Recent orders
Conflict There is a large number of theorists who have specialized their interest in explaining about conflict through their
Conflict
Students Name
Institution of Affiliation
Course Title
Date
There is a large number of theorists who have specialized their interest in explaining about conflict through their conflict theories. Among the theorists specializing in conflict theories is the Dutch criminologist Willem Bonger and George Vold. Bonger believed in a causal link between crime, economic and social conditions (Bonger, 2015). Bonger claimed that crime is social in origin as well as a social response to the prevailing cultural conditions. In the more primitive societies, Bonger claims that survival requires more selfless altruism within the society. According to Bonger, the poor are pushed to commit crime out of the need to fulfill their desire or out of a sense of injustice. It is through this quest by the poor to commit crimes that the powerful exercise their control, imposing punishment. The powerful equates the definition of a crime with harm or threat of damage to their property and business interests. Despite the inherent saying that theft may be identical, it is entirely not as theft by the poor will be much emphasized than theft by the rich. The emphases will have consequences that include asserting direct pressure for survival in an unequal society and the indirect effect in that it will increase a sense of alienation among the poor. Bonger further claims that crime in the street was due to the miserable conditions to which the workers lived in competition. Bonger believes that poverty alone is not the cause of crime but rather a combination of poverty and other factors such as materialism, individualism, racism, false needs and the false masculinity of violence as well as the domination among the thugs in the streets.
George Vold, on the other hand, suggests that crime is social and that it is a product of conflict between groups that lies within the same culture (Vold, 1958). Humans are social beings and therefore form groups that are triggered by shared interests and needs. Vold claims that the interests and the needs of the groups interact and produce competition over maintaining or expanding one group’s position relative to others in the control of resources such as education, employment, and money. With the main aim of controlling resources, the more efficient group obtains the mandate of enacting laws that limit and regulate the behavior of other groups and therefore prevents the fulfillment of the minority needs.
The two theorists share some common notions in that they assert that crime is as a result of oppression against one group. The more efficient or dominant group creates laws and regulations that are aimed at regulating the flow of resources to the minorities and therefore limits their behavior. The two theorists are also similar in the sense that they claim that crime is a result of the desire to fulfill a common need or interest. From Bonger’s perspective, the poor steal from the rich and wealthy to fulfill their needs and the powerful enacts laws that criminalize the behavior of the poor to protect their businesses. Vold as well claims that crime results from the attempt to dominate the otherwise shared interests among a group of people were also the dominant restrain the behavior of the minority through laws. Another similarity arises in that crime is as a result of various factors such as materialism, domination, and individualism as deduced from the two theories. In contrast, the two theories differ in the definition of theft in that according to Bonger the poor are driven to commit crime due to the desire to fulfill their need whereas, in Vold’s perspective, crime is as a result of the struggle for dominance between groups with common interests.
The two theories are relevant in today’s culture in that the definition of crime is still based on the same concepts. Crime in the streets are as a result of dominance among the thugs, and as well crime is as a result of competition that results in dominance among the involved groups. The poor are prompted to commit crime due to the urge of fulfilling their needs while in other societies, crime is as a result of the struggle for dominance in the control of resources.
Reference
Bonger, W. A. (2015). An introduction to criminology. Routledge.
Vold, G. B. (1958). Theoretical criminology.
David Hume on Miracles
David Hume on Miracles
In explaining Hume’s critique of the belief in miracles, we must first understand the definition of a miracle. The Webster Dictionary defines a miracle as: a supernatural event regarded as to define action, one of the acts worked by Christ which revealed his divinity an extremely remarkable achievement or event, an unexpected piece of luck. Therefore, a miracle is based on one’s perception of past experiences, what everyone sees. It is based on a individuals own reality, and the faith in which he/she believes in, it is based on interior events such as what we are taught, and exterior events, such as what we hear or see firsthand. When studying Hume’s view of a miracle, he interprets or defines a miracle as such; a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, an event which is not normal to most of mankind. Hume explains this point brilliantly when he states, “Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it has ever happened in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man seemingly in good health should die on a sudden.” (Hume p.888) Hume states that this death is quite unusual, however it seemed to happen naturally. He could only define it as a true miracle if this dead man were to come back to life. This would be a miraculous event because such an experience has not yet been commonly observed. In which case, his philosophical view of a miracle would be true.
Hume critiques and discredits the belief in a miracle merely because it goes against the laws of nature. Hume defines the laws of nature to be what has been “uniformly “observed by mankind, such as the laws of identity and gravity. He views society as being far too liberal in what they consider to be a miracle. He gives the reader four ideas to support his philosophy in defining a true miracle, or the belief in a miracle. These points leads us to believe that there has never been a miraculous event established.
Hume’s first reason in contradicting a miracle is, in all of history there has not been a miraculous event with a sufficient number of witnesses. He questions the integrity of the men and the reputation in which they hold in society. If their reputation holds great integrity, then and only then can we have full assurance in the testimony of men. Hume is constantly asking throughout the passage questions to support proof for a miracle. He asks questions such as this; who is qualified? Who has the authority to say who qualifies? As he asks these questions we can see there are no real answers, in which case, it tends to break the validity of the witnesses to the miracle.
Hume’s second reason in contradicting the validity of a miracle is that he views all of our beliefs, or what we choose to accept, or not accept through past experience and what history dictates to us. Furthermore, he tends to discredit an individual by playing on a human beings consciousness or sense of reality. An example is; using words such as, the individuals need for “excitement” and “wonder” arising from miracles. Even the individual who cannot enjoy the pleasure immediately will still believe in a miracle, regardless of the possible validity of the miracle. With this, it leads the individual to feel a sense of belonging and a sense of pride. These individuals tend to be the followers within society. These individuals will tend to believe faster than the leaders in the society. With no regard to the miracles validity, whether it is true or false, or second hand information. Miracles lead to such strong temptations, that we as individuals tend to lose sense of our own belief of fantasy and reality. As individuals we tend to believe to find attention, and to gossip of the unknown. Through emotions and behavior Hume tends to believe there has been many forged miracles, regardless if the information is somewhat valid or not.
His third reason in discrediting the belief in a miracle is testimony versus reality. Hume states, “It forms a strong presumption against all supernatural and miraculous events, that they are observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous ancestors; or if civilized people has ever given admission to any of them, that people will be found to have received them from these barbarous ancestors, who transmitted them with that inviolable sanction and authority, which always attend perceived opinions.” (Hume p.891) In any case many of the miraculous events which happened in past history would not be considered a miracle in today’s world, or at any other time in history. The reality most people believed at that period, as a result can be considered lies or exaggerations. Hume discredits the miracle as to the time period in which the miracle is taking place, the mentality, or the reality of individuals at that given time. Hume suggests that during certain times in history we are told of miraculous accounts of travelers. “Because we as individuals love to wonder, there is an end to common sense, and human testimony, in these circumstances, loses all pretensions to authority.” (Hume p.890)
The final point Hume gives to discredit the validity of a miracle is that there must be a number of witnesses to validate the miracle. “So that not only the miracle destroys the credit of testimony, but the testimony destroys itself.” (Hume p.892). This basically means that the witnesses must all give the exact same testimony of the facts of the event. Hume finds difficulty in the belief or integrity of any individual, and the difficulty of detecting falsehood in any private or even public place in history. “Where it is said to happen much more when the scene is removed to ever so small a distance.” (Hume p.892) A court of justice with accuracy and judgment may find themselves often distinguishing between true and false. If it is trusted to society through debate, rumors, and man’s passion it tends to be difficult to trust the validity of the miracle. Throughout the rest of the readings Hume states a few events which many believe are miracles. He discredits many these miracles through his critiques. I have chosen to illustrate two “so-called” miracles from the New American Bible and to show how Hume would view these miracles. The stories are of Noah’s Ark and The Burning Bush. The story of Noah’s Ark took place when the Lord began to realize how great man’s wickedness on earth had become. He began to regret the fact that he had created man on earth. The lord decided the only way to rid the wickedness would be to destroy all men, and all living creatures living on the earth. The only men in which he would not destroy were to be Noah, his sons, Noah’s wife and his sons wives. He also would save a pair of animals. Of each species. The rest were to perish from the earth. He chose Noah to be the favor and carry out the task. The Lord requested Noah to build a ark explained exactly how it was to be made. Noah spent six hundred years of his life building the ark in which God insisted upon. When the ark was finally complete The Lord told Noah it was time to gather the selected few the floods were about to come. These floods lasted forty days and forty nights. The floods wiped out all living creatures on earth, except all on the ark. In the six hundred and first year of Noah’s life the floods stopped and the earth began to dry. Noah then built an altar to the Lord and choosing from every clean animal he offered holocaust on the altar. As God states “Never again will I doom the earth because of man, since the desires of man’s heart are evil from the start; nor will I ever strike down all living beings, as I have done.” In deciding upon whether this is a valid miracle in Hume’s opinion of miracles I believe he would consider it to be a miracle but, would have a hard time validating the testimony of it. The reasons in which he would criticize the validity with in the testimony would be as follows. The testimony versus the reality. To further support the theory he would argue the time period in which the miracle had taken place. And would find it difficult to believe without a reasonable doubt. There is a question to whether it could be lies or exaggerations. Furthermore, it could not possibly be a validated miracle considering the amount of men in which witnessed the event. As well as s questioning the integrity of the men. Although this miracle was an act of God we can still question the validity of our ancestors or God for that matter. Hume would not be satisfied not only with the integrity of the individuals but the amount of witnesses at the given time. Therefore we can only view this as a miracle depending upon our own individual perceptions of what we believe to be true. This leads to a non-uniform event since we as individuals hold different beliefs of what we hold true, and false. The second miracle in which I will discuss was that of Moses and the burning bush. As Moses was working in the fields a angel of the Lord appeared to him in fire flaming out of the holy bush. Almost amazing the bush was full of flames but was yet not consumed. As he walked closer he heard the voice, the voice of God telling Moses he was the chosen one to take the Israelite’s out of Egypt away from the cruel hands of the Egyptians. In disbelief that he was the chosen one he set forth on his journey to Egypt with God watching over him and leading the way. As Moses leads the Israelite’s out of Egypt he comes to the Red Sea with the Egyptians close behind. As the bible explains the miracle takes place the Red Sea splits leading the Israelite’s to freedom. As the Egyptians were crossing the sea it closed its gates and let them drown with in the waters of the sea. In justifying whether Hume would discredit this miracle he would definitely see how one may say it is a miracle, but again would have a hard time validating the testimony of the miracle. Again we see the pattern of the fact that there is no one to testify for the event. We can only view this as a truthful experience through our belief in God and the bible. It is what we are taught to believe through religious texts, and our house of worship. It is the individual’s perception of reality and what he or she believes to be a valid event.
In conclusion, a miracle is actually based on an individual’s own perception of past and present experiences. The belief in a miraculous event tends to have no real evidence through man’s hope, it tends to be something better through our expectations. I cannot debate the belief of a miracle. There is no right or wrong belief. It is viewed through our own individual perception and faith, our existence and sense of reality.
Conflict Theory
Conflict Theory
Name:
Affiliation:
Course:
Instructor:
Date:
Conflict Theory
Race and ethnicity have been subject to social conflict theory in the history of the United States and modern times. There are three central reference points regarding sociology; the matter of race and ethnicity can be based upon. These perspectives are functionalism, conflict theory, and interactionism. Perhaps, much is needed to get a clear understanding of issues concerning discrimination, prejudice, racism, and stereotypes. Jonathan Turner’s social conflict theory is based upon the notion that society’s functionalism is entirely dependent on economic and social forces working within a given community.
To address racial and ethnic inequalities in a functionalism view, the issues must have been integral towards accomplishing significant functions to exist as long as they have. The concept brings about contradiction. In other words, how can racism and discrimination bring about or instead positively influence society? Perhaps, a functionalist will base his argument considering “functions” and “dysfunctions” emerging from racial inequalities. Turner’s theory of conflict justifies racial disparities based on the fact that white people than other minority races dominate the United States. Hence, they stand higher chances of getting a competitive edge than the others. In other words, racial inequalities justify an unequal society. Think about how slave masters explained their practices concerning holding slaves; they always suggested that white people were superior to African Americans, who preferred slavery to freedom.
The functionalist perspective can also be used to address how racial inequalities can positively contribute to the societal functioning through the ostracism of out-group members. The bonds between in-group members strengthen the community based on solidarity to refuse to allow people from outside to access your territory. On the contrary, its dysfunction involves failing to capitalize on talents often displayed by the subjugated group. As such, the community has to divert from other purposes to keep hold of artificial racial boundaries created. Think about the amount of money, time, and effort towards racial discrimination in society’s day-to-day activities. The United States is no different; some racists spend a lot of time, money, and effort to make sure that their wishes are met. In the places of work, some employers may like to maintain their dignity by only discriminating against other races, but at the same time, they miss out on chances to spot talents from the subjugated group.
Conflict theories are used to express gender inequalities, ethnicity, race, education, and social classes, among others. In the United States, it is possible to examine a conflict theory perspective in an attempt to give light on existing differences between the white ruling class and other minority races. In recent history, black popularism with respect to demand for racial justice and equality has resulted in white supremacists feeling threatened. The effects are severely limiting African Americans’ political and social power. As such, African Americans are forced to go through tough times through job discrimination, low wages compared to their white counterparts. The qualifications do not seem to matter as long as you belong to a particular ethnicity or race. There have been long-lasting instances of attempted disenfranchisement and suppression of voters aiming to predominantly at African Americans.
A counter-argument of Turner’s theory may suggest that it is impossible to split the standing effects of racial inequalities in American society. People’s gender and class predetermine racial examination with regards to having both positive and negative benefits in the community. There are massive intersecting layers that discredit people’s perceptions on race issues. For instance, trying to understand prejudice based on race, there are always appealing differences that predetermine the matter’s seriousness. As such, discrimination happening to a white person would always intensify the effort to respond to the selection pressures.
The race brings about a strong sense of belonging to the symbolic interactionists. Various interactionists suggest that racial symbols often fuel acts of racism as opposed to the race itself. Racial prejudice often results from organized socialization between dominant group members. In fact, the absence of this socialization would mean no racist views among the group members. The population of the United States is growing, and so do for the dominant group. As such, these members’ interaction often leads to creating an abstract picture of the subordinate group that facilitates maintaining the status quo of the dominant group since they can support their view of the subordinate group. Such events have led to societal collapse, and that is also why African Americans are trying to liberate themselves from racial degradation. The vast majority of the Americans hold their beliefs based on what is said or instead conveyed in popular media. People can also apply the interactionist perspective based on individual perceptions of their races compared to other races. It is biologically proven that a black identity has a relatively lower amount of skin pigment than a white identity; however, what instances led to these identities distinguish themselves as black or white?
To conclude, Turner’s social conflict theory concentrates on societal patterns. In his summary of conflict theory, Turner tries to simplify and show how social interactions in a given society can conflict among competing groups. Population size and its growth rate balance the likelihood of societal collapse or even conquest by another institution. The United States has a vastly differentiated society in terms of organization, and it is indeed leading to social conflict, thus intensifying the response efforts on the subject at hand.
Reference
Theories, T. (2020). Theoretical Sociology: A Concise Introduction to Twelve Sociological Theories by Jonathan H. Turner – PDF Drive. Pdfdrive.com. Retrieved 17 October 2020, from https://www.pdfdrive.com/theoretical-sociology-a-concise-introduction-to-twelve-sociological-theories-e184653337.html.