Oral questions Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Oral questions - Essay Example This meant that doing the good means that an individual knew the Good. On the other hand, Aristotle claimed that recognizing the right thing wasn’t enough, and one should act in a good manner so as to develop a routine of doing good (Vaughn, 244). Philosophically, Plato alleged that ideas had an ideal form, universal form, thus directing him to his idealistic philosophy. Moreover, Aristotle argued that the ideal forms were not substantially involved in each concept or object and that each illustration of concepts or ideas had to be examined on their own. Scientifically, Plato’s work was founded more on insights than on its applicability, and Aristotle’s work was essentially on explanations or extensions of developing ideas and not on insights. Politically, Plato claimed a person must incorporate his or her welfares to those of the society, in order to attain a faultless form of administration. Aristotle disagreed with this idea since he viewed the simple political component as the city that took pre-eminence over family, which consecutively took control of the people. In the allegory of the cave, Plato likens individuals inexperienced in the form’s theory to convicts in a cave, attached to the wall with no chance of spinning their heads. Flames were burning behind the convicts and what they could view was the shades of the puppets positioned in the middle of the fire and the walls cave. Further, the convicts could not comprehend that the echoes heard and flames seen were reflections of real objects. Finally, this allegory recaps majority of philosophical thoughts and views of

Right to Bear Arms Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Right to Bear Arms - Essay Example Legalization of gun ownership is part of the second amendment, where it states that â€Å"a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.† This indicates that there is a law that allows people to own guns. But there are several points to be considered in part of the amendment. There is an emphasis on having a well-regulated militia. This indicates that there are certain rules, or principles that surround a militia group (Petersen, p.16). This specifically creates a nature of the citizen army. A citizen army does not group armed citizens without a common principle, rather it states that a militia group needs to have regulations and principles not just a chaotic movement. The second amendment, then, creates in itself a certain significant function of regulation and control. Thus, it signifies that there is still control within the second amendment not just merely to allow citizens g un ownership simply for security purposes. The second amendment shows that gun ownership is still regulated based on the principles of creating security and defending the freedom of the state and the people living under it. It is important to know that freedom is a very crucial aspect of the nation’s principle. With this, it creates a bond between citizens to protect not only themselves but also the nation’s pledge for their freedom and security. ... Security and freedom are very important aspects of human life. Humans fight for their freedom and their security. This rooted from the fact that individuals know they have the right to be free and to live a secure life. The issue of gun ownership cannot be questioned alone for the specific behavior of violent individuals owning guns. There are certain laws and policies guarding gun ownership, and this is not a violation of the second amendment. As I have broken down earlier, the second amendment clearly states that there are rules by which gun ownership should revolve. If humans have been given their rights, they are given a corresponding responsibility with it. There are two sides looking at the second amendment. First is the second amendment’s declaration that a militia group is a right to maintain the security and freedom of the state. The second perspective is looking at it individually wherein mere individuals may own guns. As far as I’m seeing it, the second amend ment agrees to both. The question is how people tend to understand the rules and regulations surrounding the amendment. Opposition of gun control argues that gun ban or control is not a solution. It is the individuals that should be regulated and ownership should be controlled (Gischler, 9). I believe that they have a very good argument since it is not the gun that controls a person rather it is an individual with a gun who has a problem if they use it other than what is stated in the amendment, for security and freedom. The use of guns is what is to be regulated but before that people should be educated on the real purpose of owning guns. There are several incidences