Judaism Beliefs on Pollution Essay Example

Judaism Beliefs on Pollution Paper This may include the removal of the cause of the noise, even if its removal will cause the owner financial hardship. Four particular disturbances are especially likely to lead to legal action according to Jewish law: smoke, sewage odors, dust and similar aerosols, and vibrations. Even if permission had initially been given, the offended neighbor can withdraw it. All of these are forms of pollution which are a source of great concern to this day. In particular, halvah limits the closeness to the city to prevent air pollution within the city. Halvah is the Jewish law, including biblical, Talmudic and rabbinic law. The genius of halvah has been its ability to apply the knowledge of ancient principles to ever-new situations. Damage such as littering in public places is also included in the prohibition against causing damage -if not according to the letter of halvah, then according to its spirit. At least one example of such legislation is: furnaces were forbidden in Jerusalem because the smoke blackened the walls of the houses, and this is a disgrace. If your neighbor lets you commit various minor types of image for three years without saying anything, you may assume that he isnt bothered by what youre doing. But, the Talmud defines a list that you must always assume are intolerable to your neighbor. For however long your neighbor puts up with your disturbances, his silence must never be interpreted as assent to your continuing damage. In the religious aspects of Judaism, Jews believe that they must give total respect and w illingness to sustain the earth and its environment because God created it for us. We will write a custom essay sample on Judaism Beliefs on Pollution specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Judaism Beliefs on Pollution specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Judaism Beliefs on Pollution specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer Jews try to correct these issues, as they clash with the Jewish beliefs of preservation of he environment. Once you know that your actions have been causing harm to the world, it becomes your responsibility to change your actions so that you can stop being a cause of the whole problem. Controlling pollution is a very important and ancient priority in Jewish law. Its found that detailed regulations to regulate nuisances were put into place close to two thousand years ago. According to the Jewish, they believe that air, water, soil and noise all come under pollution. The Talmud says that the destruction of water such as pollution, can be a location and allows for claiming damages or obtaining an appropriate injunction to remove the nuisance where the purity of ones water supply is endangered. Physical pollution of the environment such as breathing in polluted, toxic air is dangerous to everyones health and well-being and the Torah states not to place ourselves unnecessarily into potentially dangerous situations. The Talmud teaches followers that wasting or destroying anything on earth is wrong. Pollution is an insult to the world God created. Moodiness states that damage causing air pollution through smoke, dust, ND noxious smells is not permitted even if no one protests. Water must not cause damage or pollution. According to Genesis, (1:26) the newly created humans were given authority to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, Over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. Jews like to be located in a clean, tidy place. It is forbidden in Jewish law to live in a city that does not have greenery. The biblical prophets particularly warn of the catastrophe that will result from contamination of the land. In comparison with Christianity, the Jewish believe that pollution within the environment is a top priority to control. As for Christians, the environment and the problems surrounding it have only recently been placed on the agenda for Christian churches. It has not always been viewed as a top priority amongst Christians, as they believed they were superior to the land and could therefore do what they like to the earth. Christians realized the environment was more important then what they initially thought, and felt the need to care for the earth.

Analysis Of Comunication Skill Example

Analysis Of Comunication Skill Example Analysis Of Comunication Skill – Coursework Example Analysis of Communication skills Effective communication is particularly vital in politics and policy. There is a story once told of a high-school student who asked a politician what she needed to study to become a politician and the politician responded by telling him that all she needed is to study and understand English. Politics of making a significant contribution to the lives of people succeeds only if an individual makes himself/herself understood. The two most significant communications skills in politics and policy are the ability to speak clearly and ability to persuade (Mason et al., 2011). In almost all instances, an audience is least interested in listening to a speech that is read than delivered in a manner that is clear and a spur-of-the-moment. It is essential for an individual to have well thought out words and speak clearly (Nannini, 2009). Slurring words and letting words fade would make it difficult for the audience to hear the priority issues on child obesity. Sp eaking clearly would show the congressmen that an individual is confident with what he or she is talking about and would believe what he or she has to say. The ability to persuade forms part of communication skills that are essential in politics and policy. The ability to persuade is possibly the most significant aspect of an effective communication (Nannini, 2009). When talking to Congressmen, it would not be worth the time to command them to implement the priority issues in childhood obesity. By engaging the congressmen in the speech or communication, creates personal relationships and it is easy to persuade them on the issues that one has to present. Notably, it is essential to apprehend that the secret to policy and politics is effective communication, not just notching a few rhetorical points. ReferencesMason, D. J., Leavitt, J. K., & Chaffee, M. W. (Eds.) (2011). Policy & politics in nursing and healthcare (6th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Saunders Elsevier.Nannini, A. (2009). The hea lth policy pathfinder: An innovative strategy to explore interest group politics. Journal of Nursing Education, 48(10), 588–591. doi:10.3928/0148483420090828-03.

Human resource- motivation at sales company Essay

Human resource- motivation at sales company - Essay Example Statistics indicate that sales persons are motivated by tangible rewards as well as cash rewards. They acknowledge that cash do help them get the bills paid but it does not keep sales people going (32%). In fact 79% respondents to an Incentive Federation survey indicate that they find non-cash rewards more effective in motivating them achieve sales and marketing goals than cash rewards. Tangible rewards increase performance by 22% while team incentives increase performance by 44%. Moreover, sales people are more enticed by incentive programs including give-aways, travel opportunities, privileges, club membership or be part of the company’s elite group. Although companies have the potential to improve their organizational performances, they are at times unaware of the tools available to them. For most organizations, motivation is compensation; it is cash rewards given out to employees as incentives. However, this is not the appropriate or effective strategy for increasing employee performance, changing their attitude or even motivating them, especially for a sales workforce whose motivational factors differ from other employees. Organizations need to focus on stoking sales team spirit according to Greco (1994). Compensation is not the only motivating factor (Smith 2008). The University of Michigan identified communication as the key to understanding employees motives and a means to responding to their needs (Ford, McLaughlin, and Newstrom, 2003). Representatives need statistics to boost their performance. Statistics to track sales and profits include traffic, average sale, closing ratio, inventory, pricing trends, prospects lists, client information, industry statistics etc. Cash rewards are unpopular as compared to tangible rewards. Positive incentives which can be integrated at the workplace to motivate sales team include recognition program, awards, and respect for contribution. Marchetti (2006) indicates

Audit Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Audit - Essay Example In the year 2003, IAPC was accepted as a series of restructuring regarding the auditing guidelines in order to further reinforce the setting-standard procedures. The IAASB mainly contributes in delivering auditing process related information clearly to the public as much as possible (International Federation of Accountants, 2011). This paper intends to analyse and critically discuss the development of the wording of the external audit report and the IAASB’s proposals on its further improvement. A Brief Perception on the Purpose of the External Audit Report An external audit report is considered as an assessment concerning the business operation, internal control, governance and financial reporting of a particular company. This report i.e. external audit report is primarily organized by external auditors belonging to different government agencies and other public accounting organizations. The core objective of preparing an external audit report is to deliver a self-governing ev aluation as well as unbiased appraisal regarding a firm’s internal governance (Saint Helena Audit Service, 2006). The ‘International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB)’ is typically regarded as an autonomous standard-setting body that provides valuable guidelines about the preparation of an external auditing report. The major purpose of the IAASB is to concentrate on public interest by setting superior quality of international values. Moreover, the guidelines and core values of IAASB focuses upon the improvement of quality and consistency of auditing practices all over the world and also reinforce the public confidence towards international auditing (International Federation of Accountants, 2011). By taking into concern the medium term strategy, the basic objectives of IAASB include the following attributes emphasising upon public interest (International Federation of Accountants, 2011). The attributes are as follows: Controlling effective stability r egarding international financial aspects, Improving the importance as well as role and providing quality assurance towards the auditing services within the context of today’s financial condition and Initialising clarity as well as successful execution of auditing standards (International Federation of Accountants, 2011). A Brief Explanation about How and Why the Wording has Evolved in the External Audit Report Since the year 1980, when the auditing standards are required to be maintained effectively within the external auditing report, it has been identified that the stakeholders face several issues about the pronunciation and the wordings content in the report. Due to these several problems, the auditing report has undergone several changes in order to improve both its quality as well as clarity that would be helpful for the auditors to fulfil the expectation of the stakeholders. In the year 1994, David Woodliff, Professor of finance and accounting, conducted a research stud y regarding the audit expectation gap. The primary reason of the study is to identify the dissimilarities between the users of financial report and the message of the auditors

Dworkin Theory of Law as Integrity

Dworkin Theory of Law as Integrity In Laws Empire, Dworkin has distinguished three legal conceptions: conventionalism, pragmatism and law as integrity  [1]  , by criticizing conventionalism and pragmatism, Dworkin concludes that law as integrity is the most plausible and defensible. However, criticism to Dworkins argument-law as Integritycan be seen in various academic works. In this essay, first and foremost, we will briefly discuss the basic arguments of Dworkins theory of law as integrity then we will go on to criticize Dworkins theory in light of relevant legal theories. Introduction of the Theory of Law as integrity Conventionalism Pragmatism In the theory of conventionalism, legal rights can only emerge from existing law, including precedents and legislation. Conventionalism also holds the view that judges must follow the law and should make decisions only based on existing statutes and more importantly, judges must respect what convention deems binding law.  [2]   According to the theory of pragmatism, assignments of legal rights and responsibilities must be consistent with past decisions. Moreover, the pragmatist theory holds the view that adjudication is not really constrained by the law. Hence, pragmatism argues that judges should decide what decision will, according to them, be best for the community as a whole.  [3]  This means that for reasons of strategy judges must sometimes act as if they are applying pre-existing legal rights.  [4]  In the meanwhile, in accordance with pragmatist theory, to some extent, the behaviour of a court in making decision of certain case is not constrained by the existing law. These two legal theories are highly criticized by Dworkin. As Dworkin points out that assumes that judges sometimes invent law, which means that they act in an unconstrained manner. Pragmatism also assumes that judges are hardly constrained when adjudicating cases. It thus cannot account for why judges are so concerned with precedents and statutes when they decide hard cases.  [5]   Dworkin then provides a third theory of law, which he believes not only better represents what actually happens when judges decide cases but is also a morally better theory of law. Law as Integrity The concept of Law as Integrity is a key to Dworkins Constructive Interpretation of legal practice.  [6]  According to Dworkin, judges should identify legal rights and obligations on the basis that all the rights and obligations are crated by the community as integrity, and all those rights and obligations express the communitys conception of justice and fairness. In accordance with Dworkin, the only way to understand legal practice seems to be thattaking the interpretative perspectives of the participant into consider in the practice. Dworkin claims that when judges (as well as lawyers) consider which way is the best to solve a legal issue, they should not simply identify exactly what positive law is applicable in a certain case, but taking an interpretative approach to law as social practice. Dworkin emphasizes that a solution to a certain case is always sought out through a matter of interpretative practice. Dworkins perspective here is quite against that of conventionalists, the conventionalists insist that in dealing with a certain case, the judge only should identify exactly what law is applicable. Furthermore, Dworkin points out that in the debate of a certain case, different opinions and arguments are raised by lawyers, and under this circumstance, the decision of what law is applicable in the case is usually based on what opinion the law amounts to in a particular matter rather than what conventions apply. Participants in such a debate thus do not attempt to link the facts of a case with the supposedly posited law applicable but rather interpret the law in light of a general normative justification or moral point expressed in it. A participant interpreting a social practice [i.e. the law], according to that view, proposes value for the practice by describing some scheme of interest or goals or principles the practice can be taken to serve or express or exemplify.  [7]   Dworkin argues that network of political structures and decisions of his community  [8]  must always be called on by a judge when the judge goes about adjudicating. For instance, legislation and case law which must be identified in a pre-interpretative stage Then in the following stages, the judge must always question himself whether his interpretation of this network could form part of a coherent theory justifying the network as a whole. No actual judge could compose of anything approaching a full interpretation of all of his communitys law at once. But an actual judge can () allow the scope of his interpretation to fan out from the cases immediately in point to cases in the same general area or department of law, and then still farther, so far as this seems promising.  [9]  In accordance with Dworkins arguments, the interpretation of law should not only fit into the legal system but also be the best normative justification of law as such, this means that not only must the i nterpretation of the judges be consistent with the law identified at the pre-interpretative stage, but also the law must be interpreted in a way which is the best in the participants mind. Moreover, according to Dworkins theory, both the judge and any other participant should adjust his own sense of of what the practice really requires so as better to serve the justification he accepts at the interpretative stage.  [10]   We notice that, in accordance with Dworkin, morality affects the whole process of adjudication of cases. By contrast, he dose not express the view that a certain case should be adjudicated and resolved on the basis of sole considerations of justice. Dworkin claims that the moral standards should be derived form the explicit and existing legal practice and contrary to positivists, Dworkin believes that moral principles that cohere with past legal practice are valid propositions of law as well-so much so that these principles can and should go beyond what legal conventions teach us the law is.  [11]   In Dworkins theory, there are two basic elements of law, one is a retrospective element, which he calls fit, and the other is a prospective element, which he calls justification.  [12]  Furthermore, Dworkin points out that in exercising the function of these two elements, judges are required to construct a theory of law which can both fit past legal decisions and makes the law as good as possible. In doing this, the judges are required to search out legal principles which have been previously mentioned in the historical and social characteristics of the legal system and then improve the law for the future by making it more coherent  [13]  . Hence, we can say that according to Dwokins theory, in dealing with a certain case, the judge should try to interpret the law in a way which promotes the coherence of the legal system as well as possible. In other words, it is to say that an interpretationwhich is the most coherent to legal systemis much better than an interpretation-which makes the legal system less coherent. This implies that when interpretation is concerned, there exists a certain tension between what is presented by the existing positivist material and what is the best way to interpret such material from a moral point of view.  [14]   From the view of Dworkin, a judge is like an author in writing a novel, in that case a new author is bound by what another author has written in a previous chapter, but the new author will subsequently attempt to continue the novel in the best possible way.  [15]  A judge should view his or her role in a chain in law, he or she is not purely independent, but is indeed independent to some extent,He knows that other judges have decided cases that, although not exactly like his case, deal with related problems; he must think of their decisions as part of a long story he must interpret and then continue, according to his own judgement of how to make the developing story as good as it can be.  [16]  In other words, Dworkin holds the view that law is not arbitrary but rather the expression of an underlying attempt at forming and clarifying a coherent legal consciousness of society.  [17]  Hence, in interpreting certain legal text, a judge is not completely free. The judge is no t allowed to inject any personal morality into the interpretation of the legal document. More essentially, a judge is required to interpret with the purpose of establishing coherence based on the integrity of existing law. Furthermore, decision making by the judge will depend, that is, not only on his beliefs about which of these principles is superior as a matter of abstract justice but also about which should be followed, as a matter of political fairness, in a community whose members have the moral convictions his fellow citizens have.  [18]  Dworkin also explains this in more general terms: There are two possibilities. Someone might say that interpretation of a social practice means discovering the purposes or intentions of the other social participants in the practice (). Or that it means discovering the purposes of the community that houses the practice, conceived as itself having some form of mental life or group consciousness. The first of these suggestions seems more attractive because less mysterious. But it is ruled out by the internal structure of an argumentative social practice, because it is a feature of such practices that an interpretive claim is not just a claim about what other i nterpreters think. () [A] social practice creates and assumes a crucial distinction between interpreting the acts and thoughts of participants one by one, in that way, and interpreting that practice itself, that is, interpreting what they do collectively. It assumes that distinction because the claims and arguments participants make, licensed and encouraged by the practice, are about what it means, not what they mean. () [An interpreter must therefore] join the practice he proposes to understand ().  [19]   Criticism of Dworkins Legal Theory Moral to full extent According to Michael Sandel  [20]  , Dwokins legal theory begins with the principles of freedom and equality that justify the institutions of democracy and law. However, as Stephen Guise points out that the claim that democracy is just and that law is part of democracy is a claim about a moral ideal.  [21]  If we go further, that is to say, in a moral level, the world without democracy is better than a democratic world. Since in a democratic world, laws are enacted and enforced but laws may be substantively unjust. Stephen Guest criticizes that The theory of Dworkins is moral to the full extent. Interpretation is therefore is not constrained by facts even though it makes use of facts. It does not follow that his theory is subjective, because his moral views like all moral views are subject to revision, correction and, in short, reason.  [22]  Stephen Breyer says that constitutional standards keep subjective judicial decision-making in check.  [23]  In my mind, it is right, but not purely right, that is because, this statement implies that there exists some external checking fact on these judicial subjective judgments, more importantly, this statement demonstrates that judges should not formulate applicable constitutional standards. In the theory of Dworkins, interpretation is something close to the end-product of moralizing with others who are largely in agreement and who endorse true propositions of modality.  [24]  This means that the origin of Dworkins legal theory is moral pro posals concerning equality and freedom. Dworkin cannot explain the extraordinary rigidity of the U.S. Constitution, in particular the way that entrenched provisions of the Constitution conservatively constrain judges by imposing the dead hand of the past  [25]  . In Dworkins perspective, there is no categorical distinction between distinction history and substance, although there is an argument of fit, as we mentioned before, this is merely another form of argument of substance. So in Dworkins theory, there is no way of identifying historical facts about the Constitution distinct from its moral substance. The only arguments are moral arguments and as we mentioned in the first part, Dworkin expresses the idea that entrenched positions can be interpreted morally, in terms, for example, of the protection of democratic decision-making. So law is a form of moralizing that is also an integral part of democracy. If we genuinely believe in equality of respect, we naturally end up with endorsing representative democracy, which means legislative activity through delegated agency. It is not just that the legislature represents my view through legislation but, merely in its existence, it expresses my conviction that I respect others equally. Since I do, I must allow that their convictions count, too, and so I must abide by whatever the procedural outcome is of this respect I owe to others. Moral convictions and objectivity. There is a conflict in Dworkins theory, on one hand, Dworkin emphasizes objectivity in decision making, on the other hand, Dworkin put decision onto a moral basis. As Duncan Kennedy  [26]  claims that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦the judges should not choose the interpretation that applies their own moral and political convictions. I personally dont see what else they could applyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ Furthermore, as Waldron points out that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦These are convictions, not whims, and even where there is nothing else but ones own convictions to follow, no-one thinks that it means those convictions are rightà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Ã‚  [27]  So it is rare or even impossible that a judge will not take personal moral convictions into the process of adjudication or interpretation. Unclear about Justice By holding the same view with Waldron, Smith  [28]  supposes that Dworkins idea or justice is not clear since Dworkin has argued that justice depends on recognizable principles. Furthermore, Smith questions that why should a principle of justice have to be recognizable?  [29]  For principles of justice will surely gain moral recognition if they do because they have force independent of recognition. Someone has to do the recognizing first. How to achieve ideal integrity? Susan Hurley  [30]  defends Dworkins perspective against a claim by Kenneth Kress  [31]  that Dworkin cannot provide a coherent consideration of law in circumstances where there is an intervening judicial decision between a set of facts that ground litigation and the litigation itself. Does the judge decide on the basis of the previous law, or the intervening law? Hurley concludes that if the intervening decision is right, then there is coherence, therefore, there is no problem; if it is wrong, it is a mistake, and need not count. A question may be raised here thatalthough it may have created further rights, say, to reasonable expectations being met, which will cohere with integrity? Moreover, Hurley  [32]  sees the problem in terms of overall moral coherence untrammeled by worries about descriptive facts'. So Hurley usefully broadens the picture by pointing out that coherence is determined as much by hypothetical facts, those that test the limits of principle (and which judges often use), as they are by judicial decisions. Furthermore, as we mentioned before, in Dworkins legal theory, when dealing with a particular case, a judge should interpret and apply law in light of the whole legal system, and make interpretation which is consistent with the integrity of the legal system. However, is this really applicable in practice? In accordance with Waldron  [33]  , it is a challenge to Dworkins descriptive optimism that the facts of the American legal system could make it impossible to give an overall account of American law that would remain true to integrity. But as Stephen argues that there is no such tension between facts and moral optimism as he appears to envisage. The facts are either incorporated into the argument that makes for integrity or they are discounted. There is the possibility that the American legal system has become so dysfunctional that no moral case for integrity can be made for it, but that seemingly remote possibility would not be an embarrassment for Dworkins theory.  [34]  Waldrons comments seem to imply that there are facts that determine law independently of interpretation. And so it has the general form of: Imagine a legal system where integrity might not apply; what then? Dworkins reply can only be and it is his reply that We cannot be sure, before we look, because noth ing in his legal theory requires that all legal systems display integrity  [35]  . Finally, Dworkin must allow that, by making best sense of an existing legal practice, we may still conclude that the practice failed the ideal. Take the fugitive slave Acts for instance.  [36]  What should the judges do when they are legally required to send captured slaves back to the South? In order to maintain the integrity of legal system, the judges should send those slaves back but to achieve the goal of justice, judges should set the slaves free. Hence, the outcome of the judgment represents a serious conflict between integrity and jusitice. A positivist will deal this case by distinguishing legal justice and real justice, but in Dworkins theory, this is criticized. According to Dworkins theory, the relevant ideal here is the ideal of integrity; it is through bad legal argument that one fails to meet that ideal, and it is bad because it hasnt made maximal use, in the circumstances of actual practice, what that actual ideal of integrity requires. So interpretivism produces an ideal, but it is not the outcome that would be the best in all possible worlds, which is how we ordinarily think of ideals. But maybe this doesnt particularly matter. We have the ideal solution in integrity and this differs from the ideal solution in justice. At times both fairness and efficiency require following precedents, but integrity is different, although it will serve both those values as well. Nevertheless, the ideal of integrity appears to be constrained by existing practices in a way that the ideal of justice is not. Or, by its nature, it seems, interpretation is only possible within the existing world, which suggests it is not an ideal at all. A cruder way of putting this point is that making the best sense of existing legal practices is no more than adequately characterizing equity deficits, that is to say characterizing how far these practices fall short of the ideal. If the Legal System is Wicked Obviously, a consequence of Dworkins views is that the legal system itself may not contain too many mistakes. That is because in Dworkins theory, the normative dimension feeds on the law itself, and more importantly, Dworkin emphasizes the relationship between local politics and law. As a matter of fact, Dworkins theory is constructed on the presupposition that the integrity of the legal community is in a large measure reflected in its law. So if the justification of law is to flow from societys political decisions (in the form of law), it follows that these decisions must also be justifiable as such; but this is obviously not always the case, as the examples of Apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany show. Why would we make racism the best it can be? Dworkins argument here is circular in that it presupposes, in his case, the existence of a liberal democracy  [37]   We also note that Dworkins theory does not require abandoning the history or anthropology of wicked legal systems. As we mentioned before, Dworkin holds the view that law should be treated as conventional, because that is a theory that clearly has a moral point  [38]  . There is no need to talk in terms of the Hart-Dworkin debate'  [39]  Stephen claims, especially as they barely debated these questions. The debate should instead concern the theoretical question of the identification of the conditions according to which propositions of law are true. That debate is important because it concerns, amongst other matters, our moral obligation to conform to law. And so while it is right that we move away from the Hart- Dworkin debate, it would be wrong to move from questions concerning the identification of law, because these are at the core of our moral obligations to the community.  [40]  It is true that there will be occasions when the law requires something the moral force o f which grates with a judges personal convictions. There will therefore be occasions when it may be morally right for the judge to lie where justice trumps integrity. But I dont see how any of this affects Dworkins theory unless, yet again, one supposes that some descriptive fact defeats the moral judgment. Both the systems of apartheid and Nazism contained elements of good that could be put to use through integrity. Since these systems regularly enforced equality in some spheres, and morality says that the racial classifications are wrong, then the laws promoting the immoral policies can be made out as dysfunctional, perverted, or even mistaken and, so, not creative of moral obligations. However, if there is no articulated and public structure that, as Dyzenhaus says, citizens have been encouraged to obey and treat as a source of rights and duties,  [41]  it is difficult to see what is left. Where there is such a semblance of law, of an articulate public structure of rights an d duties, citizens acquiescence forms something of a legitimizing base, which, incidentally, Fuller called the external morality of law.  [42]   What will be interpreted cannot be distinguished from the interpretation itself It is not very clear in what respect an analogy can be drawn between law and literature in that legal texts constrain judges in their interpretative activities. Some argue that legal texts themselves are texts as well and thus also must be interpreted. In other words, what is to be interpreted cannot be distinguished from the interpretation itself. There is no such thing as a text out there  [43]  , and meaning is derived from interpretation. From that point of view, a previous legal text as such does not put any constraints on its interpretation but rather on the shared understandings that live within the interpreting community. Conclusion As we have discussed throughout this essay, although Dworkin tried to provide a theory of law, which, at least in his opinion, not only better represents what actually happens when judges decide cases but is also a morally better theory of law. It seems that his work is unsuccessful. Dworkin tried to avoid the shortcomings of both conventionalist theory and pragmatist theory. In the theory of law as integrity, when comes to interpretation of law, on one hand, Dworkin expects to make the judge constrained by law by arguing that the interpretation of law should follow the step of former decisions and be coherent with the existing legal system, on the other hand, Dworkin tries to make the judge creative, and emphasizes on the moral issues in the process of interpretation. Moreover, Dworkin connects law with other social elements, such as politics and local community, and enlarged the conception of integrity. In conclusion, we see Dworkins theory of law as integrity is good in a moral level but bad in a legal level. As we have discussed in this essay, Dworkins theory of law as integrity lacks applicability, if a theory only sounds good but could not be applied in practice, this theory is not a good one. In addition, as a legal theory, Dworkins theory of law as integrity fails in the following essential aspects. Firstly, this theory made its sole concept integrity conflicted with the concept of justice under certain circumstances. Secondly, when Dworkin makes law closely related to politics, actually, more problems have been raised rather than solved.

Causes and Effects of the American Revolution Essay -- Essays on Amer

Both the British and the American colonists contributed to causing the American Revolution. The war grew out of contempt: England’s contempt for the colonies and colonial contempt for British policies. A series of actions by the British eventually pushed the colonists over the edge and towards independence. The results of the war gave many citizens a new role in society while others, like slaves, felt no change at all. This paper will examine the specific causes and effects of the American Revolution. Ideology really laid the foundation for the Revolution. British citizens, including those in the North American colonies, felt a special sense of pride in their political system. Unlike in other European countries at the time, the English king did not possess absolute control over his country. England has a parliament, and that stood as a check against the king’s power. Many Britons grew up skeptical of a single, authoritarian ruler. Within this political framework, there existed the concept of liberty. â€Å"The English had no standing army, no letters de cachet; they had their habeas corpus, their trials by jury, their freedom of speech and conscience, and their right to trade and travel; they were free from arbitrary arrest and punishment; their homes were their castles.† The vast majority of the colonists considered themselves British, and as such, they were entitled to these rights and freedoms. Republicanism coexisted with the notion of liberty. â€Å"According to the classical republican tradition, man was by nature a political being, a citizen who achieved his greatest moral fulfillment by participating in a self-governing republic.† The colonists took this virtuous duty seriously, especially when it came to r... ...t for their right to have a say in how their country should be run. In their old age, the leaders of the American Revolution and eventual founders of the United States worried about the extent to which democracy pervaded society. However, their actions planted the seeds for oppressed groups to fight for their rights. A country whose founding principle is that â€Å"all men are created equal†¦with certain unalienable rights† including â€Å"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness† will always give people hope for a better future. Works Cited Countryman, Edward. The American Revolution revised edition. New York: Hill and Wang, 2003. Norton, Mary Beth. Liberty’s Daughters: The Revolutionary Experience of American Women, 1750-1800. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996. Wood, Gordon S. The Radicalism of the American Revolution. New York: Vintage Books, 1991.

Market Structures Essay

Each market structure plays a significant role in the economy. Markets are categorized according to the structure of each industry serving the market. Three of the basic market structures include competitive markets, monopolies, and oligopolies. These differ due to the different number of strength of buyers and sellers and also the level of collusion between them. There are stages of competition and magnitude of the difference in products. When there are many buyers and sellers of a product then neither firms are able influence prices, therefore making it competitive. In competitive markets there are not restraints on firms going in and out of the market and buyers can purchase the same product or products from many sellers and get the same products. For example, potatoes are in the competitive market because consumers can find a potato farm that offers them at the lowest market price, and they can produce however much they want or as much as they can profit from at the going rate. There are many options for buyers because, with the knowledge, there is a lower price so they can always observe to find the best price. Lets say a good/product is $10 at the market price and a firm produces 10 units per day. The total revenue for the day would be $100 ($10 x 10 = $100), but the marginal revenue with producing the eleventh unit per day would increase from $100 to $ 110 ( 11 x $10). However marginal cost do vary depending on the amount of goods produced. For example, a firm may increase input so marginal cost is equal to the market price. As long as the market price covers the variable cost there is incentive to stay in business, and possibly in the long run maximize profits (Jeffery Ely, 2012). So basically with a numerous amount of buyers and sellers in the market it creates competition and very little bargaining power for buyers and sellers. There are usually not many barriers that exist within competitive markets because the exit and entry levels are low. For example, even though the market for making cars competitive the upfront capitol cost are high, which can create difficulty entering, or getting started. In some cases an exit barrier may exist if a large amounts of money is tied up in firm.