Igor Primoratz and Radical Feminists Sexuality Essay Example for Free

Igor Primoratz and Radical Feminists Sexuality Essay Rape is to be quite frank, the lowest and most demeaning act a man can do to a woman. Most would say that rape is physically forcing a woman to engage in a sexual act against her will. Radical feminists take a hard stance against this and believe most â€Å"normal† sex is to be included when discussing rape. Feminists argue that the very social fiber of our society in which there is inequality of men and women needs to be changed. Men use sex as a form of control, a way to oppress women. Consent becomes irrelevant as women are not on equal ground. Feminists, who want legitimate sex, say that to have such would require major change in the social position of women. Catherine A Mackinnon says that’s in our society sexuality is â€Å"a social construct of male power: defined by men, forced on women, and constructive of the meaning of gender.† She believes that all sex ranging from normal consensual sex, prostitution to pornography, and sexual harassment and rape is all showcasing the dominance of women by men. Women are often engaging in sex that they do not feminists argue that even with consent women will agree to sex for the purpose of pleasing a man, or to improve social acceptance.   When a woman has sex with a man and does not want it, when she acts under compulsion, Feminists argue that this is rape. Morgan states â€Å"Rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it is not being initiated by the woman out of her own genuine affection and desire.† Feminists claim that sure they may not be under the threat of a knife to the throat but they are nonetheless threatened and as such these situations can be called rape. Such acts may not fall under the same umbrella as what is known as traditional rape, it is rape just the same. Wertheimer points out that a sexual offense is basically nonconsensual touching or bodily contact. This type of touching does not necessarily have to be violent and does not need to involve one penetrating the other. Another form would involve a violent assault or battery. Thirdly would be threats of violence. Finally a sexual assault may be from a fear of harms from penetration. These are all real forms of rape, not the type of rape that is expressed by the views of Radical Feminists. One must ask, are these statement made by Radical feminists truly in line with what is a sexual offense? Feminists also state, that woman who are coerced into sex albeit not physically threatened but by means of say threats to end a relationship, threats to find another lover, threats about how he feels about her and such are all forms of coercion. Thus, they are all forms of rape. In order for women to feel completely comfortable and make sex moral, they must be free of all forms of coercion. The problem with all this is that in our lives we are constantly coerced into things we may not want to do. Is this to say that all judgments or situations, in which one is coerced is therefore morally unacceptable? Primoratz says quite nicely that â€Å" every extrinsic consideration that gets us to do something is to count as coercion into doing it, and if we are truly free only in those actions we do for own sake, then we are all coerced in most of what we do and unfree most of the time.† Another problem is that sex that can used for the purposes of monetary gain, power, or social stature can all be seen as immoral even if both parties have agreed on consent. But this is not merely a problem blamed on the males of today, females do it too. For all sorts of different reasons than the ones Primoratz listed. Some may do it for drugs, alcohol, clothes, or other petty items. Point is, sex is a tool used by both men and women alike. So all sexually activity can not be morally acceptable while men and women are socially and economically unequal? So all people should be on equal ground before they can engage in a legitimate sexual relationship? It is near impossible to achieve such a situation in a capitalistic society. It is not unreasonable to have sex for the simple enjoyment of it. Why must there be a deeper meaning? It is ok to objectify both him and her in the act of sex, for the sole purpose of mutual ends. Wertheimer tells us when one should consent to sexual relations and uses Susan Moller Okin to state â€Å"justice applies to some interfamilial issues, such as the control of economic resources and the distribution of household labor, does justice also apply to sex?† Wertheimer implies that is acceptable for a husband to want sex and that it may not be something the wife wants at that time or that often but is she obliged to serve her man? Are his needs and her wanting to satisfy his needs more important than her need to not want sex? He sort of tip toes around it and doesn’t give a definitive answer. The argument as it pertains to movies is quite obvious, sure the wife or husband may be willing to put aside their urge to watch a certain movie but would the same issues be relevant to sex? Wertheimer describes what most of us refer to as â€Å"make-up sex†. That couples sometimes use such a moment to reaffirm their desire to demonstrate that their relationship is strong and not succumbing to the issues of a meaningless fight. Wertheimer definitely objectifies women and makes it seem as though they are the ones who must comply with their man’s needs. He uses his words wisely and states at the end â€Å"It might be argued that it is not merely that love can coexist with justice, but that to love another person is to want to be fair to them, or, more precisely, to ant to not to be unfair to them, for to love someone is typically to want to be more than fair to them, to be generous.†

A New Vision of Science :: Science Scientific Papers

A New Vision of Science ABSTRACT: Traditional convictions regarding science (such as universalism, necessity and eternal validity) are currently in doubt. Relativism seems to destroy scientific claims to rationality. This paper shows a way to keep the traditional convictions of scientific knowledge while acknowledging relativism. With reference to the practicing scientist, we replace descriptivism with constructivism; we modify relative validity with the claim to understanding; and, we offer methodological strategies for acquiring understanding. These strategies we call strangification, which means taking a scientific proposition system out of its context and putting it in another context. We can thus see the implicit presuppositions of the given proposition system by means of the problems arising out of the application of this procedure. Such a change in the understanding of science holds important consequences. There is a personal background for the new understanding of science I am proposing in this article. These ideas that are now comprised within the notion Constructive Realism have been developed over the last twenty years during interactions and in cooperatio with other scientists. Now I am giving them my voice for a couple of short arguments why this new understanding isneeded today. It should be mentioned that the dialogue with my former friends from the Vienna Circle hs, to some extent, been important in this process. The Vienna Circle was so complex and encompassed so many different ideas that some traces of what I am argueing can be found there. Presently, however, my own understanding of sciencehas departed crucially from what is usually considered as the Vienna Circle's stance toward science. Without being aware of it, the Vienna Circle was the last great attempt for a rational metaphysics of science. It was trying to establish a correspondence of purified human mind with the w orld. Probably, this is why they argued so sharply against traditional, i.e. irrational metaphysics. Contrary to the declared position of most of the Vienna Circle's members, however, Constructive Realism does not struggle against metaphysics. I appreciated very much the example of Erwin Schrà ¶dinger because it has wonderfully shown in which degree a scientist is influenced by his metaphysical background. Checking the bckgound of scientific doing one is getting a lot of impressions about metaphysical world.comcepts, metaphysical concepts of knowledge etc. If we lay aside our apprehension to touch metaphysics, science can even bepushed forward by it. In fact we should have many metaphysics. They are offereing unusual perspectives and this is exactly what science needs to progress.

The Spanish Inquisition

The Spanish Inquisition was a controversial time primarily during the 15th century. However, it kept reoccurring during other parts of history rather than only in the 15th century. There were many different methods used in which non-Christians would be tortured. Sometimes, the wrong people would be tortured if they believed that the person they were torturing really wasn’t Christian. The torturing of people because of their religion is what makes the Spanish Inquisition such a disturbing and dark part of history. The reason for the Spanish Inquisition was because the Christians conquered Spain again, which led to the Christians forcing non-Christian people, such as Jews, to convert to Christianity. Any non-Christian who refused to convert to Christianity would be prosecuted and tortured using different methods such as starvation, strappado, racking and many other forms of torture. In 1478, Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabelle of Castile established the Spanish Inquisition. The reason the inquisition was established was because Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabelle of Castile wanted to unite Spain. The Spanish Inquisition could help economically because money could be made by stealing property from accused heretics. Another reason for the Spanish Inquisition is because Ferdinand and Isabelle believed that Spain could be united under Christianity. Also, Ferdinand and Isabelle discriminated against Jews simply because they were anti-Semites. The first Inquisitors arrived in Seville in 1480 to abolish heresy. Heresy is a belief or opinion that is contrary to an orthodox religious doctrine (especially Christianity). Many Spanish Jews were forced to convert to Christianity and some of them converted by choice. There were different sentences for those found guilty of heresy. If you were found guilty of heresy, then your property would be confiscated and you would be burned to death. There would be public humiliation for those found guilty at the auto da fe, which is the ceremony where the heretic would be burned to death. The time of the greatest influence during the Spanish Inquisition was under the reigns of Philip II and Philip III. This time period occurred in 1569-1621. The Inquisition had suffered previous to this time period because of a lack of direction under Charles V, who ruled from 1517-1556. But, during the reign of Philip II, there eventually became 16 tribunals in Spain, two tribunals in Italy and three in the New World. The Inquisition greatly expanded its prosecution of many different religious crimes. Ordinary Spaniards were drawn into the tribunals as well as Protestants, conversos, Moriscos and foreigners. There was detailed questioning even to people who most likely didn’t commit heresy. These people would be fined one or two ducats, which was considered a very heavy fine. The tribunals relied on unpaid officials. First, there were the two networks of familiars and camisarios. The familiars were laymen charged with carrying messages, arresting suspects and delivering them to the Inquisition. The comisarios were priests who assisted in the gathering of evidence at the local level. Calificadores would advise the inquisitors about the accusations to whether someone was a heretic or not. There was a cruel way in which the Inquisition functioned. Possible heretics weren’t treated like in today’s standards mostly because the phrase â€Å"innocent until proven guilty† wasn’t followed. First, there was the accusation. When the Inquisition arrived in a city, the first step was known as the Edict of Grace. It was called this because a period of grace was offered to the people accused of a crime to bring the accused person to the church without severe punishment. Next, there was the detention. The case would be examined by the calificadores would determine if there was heresy involved. Many cases lasted up to two years before the calificadores examined the case. The property of the prisoner would be taken during detention. This property would be used to pay for expenses and the own costs and maintenance of the person being accused. The entire process was done with much secrecy. The trial process is after the detention process. The trial consisted of a series of hearings. The denouncers and defendants both gave their testimonies. Torture was used until the defendant would confess. The torture used was very unsystematic. It was applied mainly to those suspected of Judaism and Protestantism. Torture would even be applied regardless of a person’s age. Basically even children and elderly people would be tortured. Torture played a major role in the Spanish Inquisition. There were many different methods of torture. One method of torture was strappado. Strappado was when the victims would be suspended from the ceiling by their wrists. The victim would fall from a height and be stopped by an abrupt jerk right before they reach the ground. Another method of torture was starvation in which the person accused of heresy would be starved. Racking was also used. A rack was an instrument of torture consisting of a frame on which the victim was stretched by turning rollers to which the wrists and ankles were tied. Toca was a method of making the victim believe they were drowning by putting a cloth in their mouth and pouring a jar of water in their mouth.

How Emerson And His Ideas Were Influenced The Weakening Of...

1. Comment on the charge that Emerson and his ideas were a factor in the weakening of traditional Christianity in the nineteenth century. Religiously devout Christians regarded his early works as â€Å"the latest form of infidelity† due to his transcendental viewpoint and his belief in nature as an â€Å"image in which humans can perceive the divine.† Emerson believed in individualism and the idea that â€Å"nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.† Emerson’s belief in individual authority taught that validity came from within a person and that the individual had ultimate authority, not establish institutions such as religion; He focused on the idea that religion thwarted individual advancements. 2. Can Emerson accurately be called a pantheist? Did his radical transcendentalism, with its emphasis on God in nature, obliterate the historical Christian distinction between the moral and the natural? I believe that Emerson can accurately be called somewhat of a pantheist due to his belief that â€Å"an all-loving and all-pervading god whose presence in people made them divine and assured their salvation.† Over the years, his viewpoint changed from his traditional Unitarian Christian faith towards a more transcendental viewpoint that was a mixture of â€Å"Unitarianism, Puritanism, and the teachings of European romanticism.† I believe that his radical transcendentalism did tear apart the traditional Christian distinctions between the moral and the natural due to Emerson’sShow MoreRelatedRastafarian79520 Words   |  319 Pagesto the advent of popular culture and especially the music recording business in the late twentieth century, its apparatus of cultural formation was controlled fully by the elite who, to a large extent, ran the educational apparatus and the economic system. But much of the country was beginning to question in earnest the structure of colonial society by the early 1930s. The emergence of Rasta during that period corresponds with so much that was happening around the world. Rastas could tell that