Apology of Socrates Summart - 924 Words

Summary Platos The Apology is an account of the speech Socrates makes at the trial in which he is charged with not recognizing the gods recognized by the state, inventing new deities, and corrupting the youth of Athens. Socrates speech, however, is by no means an apology in our modern understanding of the word. The name of the dialogue derives from the Greek apologia, which translates as a defense, or a speech made in defense. Thus, in The Apology, Socrates attempts to defend himself and his conduct--certainly not to apologize for it. For the most part, Socrates speaks in a very plain, conversational manner. He explains that he has no experience with the law courts and that he will instead speak in the manner to which he is†¦show more content†¦Indeed, his wisdom is deeply humbling, as it casts all pretensions to human knowledge into question. With a smile, Socrates accepts that he is better off the less he thinks he knows, and passes this wisdom along with appropriate wit. This irony, then, deeply informs the elenchus, Socrates preferred mode of inquiry. It is important to note that almost all written accounts of Socrates are dialogues (The Apology is an exception)--Socrates never lectures on his beliefs in a one-sided manner. This supports the idea that Socrates has no knowledge of his own to put forward. His method of inquiry consists of identifying what his interlocutor thinks he knows, and then slowly dissecting those claims of knowledge. The Apology, however, is presented almost exclusively in the form of a monologue, because Socrates is not discussing and dismantling any one particular claim so much as he is laying out the method behind these dismantlings. As such, it is an invaluable commentary on the other dialogues. The elenchus acts to disabuse Socrates interlocutors of their pretensions and thereby deepens their wisdom. For Socrates, wisdom and virtue are closely connected, so his efforts serve to improve society as a whole. In Socrates view, if we are all wise, none of us will ever do wrong, and our self-knowledge will lead to healthier, more fulfilling lives. Thus, the philosopher, according to Socrates, does not merely follow abstract intellectual pursuits for the sake of

The Morality of Zoos Free Essays

The word zoo is a fairly broad term. Zoos are most commonly thought of as an attraction rather than a means for education. More importantly, they are rarely associated with the survival of the human race. We will write a custom essay sample on The Morality of Zoos or any similar topic only for you Order Now While zoos are a form of entertainment for the public and a taxable industry for the government; most of them do in fact research the animals they have in their captivity. This research can be beneficial and life saving for humans and if it were not for this testing, we would not have many key vaccines that we have today. For the sake of this paper the term zoo can be applied to all animals in captivity. This includes those for entertainment, medical testing, and rehabilitation/protection. Tom Reagan wrote on if zoos are morally defensible, but included all of the previously listed forms of captivity under the title of â€Å"zoo†. He argues that zoos are immoral because of rights based principles; however, he fails to see the implications of assuming that animals have equal rights to humans. Although his conclusion is false, it is morally wrong and unnecessary to keep an animal in captivity purely for public amusement and financial gain. Reagan presents two views in proving the immorality of zoos. First is the utilitarian standpoint which claims that the suffering of animals being in captivity far outweighs the suffering of humans had the animals not been in captivity. The second view is the rights based principle, which is that animals have rights and should not be in captivity. He sides with the latter of the two theories, deciding that the utilitarian view fails to asses all of the components of human suffering without zoos. He claims that animals morally have rights to freedom and respect thus making it immoral for humans to take this away from them. The real hitch in his theory though, is how he proposes the moral rights of animals. He claims that they have rights because of their awareness to their existence and therefore knowledge of suffering and pleasure. However, although animals are aware, they are not conscious of cause and effect. They don’t see the morality behind suffering, they just instinctually avoid it. To ascertain that they have the same rationalization powers as humans do on deciding if their actions are causing pleasure or pain, is to give their awareness too much credit. A good paper to prove this point, is Carl Cohen’s Do Animals Have Rights? In it he responds to Regan’s theory that animals have rights. Cohen decides that Regan’s biggest error is associating two different versions of the broadly used term â€Å"inherent value† to formulate his conclusion. Regan claims that because animals have inherent value they are moral agents and should not be used in a fashion that makes them less important than humans. However, Cohen says that just because they have inherent value it does not mean they are moral beings. Surely because they feel pain it is immoral to cause them to suffer needlessly but this does not give them the same rights as humans. Animals live in an amoral world without respect or knowledge of other living thing’s rights. Since they are unaware of morals and rights, it seems absurd to hold them to the same moral standard as humans. It would appear then that when deciding on the moral legitimacy of zoos, it would be correct to separate human rights from the natural laws that animals live by. The natural world is based on survival. Animals kill other animals to survive and out of instinct. House cats torture their prey before killing it, and bears eat their prey alive. Animals act without the knowledge of other living beings having a right to life because it is not a matter of rationalization for them. They do not see the suffering of other animals as a moral issue because they are incapable of grasping such a concept. Because we as humans do have the ability to rationalize we also have the responsibility to avoid causing harm and suffering to other living things. However, humans need to survive too, and if it means keeping animals for medical testing then this should not be looked at any differently than a wolf attacking a human so as to not starve. Animals already use other animals as tools for survival; and if this is the case as it is in medical testing, then captivity should be allowed. Same goes for animal rehabilitation and protection from extinction. Although wildlife preserves are more ideal for most animals in this case, even a small enclosure zoo could be in that particular animal’s best interest concerning its health. Small enclosures and preserves can also give humans lots on insight into the daily routines of animals so as to better protect them from extinction. What is inhumane and immoral however, is using zoos for monetary gain and personal entertainment. Through evolution some animals have become accustomed to human interaction and unnatural surroundings. Those that are not, however, should not be put in captivity for no reason. That’s why we have house pets. How to cite The Morality of Zoos, Essay examples

Executive Summary Leonard V. Pepsico free essay sample

Executive Summary Leonard v. PepsiCo This case involved a contract dispute between Mr. John Leonard and PepsiCo Inc. arising from the claims that an advertisement by PepsiCo for a Harrier jet aircraft in exchange for Pepsi points was a valid contract. The court found that the advertisement was not an offer and ruled for the defendant. In order for a contract to be valid there must be agreement, consideration, contractual capacity and the object must be lawful. In an agreement there must be a meeting of the minds which indicates mutual assent by both parties. There is no meeting of the minds when one side is obviously joking (Advice Company, 2008). We will write a custom essay sample on Executive Summary Leonard V. Pepsico or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page If one side is to be held to a contract then the other side must give up something in exchange, which is called consideration. Both parties to a contract must have the capability or capacity to enter into a contract. A drugged or mentally-impaired person has impaired capacity and chances are a court may not hold that person to the contract (Advice Company, 2008). The objective theory of contracts holds that the intention to enter into a contract is judged by the reasonable person standard (would a reasonable person see it to be true). An offer that was made as part of a joke or gets would not be considered a valid contract under the objective theory. This offer of a Harrier jet was a gimmick that was added to the advertisement as a method of injecting humor and entertainment to the advertising campaign. Another reason that this was not a valid contract is that courts generally do not consider advertisements to be valid offers. Generally an advertisement is considered to be an invitation to make an offer (Cheeseman, 2006). The advertisement may seem like it would be a unilateral agreement in that it offered items to people that performed the act of submitting Pepsi points. The advertisement showed a wide array of items but never stated that they would offer every item. There was even a statement that items were not available in all areas. There was no meeting of the minds in this situation. An advertisement is generally not considered to be an offer because it could have a detrimental effect on businesses that advertised a product and then ran out of it. In that situation, a person could sue for breach of contract (Cheeseman, 2006). The Pepsi Company’s advertisement did not present a clear and objective intention to be bound by a contract for the Harrier jet.