| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "PAS CONTENTIOUS ACT FREEDOM": |
|
|
PAS: A Contentious Act of Freedom, 2005.
Explores both the deontological and utilitarian arguments for and against physician-assisted suicide.
1,386 words (approx. 5.5 pages), 9 sources, APA, $ 46.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The statement from which this paper derives its arguments is as follows: "Life is of ultimate value. It must be protected and preserved at all costs." In lieu of a generalist approach to this statement, this text focuses on the arguments for and against physician assisted suicide. The rationale for this approach arises from two reasons: (1) The ethical dilemmas which surround the protection and preservation of life become sharply distinct in end-of-life decisions, and (2) terminally ill and/or severely debilitated persons who wish to end their lives in a legally sanctioned and painless fashion have been, to date, unable to do so unless they are residents of the State of Oregon or live in the Netherlands. Therefore, the writer capitalizes on the original statement as a launching point to discuss the ethical issues which surround PAS (physician assisted suicide).
From the Paper
"Using the principles of autonomy and beneficence, and the concepts of 'quality of life' and 'personal dignity,' the following paragraphs will attempt to argue for and against the practice of physician assisted suicide. From a utilitarian perspective, the rightness or wrongness of the act of voluntary active assisted suicide should be judged by its nonmoral results. In other words, does its result cause more pleasure than pain, or more benefit than harm (Beckwith, 2002). For an individual in protracted pain, the choice of a hastened death upholds these utilitarian criteria in the sense that pleasure would result by the ending of pain, and benefit would come from a sense of peace gained from acting upon one's autonomy as an individual and setting to rest the 'only property which I can call my own - my body.'"
| |
|
Terrorists or Freedom Fighters - A Decision of Perception. Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?, 2002.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 8 sources, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This is a question of perspective and of side. Depending upon the side you find yourself upon, your ideology, and your religion, determining who is fighting for the greater good and who is simply a terrorist is an impossibility of perception. Culturally, there is a great deal of support for freedom fighters. They are associated with the development of anti-oppression movements that we most closely associate with the American Revolution. To the British, the Boston Massacre was the suppression of terrorists, to the Americans, it was the massacre of innocents seeking nothing more than personal and communal freedom. This is how the world perceives Afghanis, members of Al Qaeda, and the combatants in Chechnya - as either terrorists or freedom fighters. It is the purpose of this paper to examine differences in perspectives on terrorism and how each group is perceived.
| |
|
Freedom of Speech, 2006.
The paper compares and contrasts freedom of speech and freedom of expression in the United States and Mexico.
4,520 words (approx. 18.1 pages), 15 sources, MLA, $ 117.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses freedom of speech in the American and the Mexican systems in light of the fact that the two countries are growing closer together in trade. The paper states that American individuals and businessmen need to understand the differences in the laws and customs on freedom of speech, as well as other cultural and legal differences between the two countries, in order to understand the meaning of actions and statements made by Mexican leaders. Examining the issue of freedom of speech in Mexico as compared to the U.S. can illustrate the differences and some of the reasons for those differences. The paper concludes that both systems are protected and neither can be seen as perfect in the degree to which it protects these freedoms. The Mexican government wants to be represented well in American thinking and to work with the American government for an improved economic situation for Mexico. Freedom of expression has been guaranteed by the Mexican Constitution, and now that promise has to be strengthened in order to assure that it is maintained.
Introduction
Mexico and the U.S.
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Expression
Conclusion
From the Paper
"The United States has a long tradition of political freedom, while Mexico does not. The United States as a nation is more than 225 years old, while Mexico as a nation is a little more than a century old. The United States emerged from its Revolution as a country with a new form of government, one crated as a counter to the kind of rigid and hierarchical society the settlers had known in Europe. In the U.S., freedom of speech is divided into freedom of speech and freedom of the press as related concepts differentiated largely by whether the expression is written in a publication or expressed verbally or through actions (in some cases). Case law has established both these types of expression as fundamental rights based on their inclusion in the Bill of Rights in the First Amendment."
| |
|
Academic Freedom, 2004.
This paper examines the concept of academic freedom and its history and contrasts the ideal of academic freedom with the social, cultural, and economic constraints that are regularly placed upon the faculty.
4,795 words (approx. 19.2 pages), 9 sources, APA, $ 122.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that academic freedom is the concept that faculty, and in some cases, students, should be able to study, write, and publish the truth as they see it, free of doctrinal interference from the administration, the church, the corporation, or the state. The author points out that the concept of academic freedom, which is more prevalent at Western colleges and universities, has its roots in the 17th century, the beginning of the modern era. The paper relates that the power of alumni to shift the direction of a university tends to be limited because most alumni do not have sufficient money to make much of a difference, but this cannot be said for corporations, such as drug companies, which often have almost inconceivably large amounts of money and clearly focused needs and desires.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Beginnings of Academic Freedom
German Universities Create Modern Traditions of Academic Freedom
Academic Freedom in the Modern University
Corporate Pocketbooks and Academic Freedom
Conclusion
From the Paper
"The development of a more fully modern concept of academic freedom came about in the 17th century not because of the work or writings of academics themselves but rather through the work of scholars such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. Locke and Hobbes were not in fact particularly interested in the rights of university faculty per se; they were, however, interested in the rights of all members of a society to certain basic freedoms. Their arguments about liberty and individual rights helped to define the era of the rise of modern democracies, one element of which has been the university that is freed from the church."
| |
|
Religious Thinkers and the Treatment of Freedom, 2006.
A discussion regarding Kierkegaard, Nietzsche & Dostoevsky, and their interpretation of the relationship between religion and freedom.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 3 sources, $ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses Friedrich Nietzsche, Soren Kierkegaard, and Fyodor Dostoevsky, who were all for all intents and purposes religious thinkers in a manner of speaking; no less importantly, they were religious thinkers who also placed a great deal of emphasis upon human freedom. The paper will examines the relationship between the faith which animates the writings of these individuals and the heavy emphasis each man places upon freedom. In conclusion, this paper contends that Nietzsche's view of what constitutes freedom is not genuine freedom at all because it makes no allowance for the fact that mental and spiritual freedom (the sort of freedom brought about by peace of mind and by spiritual contentment) is just as important as any other form of freedom, emphasizing the satiation of the physical senses.
From the Paper
| |
|
Locke, Rousseau and Human Freedom, 2002.
Compares and contrasts Locke's conception of human freedom with Rousseau's conception of human freedom.
1,400 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 2 sources, $ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay discusses how Locke and Rousseau had two very different conceptions of human freedom. Rousseau's vision entailed a society where the individual's will was subordinate to the "general will." Locke, meanwhile, believed that freedom was impossible if individual freedom was not at the root of society.
| |
|
A Discussion of the Truth in Freedom, 2002.
A comparative analysis of "Delusion of Free Will" by Robert Blatchford and "Freedom and Determinism" by Richard Taylor on free will and freedom.
1,650 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 2 sources, $ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at two essays concerning free will and freedom. The first, "Delusion of Free Will" by Robert Blatchford, and the second, "Freedom and Determinism" by Richard Taylor. This paper will compare and contrast the opinions of these two philosophers and the understand of true freedom.
| |
|
Canadian Charter of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 2002.
Discussion of Canadian fundamental freedoms of thought and religion as identified in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
2,150 words (approx. 8.6 pages), 8 sources, $ 80.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms identifies Canadians' fundamental freedoms of thought and religion. This discussion assesses its application in the last twenty years. The emphasis is on issues of religious observance-'Sunday shopping' and prayer in schools-and the issue of 'hate crimes' such as holocaust denial.
| |
|
"Freedom from Addiction", 2007.
A review of the detox model presented in "Freedom from Addiction: Breaking the Bondage of Addiction and Finding Freedom in Christ", by Dr. Neil T. Anderson and Mike and Julia Quarles.
880 words (approx. 3.5 pages), 0 sources, $ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper reviews the book "Freedom from Addiction: Breaking the Bondage of Addiction and Finding Freedom in Christ", by authors Dr. Neil T. Anderson and Mike and Julia Quarles. It discusses the author's observations of how many Christians remain locked in their addictions, especially to alcohol and drug abuse. It then discusses the model that the book provides to help abusers solve their addictions through acceptance of Jesus Christ as the Higher Power.
From the Paper
"As participants in traditional 12-Step Programs have sponsors, the counselor could also be a spiritual Seven Step sponsor. Together, the former addict and the counselor can review the Seven Steps together, ensuring that the addict remains bondage-free. The counselor can also assist in removing items of "false worship" from the former addict's home. These could include false idols and tools of the occult, such as innocent-looking tarot cards. The counselor could also be on the lookout for items which may trigger addictions, such as magazines showing glossy liquor ads or even hidden drug paraphernalia."
| |
|
Trapped in Freedom: An Oxymoron, 2008.
An analysis of the true meaning of freedom as defined in Eric Fromm's book "Escape from Freedom".
1,305 words (approx. 5.2 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how, according to Erich Fromm, the connection between modern society and our willingness to give up our freedom lies within the breakdown of our primary ties, our feelings of powerlessness, and our insecurities. The paper looks at how Fromm contends that to have freedom is to have fear, fear of the unknown, of the choices we have to make, and of the alienation of ourselves to society.
From the Paper
"In modern society, people are free to make their lives whatever they want them to be, but this doubt has lead to their weakness, as opposed to a strength. The isolation with this freedom has lead every member of society to seek out a purpose. They can't go on their own blind journey to find out who they are. People want to be told what they should be doing with their lives because they can't stand the fear of the unknown. Those who are smart and ambitious enough know this, and use it to their advantage, such as the link between religion and consumption. Even before the protestant reformation, when Catholicism reigned, the church had all of the power, and controlled all of the money. "
| |
|
Religious Freedom in Britain and America, 2002.
A comparison between America and Britain, where freedom of religion is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, while Britain has no written constitution and yet maintains freedom of religion in a number of ways.
1,467 words (approx. 5.9 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 48.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The writer looks at the levels of religious tolerance by the British government and subsequent formation of America's standard. The paper explains that while both the United States and Britain have long traditions of religious freedom, Britain had more bloody confrontations over religion in her history than America has had. The writer provides background information on religion in Britain and provides relative information for America.
From the Paper
"Religious freedom in Britain was achieved gradually from the 17th century to the present. Laws that discriminated against minority religious groups were gradually administered less harshly and then finally repealed, and heresy ceased to be a legal offense with the passage of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Act of 1677. The Toleration Act of 1688 granted freedom of worship to Protestant minority groups. The Test and Corporation Act was repealed in 1828 to give nonconformists full political rights, after which it was possible for them to be appointed to public office. Roman Catholics gained political rights with the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829."
| |
|
Philosophers' Conceptions of Human Freedom, 2008.
Compares Karl Marx's conception of human freedom to that of John Stuart Mill and Jean Jacques Rousseau.
1,260 words (approx. 5.0 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 42.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper stresses that philosophers have long pursued a deeper understanding of the nature of human freedom. The paper describes the beliefs of Jean Jacques Rousseau, which purport that human freedom is achieved through the rejection of the modern and the material in an effort to reach a more primitive and natural human state. The paper then relates that John Stuart Mill accepts modern society but dictates that it must be structured to facilitate happiness in the greatest number of society's individuals, thus arguing that human freedom is achieved through personal-political freedoms. The paper then suggests that both of these philosophies are too unrealistic, allowing for little or no clear path toward freedom. The paper concludes that a more realistic Karl Marx provides the idea that society can only move toward freedom after understanding the material conditions of society.
From the Paper
"Marx would say that this definition of freedom is too abstract. By Marx's terms, Mill's definition is not really freedom because it does not take into consideration the many factors of politics, society, and history. For example, a man in Mill's ideal society cannot achieve freedom simply through the pursuit of happiness and the lessening of pain. The man must still work, whether or not he is encouraged to choose the type of work. In a capitalist society, a larger body or industry will inevitably control his work."
|
| Term Paper # 50658 |
temporarily unavailable
|
|
|
|
Freedom of Speech, 2004.
A discussion of whether the issue of 'freedom of speech' has gone too far.
1,158 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper first outlines the definition of ?freedom of Speech? in one's own perspective and then defines it in the literal meaning by giving quotations of veterans, quotes from the Bible, and how government or other groups of people take this term. Followed by the definition, the paper provides an insight as to how and why various people or groups have exploited the freedom of expression/speech and raised sensitive issues, which resulted not only in social, political, or moral damage to the societies, but, at the same time, even death has been the outcome of such freedom of expression. The paper further discusses whether we have gone too far with the freedom of speech. This is argued in terms of the United Sates of America. This is followed by the conclusion that sums up whether freedom of expression is important and necessary in a society.
From the Paper
"The freedom of speech or expression is one of the most primary rights that are enjoyed by individuals. It is important to the survival of democracy as well as to the value of human self-respect. As freedom of speech means the liberty to express one's dissatisfaction with the status quo along with the need to change accordingly, it is one of the most dangerous and threatened rights, with governments, human rights groups; infact with all over the world, that is persistently trying to restrict it (Derechos Human Rights)"
| |
|
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 2006.
A discussion on whether judges, who are responsible for interpreting the law under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, should have have restrictions imposed on their interpretive powers.
675 words (approx. 2.7 pages), 0 sources, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom protects important freedoms of all Canadians such as freedom of the press, religion, and expression. However, the implementation of the law, which allows almost unlimited power for judges to interpret the rights as they see fit, is worrying. This paper discusses the needs for limits on judges' interpretive powers.
|
|
|
