Explain Kants Ethical theories Essay Example for Free

Explain Kants Ethical theories EssayKants ethical theory is an absolute and deontological theory. This kernel that humans are seeking the ultimate end called the supreme good also known as the summon Bonnum. Kant says that morality is a categorical imperative, this is a duty which must always be obeyed in all possible situations. A categorical imperative is what is needed to find what is right or wrong. Kant argued that to typify morally is to do matchlesss duty, and ones duty is to obey the moral law. Kant also reckon that there was no room for emotion. Kant believe that categorical imperative helps us to know which actions are obligatory and which are forbidden. There are three principles within the categorical imperatives these include Universal law, conduct humans as ends In themselves and Act as if you live in a kingdom of ends. Universal law is putting minority views first. If it is wrong for one person than it is wrong for everyone. An action must not be carried out u nless the person believes that the aforesaid(prenominal) situation all people would act in the same way.Treat humans as ends in themselves is respecting a person. This means that you can never use human beings for another purpose or to exploit or enslave them, this is because humans are the highest point of creation and demand unique marchment. Act as if you live in a kingdom of ends, this means treat all with respect. Kant believed that all of these helped to create maxims. A maxim is an absolute moral statement about a universal truth. For example a maxim pip is wrong.Therefore it is a universal rule that murdering anyone is wrong. Kant believes that we can only be true moral agents if we are free to make our own decisions. He argues that our independence to make rational choices is what separates us from animals. He says that is you can do something, you should be able to do something, and if you cannot do something it is unfair to be asked. E.g. it is unfair to ask mortal i n a wheelchair to run a marathon.

A war between the United States and Iran Essay Example for Free

A war between the United States and Iran EssayPreparations for a massive military strike on Iran argon in full swing by the United States of the States. But will these preparations convert to actual bombing on the ground? Are the cardinal countries going to be embroiled in a war soon? These are the questions that are being asked everywhere, in hushed stairs if it is the Pentagon corridors and terrified glances if it is the streets of Tehran. With Iran defying the UNs withdraw for restraint in its nuclear programme openly, it has only become successful in in tensifying the speculations about the war. The issue here is Is it inevitable? Before we get in in to the nitty-gritty of the Iranian crisis, let us look into the different causes of the wars that go been raged in the new-fangled future. The twentieth century demoraliseed with World War I in 1914 and since then, it is interesting to note that the wars live a particular pattern. The causes have always been dependent on three factors Systemic factors, domestic politics and the occasion of the Decision maker. Hence, we would also try to view the US-Iran issue through this prism. However, comparing the pre-nuclear wars in a pre-nuclear age with wars in post-nuclear age would be a barren of space.Instead, it would do well if we look into the causes that can trigger a war in the present times where possessing nuclear post is not only a stark reality simply also the bone of contention in this particular case. It is the claim by the Iranian government that they are ready to start developing nuclear weapons is what has triggered the whole issue. And ironically, it is the very reason that is playing a deterrent in the war. Remarkable is the fact that it is only America that is concerned with Iran onerous to possess the deadly weapon.The first and foremost question that would help us in determining the fate of this discussion would be Why is America so bformer(a)ed? America, the self-declared big brot her of all the earths on this planet, takes up the burden of keep an eye oning peace on earth. To quote Eisenhower, Freedom is indivisible.. . America takes it as its personal duty to ensure that Freedom is maintained all over the creation. If it was Communism that was a threat against Freedom during the cold war, today it is the irresponsible rulers of nations that possess or get to possess nuclear weapons that are threatening the Freedom in the world.And when Truman declared that We cannot hope to maintain our freedom, if freedom elsewhere is wiped out, he meant it. However, the reasons why Israeli attack on Palestine killing hundreds of elegantians is not wiping out Freedom but North Korea developing nuclear capability is has interesting reasons. History has been construe to this characteristic of America where it deems it is her right to attack any country it wills to protect the attacked countrys freedom. match to Jutta Welders (Pg 37, culture of insecurity), the compell ing reason for America to act in this fashion is to maintain its supremacy in the world.An act of aggression under the cloak of Freedom fighters becomes a necessity to project itself as a strong nation which can not only defend itself but protect other countries as well. A bright example would be the Cuban missile crisis. When this crisis occurred, many were of the view that it was kinda unnecessary for America to take up such a strong and aggressive tone. However, it did do that and consort to Jutta Weldes, it is the compelling reason to showcase its power that led it to act strong. In fact, Jutta Weldes considers the Cuban missile crisis as not a crisis at all.To quote her, .. crises are social constructions that are forged by state officials in the course of producing and reproducing state identity. She is of the view that it depends on the social construction that makes us unsex a situation as Crisis. It depends on how we view a nation that determines whether it is a crisis o r not. For example, Iran possessing nukes is such a big issue and is immediately converted into a Crisis whereas an equally notorious state like Pakistan possessing the deadly weapons is not.It has been time and again proved that large number of terrorist activities has their funds traced back to Pakistan. However, Pakistan escaped the beat out but Iraq was destroyed in the name of weapon of mass destructions The only explanation for this is the prism that US uses to define its foreign policies. Attack the nations that would give it a chance to maintain her supremacy in the world. Attacking Pakistan would back fire as it has the capability to strike back. And attacking Iraq or Iran will definitely be easier as these countries have a notorious reputation which required whatever policing and also are comparative weaklings.Hence, the systemic reasons for US to wage a war against Iran are quite a obvious a chance to police a nation that has a history of supporting the biggest threat world faces today, that is, terrorism and simultaneously reaffirm its substitution class as the superpower which it seems to be losing to China. If attacking Iran salvages some pride for US, the role of domestic politics in the whole affair plays another important role. US, the strongest nation in the world today, are also the most vulnerable to attacks by variant terrorist outfits.After 9/11, it has taken its ending of fighting terrorism quite seriously. However, the path it has chosen to fight it is not very often appreciated. The aftermath of 9/11 saw it attacking Afghanistan and driving out the Taliban ruthlessly. Afghanistan was the target because it render the most dangerous terrorist outfit in the world, Al-Qaeda. Their slogan was a regime change is essential for to smoke out the terrorist and the whole war was essentially to transfix one man Osama Bin Laden.The attack resulted in the killings of thousands of innocent Afghanistan who were already tired by the war torn p olitics of Taliban. America could never clutch the villain. However, it overthrew Taliban and today, a democratically elected government exists in place of it. Is Afghanistan a changed country today? Has America finally left its shores after the war? both(prenominal) the answers are No Terrorism has been controlled and yes, America is still guarding Afghanistan with its air raids on civilians.The failure of capturing Osama in Laden was quite frustrating for the Bush administration and it was in search for a new scapegoat. And they found the perfect one in the form of Saddam Hussain. Suddenly, Iraq, the starving nation which was already bogged down by various sanctions and its citizens further troubled by the tyrannic rule of Saddam Hussain finds itself in the course of fire. The reasons disposed are quite fishy. America is suddenly in self-denial of confidential information that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussain should be relieved of his responsibili ty of taking care of themThe reasons were uttered in the same chilling tone of how Iraq, which cant survive without taking aid from UN, poses the danger of destroying the whole world. The solution that is needed is again a Regime Change. America level-headed introduction of democracy in the country will solve the problem. Thus, despite the worldwide protests that marked the growing contempt against America and the UN Security Council voting against a military attack, America single-handedly went about with its war on terrorism.After 3 years of war, a executed Saddam Hussain, uncountable civilian deaths and threats of civil war ( not to forget the daily suicide attacks by shiities), no one found alleged WMDs. Today, it has been almost accepted that the report on WMD was wrong The flak US received for the irresponsible behavior is enormous and its image in the middle east has gone for a beating as today, many believe that US is waging war on Islam rather than Terrorists. Its belief t hat a regime change is the only solution that can solve the problems of the world is quite naive.It proposes the same thing when it comes to Iran. Seymour M. Hersh, in journal Fact Annals of national security had mentioned his conversation with Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert who is the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and who has been supporter of President Bush, who clearly spoke of regime change the ultimate solution. He said, So abundant as Iran has an Islamic Republic, it will have a nuclear-weapons program, at least clandestinely. The key issue is therefore, how long will the present regime last? This obsolescent view that regime change or toppling of government in another country and forcing them to democracy has never worked in obtaining the much desired goal of the war peace. In fact, statistics have shown that the transition period from any kind of rule to democracy has always been bloody and nations become quite war-prone (Democratization and war). The most recent examples are, of course, Afghanistan and Iraq, which are facing gruesome infighting among themselves. So why is America so bent upon making a regime change in those countries?Apart from the unmistakable reasons of dismantling the network of terrorism, experts are of the view that it is also the question of who controls the oil in the future that has been a major driving force behind the American policy. Middle East is the home for oil throughout the world and it is the control of oil that is US after. With its fast disappearance and soaring prices (reasons partly because the war that US is waging), the control of the oil fields will definitely be beneficial for America. In fact, the one who controls oil in the future is the undisputed king.This goes in line with the policy of US for whom displaying its authority is very important as it seems to be losing the crown to the exponential growth of China. Therefore, attacking Iran is also a desp erate flak by US to reiterate that it is America that is still calling the shots. However, attacking Iran has its own dangers. The most important and the immediate is the image of US in the Islamic world. Its continuous attacks on Islamic nations has made it poised against Islam and has become quite unpopular in the Middle East.If not anything else, America through these attacks is only getting successful in inviting the wrath of the people living there. In a conversation with Seymour M Hersh, Richard Armitrage was echoing the same sentiments What will happen in the other Islamic countries? What ability does Iran have to reach us and touch us globally that is, terrorism? Will Syria and Lebanon up the pressure on Israel? What does the attack do to our already diminished international standing? And what does this mean for Russia, China and the U. N Security Council? Yet how many in Washington will consider these questions?According to Seymour, there are people out there who belie ve it is the way to operate If domestic politics are reasons enough to wage war, the role of the purpose maker is of paramount importance. It is the head who declares wars and in this case Bush has quite a penchant for declaring wars. It is widely believed that Bush will declare war against Iran before leaving the White house. In fact, President Bush believes that He must do what no democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the resolution to do, and that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.The personal ambition of Bush also seems to make the fear of turning Teheran in to a sea of fire in to reality. Moreover, with the failure of Iraq where they achieved instant victory but not a decisive one, Bush administration is looking out for scapegoats in a large way. Iran with its close proximity with Iraq is believed to be a supplier of arms and ammunitions to the Shiite attackers in the troubled Iraq. Those attacks are not only killing innocent Iraqis but also resul ting in the death of hundreds of American troops out there.In short, it is a personal failure for Bush as a president as he forced his military in to war for no reasons. It becomes very important for him to fathom some pride and Iran seems to be a ripe case. oneness House member told Seymour when speaking of Bush The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision. Therefore, you have President Bush hold to bomb Iran at the slightest pretext. But how can attacking Iran solve the Iraq problem? The strategy that is being followed by the Americans is to start infighting in Iran and force it to take some irresponsible action like an up in the activities along the Iraqi border.The first response to any of American disturbance in Iran is believed to be given across the Iraq border which presently houses many American troops. The white house hopes to take advantage of that situation and make it an excuse to attack Iran. This reason is widely believed to work as the blame of first strike can always be switched to Iran and America will only be fighting for Safeguarding its citizens. Combining the preceding(prenominal) reasons, America declaring war on Iran seems to be a matter of time. The systemic, domestic politics and decision maker reasons a need for another war.The attack on Iran will accomplish three important factors for America. 1. America is believed to be the favorite target for the terrorists and its war on terrorism is necessary to protect itself as a nation. Moreover, this would give the image of the departing super power the much needed boost. An attack on Iran will give the masculine quality to the nation that it believes will extend awe across the world. 2. The second and more compelling reason for the attack is the role that domestic politics plays in this issue. Attack on Iran will bring about a regime change which will help America post Freedom there.This in other words mean another animal government that would act on the whims of US. This is quite beneficial as this gives it direct control over the oil fields of Iran along with Iraqs, thanks to the WMD ghosts. So, that means with a single strike, not only do they believe that terrorism and nukes will be taken care of but also the oil fields. 3. The ternion reason is President Bush. His stint as President of America has mainly been marred by Wars. If in the past it was Afghanistan, now it is Iraq. Apparently, both have them have been failures as there have been no decisive victories.The victories have only been fast as is expected from a war between the super power and a starving nation. Iran war will give him the much needed boost to his image as this war can be a grand opportunity to pass the blame on Iran for the Iraq fiasco. Taking all these reasons into considerations, attack by America on Iran for possessing Nukes is quite imminent. Experts say Iran is still five to ten years away from developing any kind of weapon. However, America is bent upon going ahead with its plans. Therefore, nukes or no nukes, Iran is the golden opportunity to accomplish a lot many tasks. Nuclear disarmament is just one of the small ones.

Philosophies from Aquinas, Augustine, and Irenaeus and other theologians Essay Example for Free

Philosophies from Aquinas, Augustine, and Irenaeus and other theologians EssayThe study of religion and philosophy is ceaselessly confronted with the problem of shame and its broad association to nether region. In facing this debacle, in that location is a tendency for religion to deny the globe of disgust and clearly train that it is a mere event in the undeveloped minds of people. Religion may also uphold that thither is a competent rivalry between worthless and honourable as aversion force out be considered as a rival authority, containing power equal to the divine good. It can also be derived that savage is the imperfect cooperation in the good explained under the presence of a deity deemed as omnibenevolent and omniscient.Some response concerning the flagitious include that debates which inculcate that the true unleash will cannot be established without the possibility of lou delinquencyess. This idea can be translated to the notion that gentle worldly co ncerns gentlemans are not able to understand and comprehend God, that apparitional growth and development necessisitates suffering and that evil is the imp symbolize of effect of the f wholeen and disrupted world. M twain disciplines have attempted to provide a concrete translation of evil and fumble and the proposed assumptions on the connection of evil to blaze have encountered denials coming from other scholars.In this paper, multiple philosophies and valuable insights concerning the association of evil to hell on earth will be explored. The teachings of doubting Thomas Aquinas, Irenaeus and Augustine and of others will be discussed in order to define evil and sin, describe the relationshipof evil to sin, and to explicate the difference and the causality of sin and evil in the contemporary world. This papers central focus is on the inquiry Every evil is sin, solely is all sin evil? The Teachings of Thomas Aquinas on Evil and Sin The sentiment of evil by Thomas Aquinas an d his entire miscellany of philosophy are inherently grounded upon the teachings of the St.Augustine who created a philosophical theological position on evil. Evil is an English noun that is comm except used today to describe anything that is undeniably horrendous, particularly in the aspect of valet de chambre behavior. However, Thomas Aquinas says that the term evil has more inclusive sense than evil does for people. According to Aquinas, we are dealing with evil whenever we are faced by whatever can be thought of as a case of authorizeing compendious. For Aquinas, at that place is no evil substance in the world and neither God nor man creates evil.In saying this Aquinas proves that the world is created and governed by a perfectly good God who is also omnipotent and omniscient. This teaching negates the melodic phrase of gentlemans who say that each time more or less of the good stray aways from an object whence it is evil. Aquinas says no this argument by declaring th at no evil exists materially. Aquinas explicates that compassionate bes are all in all good provided have the tendency that some of their goodness will be removed. Aquinas strongly argues that at that place is a serious sense in which it can be thought of as lacking(p) in macrocosm. Take for instance the thought of Adolf Hitler as wholly good.This example may raise several criticisms since Hitler has enjoyed being a household name for evil, but it is to illustrate Aquinass concept of evil caused by the removal of good. For Aquinas, Hitler is good- he has competent brain, his physique is complete, and he almost bares resemblance to God. But Hitler has some of his goodness removed when he tries to reign over the world with tyranny. According to Aquinas, evil is on that point hardly in the sense that something is missing. Aquinas continues to say that what is not there cannot be thought of as made to be by the source of the being of things. In this sense, Aquinas follows Au gustines thought and says that God can never be the cause of evil because evil is not an actual thing but the absence seizure of a good that ought to be present. What causes people to be bad is the gap between who they are and how they should be but are not. Aquinas points rules out his concept of evil by illustrating that there will be no badness unless there goodness yet there can be goodness without any badness. In the aspect of sin, Aquinas writes that it is not the disobedience of irrational authority, but it is a violation of well-being.According to Aquinas, heologians may describe sin as an act againts God and philosophers may signify it as opposed to reason, but it is St. Augustine who aptly defines sin. Aquinas explains that it is more accurate to define sin as being setback to the eternal law rather contrary to human reason, especially since the eternal law includes many things beyond the scope of reason, such(prenominal) as matters of faith. Even though Aquinas is an a dvocate of the philosophy of Augustine, he recognizes that the Augustine sometimes talks notwithstanding about will in describing sin.Aquinas explains thaat the exterior act, which is the veruy substance of the sin, is evil itsefl and consequently it is necessary to include exterior acts in the definition of sin. However, Augustine and Aquinas both agree that the sin is evil because it harms and diminishes natural good. Aquinas takes into consideration the application of the natural law. According to Aquinas, when it is utter that all sins are evil but not because they are prohibited, that prohibition is understood as an act of positive law. Aquinas emphasizes that since the natural law comes fron the eternal law and acts of positive law are derived from the natural law, and then all sins are evil. It is argued by Aquinas that evil is the privation of good and an individual can identify the extent of privation by what is left after such action. In this idea, Aquinas is stressin g that what rebrinys of good after every sin is the resembling, since there remains after every sin the very nature of the soul and the freedom of choice by which humans can rent good and evil. Aquinas tells that all sins are equal and are evil. The focal point of Aquinas in saying that all sins are evil and that all sins are equal is the only main source capable of commanding humans what they ought to be. As a theologian, Aquinas gives emphasis to God as the main source the nature and eternal and divine law. Aquinas says that since all are the same in turning away from God, all sins are equal. For Aquinas, every sin is evil because it is a dispute from reason and law. Aquinas describes sin as having no cause because it has the nature of evil.It has been discussed earlier that evil is the removal of goodness whats is lacking in humans as a wholly good. Aquinas emphasizes that what is missing cannot be thought of as made to be by the source of the being of things. The same goes f or sins. This concept makes both sin and evil as original which thrive on will that act against reason and divine moral law. equivalent with evil, God can never be the source of sin. Likewise evil can never be the cause of sin. In this sense, the evil of punishment serves as the sequel to sin. He compares evil of guilt to sin and declares that they have no difference.In saying that sin has a cause, Aquinas is quick to clarify that such cause is not necessarily a cause for sin can be impeded. This musing denotes that if there should be a necessary cause for sins, then people will keep on making sins since there is a cause inherent to them that makes them commit sins. Such notion echoes the perspective of Aquinas on whether sin has an internal cause. Aquinas argues that if sin has an internal cause, then man would always be sinning and since it has a cause, there will always be an effect. Aquinas also defines sin by mentioning virtue.Aquinas says, But sin is evil because it takes awa y virtue. Therefore, all sins are equally evil, since every one of them equally takes away virtue. Aquinas thinks of sins as contrary to virtues and that all virtues are equal. Therefore, Aquinas reaffirms that all sins are equal. He also come up with the idea of rancor that is the equalizer of all sins. Aquinas says that sin has malice in relation to turning away from God. This feature in relation to the deviation from God states that mint tag the malice of sins as being more serious.Aquinas adds that if circumstances should themselves have malice, they constitute species of sin and if they should not in themselves have any malice, there is no reason why they should make the sins more serious. On the on the hand, the diversity in sins that other arguments are pointing to is a mere presentation of virtuously indifferent genus. Overall, Aquinas writes that all sins are evil in a sense that they both result in being unnatural, the adversity of the natural rule that man ought t o observe and obey. Evil and Sin According To AugustineMany of St. Augustines teachings on evil substantiate Aquinas concept. They both believe that the immutable God created only good things and He alone is the source of all being. Augustine negates all forms of theological and metaphysical dualism and puts great emphasis on God who is wholly good. According to Augustine, there is no dualism existing in the problem of evil. The thought of evil as not a being, a thing, or substance or entity liberates him from the Manichaean dualism,the public opinion that there exists two powerful beings, the good and evil.He realizes that all the God created are metaphysically and ontologically good in their being. He proposes that if evil were a being, a thing or an entity, then the problem fo evil will not be solved because it has a source. If the evil comes from God, then God is not all good and if it does not come from God, then He is not the powerful creator of all things. Augustine says tha t God is a spiritual and not a corporeal being and he rejects Manichaeisms materialistic dualism but embraces a different dualism between corporeal and spiritual beings, with God, angels, and human soul falling into the latter class. Upon rejecting the Manicheism and its primary concept on the origin of evil, Augustines obliges himself to establish an alternative solution to the origins of evil and starts to proclaim that evil represents a free deviation from God and is not a positive entity in its own right. All of the works of the immutable Creator of men are revelations of Gods nature and wherefore, all of His works are of wholly good. both(prenominal) Augustine and Aquinas believe that evil does not come from God.In his struggle concerning the confusion over evil, Augustine further says that the evil is not something that is completely real biut only fragment that is dependent on that which is absolutely real. According to Augustine, evil is not a thing or substance but he is aware of its existence and that it can be divided into three kinds. Metaphysical evil is the lack of mans graven image not because of his given nature but because they all fall short of complete god that only God can obtain. This is not actually considered evil. The second kind is the physical evil that is the privation of a certain perfection because of nature.This kind is being cleanified by Augustine together with the other theologians as under the jurisdiction of the general order of nature. The third kind if the moral evil, the only real evil. It is a sin or an act opposed to the will of God. The source of the moral evil is the faculty of free will in which man is able to turn away from the right order and deviate himself from the will of God. Augustine says, sin is so voluntary that there is no sin unless it is voluntary. He implies that there needs to be an act of moral will in any sin or the consent to turn away from God and to His will.Augustine emphasizes that moral evil is truly a sin for there is a consent. Sin settles itself in the free will, option, intention, and the motion of the soul, which instigates a wrong order into the world. Evil is nothing but a privation of good until at last a thing ceases altogether to be. An evil will is a kind of will that deviates away from God, the creator. Moreover, Augustine says that it is a disordered love and will, the wrong conformity to Gods will. The writings of Augustine on sin are associated with his Christian definition of evil.Augustine defines sin as the movement or the deviation of will endowed to humans away from God. He furthers his discussion of sin by stating that God can never be the author of sin just as He can never be the source of evil. Such movement of the human will away from the God the Creator is also referred by Augustine as the misdirection. According to him, as there is a misdirection on evil will, there is also a misdirection in the aspect of sin. Augustine explains that sin is therefore an error or untruth and establish upon the mis mood of what is good for us. Augustine says that when people choose to sin, they must have an intention of obtaining goodness or getting discharge of something bad. He suggests that sin is more than an intellectucal error, it is the misdirection of the will. Augustines musing on sin as the misdirection of human will is demonstrated in mans pursuit of bliss or pride. Augustine notes that pride is the an appetite for inordinate exaltation,it when the soul cuts itself from the Source to which it should keep close and somehow makes itself and becomes an end to itself. Augustine continues that inordinate exaltation takes place when the soul is inordinately pleased with itself, and such self-pleasing occurs when the soul falls away away from the unchangeable Good which ought to please the sould far more than the soul can please itself. He also validates his definition of sin by saying that what the people do for the sake of goodness ends in something negative or bad , and what people do in making things good ends in just making things worse.Augustine explains this paradox by writing that except that the happiness of man can come not from himself but only from God, and that to live according to oneself is to sin is to lose God. This paradox explicates that sin is the possibility of man to focus on himself rather than on the wise God. It is therefore suggested that, based upon the writings of Augustine, not all sins are considered evil due to the categorization of evil involving nature. Irenaeus On Evil and Sin Little is cognize about Irenaeus and his works are mostly generated fromScriptures and the biblical domain.The understanding of sin found in the works of Irenaeus of Lyons has some contradictions when compared to the dominant Christian perspective influenced by Augustine in the fifth century. Irenaeus of Lyons interprets Genesis as the disobedience of man with Adam acting like an impulsive chil d. Irenaeus thinks of sin as pains and errors which grow. He says that there is no such a things as original sin or guilt that man inherited from his forefather, Adam. It is seen that he has a different view of the mans fall compared to the teachings of later writers particularly Augustine.This idea posits that Irenaeus thinks of of the fall of Adam and Eve is not a rebellion against God the Creator but is a concrete illlustration of the failure of man to rise to greater heights and that humanity does not lose its original perfection. His view concerning the fall of the humanitys forefatther raises many questions as it does not seems to be based on Scripture but it is derived solely from his rational interpretation. He further suggests that the without loss of life and the presence of evils, humanity will not repent. Unlike, Aquinas and Augustine, Irenaeus imparts that evil comes from God.In this idea, it is clearly manifested that Irenaeus upholds that the appearance of evil is of righteous purpose. According to him, the elements which appear evil, like death are planned by God. He says, it is for this reason therefore that Paul calls Adam himself the pattern of the one to come because the Word, the artisan of the universe, had sketched out in advance, in order to prepare the ground for himself, the future plan of the human race in its relation to to the Son of God, with God first of all establishing natural man order, quite obviously, that he might be save by spiritual man. In the said notion, Iranaeus outlines two distinct phases. Iraneaus writes that the creation of humanity comes first, secondly comes its perfection through the incarnation of the Son, Christ Jesus, who transmits the Spirit of the whole human race. It is evident that the advent of Christ is the sole purpose behind the creation of Adam. It is written that Irenaeus does not identify evil with sin. It is because he acknowledges the two types of evil.The first type is the physical evil tha t Irenaeus refers to as arising from the nature of the creature for its is due to the opposition of contrary forces or to the sequences of events that obey natural laws what seems to be an evil in the short run is a good on the cosmic. According to Irenaeus, the second type of evil is the moral evil that he considers as sin. He declares that this type of evil is sin because it arises from the jealousy of Satan and or certain angels who lured Adam into transgression. Influenced by the writings of Johannine, Irenaeus defines sin as the condition of human existence rather than a collection of individual actions. According to Irenaeus of Lyon, moral evil is to be considered as a sin because it reflects Gods original design that is putting man into the test. This type of evil is generally accounted for mans free will and his ability to discern right from wrong. Irenaeus says that God had foreseen the angels sin as well as that of man, including the consequences, and he had sanctioned i t. Iraneaus places sin in history and writes that the fall of man is the gradual spread of evil because of the inevitability of personal sin, not as a particular shift in the human nature. Moreover, Irenaeus has made a comparison between the natural person and the perfection of the person to describe sin. According to him,body and soul constitute a natural person while the perfect human being is made up of body, soul and spirit. The inclusion of Gods spirit is the essence of Irenaeus idea of the redemption.People have been redemeed and have been saved so that they may flourish into what God wants them to be. For Iranaeus, not all sins can be considered as evil as man is not accountable for some existing evils such as those coming from the natural disasters known as natural evils. The only evil that can be deemed as sin are the moral evils caused by the selfishness of humanity. Sin and Evil According to Other Theologians Lactantius is one of the Christian thinkers to respond to the problem of evil and sin referring solely to Gods laws.According to Lactantius, the party boss good of the humanity is not to be found in the theories of the philosophers, for these have to do things common to animals as well as humans or things not available to all humans. He refers to the one and true God as the chief good and the things which meant to satisfy the body that perishes as not good at all. For him, pleasure, power and wealth are not good and anything and the disobedience of Gods laws are evil and sin. Reinhold Niebuhr belongs to the category of formative Christian moral theorists. He says that sin is required but not necessary. He furthers his explannation of sin by stating that the temptation to sin lies in the human situation itself. Niebuhr stresses that the will and freedom endowed to man is the pedestal of his creativity and it is also his temptation. While Irenaeus declares that people need evil to spiritual grow, Niebuhr upholds his realist theory that peop le do not need sin and no perfection can completely liberate human beings from the reality of sin. Walter Rauschenbusch is included into the group of thinkers who deal with the importance of sin in salvation.According to him, when we undertook to define the nature of sin, we accredited the old definition, that sin is selfishness and rebellion against God , but we insisted on putting humanity into the picture. He further explains that the description of sin as selfishness will be accepted for as long as the humanity is perceived as a great solidarity with God thriving on it. He emphasizes that if sin is selfishness, then mans selfishness consisted in a selfish attitude, in which he was at the centre of the universe, and God and all his fellowmen were means to serve his pleasures, increase his wealth and set take out his egotisms. He also rescue the dosctrine of the origin of sin from literal interpretations by recognizing the active sources of sin in the later generations and in t he contemporary period. He was criticized upon recognizing that both goodness and sinfulness can be determined by social environment. Rauschenbusch explains that what can be evil is dictated by the society and the same goes for sin. He says that the good maybe forced to do bad while the bad maybe forced to do good as dictated by the society. proofIn the tradition of religion and theology, the definition of sin is related to the problem on evil. The question addresed in this paper is whether sin leads to evil or evil leads to sin. The definition of evil and sin according to several theologians were explored in this paper in order to understand the relationship between evil and sin. Based from the literatures studied, it is said that the relationship between evil and sin can be associated with reconciliation, salvation, the fall of Adam and the society itself, and morality.It is clearly manifested that the connection between sin and evil can be interchangeable such that evil can lead to sin and sin can lead to evil. The interchangeable connection is due to the observed idea that evil and sin have the same feature as the deviation from what man ought to be. In this sense, all evil can be sin but not all sins are considered evil due to the fact that sin comprises only the moral and spiritual side of the humanity. The inquiry on whether every sin is evil is answered on the definition of evil in which various theologians categorize into various theories.This paper has observed that every theologian has his or her own conception on evil and sin and it is evident that their concepts have been derived from other theologians who took insights also from other thinkers. This is to say that evil and sin can be both the same in a sense that they both have the same characteristics constructed by thinkers who draw insights from their influences. BIBLIOGRAPHY Aquinas, Thomas. The Subject and Approach of the De Malo, in On Evil, eds. Richard J. Regan and Brian Davies.New York Oxford University Press, 2003. Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologiae Volume 25 Sin. New York Cambridge University Press, 2006. Lacoste, Jean-Yves, ed. Encyclopedia of Christian Theology, Vol 1. New York Routledge, 2005. Mann,William E. Augustine on Evil and Original Sin, in The Cambridge Companion to Augustine, eds. Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann. Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 2001. Wogaman, J. Philip. Christian Ethics A historic Introduction. Kentucky Westminster/John knox Press, 1993.

Evaluating Theories in Developmental Psychology

Evaluating Theories in Developmental PsychologyMichelle HoldingA key bea studied in developmental psychology is kindle and sexual practice. Sex is a biological term which refers to the genetics and DNA which we are born with. Females are born with XX chromosomes and males are born with XY chromosomes. (Hayes 2000, p664) states that sex is the biological quality of the individual, someone is biologically either male or female.Gender is a psychological term which refers to the gender identity a soulfulness identifies with, such as masculine or feminine. Are gender is not modeld at birth but is learned demeanor. (Hayes 2000, p664) states that gender refers to the social aspects of this distinction, to the behaviour and conduct which the individual engages in as they interact with other people.(Hayes 2000, p18) explains the nature/ raise debate as an example of determination in psychology. Nature and nurture are two opposing view-points concerned with what causes someone to devel op. On one hand naturists foresee development as arising through innate factors- inherited characteristics. On the other side it is seen through development and learning.The nature perspective explains that we are born this way, with reference to gender, our identity is chosen before we are born it is found on genetics and DNA. The nurture side of the debate argues that we learn our behaviours through the environment, with reference to gender, we learn our gender identity through our environment and social interactions. iodine system at heart developmental psychology is the social learning theory. at bottom this theory psychologists desire that we learn our behaviours through the environment we are exposed to within our lives. The social learning theory places great importance on observation and reinforcement (Gross 2010).Bandura (1963, cited in Malim Birch, 1998) conducted a study with the aim of seeing if the behaviours of tikeren were reflective of behaviours they had obs erved. This was a lab experiment, children were separated into two groups. The experimental group was shown video footage of adults behaving aggressively towards a Bobo doll. The hold in group were not shown the Bobo doll. The children were then observed during play with a Bobo doll. Bandura found that the children from the experimental group displayed more aggressive behaviour towards the bobo doll than the control group. This study took place within a laboratory which means the experimenters had amply control over variables, however this means it has low ecologic validity as it is not very true to real life.Another study we looked at within the social learning theory is Smith and Lloyd (1978, cited in Hardy Hayes, 1999). This study was to see if mothers treat a baby differently depending upon the baby existence dressed as a boy or girl. A baby was dressed in either girl or boy clothes. The mothers were then asked to get word the childs behaviour. The results showed that the mothers treated the child in a sex stereotypical way depending on how the child was dressed. This study supports the social learning theory as it shows that parents have an influence on gender roles. This study took place in a controlled environment making it easy to replicate and the experimenters had high control over variables, however this also means the study is low on ecological validity as it is not very true to life.Other psychologists believe we learn our gender identity through the cognitive development theory. Kohlberg (1966) explains the cognitive developmental theory of gender as gender role development is a self-socialising process. This is dependent on the childs sense of being a male or female. If a child is a boy the child impart think I am a boy therefore I want to do boy things and he will gain approval for doing so and find this rewarding. The child will seek out, organise and behave in accordance with the information he has regarding gender roles. Social and co gnitive factors are both(prenominal) important In the gender learning process. In this theory Kohlberg believes that gender development happens in three stages. Stage one is known as gender labelling, at this stage children can identify themselves and others as male or female, gender is not seen as stable over time or crossways superficial physical characteristics. Stage two is known as gender stability, here children recognise that gender is stable over time, boys will grow up to be daddies and girls will grow up to be mummies. However the unchanging nature of gender is not yet appreciated. Stage three is the gender perseverance stage, this is when children have full appreciation of the permanence of gender over time and across situation. (Banerjee, R. 2005)A study which supports this theory is Slaby and Frey (1975, cited in Banerjee, 2005).The aim of this study was to see if childrenss attention to same sex models was influenced by their level of gender constancy. Fifty five, t wo-five year olds were assessed using a series of questions to measure the children at to each one stage of gender development. The children were then classified as high or low on gender constancy. Several weeks later the children then watched a blast with a split screen, male on one side, female on the other, eye contact was measured to determine which model on screen the child watched. They found that the children who had high levels of gender constancy watched the same sex model on the screen. This showed that both cognitive and social factors play a part in gender role development. This study was a lab experiment making it easy to replicate and giving the experimenters high control over variables, however it lacks ecological validity as this is not very true to life. This study is praised for scientifically being able to measure the levels of gender constancy within the children. Other criticisms are that it has low time validity as it was carried out in 1975 the results may n ot be the same in modern society. Only fifty-five children were utilise during the experiment which is a relatively small sample size therefore it can be argued that the results can not be generalised to the rest of the population.Within the two theories we have discussed the significant difference is that the social learning theory move within the nurture approach and the cognitive developmental theory falls within the nature approach. In addition to these 2 theories, the psychodynamic theory looked into the emotional development in relation to gender. With evidence to support all theories it is difficult to determine how we develop our gender roles, however it helps teach the importance of both nature and nurture.Bibliography.Gross, R. (2010). Psychology, the science of mind and behaviour. 6th Ed. Hodder Stoughton London.Hayes, N. (2000). Foundations of Psychology. 3rd Ed. Thomson London.Hardy, M Heyes, S. (1999). Beginning Psychology. 5th Ed. Oxford University stir OxfordMal im, T Birch, A. (1998). Introductory Psychology. PalgraveBasingstoke.Banerjee, R. (2005). Cognition and gender development. online OpenLearn. Available at http//www.open.edu/openlearn/body-mind/childhood-youth/childhood-and-youth-studies/childhood/cognition-and-gender-development Accessed 14 Oct. 2014.Page 1

Effect of the Cold War on America

stamp of the Cold contend on AmericaIntroductionThe Cold state of warfare refers to the continuous geopolitical, economic and ideological struggle that was between the 2 top-notch powers in the west (USA and its NATO ein truth(prenominal)ies) and the powers in the East (Soviet Union). This Cold War began in the division 1947 which was the metre that the Second World War was ending and it continued until the year 1991 when the Soviet Union was dissolved. The term cold was used because there was no medium- spacious scale direct fighting between the East and the West and that there were only regional fights between the countries that the two sides supported.During the cold war, the alliance against Nazi Germ each was secern leaving USA and USSR as the only two sides that strikingly differed over ideologies such(prenominal) as capitalism, totalitarianism, communism and liberal democracy. The two countries were not at any time involved in a full-scale armed fighting but they we re always each armed heavily for a World War III. It was believed that each side held a strong nuclear deterrent that made the other side afr aid to attack because of the alarm of total destruction on its part. Apart from the nuclear deterrent on both sides, dominance on both sides was expressed through psychological warfare, technological competitions and propaganda and espionage. One of the events renting to the ocellus of the Cold was remarks by a British leader Winston Churchill who gave some anti-communism remarks during his speech in the year 1946 (Fleming 34).Ways in which the West and the East DifferedThe cold war is believed to be the most important political issue in the early post war period and it was as a result of long time disagreements between USA and the Soviet Union. However, during the Second World War, these two countries put their differences aside and they were allied. The end of the World War II triggered the resurface of the antagonisms between the two cou ntries (Fleming 44). America had survived destruction from the war and it hoped to share its idea of liberty, democracy and equality with the rest of the world which was in turmoil later on the war. America was much apprised of the effects of the Great Depression that were go through in the years 1929-1940. In an attempt to avoid another depression, it sought to remove all the trade barriers in order to help the dry land create outside markets for its industrial and agricultural products. Free trade would also help other western nations to export their products and w therefore be able to rebuild their nations that were destroyed in the World War II. Generally the free trade would help boost the economic growth of all the western nations and also help to boost the relationships between the countries.The Soviet Union had a different Agenda that contrasted sharply with that of the Americans. They believed in a centralized, autocratic corpse of government that was very different w ith the Americans emphasis on freedom and democracy. During the World War II they had briefly abandoned the Marxist-Leninist political theory but it was still one of the countrys policies. Distraught by the death of 20 gazillion citizens during the struggle, Soviet Union was focused on reconstruction and also protecting itself from another future attack of the same magnitude. Specifically, they feared attack of their nation from the West and hence were very determined to prevent another great attack. The Soviet Union was intent on demanding defensible borders but the in the East. But the Americans had already declared independence and self-government to countries in the east such as Poland and Czechoslovakia(Meernik 68).The Cold War origin was as a result of the differing opinions about the shape of the postwar and this was what led to distrust between the two super powers. Firstly, the conflict started over Poland. Moscow wanted a government that was subject to Soviet impact Was hington on the other hand, wanted a much independent and representative government that was in line with the Western model (Russett 29).Different interpretations of different forms of government were discussed in the Yalta Conference of February 1945 and it provided provisions to ensure that the elections in Poland would be free and unfettered.Harry Truman had succeeded Franklin D. Roosevelt and he became the president of America. During his regime, he promised to respond to the international affairs between these two super powers and his decisions to respond to Soviet Union lead to the early Cold war between the two nations. During his first meeting with Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs Vyacheslav Molotov, he made it clear that he was supporting self-determination and he urge the diplomat to implement the Yalta accords. Molotov took offence of this and he exclaimed that he had never been spoken to like that in his spotless life. Truman responded to him that if he follows the ag reements because he will never have to be spoken to like that. This is where the relations between the countries got deteriorated (Meernik 82).Control the Soviet Union then became a policy to the Americans during the post war years. George Kennan who was a top official in Moscow established and elaborated on a new uprise to control Soviet Union. This is because he felt that Soviet Union would not change their stand and hence they had to be stopped by control the efforts of Russia to run the territories. The application of this containment policy was first applied in the eastern Mediterranean. The Great Britain was an ally to Greece where communist forces were threatening to rule a monarchy in civil war, and Turkey, the nation in which the Soviet Union had compelled for territorial concessions and also the mandate to build marine bases on the Bosporus. In the year 1947, Britain could not afford the aid and hence the U.S quickly came in to offer their assistance. Truman was able to then allocate $ 400 million to cater for the economic and military assistance to Turkey and Greece (May 39). Truman and the American society, however, had to dedicate a price for the containment policy. Truman had overstated the threat of the Soviet Union to the U.S and through this there emerged an inspired wave of anti-communism and pave d the way for the emergence of McCarthyism. recognise of the potential conflict to the culture, economics and politics of the United StatesEffect on ideologyThe effect of the cold war not only shaped the abroad policy of the U.S, but it also helped to improve the domestic affairs. In the past, the Americans had been afraid of radical subversion but efforts to root out communism became much stronger after the World War II(Waltz 35). The foreign events made the anti-communist hysteria to be strong. It surprised the Americans when the Soviet Union exploded its own atomic device and this made Americans to fear that they could be attacked by them a t any given time.Economic effectAs the cold war continued fifteen years later that is from 1945-1960, the U.S experienced great economic growth. The war was the main reason that it got back its prosperity and it in the postwar period it was able to become one of the richest nations in the world. The everlasting(a) Domestic Product of the United States improved from $200 thousand million in 1940 to $ 300 million in 1950 and more than $500 thousand million in 1960. This made more Americans to consider themselves as middle class. Major companies also grew larger through merges and they expanded their branches overseas where they could get labor cheaply.Effect on the lifestyle of the AmericansThe workers in America found their lifestyles changing as the nation progressed industrially. Many of the workers became involved in provision of services rather than merchandise of goods. Farmers on the other hand were in great trouble as the benefits of agriculture lead to consolidations and he nce family farms were thrown out of business by the large farming businesses (Betts 37).There was movement of the Americans from inner cities to suburbs where cheaper hosing was found in order to fit the big families that were as a result of a postwar louse up boom (May 51). And as the suburbs grew bigger, more businesses were created such as large shopping centers that reduced traffic of shoppers in the cities. New highways were also constructed so as to make the suburbs accessible.There was also the widespread marketing of the television which had been developed previously but not marketed until after the war.In conclusion, the Cold War was an important historical event. Specifically, it was very important to the Americans as it enabled them to progress economically, culturally and politically. We can therefore say that the United States became even more powerful after the Cold War and up to now it is regarded as the most powerful nation in the whole world.Works CitedBetts, Richa rd K. Wealth, power, and instability East Asia and the United States after the Cold War. International gage (1993) 34-77. Print.Fleming, Denna Frank. The Cold War and Its Origins 1917-1960. 1950-1960. Vol. 2. Doubleday, 1961. Print.May, Elaine Tyler. Homeward bound American families in the cold war era. Basic Books, 2008. Print.Meernik, James, Eric L. Krueger, and Steven C. Poe. Testing models of US foreign policy Foreign aid during and after the Cold War. The journal of Politics 60.01 (1998) 63-85. Print.Russett, Bruce. Grasping the democratic peace Principles for a post-Cold War world. Princeton University Press, 1994. Print.Waltz, Kenneth N. Structural realism after the Cold War. International protective covering 25.1 (2000) 5- 41. Print.

Difference between Coasean and Pigouvian Solution to an environment problem

Difference amongst Coasean and Pigouvian Solution to an environment problemExplain in your ca usage words the difference between a Coasean and a Pigouvian result to an environmental problem? Which type of root do you prefer, and why?The Explanation of the Difference between Coasean and Pigouvian Solution to an environmental problem.In a very simple way, Pigouvian solution prefer to use government intervention to solve externality while Coasean solution prefer to use market method to solve externality.In detailPigouvian theory is ground on the method of modern economics especially based on welfare economics and Pigouvian theory provides a perspective systematic study of the externality problems.According to Pigouvian theory the marginal private net outfit and marginal brotherly net output has following relationships Besides the increasing of marginal private makes, if other spate can still get benefit from the private activities, thus the marginal hearty net benefit is great er than the marginal private net benefits on the other hand, if other peoples benefit is decrease due to the private activities, then the marginal social net output is less than the marginal private net output. In the first situation the conjunction entrust get the Marginal social benefit in the second situation the will face the Marginal social terms.Actually, Externality is caused by the variety between marginal private comprise and marginal social cost. .Without externality, the marginal private cost of production or consumption of an item is equal to the cost of itself. When there are negative externalities, there will cost to compensate these externalities.By adding marginal private cost with the marginal external cost we will get the marginal social cost. On the other hand, when there are positive externalities, the benefits which generated by business activities are not fully occupied by the company, but will also become some external social benefits. Through economic mo del, Pigou shows that because of the presence of external economic effects, the Pareto optimal allocation of social resource can not be achieved by purely individualistic mechanism.Since there is a deviation among the marginal private benefit and marginal social benefit, marginal private cost and marginal social cost therefore the maximization of social welfare can not be achieved only through and through free competition. The Government should take appropriate economic policies to reduce this deviation as much as possible. The proper policy is that when the marginal private cost is less than marginal social cost ( negative externality ), government should impose taxes when the marginal private benefit is less than marginal social benefits (positive externality) then the government should provide incentives and subsidies. Pigou believes that by using such(prenominal) taxes and subsidies, the externality problem could be internalized. And such policy is known as Pigovian solution, an d the tax is called Pigouvian tax.Pigovian solution has been widely used. In the field of infrastructure, the policy is who invest who benefits in the environmental protection, the policy is who pollute who pay(a.k.a Polluter Pays Principle PPP).Over the years, the problem of how to internalizeof external effects is rule by Pigouvian theory. To some extent, Coase theory is developed through the criticizing of Pigouvian theory.Coases critique of the Pigovian solution are focused on the following three aspects. First, the externality is very colonial it is not as simple as one side damages the other side. For example, in the case of chemical grind vs. residents, it is unfair to tax the factory without discussing whether the factory has the right to emission or not. Because, it mayhap the case that the factory is established years before any resident areas was setup, and in this case, the factory may have the emission rights(The example of factory vs resident is from Ronald Coas eThe problem of Social Cost, Journal of Law and Economics Vol 31(1960)). In order to reduce the emission, mayhap the government should encourage residents purchase the redemption instead of just posing tax on the factory. Second, in the case of zero dealings costs, the Pigouvian tax is utterly unnecessary. Because in this case, through voluntary dialog of parties, the optimal allocation of resources can be reached. In this case, with the help of clearly defined place rights, voluntary negotiation can also achieve the optimal level of allocation just as the same effect through the Pigovian solution, then why should the government intervene? Third, even in the case of non-zero transaction costs scenario, we still need to balance the cost of using government and using voluntary negotiation. Pigouvian solution may be an effective institutional arrangements, it also maybe an inefficient institutional arrangements.According to Coase theorem If the transaction cost is zero, no matter how the initial definition of property rights is, optimal allocation of resources can be achieved through market if there is non-zero transaction costs situation, then maybe the institutional arrangements and choice is important, however people still need to do a cost-benefit-analysis of about the government intervention. In order to solve the problem of externality, Coasians market solution could just be as useful as Pigovian solution.Coasian solution shows that even there is a market failure it doesnt automatically means we should use government intervention.Which type of solution do you prefer, and why?I dont prefer either one, I think a mix use of both solutions will be more helpful.ThePigovian theory/solution has some limitations. First, the Pigou theory presupposes there is a function of the existence of the so-called social welfare, and the government is the natural representative of public interest, and the government can distinguish the public interest and then choose the right policy to reduce the externalities in economic activity through intervention. However, the fact is that public policy itself maybe flawed. Second, the use of Pigovian solution is based on the premise that the government knows the cause of externalities can calculate all marginal costs or benefits, however it is unsurmountable for any government to obtain all information to make a Pareto optimal allocation of resources. In theory, Pigouvian solution is perfect, but the actual implementation maybe largely constrained. Third, government intervention also makes costs. If the cost of Government intervention is more than the losses caused by externalities, then there is no reason for use to use government intervention .Fourth, the Pigovian solution may cause the rent-seeking activities, which will lead to waste of resources and distortions of resource allocation.On the other hand, the Coasian solution is also limited. The clenched fist problem is that in order to make the Coasian s olution work, the market should be developed, however, for many developing countries, the whole economy system is still in transforming, I dont think Coasian solution can work very well without a certain protection level toward property right. Second, the costs of voluntary negotiation transaction need to be considered. The feasibility of voluntary consultation is depending on the size of transaction costs. If the transaction costs are higher than the social benefits, then why should we have such negotiation. Third, the voluntary negotiation is based on the premise that property rights are clearly defined. In fact, some property rights of environmental resources such as property rights are often difficult to define or very costly to define.For the environmental pollution problems, policy makers should consider the characteristics of pollution sources, the antithetical costs of regulatory management and institutional arrangement they should also consider the degree of maturity of th e market and many other conditions. Only through a comprehensive consideration can we achieve a better solution.

Anorexia and Bulimia :: Causes of Bulimia, Eating Disorders

Anorexia and Bulimia Nervosa"When she was fourteen, a modeling agency said that her face was too fat.It was a death sentence." (Toronto Sun, 1994)     Sheena Carpenter died in November 1993. She was constitute on the kitchenfloor of her apartment by her mother. She was twenty-two years old. . . andweighed only fifty pounds. Sheena was just one of the alarming numbers of youngwomen who become ghost with the shape and size of their bodies, and sufferharmful, or in this case, fatal effects from eating disorders. At any given time,almost one out of each two women is on some sort of a diet, and this statisticis apparently reflected the revenues of the diet constancy, up-to-dately a $33billion a year industry. It should be celebrated that this estimate does not includeprofits generated by exercise or workout programs, gyms, health clubs, orcosmetic surgery.     A recent national mess in the US reveled that the majority of women,when asked what would make them happiest, choose turn outness over all other choices,even such thing as job promotion, romance, prestigiousness and power. In fact, morewomen feared becoming fat, then feared dying. These statistics revel an alarmingsocial problem that is reaching epic proportions.Although the topic of eating disorders has gained a larger auditory sensewithin the last decade, the number of cases of eating disorders continues torise at a resounding rate. Today many scientists are looking into possiblecauses for the onset of an eating disorder. The most prevalent and influencingfactor is the media and societys view. They act as a controlling presence forsusceptible individuals. The socioculture pressure on todays adolescent andyoung women to be thin and attractive also play an important role in thedevelopment of eating disorders. Thinness in todays society is associated withself-control, attractiveness, intelligence, happiness , wealth and success. Themedia, fashion, and the diet industry exploit this myth by bombarding us withproducts and services designed to push us towards losing weight. As a result, itis not surprising to find that adolescents who are undergoing irrepressiblebody changes and the onset of new emotional and sexual drives seek dieting inorder to enhance their sense of self-control and acceptance by others.     lately it has been discovered that a possible cause for eatingdisorders is due to an defective hormone. That hormone serotonin, said toactivate in response to food, is still a mystery story and even though it has somevalue as a blood clotting factor, but its functions have yet to be totallyunderstood. At the current speed of progress however, it has been said that we