Attend the Metropolitan Museum of Art and select one Italian Research Paper

Attend the Metropolitan Museum of Art and select one Italian Renaissance and one Northern Renaissance piece of art - Research Paper Example The above painting was done by Duccio di Buoninsegna, a renaissance Italian artist. The painting shows an intensely personal touch done by the artist, Duccio, on the masterpiece entitled â€Å"the Madonna and Child†. The painting was done in tempera and gold on wood. The title of the painting is Stroganoff Madonna. The painting was bought by the Metropolitan Museum for an estimated $45 million. This is one of the main masterpiece attractions of the Metropolitan Museum. The painting was bought during November 2004 from a Christie’s auction sale held in London. The painting was done by the Italian Sienese Renaissance artist, Duccio di Buoninsegna. The painting is done on Tempera and Gold on wood with its original frame still intact. In addition, Duccio is one of the two originators of the Western European Paintings. This is one of the rare solo paintings of the Italian artist. This is one of the complete and independent works of the artist. The painting above shows tellta le signs of the artist’s intensely personal painting style grounded on the Italian Renaissance trademarks of proportion, anatomy, and perspective. His masterpieces are filled with life fused with Byzantine culture. The painting is endowed with the Franciscan movement’s religious trimmings. ... Giotto was an immediate fan of Giotto’s painting style. The Giotto fresco of Saint Francis was grounded on Byzantine and medieval culture. In response, Duccio created his own art culture. The new culture is known as the Renaissance. Duccio’s Renaissance painting style focused on human sentiment, emotional response, lyricism, as well as color sensitivity. This is very evident in the above painting, Stroganoff Madonna and Child. The painting was intended for private devotion; the small panel shows that it was meant for private viewing. Northern Renaissance Painting (Metropolitan Museum) The wood cut entitled â€Å"Rhinoceros† is one of the Northern Renaissance painting displayed in the Metropolitan Museum. The masterpiece was done by the renaissance artist, Albrecht Durer. The masterpiece was done during in 1515. The picture shows an Indian Rhinoceros. Durer painted the masterpiece based on his won written description as well as the discussion of another artist. Th e Rhinoceros By Albrecht Durer In terms of the above picture, the Rhinoceros is a wood cut art masterpiece; it is distinctly displayed in the Metropolitan Museum. The wood cut was created by Albrecht Durer to celebrate the arrival in Lisbon of the Indian Rhinoceros animal on 20 May 1515. The wood cut vividly incorporates the proportion, anatomy, and perspective essences of Northern Italian renaissance art, incorporated from the Italian masters when Albrecht Durer visited and studied the uniqueness and personal intensity of the Italian renaissance artists. Further, the painting is based on the rhinoceros story. The ruler of Gujarat, Sultan Muzafar II (1511 -1526) gave the rhinoceros to the

Human Trafficking Policy Development Paper Essay

Human Trafficking Policy Development Paper - Essay Example However, only 49,105 cases of human trafficking victims across the world have been identified with only 4,166 of these cases being successful prosecuted in 2009 (Cullen-DuPont, 2009). 335 of the successful prosecutions were related to forced labor. Previous research revealed that1.8 per 1,000 inhabitants was incidence of trafficking casualties in the world. Globally, the ratio of labor trafficking victims to sex trafficking victims currently stands at 9:1. Surprisingly, there are about 800,000 people trafficked across the international borders each year, as of 2007. Nonetheless, the number increased to 1.2 million people trafficked globally by 2013. Human Trafficking is undoubtedly the world’s fastest-growing concern in the criminal industry. It destroys the lives of so many women, children as well as young men each year in the globe. The public acknowledges that as a mother, grandmother, a sister, a relative, a brother, or a friend, it sickens to think that millions of our kin aged below 18 are sold to other parts of the world as victims of sex and/ or labor trafficking every year across the globe. The most horrible thing is that 80 percent of these trafficking victims are usually sexually exploited. Senators from most states, judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors, administrators, law enforcement officers and law-abiding citizens I’ve agreed all too well that indeed traffickers have no respect to gender, age or economics. Thus, they all advocate and support my proposed policy to help eradicate this inhuman act. My proposed policy focus to give a renewed attention on prevention overseas, a non-porous border at every state, tougher action on perpetrators as well as better identification of victims and care for these victims. This policy adopts a comprehensive approach as far as tackling trafficking is concerned. It will lay down legislations to: framework

The Libertarian Manifesto By John Hospers Philosophy Essay

The Libertarian Manifesto By John Hospers Philosophy Essay The Libertarian Manifesto by John Hospers is something that is equated with the ethical problem surrounding the distribution of wealth, amongst other things. Hospers (1996) argues that when it comes to the distribution of income, people should fend for themselves. He opposed arguments such as an admonition to feed the hungry because in the libertarian world, hunger simply would not happen (Hospers, 1996). Hospers (1996) begins his article by noting the definition of libertarianism, which is that people have a right to make their own decisions and lead their own lives, as long as their decisions do not interfere with anyone elses life. There is a problem as it respects the distribution of wealth, but for the libertarian it is not a problem. The individual has a right to decide what he or she wants to do. Hospers (1996) ideas, and the ideas of many libertarians, are equated with the concept that every man can fend for himself, and in the end, everyone will get exactly what they want. Hospers (1996) believes that the right to private property is basic. On some level, one might equate his ideas to natural rights ethics. Clarke Linzey (1996) write: The idea of natural rights implies that there is an essential human nature which determines this status and a moral order government the relations of human beings as such, independently of the laws of all particular societiesà ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬Ã‚ ¦ (598). The ethical rule used by Hospers (1996) in respect to wealth distribution would be that it is permissible to follow ones desires and not to worry about others in society. This is because they have their own paths. That is, it is not an obligation for society to take care of everyone in its midst. The duty is for the individual to be accountable to himself. Yet, it is also true that there are interactions between people. Hospers (1996) provides examples of situations in respect to how one should act, and certainly, the society is accountable to the individual on some level not to influence things too much. For the libertarian, it is scant government that is the best government. Hospers (1996) writes: Government is the most dangerous institution known to man (27). The factual claims made by Hospers (1996) are associated with observational and historical facts. Nothing he says can be proven, but anecdotal evidence is used to support the authors points. A student asks whether or not Hospers position meets the fourth criteria for valid theory, which are consistency and coherence, rational justification, plausibility, and usefulness. First, it should be said that the theory is coherent, and while it is largely consistent, it is difficult to be completely consistent with the notions in libertarianism. There are exceptions. Hospers (1996) writes about freedom where people have a right to do and say as they like, but even freedom of speech has limits. He writes: Indeed, the right to property may well be considered second only to the right to life. Even the freedom of speech is limited by considerations of property (Hospers, 1996, 25). He goes on to explore other issues and provides examples of when people cannot say what they like (Hospers, 1996). While the theory is consistent, there are exceptions to everything and this muddies the waters. One can take things further by examining contemporary examples. For instance, people believe that they have the right to free speech. Hospers (1996) says that people cannot shout obscenities in a church because the property is not designated for that purpose. Enter property rights. Yet, in society today, people do have a right to their opinions. At the same time, with the political correctness movement, people are not entitled to utter certain things without their rights being challenged by the law. If someone utters a derogatory racial remark and ends up in a fight, he can be charged with a hate crime. On some level, this is thought control. As abhorrent as ones thoughts might be, the idea to outlaw certain forms of speech and not others imposes limits, thus challenging some pure libertarian notions. While this idea does not take away from the validity of the position, it certainly challenges its consistency. Is the position rational? It is a reasoned argument. In fact, the article provides much support for the premise, and the support is based on logic. Ethical criteria are included and the author does make a sound ethical arguments that are also plausible. While the points are well reasoned, the argument at the end of all of this is whether or not someone can allow poverty to exist in a world of plenty. The libertarian provides a what if argument. In other words, the libertarian claims that if things were a certain way, there would be no poverty, but the world is not completely libertarian so the point is moot. Poverty persists, so while the argument may be sound in this what if scenario, it does not address solutions for the status quo. What does one do with the poor today? Usefulness is another issue. If one is not operating in a libertarian world, the theory is only useful if the world were that way. Theoretically, Hospers (1996) provides an excellent paradigm, but it may not be possible to achieve his ideas in reality. In the United States, different ideas are supported and compromises are made. Hospers (1996) brand of libertarianism could not flourish in this sort of situation. Similarly, in totalitarian regimes, there is much too much force in play to go from such a model to one of complete freedom. Libertarianism is a sound theoretical model, but it is unknown whether or not it could ever be successfully implemented.

The Exploration of the Orgasm Essay -- essays research papers

The role of the orgasm in heterosexual relationships is significant in having a satisfying malefemale relationship according to society’s expectations. By using the malefemale binary, as well as exploring the social construction of sex, we can see just how significant the role the orgasm plays in heterosexual relationships. First off, we must understand that orgasms are achieved differently for both males and females.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Male orgasms are achieved through the male sex organ, being the penis. It has many nerve endings that are very sensitive. The female orgasm contains just as many of these nerve ending, but is a much smaller size. The penis is on average 5.5 inches, where the clitoris is about 1 inch. What is interesting is the actual act of sexual penetration in regards to orgasms. This act is perfectly constructed for the male to achieve orgasms, but poorly constructed for the female. The vagina is inches away from the clitoris, and is the primary body part involved in sex. Since the penis is penetrating the vagina, we see how it is easy for it to be fully stimulated and to reach climax. However, the female sex organ receives little if any stimulation depending on the position, which in fact makes it extremely hard for females to reach climax. It is also interesting to note that the act of intercourse itself ends not with the female orgasm, but with the male. Due to the biologica l make-up of males and females, the actual act of sex (penetration) is constructed around the male orgasm.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  When exploring the role of the orgasm, we have to take into consideration complexity of the female orgasm. Society makes up certain stereotypes for males and females in terms of sexual relationships. Here we take into consideration the malefemale binary in terms of sex and emotion. Males are able to separate sex from emotion, where females combine the two. Therefore, the female orgasm is both physical and metal. Some females even go further and say that without both components involved, the female orgasm is extremely hard to achieve unless they are both physically and mentally involved with their male counterpart. This also requires most females to be completely comfortable with their male partner. Society on the other hand finds it acceptable for men to be sexually promiscuous, and this is a key factor for men to be ab... ...ay â€Å"can we try something different, because this is not working for me†. This would then lead to the man feeling very tricked and betrayed, and would be a blow to his ego (because he not masculine according to society unless he can please the woman). Therefore, women should learn to always be honest, and let the man know he makes you feel good whether you orgasm or not, but that there are certain things he can do (oral, sex toys) that can help you achieve orgasm as well.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In conclusion, we see that through certain social stigma, such as masturbation and oral sex, as well as through the concepts of the male being the gift giver, and the act of penetration focusing on the penis, society gives little importance to the female orgasm. In terms of heterosexual relationships it is important for the female to be open with her partner in informing him of what is needed to increase her sexual pleasure, which will help bring her to orgasm as well. Society has placed a great importance on orgasms in relationships, especially in terms of the male, and as a result we have found ways to ensure this is satisfied through faking it, sex toys, and different sexual acts.

David Hume, John Locke and John Rawls on Property Essay

All the three philosophers, whose work I am going to scrutinize on, have very specific, yet in most cases common views on property. First of all, let me define what the term property means. Property, as I see it, is an object of legal rights that is possessed by an individual or a group of individuals who are directly responsible for this it. In his work Of Justice, David Hume puts great emphasis on distribution of property in society. Hume believes that only the conception of property gives society such social virtue as justice. Justice, according to Hume, is an important social virtue the sole purpose of which is public utility. To prove his point of view about how property distribution defines the existence of justice in society, David Hume gives several examples. Take an example of utopian society where nature supplies human beings with every convenience in great abundance. It is a state where everyone has anything he/she desires in great amounts. Consequently, there is no any conception of property, because there is no need for it ? you can have everything without putting labor on it. Of course, in such a state, Hume argues, every virtue will flourish, except justice. Why make separation of property, if everyone has more than enough; where there is no need to label objects â€Å"mine† or â€Å"yours†, because both of us can have these objects in great amount without any physical or mental exercise? Hume also gives real life examples, of water and air; because of their great amount, no one is trying to control over them, separate them. According to Hume, in such cases justice is no longer exists in the list of virtues. For property, Hume thinks, plays an essential role in making justice useful for people. OK ? but you quote yourself from a previous paper John Locke, in his work Second Treatise of Government, writes about his views on the conception of property. In the chapter which is titled â€Å"Of Property† Locke makes significant points about private property. He, first of all, tells how the right to private property originated. Being a true protestant, Locke believes that the right for the private property is given to human beings from God or as Locke himself writes â€Å"that God has given the earth to the children of men; given to mankind in common. † Since God gave earth (and creatures and plants living and growing on it) in common, there should be some regulations what exactly and when can be called someone’s private ownership. For instance, there is a great territory of uncultivated land. When can it (or part of it) be called one’s private property? When one comes and says the area is his/her, or when one draws borders and claims for ownership? Locke proposes the idea of labor. That only a labor puts a distinction between common and private. And he gives examples of apples picked up from the common apple tree. The apples become private right after they are picked up by their owner, because the owner put labor on making them private property. Then, very just question arises: what if others will not give their consent in making common resources private? Locke thinks that in this case mankind would starve despite the abundance of resources God gave them. OK There may be an objection to this that if putting labor is the only thing required turning common into private, why not people take advantage of it and put great efforts to gain more private ownership. The answer that Locke gives is very simple ? ?as much as one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by labor fix a property in: whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others. ‘ Therefore, the property is whatever one puts his/her labor in and can possess it for his/her convenience, but if some part of this property spoils or perishes, it is great injustice towards other members of society. Locke’s view on property very much resembles Hume’s thought of justice and property. Just like as Hume believes, Lock says that if there is a great deal of some natural resource, let it be land, the inhabitant of land do not value it. Hume would say that if certain convenience is given in abundance by nature, there is no property, hence no justice. Locke thinks the same that in such cases, the inhabitant do value the land until there is no room enough for them in that space ? problems with this sentence. Only in this case, people start, all in consent, distinguishing the property. So Locke says that one should not possess more than he can afford to possess, i. e. conveniences that will be enough for his comfort. And he says that if a person gains more, and as a consequence, some part of property perishes, then it is a crime towards others. It is very interesting that Locke says â€Å"perishes† or â€Å"spoils. † If it does not perish or spoil, then it is not a crime, as ? the exceeding of bounds of his just property not lying in the largeness of his possession, but the perishing of any thing uselessly in it. And then comes money, being the only mean by which a person can exceed property without spoiling it. Locke thinks that only money made it possible to a person to enlarge his/her possessions without hurting others. And only existence of money make people lust for more, as it was said, it never perishes. Locke makes a reader imagine of a place, where one has a big fertile land with a lot of conveniences. It is so big that it may perish as it is more than he/she needs. If there is no chance to sell it for money, this person goes back to the common law of nature that is using of conveniences what is enough for one. According to Locke, money, i. e. imperishable matter, is a key factor in peoples act for gaining private property. In explaining social order, John Rawls also gives special emphasis on property as being a part of economic arrangements. In his work Theory of Justice, Rawls says that everyone is equal in the politico-economic sphere of life. A right for private property is also included to this. Rawls justifies this right on the basis of individual autonomy and integrity, which are also basics of social justice. Rawls’s famous ? two principle of justice’ dictate that everyone must have an access to the basic liberties. Among basic liberties, Rawls include the right to hold personal liberty. He also argues about the economic inequality among those who possess private property. Rawls, in general, is against some kinds inequalities in possessing property. However, he writes that as long as such inequalities are mutually advantageous and do not exclude on party from benefits, then economic inequality is consistent to what he calls â€Å"justice as fairness. † Summing all the views on property and justice, which, as Hume writes, inseparably bound two each other, I would like to say that the fair distribution of wealth, which is justice, is very important in making the socio-economic life of a state healthy. Once there is no fair access to property, the society is apt to collapse, as it happened with socialist society of USSR, where all conveniences were common, even those on which a person put his/her labor. This, in contrast to capitalism, does not lead to competition or in other words ? to putting labor on objects to make them property. In such cases, there is no any justice, because those who work and input their labor and those who do not work get the welfare in the same quantities. The idea of property and justice, in general, is closely attached to the capitalist thought. Capitalism says that everyone has equal access to propertyopportunity? But not outcome?. It is fair to have property more than others if it doesn’t undermine others rights. However, unlike to other philosophers, Rawls in his works debates on capitalism. As an counter argument, he gives the idea of liberal democracy that seeks equality in the distribution of property-owning rights. The equal property distribution (by equal I mean what a person deserves), which is basis of democracy, is essential in building healthy society where all virtues, especially justice, will flourish. Property is what world progress. Hence, I think, the access to property and rights to equal distribution of property are essential in every society. References: 1. Reading materials of the course â€Å"Approaches and Issues in Political Theory† 2. http://www. bu. edu/wcp/Papers/Poli/PoliJung. htm 3. http://www. independent. org/pdf/tir/tir_08_3_taylor. pdf 4. http://links. jstor. org/sici? sici=0748-0814(1992)9%3A2%3C347%3AJLJATS%3E2. 0. CO%3B2-J 5. http://spectrum. troy. edu/~sltaylor/theory/hume-selection. html.

French Court System

The French court system is a double pyramid structure. There are two separate orders: administrative courts and judicial courts. Each order has a pyramid structure, with a single court at the top and various courts at the base. Litigants displeased with a court decision can seek a review before the next court up in the hierarchy. In each order, a single court of last instance ensures that the lower courts interpret the law in the same way. The administrative courts settle disputes between users and public authorities. The Conseil d'Etat hears cases in first and last instance. It is both adviser to the government and the supreme administrative court. †¢The courts with general competence are the administrative courts, administrative appeal courts and the Conseil d'Etat (as a jurisdiction). †¢Administrative courts with special competence are the financial courts (Court of Auditors, Regional Courts of Auditors, Court of Budget and Financial Discipline) and various other tribuna ls like the disciplinary bodies of professional orders.The judicial courts settle disputes between persons and sanction offences against persons, property and society. There are three categories of judicial court: †¢the courts of first instance: – the civil courts: district courts, regional courts, commercial courts, employment tribunals, agricultural land tribunals, social security tribunals; – the criminal courts: . ordinary courts: police courts, regional criminal courts, assize courts; . specialised courts: juvenile courts, military courts, political courts and the maritime criminal court; local courts, created by Act 2002-1138 of 9 September 2002 to meet the need to make justice more accessible, swifter and capable of dealing more appropriately with small claims and minor offences. Local courts have lay judges; †¢the courts of second instance: the appeal courts; †¢the supreme court: the Court of Cassation, responsible for ensuring compliance with th e rules of law applied by lower courts. It judges the form and not the merits, unlike the courts of first and second instance, which judge the facts.