionism became fashionable and real as a political force. In order to contest this conclusion, it is a simple thing to counter-argue that since Massachusetts had but five slaves in 1776, it seems that slavery was definitely on its way out before the war even began in earnest. Moreover, it would be obvious to point out that abolitionism was certainly not new to the Northern States before and during the war. In short, the arguments regarding the status of people and how that status changed as a result of the war really do not hold up under scrutiny. Second, Jameson argued that the nature of the land promoted change in the people. He claimed that the geography of New England made for revolutionary thought among small holders and freemen that was not so evident among those in the tidewater south. But the colonists were â€Å"different sorts† to begin with; the Pilgrims and Puritans of the North were outcasts before they came across the Atlantic. The middle-staters of Pennsylvaniathe Quakersand especially MarylandCatholics, Huguenots, and Presbyterianswere already in search of a place where they could be different and be at least quasi-independent. To lay the responsibility for the revolution on mountains and streams, thereby ignoring the nature of the people before they arrived, is a bit much to swallow. Did the land change the colonists, or were the human changes to the land merely a reflection of the ideas the colonists had with them already, and of the institutional-cultural heritage of these people? At the very least, i t is a chicken-and-egg question, but it seems that the latter argument is the accurate one. In this same vein, Jameson cites the end of primogeniture as a social-revolutionary aspect of the war. To illustrate the inaccuracy of this interpretation, one need only mention that primogeniture was abolished in Britain over time without a war at all. It seems that the trend away from primogeniture was already afoot in the British world (of which the colonists were a part, and of which even in 1776 most wished to remain). War or no war, primogeniture would almost certainly have receded, as it did. In addition, Jameson claims that the frontier unleashed a revolution. His view is that the frontier itself was in some way responsible for revolutionary attitudes and thoughts, as if the land itself changed the way that the residents thought. For the sake of brevity, let us say only that Turner’s frontier thesis is a much more convincing picture of American history than is Jameson’s. In short, Turner argues that the frontier throughout American history has attracted and promoted certain types of people and certain types of behavior. Jameson implies that the frontier made revolutionaries, and that when the war was over, they stopped being revolutionary. Turner makes the point from the opposite pole: the frontier, by its very nature, provided an environment where people who would otherwise have been misfits and malcontents could flourish and achieve a modicum of what would then certainly have been termed â€Å"respectability.† Jameson’s argument virtually an thropomorphizes the frontier, while Turner casts the region in a more proper role: that of a passive agent. Third, Jameson discusses business and industry. He discusses how the war caused the Agricultural Revolution to be visited upon the Americas. In Europe, where land was at a premium, peasants had had to adopt new methods in order to survive their growing population. By contrast, in the colonies, land was cheap and plentiful, so new methods were not required. Nonetheless, it seems safe to argue that the methods adopted in the colonies would have been adopted eventually, war or no war, when the population density made it sensible to do so. Along similar lines, Jameson suggests that the war caused a revolutionary growth and change in war and commercial industries: paper, salt, powder, cannons, and muskets all had to be manufactured to fight the war. Of course, after 1918, when the industrial nature of warfare had become painfully evident. It is easy to see how he made this conclusion. But it is also easy to see, even with the benefit of the same hindsight that Jameson could have used, that the growth of industry and commerce would almost certainly have occurred anyway, war or no war. Napoleonic France was not converted into an industrial power, despite nearly twenty-five years of virtually non-stop warfare that was of a far greater magnitude than was the â€Å"American Revolution.† It is far more sensible to argue that the industry and commerce of the Americas would have developed as a result of trade with Europe, with or without a war. Lastly, many participants argued at the time that the colonies were economica lly weakened because of the war for a significant period. How is it that Jameson concluded the exact opposite one hundred fifty years later?Fourth, Jameson argued that thought and feeling changed. At first, this claim seems the most plausible. He suggested that the war was a precursor to the European revolutionary fervor of the 1830s; this perhaps has some validity, but the fervor of the 1830s was a more peasants-against-the-aristocracy sort of thing than it was a taxation-without-representation sort of thing. Another difference was nationalism, a decidedly made-in-France phenomenon. Greeks, for example, rose up against the Ottoman Turks in 1830 in order to establish a Greek state. This was not the nature of the American war, for no foreign power of different ethnicity held sway in the colonies; certainly no Germans rose up in Pennsylvania in order to establish a German-style state out of the old British colony. Indeed, Germans tended toward loyalist sensibilities. My Dream House EssayJohn Fiske wrote a two-volume treatment of the American Revolution in 1891. To be sure, this was at the earliest stages of the Progressive movement in the United States, but it falls well within the boundaries. In that context, one can evaluate the contents of Fiske’s book, and in one other also: which occurred in various places in Turner’s writings. Fiske writes much in the second volume of his history of â€Å"drums and trumpets.† However, there are still inklings of his views as to the nature of the war. He writes, for example, of the â€Å"absurd talk of John Adams,† who proposed the annual election of general officers by Congress, and that â€Å"if some great men should be sent home as a result, † (Fiske, 31). Fiske sees this as a ludicrous notion to say the least, indicating his great-man orientation. (As an aside, Fiske writes of Benedict Arnold’s death-bed remorse at â€Å"ever having put on any other† uniform than that of the colonial forces, which story has found its way into American mythology.) In a sentence, Fiske writes of armies and leaders, of imperial nations and colonies, and of congresses and parliaments. He clearly does not write of rivers, mountains, and mass suffrage. Albert Bushnell Hart wrote his story of the Formation of the Union in 1894. The publisher, Longman’s, offered other works by professors of history, including one progressive professor who would someday become famous the world over: Woodrow Wilson. At the time, Fiske was an assistant professor of history at Harvard University. Hart asserted that the Constitution was more than a compact, the term he assigned to the Articles of Confederation. He defined a â€Å"compact† as little more than a treaty, calling it an agreement between states that lost its force when one of the parties ceased to observe it. Instead, Hart held that the Constitution was as Daniel Webster had defined it: â€Å"the people’s Constitution, the people’s government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people. The people of the United States have declared that this Constitution shall be supreme law† (Hart, 134). Of geography, Hart writes not of mountains and alluvial plains, but of man-made boundaries and political competition related to enlarging the entities of the competitors. Again, as in Fiske, whom Hart recommends along with George Bancroft and Henry Adams, the view is of and from the top, not of the common citizen. Are these writers of interest other than for the reason already offered? It is important to mention these writers as a corollary of the question that was posed at the outsetand sought at first â€Å"to duck†: exactly what is a â€Å"progressive historian?† Again, spatial limitations require this to be brief: it is clear from examining the work of Fiske and Hart that if a â€Å"progressive historian† is defined as a writer of history during the Progressive Era, then the work one will encounter is diverse in its viewpoints and interpretations; if, however one defines a progressive historian as a member of a school of thought, then the events of the times in which they wrote take on a secondary value, supplanted by rivers, mountains, and the like. But then one must remind oneself of the example of Charles Beard, if for no other reason than to sully and sunder that grand generalization First, lets take a look at a few compare-and-contrast conclusions. Progressive historians have in common the world-view that goes with the economic interpretation of history. They do not, however, always conclude the same things (Jameson and Turner argued greater economic democracy, for example, while Beard argued the Constitution as a document written by the wealthy to protect the wealthy). To a great degree, progressive historians are interested in geography, especially insofar as geographical factors are determinants in history. This interest varies, of course, from writer to writer, but Turner and Jameson are the best examples of those who ascribe to water-and-dirt determinism. Moreover, progressive historians, presuming that one defines the term as a historian who belongs to a school of thought, are interested more in the common man than in the great leaders; they are more likely to examine the writings of J. P. Martin than of George Washington. They are in fact the predecessors of today’s social historians. This focus is consistent with a great-forces-over-great-men deterministic view, inasmuch as â€Å"the will of the people† becomes a great force akin to rivers and towns. But the last common factor is perhaps the most important: progressive historians are generally in agreement that the war was a true revolution, and their meaning of the word transcends the mere throwing-off of â€Å"British tyranny† that so enthralled writers like George Bancroft and Mercy Otis Warren. This last factor brings the second part of the conclusions, which is more important than the first part. The argument that the war was a revolution is essentially universal among the progressives; that is, it is universal among those who took â€Å"progressive† world-views as they wrote. But the flip side of revolution is consensus. Turner, Becker, Jameson, et al. argue that the war was fought for, or at least caused, greater democracy in the colonies. This may be true; that is, wars tend to cause the end of Old Orders and ancient regimes, but that is hardly a singular thing to say about the American Revolution. All of our wars have caused some sort or other of significant social change and reform. The argument that is to be brought forward is this: in being â€Å"revolutionary,† the colonists demonstrated a sort of consensus thinking. If they wanted greater democracy, that was not really change so much as it was an affirmation of the existing order. Those who gained votes and other social privileges were saying, in effect, â€Å"The existing order is pretty good; it is so good in fact that I want a greater role in it. I want a bigger piece of it.† These were no sans-culottes cutting off the heads of kings and aristocrats as the Frenchmen did in their frenzied Terror. No; these were Englishmen who desired home rule, who at first sought to preserve local autonomy and loyalty to the King, not to Parliament; and it was only later that they slipped into the position of demanding sovereignty. The second half of the rebuttal to the thesis that states that the war was a revolution because of the change it wrought is this: since all of the wars the United States has fought have yielded dramatic social and political change, then they must all be revolutionary. The World Wars, Korea and Vietnam, the American Civil War: all were revolutions in this context. But then the term begins to lose its meaning to a sort of rhetorical inflation, just as what were once bit players in Hollywood are now listed as â€Å"stars,† and what were once â€Å"stars† are now â€Å"superstars.† (What’s next, novas, and supernovas?) To put it another way, if the wars were all revolutionary, then none of them were. This brings back Turner’s statement quoted at the beginning of this paper. What he said in 1920 could easily have been said a few years after the end of the Vietnam War. Or it could just as easily be said today, with reference to the upheavals being caused by the Information Revolution. What of the events in Eastern Europe and their consequences in the United States as the realization hits that the Cold War appears to be over?What the colonists sought was control that they had already been accustomed to having. Parliament was not in the colonists’ â€Å"chain of command† in 1700, and for the House of Commons to attempt to place itself there was seen as a loss to the colonists. It was change that they resisted, not what they sought; they largely felt that they were resisting an invasion of their political birthright, not that they were breaking bold new political ground. It would therefore be very easy to argue that the war was fought as a reactionary response, no t as a radical one. And, as the businessmen like to say, â€Å"The bottom line is the bottom line.†The bottom line, in this case, is this: classwise, those who ruled in 1770 ruled in 1790; the Parliament, a bicameral legislature, was replaced by the Congress, itself a bicameral legislature; the King was replaced by a President, who could very easily have ruled for life, setting a tradition that the head-of-state-for-life would be chosen without the benefit of heredity. There is more, of course: only propertied white males had the vote, both before and after the war; the end of slavery was not exactly accelerated by the war, though there were a few (relatively minor) gains for blacks; the economic system was not changed, nor was the class structure, except to forbid a nobility that in any case did not truly exist in the colonies before the war. Perhaps Richard Hofstadter put it best in his statement regarding progressive historians in 1968: â€Å"Since the time of the Bolshevik Revolution, it has been hard for most Americans, and especially those who make our world policies, to recapture the memory of the early United States, Constitution and all, as a revolutionary force† (Hofstadter, 284). There is certainly much validity to Hofstadter’s view. Perhaps we cold warriors are ourselves cauterized to the sensitivity of the progressive historians. It is when one examines the period in which the progressive historians wrote that the most sense is made of their work. Historiography is nought if it is not a reflection of the times that spawned it. Just as the Progressives were involved in a movement to improve the lot of the common man in a time of technological change, so did the progressive historians see the fighters of the Revolution as fighters for the lot of the common man. And in just the same way, as the new country was first forging its nationalistic unity, did George Bancroft see the war as a virtuous, nationalistic struggle. And likewise did Charles Beard, the erstwhile firebrand, see the Constitution in a different light in 1944, when democratic governments were only just beginning to win the first round in a deadly fight for their lives, than he did in 1913, the last year in which Civilization was spelled with a capital â€Å"C.† Could Beard have seen the war and its resulting constitution in any other light t han the light in which the horrors of World War I were viewed in the 1920s and 1930s, that economic â€Å"special interests† held all the cards and manipulated the rest of us like so many puppets, making us fight and slaughter one another on a whim designed to make them still more money?Historical literature is a reflection of the contemporary events of its writers. When one strips away the influence of the times that colored the views of the writers discussed in this report, one must conclude by looking at the results that the war was one for independence, not a true revolution. Voltaire was right on target when he said that there are truths that are not for all men, nor for all times. BibliographyBibliographyBeard, Charles A. An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1913. Beard, Charles A. and Mary. Basic History of the United States. New York: Doubleday, Doran, and Company, 1944. Becker, Carl. Beginnings of the American People. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1922. Becker, Carl. The History of Political Parties in the Province of New York, 1760-1776. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin, 1909. Billias, George Athan, ed. The American Revolution: How Revolutionary Was It? New York: Holt Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1990. Originally published in 1965. Used for background reading only. Fiske, John. The American Revolution, vol. II. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1891. Hart, Albert Bushnell. Formation of the Union, 1750-1829. New York: Longmans, Green, and Company, 1894. Hofstadter, Richard. The Progressive Historians: Turner, Beard, Parrington. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1968. Jameson, J. Franklin. The American Revolution Considered as a Social Movement. Princeton University: Princeton University Press, 1973. Originally published in 1926. Schlesinger, Arthur M. Sr. The Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution. New York: Facsimile Library, Inc., 1939. Originally published in 1918. Turner, Frederick Jackson. The Frontier in American History. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1962. Originally published in 1920.

The Use of Banduras Social Learning Theory in Schools free essay sample

One of the central tenants of Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory, which is also called Social Cognitive Theory, is that â€Å"aggression in children is influenced by the reinforcement of family members, the media, and the environment† (Bandura, 1975, pp. 206-208). Evans (1989) suggested that the basis for Bandura’s theories came from work completed by researchers Miller and Dollard (1941) who suggested that human development is actively influenced by â€Å"response consequences† (Evans, 1989, p. 4), but regardless of the impetus for Bandura’s work, he is most known for his work regarding aggression in children. This paper will focus on why the principles of Bandura’s Social Learning Theory will benefit leaders in school environments as they address behavioral problems from a human development perspective One of the most famous experiments Bandura is credited with is the Bobo doll experiment. This experiment examines Bandura’s theory that aggression has three aspects—how the aggression develops, what provokes the behavior and what elements determine that an individual would resort to aggressive behavior in a similar situation in the future. We will write a custom essay sample on The Use of Banduras Social Learning Theory in Schools or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page While conducting this experiment, Bandura had a group of children watch a video where an actress is attacking a plastic clown. The aggressive behavior shown includes the actress punching the doll, hitting it with objects and hurling it around the room (Bandura, 1976). Next, these children were placed in a room that had similar toys shown in the video, but they were not allowed to touch the toys. Consequently, the children became upset with this restriction and after a length of time, the researchers found that 88% of the children exhibited the same aggressive behavior witnessed on the video. What is more disturbing is that eight months later a resounding 40% of the same group of children exhibited aggressive behaviors that were similar to their previous conduct (Isom, 1998). The Social Learning Theory suggests that humans learn through direct and vicarious reinforcement. Bandura proposed the construct of self-efficacy as a powerful mediator influencing which learned behaviors we actually attempt and continue. Therefore, from a human developmental perspective, the self-efficacy characteristic can aid students in comprehending the link between current behavior and future consequences (Evans, 1989). Bandura also noted that there were four distinct processes that influence a child’s behavior – attention, retention, motor reproduction and motivation. During the attention phase, a child will observe behaviors conducted around them and if this attention is thorough enough, the child will absorb the reactions and reasons for the aggressive behavior modeled. Bandura believed that the second stage, retention, is also vitally important because it is this re-enactment that causes the behavior to be transferred to the long-term memory of the child. Of course, even if the child has memorized the actions, they still need to have the physical attributes necessary to reproduce an action they have seen, but there is little physical dexterity needed to hit or punch something (Isom, 1998). The final phase of this process is the motivation for the behavior. In Bandura’s experiment the children observed an adult praised for behaving badly, and this is enough, under Bandura’s theory, to cement those actions into a repeatable response by the child at a later stage. Bandura believes this theory also supports the rise in the number of aggressive teens in high crime areas (Isom, 1998). It is this correlation between witnessed behaviors and witnessed consequences that could prove the most valuable to leaders attempting to solve problems in a school environment. If Bandura’s theory is accurate, then it is logical to assume that a manipulation of the data processes could also be true, in that the children in Bandura’s experiment only exhibited aggressive behavior after they witnessed the positive consequences the behavior caused for the actress in the video. Therefore, an extension of the old adage good things happen to good people might be utilized with positive results amongst the more aggressive children in the classroom. This theory will inevitably aid leaders in solving behavior problems from a human development perspective. Although there is no evidence that Bandura conducted follow up studies that measured the level of aggression shown in children after watching an adult berated or punished for their violent actions, it is plausible to expect that it is the confirmation aspect of the behavior that might be more influential on children as opposed to the aggressive behavior in isolation. Even from a young age, a child might exhibit a form of behavior that might be innovative, but it is the reaction the child receives from that pattern of behavior that sets the model of behavior as a response to certain actions. Therefore, if school leaders utilize Bandura’s theory in the academic environment, we can diminish aggressive behaviors and nurture positive and constructive individuals. References Bandura, A. (1975). Social learning and personality development: NJ: Holt, Rinehart Winston, Inc. Bandura, A. , Ribes-Inesta, E. (1976). Analysis of delinquency and aggression. NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates, Inc. Evans, R. I. (1989). Albert Bandura: The man and his ideas, NY: Praeger. Isom, M. D. (1998, November 30). The social learning theory. Retrieved March 3, 2005, from http://www. criminology. fsu. edu/crimtheory/bandura. htm. Miller Dollard. (1941). Social learning and imitation. New Haven: Yale University Press.