Nature vs. Nurture in Oliver Twist Essay

Out of all the questions that anyone may have for the novel, Oliver Twist, one of the more common questions that can occur is; â€Å"What determines a person’s personality, decisions, actions, etc. Is nature to blame? Or is it nurture’s fault?† Seeing as though Oliver was orphaned at birth and never had a real mother or siblings to look up to, this essay will focus on the nurture section of the question. Nurture, by definition, is the value of experiences, cultural influences, and learned actions/reactions in a growing offspring’s life. Nature is defined as the qualities with which people are born (including genetic make-up, stable personality traits, â€Å"animals instincts†, etc.) Oliver had many bad influences to decide that it may have been nature that had affected him the most in this situation. In all cases, the nature vs. nurture debate is one and the same. Caring for a child most assiduously is very important, according to the definition of nurture, and within the story of Oliver Twist, the child never seemed to receive proper nurturing from any of the parochial people or thieves that he had accompanied. Dickens writes the character of Oliver in a way that seems to cement his stance in nature’s court; that Oliver appears to be an innately good person. His experiences in the workhouse, the abuse he has to endure from Mr. Bumble and other characters, and his exposure to a life of crime does not make Oliver turn from good to bad. However, to assume that Dickens supports the idea that only nurture is responsible for determining a person’s personality would be incorrect. In fact, other characters within the novel, assert that they are products of their environments. This means that characters such as Nancy, the Artful Dodger, and others have been molded by their experiences, which clearly supports nurture’s side of the debate. From a scientific point of view, most psychologists agree that neither nature nor nurture can be held completely responsible for the shaping of a person’s personality. When faced with the nature vs. nurture debate in real situations, it is typically assumed that personality can be attributed partly to nature and partly to nurture. At first glance many of Dickens’s characters appear to favor either nature or nurture, but further investigation shows that each character embodies traits that can be attributed to both. In Oliver Twist, Dickens draws the attention to numerous issues. For example, there is a very clear theme of disapproval of the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act (and its accompanying effects) throughout then novel. And while most of the other issues that Dickens includes in his writing are societal, he does bring up an interesting debate that has psychological roots. Although Oliver is surrounded by horrible situations, Dickens still had a tone of hope underscoring it all. At points, there were questions if that was because the reader knew what would happen in the end. But Dickens intended Oliver Twist to be somewhat humorous. For example, by illustrating the dichotomy of the wealthy, fat parish leaders feasting while orphaned workhouse children starve on gruel. In conclusion, both sides to the debate of whether or not Oliver was most affected by nature or nurture remains to the opinion of the reader. Of course there may be certain circumstances as to which side the reader may favor and Dickens had probably pursued that route, intending for the reader to decide Oliver’s fate. The nature vs. nurture argument pertains to anyone who wishes for a good debate in their reading selections of Charles Dickens.

Critically evaluate the extent to which international law recognizes a Essay

Critically evaluate the extent to which international law recognizes a right of self-defence to prevent attacks by terrorist organizations - Essay Example This paper aims to provide an articulate understanding of the author’s point of view in conclusion to this discussion, after critically evaluating the various provisions contained in the UN Charter regarding the right of a State to defend itself. â€Å"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.†1 Under this provision, there is an inherent right of individual or collective self-defense of any member of the United Nations in case there is an armed attack that occurs.2 However, there is a limitation provided, in that, it is subject to review by the Security Council.3 Under customary international law, the pre-requisites to legitimate self-defense include the following: â€Å"1) an infringement or threatened infringement of the territorial integrity or political independence of the defending state; 2) the failure or inability of the other state to prevent the infringement; 3) the absence of alternative means to secure protection; and 4) the strict limitation of the defending states use of force to prevent the danger.†4 Although Article 51 of the UN Charter considers self-defense as an inherent right under customary international law, the provision providing for an â€Å"armed attack† is much debated.5 Various interpretations have also been made as regards the word â€Å"inherent† in the exercise of self-defence. The word â€Å"inherent† was said to have given a State the right to use

Economics Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Economics - Assignment Example ple believe that market system can help in creating a positive investment climate because the society as a whole decides upon what they want to pay for a particular good and services. This decision cannot be influenced by any other force except buyers and sellers. The idea is that the buyers and sellers will work out the price and this price will be just. Because it is set by the people everyone will be happy. Also firms will try to avail the opportunity to earn profits and will come and invest. They will supply what they think people will demand and everyone in the society will benefit or in other words investment climate will improve. Market system is also supported by many due to the increased competition between firms. When many firms are operating and there are no major subsidies or restrictions laid down by the government then all firms have equal opportunity to excel. This brings all the firms on the same level and then innovation increases as the firms want to do better than the other firms. As a result consumers get a variety of products and monopoly of suppliers is hindered. This also improves the investment climate of a country. If a firm comes up with a great idea then it temporarily enjoys abnormal profits. But because there are no trade barriers other companies also try to replicate the same idea and the profits of the first firm come back to normal. This is how market system encourages a positive investment climate. The interests of the firms, the consumers and the society as a whole are preserved and this is why many people think market system as the best mechanism for allocating scarce resources. In a market system of economy people’s need are catered well. Firms supply product or services if the buyers demand a particular product or services. Also people spend money on things they think will improve their life style so they are more contended. People also believe that resources are distributed evenly in a market economy. This is because

How do people respond to economic incentives Term Paper

How do people respond to economic incentives - Term Paper Example This research will begin with the statement that an incentive is referred to as something that motivates a person to execute an action. Incentives in economics can also be said of factors that alter the purchasing behavior of consumers. Economics as a science relies significantly on assumptions to model and analyzing the actual world. These assumptions can vary from the idea that people are rational, and will act to satisfy their self-interest, to the view that resources are scarce, and thus, becomes subject to laws of supply and demand. According to Deolalikar, and Jones, the economic incentive is a reward, benefit, or the cost that encourages an economic action. People do things purposely, and naturally, and expect benefits from their choices and actions. Before one decides to create something, and sell it to other individuals, similarly, before one buys anything, they are aware of the benefit they are going to get from the product. People respond to of incentives where some are un selfish. Some people are motivated by virtue of their duty, or community in which they live in, or the choices that they make. The truth, however, is that many people and corporations are motivated majorly by financial incentive or rather economic incentives. The facts become apparent when we look at the popularity and success of low-cost retailers such as Wal-Mart. This does not imply that they are bad company, but it exemplifies the current social responsibility that people bear.

Taking a Rugby Penalty Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Taking a Rugby Penalty - Essay Example ("Penalty") A penalty is identified if the referee blows the whistle and raises an arm in the direction of the team to whom the penalty has been awarded. Then, the team captain has to make a decision of what to do to the ball that is already in their possession. If the captain chooses to kick a goal, the kicker places the ball on the spot where the penalty occurred, or anywhere on a direct line behind it, just like a conversion. Unlike a conversion, the defending team is not allowed to rush the kicker at any time while a penalty kick is being attempted. If the penalty kick has been successful, it is worth three points. ("Understanding") The penalized team must retreat or move back ten metres away while the team that was awarded with the penalty must restart the game. With the ball now in their possession, the team captain must decide what to do with the ball. He will then have to choose from the following choices: A tap penalty. This move is often taken quickly to exploit lack of organisation in the opposition's retreating defence. It is where a player drops the ball onto his foot and kicks it up into his arms and then carries the ball forward. ("Penalty") A kick to touch. The side with the penalty gets the throw-in to the resultant line-out, from which they have a good chance of securing possession. This is used mainly to gain territory though it is also used as a tactic to gain a platform for a rolling maul near the opponents try line and muscle over for a score. ("Penalty") A kick at goal. The kick at goal is usually taken off the ground from a sand or plastic tee (though it is possible to drop kick the ball). If it is successful, they score three points, and the opposition restarts from the centre line. If the penalty is missed, a 22 metre drop-out is awarded to the opposition. ("Penalty") A scrum. A team may opt to have a scrum. This would normally be taken if an attacking team wished to have all the defensive forwards tied up in one place allowing the backs the luxury of a one on one confrontation. Alternatively, if a team has ascendancy in the scrums they may try for a pushover try, which may result in the award of a penalty try if the scrums are deliberately collapsed by the defending side. ("Penalty") Rugby Players' Decision-Making The players' decision-making before taking penalties in rugby entails too much pressure for them. One wrong decision - that is one wrong choice from the options stated above - may cost the team the game. Decision-making is the most difficult task the coaches are face over the years. The difficulties in trying to get players to take the best option in taking penalties involve enough time and effort for both parties. Both strategic decisions regarding what kind of game plan to follow or when is would be the different moves appropriately

Negotiations Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Negotiations - Essay Example The requirement to move the opponents from their preferred solution could motivate individuals involved to go against contemporary ethical standards; they could employ inappropriate influence tactics so as to gain compliance from the other. Guasco and Robinson put the ethical argument in context noting that â€Å"what is one negotiator’s appropriate tactic is another’s unethical trick† (2007, p. 135). Approaches to ethical reasoning In business negotiation, various standards have been used to evaluate tactics, as identified by Lewicki, Barry and Saunders (2007). The end result tactic would be applied where the negotiator chooses to adopt an action based on the expected results. Duty ethics would cause the negotiator to choose a course of action based on such person’s duty to uphold suitable rules and principles. The third standard referred to the fact social contract would cause one to choose a specific course of action based on the strategy, values and no rms of an organization or community they exist in. Finally, personality ethics would cause one to choose to follow a specific course of action based on personal convictions. ... Here, the negotiator aims at distorting the settlement point. For example, a buyer willing to spend up to $10,000 on machinery could indicate to the buyer the willingness not to spend more than $8,000. This tactic has been noted to be necessary in creating a rationale that would make the opponent make concessions. According to Lewicki, Barry and Saunders (2007), negotiators who make extreme demands and have the opponents give in achieve favorable settlements. In bluffing negotiation tactic, the negotiator would falsely state the intention to perform an act. These have been described by Lewicki, Barry and Saunders (2007) as false threats and acts. For example, a negotiator could threaten to undertake a specific course of action should the opponent fail to perform a specific task. But this would be said without any intention to live up to the stated consequences. Guasco and Robinson (2007) argue about the unethical form of bluffing such as the one where a seller lies to a buyer of a pr ospect who has bid a higher price for a car, yet in real sense no one else has participated in negotiations. Therefore, the scholars liken bluffing in negotiation to poker. With falsification, erroneous or incorrect information would be introduced as if it were true (Lewicki, Barry & Saunders, 2007). Some examples include erroneous financial information, false guarantees and warranties. Falsification could be printed or spoken and would be aimed at using erroneous information to distort actual facts, thus changing the position of the opponent. The fourth negotiation tactic, as identified by Lewicki, Barry and Saunders (2007), is known as deception. Here, the tactic would attempt to manipulate the logical and inferential processes of the opponent so as to cause incorrect deduction or

Animal Testing Is Cruelty and It Is Abusive Essay Example for Free

Animal Testing Is Cruelty and It Is Abusive Essay Is animal testing cruelty or science? This is the question that many people ask to themselves, and is one of the many controversial topics in today’s society. In my point of view animal testing is cruelty because animals can’t talk for themselves so they get kill and hurt, and we also violated their right by doing this. Anjo a member of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) said â€Å"Animals feel pain; they have a right to decent life† (Nancy Day 2000, pg. 12). It is difficult to determine how many animals are used for research, but experts agree the number is declining. Research use animal for experiments because animals’ bodies often react in ways that are similar to the ways in which human bodies react. Animal research proponents say that almost every major medical discovery in the last hundred years has involved experiments on animals. â€Å"Jonathan Balcombre of the Humance Society of the United States estimates that between 15 to 20 million vertebrate animals are currently used each year in the United State and between 60 and 80 million are used worldwide† (Nancy Day 2000, pg.13). According to Chris DeRose, founder and president of Last Chance for Animals said, â€Å"I’d give my own life to cure cancer. I don’t, morally and ethically, however, have the right to kill a single rat; I don’t care what preposterous justification they try to use?†(Nancy Day 2000, pg.14). Many animal activists are opposed to animal experimentation on moral ground because by getting animal for experimentation we are violating their right. Animal research proponents say the morality is in saving human lives. They point to the millions of people whose lives have been saved or improved through research on animal. Between these two positions, influenced by tides of public opinions, government regulation, cultural differences, and ethical considerations. Most people agree that some guidelines or regulations should control animal experimentation. Peggy Carlson, a physician in the Washington D.C. area and a research scientist for the Humane Society in the United S tate, â€Å"As an emergency room physician I often see the suffering of patients ill and dying from diseases that could have been avoided if more resources were devoted to prevention, if healthier dietary guidelines were advocated, and if more research applicable to humans was conducted. I also know that behind this human suffering is another level of suffering, more hidden from view: the suffering of animals used in costly and needless experiments that benefit no one†( Vaughan Monamy 2009, pg.29 ). Peggy Carlson concluded that the practice of using animals for experimentation to mimic or to study human diseases is often unreliable and occasionally misleads scientific investigation. Not only that but million and billions of dollars are wasted in animal experimentation. Animals are used in experiments for three general purposes: to find out how biological systems function or what factors affect behavior; to educate and train students in medicine and science; and to test drugs, chemicals, or products to determine their safety and effectiveness. Neal Barnard said, â€Å"Animal tests have caused a very substantial loss, in terms of loss of money, in terms of the loss of good minds being devoted to a very, very limited methodology, and in terms of indicating that c ertain things are true which weren’t true†( Chris Hayhurst 2000, pg. 27). One alternative to using animals for medical experimentation is to use human beings instead. If this seems shocking, keep in mind that human experimentation is already a very large and important part of medical research today. Many scientist claims that people are living longer because of animal experimentation, but studies have shown this to be false. â€Å"Researcher in Boston and Harvard University’s found that medical measures (drug and vaccines) accounted for at most between 1 and 3.5 percent of the total decline in mortality in the United State since 1900. The researchers noted that the increase in life expectancy is primarily due to the decline in killer epidemics, such as tuberculosis, scarlet fever, smallpox, and diphtheria. The facts about these infectious diseases are that they were declining before and in most cases long before specific therapies became available. The decline of these diseases was most likely due to such factor as improvement in sanitation, hygiene, diet and standard of living† (Vaughan Monamy 2009, pg. 50). However, medical research has played an important role in improving people’s lives without animal experimentation. â€Å"The list of advances made without the use of animal is extensive and includes the isolation of AIDS virus, the discovery of penicillin and anesthetics, the identification of human blood types, the need for certain vitamins and the development of X-rays. The identification of risk factors for heart disease and probably one of the most important, the discovery for decreasing death from heart attacks was made through human population studies† (Nancy Day 2000, pg.58). As we see in the previous paragraph many medical solution were found without conducting animal experimentation. I also found that this discovery were more accurate and less expensive compare to animal experimentation. One of the major problems with animal experiments is that the results frequently do not apply to humans. Irwin Bross, Ph.D., former director of biostatistics at the Roswell Institute for Cancer Research testified before congress in 1981 that â€Å"while conflicting animal results have often delayed and hampered advances in the war on cancer, they have never produced a single substantial advance either in the prevention or treatment of human cancer.† ( Nancy Day 2000, pg.45) Animal tests that attempt to predict which substances cause human cancer have also been shown to be unreliable. If studies have shown that the experimentation on animal has shown to be unreliable why does scientist keep wasting their time killing innocent animal. Instead they should try to find difference source that could help find a solution to cancer. When I was researching, I found that neurological diseases are another major cause of death and disabilities in the United States. Again, animal experimentation in this area has not correlated well with human diseases. In 1990 an editorial in the Journal Stroke noted that 25 compounds that have being proven effective for treating stroke in animal models over the last 10 year have not proven to be effective for the use in human’s strokes. Stephen Kaufman, M.D., reviewed animals model of such degenerative neurological disease as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s and conclude that â€Å"animal models designed to improve our understanding and treatment of these condition have had little impact and their future value is highly dubious†(Chris Hayhurst 2000, pg. 20). According to the International League of the Right of animals; â€Å"all animals are born with an equal claim on life, are entitled to respectful treatment, and have the right to live freely in their natural environment.† Some people refused to accept that animals have rights because animals cannot reason, write, speak, or crea te art, just because of these their life deserve less consideration than human lives† (Nancy Day 2000, pg.72). However, according to Tom L. Beauchamp, â€Å"research indicates that many animals exhibit the same types of mental capabilities as humans† (Nancy Day 2000, pg.74).Chimpanzee provide excellent example of animal intelligence. The fact that chimpanzee can use tools, recognize and decode symbols, and perform tasks on command proves that the distinction between people and animals is dubious at the best. â€Å"It is clear that animals are intelligent beings, but it is not necessary that they have intelligence in order to be worthy of rights. If a creature’s moral significance depends in the intelligence, then people with little potential for intelligence – brain damaged humans, the mentally retarded, or the comatose would not be worthy of the same consideration as fully functional humans† †(Chris Hayhurst 2000, pg. 81). All human and nonhuman life, regardless of its intelligence, is unified by one important quality: animal, like humans, possess the capaci ty to suffer. Despite whether animal have intellectual abilities, it is impossible to argue that animal do not feel pain; an animal in pain screams and writhes just as a human does. Ingrid Newkirk, the founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), describes this essential similarity: When it comes to having a nervous system and the ability to feel pain, hunger, and thirst a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy(Nancy Day 2000, pg. 100). One of the major problems with animal experiments is that the results frequently do not apply to humans. Irwin Bross, Ph.D., former director of biostatistics at the Roswell Institute for Cancer Research testified before congress in 1981 that â€Å"while conflicting animal results have often delayed and hampered advances in the war on cancer, they have never produced a single substantial advance either in the prevention or treatment of human cancer† (Nancy Day 2000, pg.113). Animal tests that attempt to predict which substances cause human cancer have also been shown to be unreliable. If studies have shown that the experimentation on animal has shown to be unreliable why does scientist keep wasting their time killing innocent animal. Instead they should try to find difference source that could help find a solution to cancer. When I was researching, I found that neurological diseases are another major cause of death and disabilities in the United States. Again, animal experimentation in this area has not correlated well with human diseases. In 1990 an editorial in the Journal Stroke noted that 25 compounds that have being proven effective for treating stroke in animal models over the last 10 year have not proven to be effective for the use in human’s strokes. Stephen Kaufman, M.D., reviewed animals model of such degenerative neurological disease as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s and conclude that â€Å"animal models designed to improve our understanding and treatment of these condition have had little impact and their future value is highly dubious†(Vaughan Monamy 2009, pg.112). Two other areas where animal experimentation has been both consumptive of health care dollars and unproductive are psychology and addiction. Using animals to test therapeutic drugs has also proven unreliable. Penicillin kills guinea pigs and hamsters, but it is very beneficial for humans. Thalidomide, a tranquilizer formerly prescribed for pregnant women with morning sickness, caused serious birth defects in more than 10,000 children, but does not cause birth defects in numerous species of nonhuman animals. The significance of pain should not be judged by the value of the sufferer—a friend, an annoying classmate, or an animal. If morality requires us to refrain from inflicting pain upon other people, then it should require us to refrain from inflicting pain upon animal as well, and, according to Richard Ryder, consultant with the Political Animal Lobby. We can treat different species differently, but always we should treat equal suffering equally. In the case of nonhumans, we see them mercilessly exploited in factory farms, in labratories, and in the wild. These are major abuses causing great suffering, yet they are still justified on the ground that these creatures are not of the same species as ourselves. The main difference between animals and humans is the ability to make ethical judgments. Animals cannot distinguish between right and wrong; humans can. Some opponents of animal rights maintain that since animals do not have the ability to make moral decisions, they do not deserve moral consideration. Actually, the reverse of this argument is true: â€Å"The human capacity to act morally obligates us to prevent animal suffering. It does not give us license to cause it† (Vaughan Monamy 2009, pg.88).