Recent orders
Societal Issues Amounting from Stair Decisis
Societal Issues Amounting from Stair Decisis
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Date
Societal concern arrived by using the Stair Decisis principle
Abstract
Determining the conclusion of acase is normally an uphill task for the judges’ panel since the minority factor has with time lost influence. Consequently, the law changes but historical conclusions do not seize to exist. For this reason, the concept of Stair Decisis has gradually lost significant relevance and failed to offer satisfactory results in relation to most rulings. This is relevant based on the case of Lawrence v. Texas and Bowers v. Hardwick situation. Judges who were presiding over Lawrence v. Texas (2003) ignored the conclusions of Texas and Bowers (1986) whilst the circumstances were the same. The commencing research will attempt to present the constitutional conflicts created by the concept Stair Decisis. The study will prove that it is not legitimate to conclude a case based on the concept of Stair Decisis since cases changes with a change of pieces of legislation. Consequently, the study will prove that conclusion of cases using Stair Decisis will naturally attract societal issues.
Background
Lawrence v. Texas against Bowers v. Hardwick
Registered as 539 U.S 558 (2003) is a landmark decision by the U.S Supreme Court. The court six against three ruling sought to repeal the Texas law on Sodomy. The law was integral in overturning the 1986 law Bowers v. Hardwick, which challenged a Georgia statute of sexual privacy. The 2003 ruling expressed that the Georgia ruling did not view the liberty of interest narrowly. The lead Judge Lawrence was backed by numerous laws, which criminalized sodomy between the consenting adults to act in private regardless of any sexual affiliation that the two were affiliated to. The case attracted serious scrutiny of public attention and, as a result, friends of the court filed charges scrutinizing the legitimacy and integrity of the court. Fillings were commonly from gay right advocates who hoped that further legal advances would automatically result to a consequence (Burgess, 2006, pp. 402).
Coleman and Cheurprakobkit (2009) argue that, the judgment presided by justice Harry Blackmun assessed that the issue revolved on the right to privacy. Blackmun’s dissent reprimanded the court for its obsessive focus on homosexual activity and on aggregate refusal to consider the broad principles entrenched in the constitution in relation to the privacy issue. Further to this, there was the reference that examined the traditional religious taboos of morality against the development of the Sodomy ideologies. In this case, there was a heated debate related to the legitimacy of secular legislation that depended on whether specified a specific justification beyond on the conformity to religious doctrine.
Stair Decisis
The doctrine of Stair Decisis has been evolutionary in American legal system. Stair decisis involves two similar issues, which are brought to a court and attracts similar or different ruling. The ruling is based on the precedent that court pursued. A precedent can be based on a ruling being pursued by a previous argument. However, based on Stair Decisis, it is notable that a given form of jurisprudence seeks to analyze, explain, criticize and classify law bodies with a given jurisprudence. Jurisprudence can further be based on contemporary knowledge, religion, economics, social sciences or literature. Additionally, a jurisprudence seek to reveal the moral, culture and historical basis of given legal concept. Finally, jurisprudence focuses in finding the answer to abstract questions, for instance, what propel a given pattern of judgment.
Societal factors emerging from this case
It should be noted that, deliberating on sexual case is normally an uphill task for most juror panel. This is notable on Lawrence v. Texas and Bowers v. Hardwick cases where at which; the appellate bench was unable to provide a coherent, unified judgment (Burgess, 2006, pp. 403). The Supreme Court abandoned Lawrence v. Texas case based on the principle of fundamentality too restrictive. The court was at a deadlock since similar cases were presented earlier in the court. In fact, the court could not have mentioned reference to Bowers v. Hardwick situation. The public applauded the court’s reticence in denying overruling for the earlier decision.
It should be noted that when constitutional rights are at play, there is a standing and great risk to be set against reason before the courts postpone the recognition of a full implication of the decisions of principles. Risk of injustice by far large threatens the integrity of the court than failure to commence on a given judgment. Consequently, constitutional timing affects not only the dogma of efficiency surrounding the judiciary, but the livelihood of the people surrounding a given jurisdiction. In the two cases, waiting for seven years meant that homosexual citizens were to live for another and more an irretrievable segment of their lives. In fact, for the seven years, homosexual were heavily regarded as second-class citizens (Hooghe and Meeusen 2013, pp. 259). On the other hand, lives did not pause during the passive, pragmatic virtues of drape themselves in epigrams.
American constitution has with time evolved from a constitutional contribution to political morality. For this reason, several factors propelled the Supreme Court to abandon the case. Firstly, the partnership is structured wand made based on the moral constitution guaranteeing individuals the prerequisites of full membership. Secondly, democracy is not a simple majority rule but the act of partnership and proposition of self-government structures. In other words, even a minority, such as the homosexual counted and their contribution to building a general American society cannot be ignored. Thirdly, based on the second point, it is positive to note that citizens are commitment to the constitution and the law, and this enforces the guaranteeing of equal citizenship. However, a vicious political environment will naturally challenge the equal presentation. Largely, the constitution does not regulate politics surrounding the faithful implementation of such laws (Coleman and Cheurprakobkit 2009, pp. 258).
Today’s approach to stare decisis invites the public to overrule an erroneous decision precedent, which includes intensely divisive decision, and its foundations have been eroded by consequent decisions. Secondly, such an approach does not guarantee proper jurisdiction on substantial and continuing criticism in relation to the subject. This does not induce an individual to act on societal reliance as scheme to justify an immoral act. In fact, counsels against an overturning ensure that the majority rule has no disposition to overrule the satisfaction of these conditions or either to the same degree as Bowers. A preliminary digression observation about a prior factor will naturally not withstand a court analysis.
Edwards, M. (2009, pp. 1134) establishes that how the juror interprets these changes in policy in relation to sodomy statues is different from what a group like Christian conservative could expect. Again, the question revolves is how influential are gay movements to pressure legislators into abandoning anti-sodomy laws. On the other hand, how will the larger anti-gay activist feel if the legislators abandon these laws? Mobilization effort will naturally play a crucial law. Per se, it should be noted that mobilization efforts would naturally take politicians of the day under siege.
Moreover, (Burgess, 2006, pp. 407) argues that, based on nemesis of societal factors, the framers of the constitution understand that public empowered by the media will not forget on the conclusion of each of the two cases. Consequently, there more effective, practical guaranty against arbitrary and unreasonable government than it is required in the principles of law which official seeks to impose against a minority group. Alternatively, there lacks proper openings of the doors of arbitrary action and so effectively as what allows officials to choose who to and who not to apply the legislation.
In fact, this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the stipulations; for instance, Equal Protection Clause which by far large differentiates the laws distinguishing homosexuals and heterosexuals. At this point, Justice Thomas joins Justice Scalia in what they assess as an unconditional imposition against minority groups. Thomas argues, “I do believe that…..we should be consistent rather…..than manipulative in invoking the doctrine.” This presents the technical indifferences that the court was facing by the time of imposing the law. Thomas further argues “Today’s opinion in support of reversal does not bother to distinguish …or indeed…..even bother to mention…..the paean to stare decisis…..”(Burgess, 2006, pp. 404) This demonstrates the reluctance part of the court in implementing the law equally to all jurisdictions. On the other hand, the chief justice Warren E Burger was quick to cite ancient roots and Traditionalism as a consequent factor that should be considered to reframe an infamous crime against nature. According to Burger, sodomy should be considered worse than rape and, therefore, favoring the law and neglecting the equality stance.
Opinion
Therefore, dropping the two cases was for the greater good of the two panels since ethics played a crucial role in building democratic institutions by that time. The Texas statute, for instance, undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that forms of sexual behavior are immoral and unacceptable. These sections does not favor a particular party, but further clarifies that fornication, adultery, incest, obscenity, bestiality, and incest as grievous crimes that should be punished in line with common law.
This ruling is based Bowers 196, who further clarified on the legitimate interest of the state. The ruling focused on the necessity of private individual rights as crucial factors that legislators should focus on. The panel concluded that, “the court today reaches the opposition conclusion. The Texas statute was legitimate. The Texas statute argued, “Further, no legitimate state interests can justify its intrusion into the private life of an individual.” Therefore, for purpose of constitutionalism and interest of each conflict party, it is necessary to institute that, SODOMY IS ILLEGAL IF THE PARTIES INVOLVED ACTED IN PUBLIC.” This way, interests of all parties will be addressed.
References
Burgess, S. (2006). Queer (Theory) Eye For The Straight (Legal) Guy: Lawrence V. Texas’
Makeover Of Bowers V. Hardwick. Political Research Quarterly, 59(3), 401-414.
Coleman, E., & Cheurprakobkit, S. (2009). Police hiring and retention of sexual minorities in
Georgia and Texas after Lawrence v. Texas. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(3), 256-261.
Edwards, M. (2009). The sodomy cases: Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas. Choice
Reviews Online , 47(02), 1132-1134.
Hooghe, M., & Meeusen, C. (2013). Is Same-Sex Marriage Legislation Related to Attitudes
Toward Homosexuality?. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 10(4), 258-268.
Socialization and Youth Sexual Behavior Article critique
Socialization and Youth Sexual Behavior Article critique
By
Student name:
Instructor name:
Submission date: Article Introduction
This paper in essence will analyze explore a case study on socialization in relation to youth sexual behavior in developing countries. Socialization is the process of transmitting the values of a society from one generation to the next. The values are supposed to shape the overall behavior and conduct of an individual in society.
Gender socialization on the other hand the transmission of values to the children with regards to their biological sex. Activities are assigned depending on one’s sex. The topic of sex and sexuality is important and there are different values that are taught to either boys or girls and these values vary from one society to the other.
For the purposes of this critique I have decided to analyze the case study on Socialization. The case study was conducted by Manas Ranjan Pradhan and Usha Ram among the youth in India. It emphasized on the different attitude expectations with regard to sex and sexuality by men and women and analyzed the concept of stigmatization on this topic. The study critically views how socialization has caused early sexual behavior among the youth due to the fact that the topic of sex and sexuality is a taboo among many Indian communities.
In the next few sections lies the critique, where we will critique the methodology used in the articles, and analyze whether the objectives aforementioned in the article were met. In addition, the relevance of the article, especially as regards day to day life will be looked at. We will also look at the strengths and weaknesses of the article. The gaps not mentioned and underestimated will also be looked at. Then we will end this article critique, by going over the points the article wished to make, and if or not, they were clearly brought out. Points to be garnered from the article will also be looked at.
Article Highlight
The main objective of this case study was to explore youth’s perception about their gender role in the society. In addition to this, attempts were made to understand youth’s perception of ‘real man’ and ‘real woman’. Effort was also made to understand the association of perceived gender role on youth sexual behavior. Further, the study made an attempt to understand the treatment seeking behavior for any RTI/STI problem and its association with perceived gender role of youth.
Methodology
The present study was part of a larger study that had been conducted in three phases i.e. the pre-survey qualitative phase, the survey and the post-survey qualitative phase during 2006-07. In the pre-survey qualitative phase, there were Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) which ran separately with regard to male and females in some selected villages. The selection of those villages was done at random in the Tehsil (administrative unit of the district) selected for the main survey. Youths for the FGDs had been selected keeping in mind the age, education, occupation, caste and marital duration.
A multi-stage sampling design had been adopted for selecting the youth for the individual interviews. First of all, one district (administrative unit of the state) i.e. Puri had been selected at random out of the 30 districts of the state.
At the second stage, out of the 11 existing Tehsils of the district, one Tehsil was randomly selected.
At the third stage, 20 villages of about 300 households had been selected at random. There were ten villages for the men and ten for the women. Randomly, villages for conduction of interviews on young men and women were selected. There was a complete house listing of all 20 selected villages. It was also at this stage that information about sex and marital status of the persons aged 15-29 years was collected to identify the households having eligible youths for the survey. This created a list of households having at least one eligible youth which was prepared for each of the 20 villages.
In view of the non-response, over sampling of the sample size was conducted at about 20 percent. From the new list of households, 30 households from each village were selected using circular systematic random sampling. Problems that arose during data collection forced the samplers to come to a decision that they would interview only one youth from a household and separate village for the young men and women. Incases where more than one eligible youth in the selected household was found, the Kish table was used to select only one youth for the interview.
In the post-survey qualitative phase, for the in-depth interviews (IDIs) a few youth from the sample were selected.
Findings
It is important to note that the findings of this research were mainly based on the qualitative data collected during the three phases of the study.
It is worth mentioning that necessary ethical guidelines like informed consent of the youths have been taken into 5 consideration during data collection. Software packages like ANTHROPAC were used for analysis purpose.
The research revealed that 15 out of the total 34 young men chosen for FGDs were in the age group 20-24 while the remaining were in the age group 25-29 years. The remaining young men had completed 10 or more years of schooling. A majority of the young men covered in the FGDs is engaged in cultivation/daily labor. Three-fourth of them was the cultivators/laborers and the rest had their own business or worked in service sector. Further, three-fourth of them had experienced premarital sex and almost similar number of them had experienced any RTI/STI.
On the other hand, majority of the young women IDI participants were in the age group 20-24 years. Six of the participants were either non-literates or had completed up to five years of schooling, nine of them had completed six to nine years of schooling and the rest 10 or more years of schooling. Again, most of them were housewives. Three of these young women belonged to SC, eight to OBC and the rest to non-SC/OBC category. Notably, five of the ladies opened up and mentioned that they had had a sexual encounter before they were eighteen and twelve of them had contracted any RTI/STI. Besides this, more than half of these young women had experienced any unintended pregnancy.
The perception of the youth on the “real man, real woman” issue was that men and women are biologically different and are often differentiated on that ground. Societies usually have a host of predetermined list of qualities that one is expected to inherit in order to be a ‘real man or woman’.
It was observed that both young men and young women are in agreement with the attributes like the ability of a man to earn and maintain family, to take decision, to physically satisfy spouse/partner and to procreate besides having a well-built body as the essential characteristics of a ‘real man’.
Many of the young men also view that a ‘real man’ should be physically strong enough to fight other men (if needed), should have moustache, should be out-spoken and hard-working. A few other young men viewed a ‘real man’ as one with an ability to attract a woman, to control his wife and portraying manly behavior by not always obeying the wife.
However, many of the young women seemed to have very different view about a ‘real man’ as most of them perceived a man who keeps away from alcohol as well as other women as a ‘real man’. Besides this, a few other young women perceived man’s good behavior towards his wife, respect for others and educational status as the must of a ‘real man’.
Similarly, there were some other characteristics expected to be possessed by a woman in order to be regarded as a ‘real woman’ and there existed sex differences in the perception too. It was noted that for many young men, a ‘real woman’ should be beautiful; educated; adjustable; walks and speaks slowly; virgin till marriage besides being faithful to husband.
Many of the young women also viewed ‘a good character’ and ‘respect for husband’s decision’ as essential characteristics of a ‘real woman’. However, there seemed to be consensus between the young men and women on the attributes of this ‘real woman’. A woman’s ability to bear child, to efficiently perform household chores and be caring towards her family was a qualification to this group.
Many young people perceived RTI/STI as a disease primarily of women. Further, many young men perceived these problems as natural and that they could be cured automatically coupled with many others who preferred to ignore these problems as they thought men were not required to worry of these problems.
On the other hand, stigmatization with regard to these sexually transmitted diseases and the outdated misconception that women were responsible for their source and transmission inhibited many from seeking medical care (Martin, 749).
Critique
The case was able to meet its objective in analyzing the perception of the youth with regard to socialization in society in relation to the topic and issues related to sex and sexuality (Forste & Hass, 172). The research took place in three stages; the pre-survey qualitative phase, the survey and the post-survey qualitative phase. Each stage was characterized by in-depth interviews separately for men and women. The study was able to cover several states and therefore the results are reliable and not inclining on one part of India. In other words, the views are diverse clearly reflect the perception of the youth of India as a whole.
However, due to the sample being mainly from the cultivator/laborer areas, the methodology is biased in the fact that only the views of this group are presented. Perceptions of the high class, literate youth are overlooked and there is a major assumption that the group of youth in the sample is a representation of all youth in India.
Gaps underestimated or unexplored
The average age youth from the sample is twenty four. The age bracket twenty to twenty six cannot in essence represent views of all ages considering that a youth is a person between the ages of eighteen to thirty five ( Davis & Friel, 672).
Another weakness is that the study does not indicate how the software packages such as ANTHROPAC were used in the analysis of the raw data in order to validate its usefulness in the presentation of accountable and transparent data.
Applicability to the local housing environment
This case study proved to be so effective in the fact that it presents the perfect scenario for developing countries in relation to socialization, sex and sexuality. Many of the youth in these countries live in such conditions and are presented by these socialization instructions that makes them identify with the group in the sample (Gage, 160). Most of them are illiterate and hence their perception on the RTI/STI condition is not based on medical ground but on the fact of what society teaches.
Relevance
The issue of sex and sexuality is very vital in the fact that the youth are the leaders of tomorrow. For any society to advance, the youth must be in the forefront in understanding issues that affect them and their remedies. The case study proves to be relevant because it portrays the uninformed perception of the youth which will definitely ruin them. It is a learning platform where societies can change their socialization process in order to favor the health and advancement of the youth.
Application to specific needs
The case study also proves to be a resourceful tool to be used to direct the government and other youth initiatives in the implementation of health education and application of civil education to the youth not only in India but also in other developing countries. This is because it addresses the youth from their own point of view and therefore, one can be able to recruit initiatives tailored made for them in order to educate them on some of these issues that seem misinformed.
Conclusion
On the balance of reviewing the weaknesses and strengths of this research, I conclude that great effort has been made to ensure that the target group has been presented in the sample especially by the methodology used where interviews are at phase levels.
The perception that youths are under an obligation to adhere to ascribed roles of the society with regard to their gender is uncalled for especially for women who are in this case even viewed as the normal carriers of sexually transmitted diseases. The misconception leads to unwarranted sexual activities which could lead to unintended parenthood.
The paper seems to infer that youths who are especially illiterate or semi-illiterate are more likely to have misconstrued perceptions about sex and sexuality due to their socialization. I disagree with this view because levels of sexual behavior among the urban youth are also high and the same perceptions are found in the city youth only that the degree or orientation varies.
References
Ram U., & Pradhan M.R. (2009) Paper on Gender Socialization and Youth Sexual Behavior, Journal of Adolescence International Institute for Population Sciences, Deonar, Mumbai
Abraham, L. (2004). ‘Redrawing Lakshman Rekha: Gender Differences and Cultural
Constructions in Youth Sexuality in Urban India’, in S. Srivastav (ed.), Sexual Sites and Seminal Attitudes, Studies on Contemporary South Asia, (pp. 209-241). New Delhi:
Sage Publications
Davis, E., and L. Friel. (2001). ‘Adolescent Sexuality: Disentangling the Effects of Family Structure and Family Context’, Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(3): 669-681.
Estep, E. R., M.R. Burt., and H.J. Milligan. (1977). ‘The Socialization of Sexual Identity’, Journal of Marriage and Family, 39(1): 99-112.
Forste, R., and D. Hass. (2002). ‘The transition of adolescent men to first sexual intercourse: Anticipated or Delayed?’, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 34(4):184-190.
Frydenberg, E., and R. Lewis. (1991). ‘Adolescent coping: The Different Ways in Which Boys and Girls Cope’, Journal of Adolescence, 14(2): 119-133.
Gage, A. J. (1998). ‘Sexual Activity And Contraceptive Use: The Components Of The Decision Making Process’, Studies in Family Planning, 29(2): 154-166.
Hardon, A. (1995). ‘A Critical Review of Sexual and Reproductive Health’, in Hardon (Ed.), Advancing Young women’s Status: Young women and Men Together? Gender, Society and Development, pp.120-156. Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute.
Martin, C.L. (1995). ‘Stereotypes About Children With Traditional And Non-Traditional Gender Roles’, Sex Roles, 33(11): 727-751.
Mbizvo, M.T., and Bassett, M.T. (1996). ‘Reproductive health and AIDS prevention in sub-Saharan Africa: The case for increased male participation’, Health Policy and
Planning, 11(1): 84-92.
Patterson, M., and I. McCubbin. (1987). ‘Adolescent Coping Style and Behavior:
Conceptualization and Measurement’, Journal of Adolescence, 10 (2): 163-186.
Radhakrishna, A., R.E. Gringle., and F.C. Greenslade. (1997). Identifying the Intersection: Adolescent Unwanted Pregnancy, HIV/AIDS and Unsafe Abortion, Carrboro.
Socialism is a set of political beliefs and principles that have a general interest of creating a system that allows all indi
SOCIALISM
Name
Institution
Introduction
Socialism is a set of political beliefs and principles that have a general interest of creating a system that allows all individuals to benefit from the resources of a country (Ebenstein, 1960). Here, the state is the owner of the nation’s major industries. Different scholars have provided diverse opinions on socialism.
Herbert Spencer came from a middle class, traditional English family. He was born in the year 1820. He was known for his hate towards state of power. Spencer had early interaction with philosophy through a Godwinian anarchist while working for Economist organ. Herbert absorbed the beliefs and principles held by the anarchist Thomas Hodgkin (Dombrowski, 1966). This paper focuses on socialism; precisely, philosophy associated with Herbert Spencer and Edward Bellamy. The paper functions to analyze the ideas of these philosophers and compares the application of their beliefs and their significance in life. The individual ideas possessed by these philosophers are weighed in relation to the current situation. The paper uses secondary sources of information is studying the subject matter. These sources include books and journals that offer a reliable basis for argumentative discussions. It is vital to use factual information on the subject to develop a critical evaluation of their ideas.
Herbert Spencer and the contribution he made towards philosophy were related to English industrialism. His ideas had the intention of joining in one structure that is coherent the recent and findings in biology and physics. This is the period when Darwin had formed his ideas on natural selection and other investigations were I fields like thermodynamics; they formed a bright generalization. His system was focused on dedicating the steel age and competition, steam engines, struggle and exploitation. Spencer had thoughts that developed in light of positive thinking and English science. His Synthetic philosophy was made from the scientific learning that was prominent in the intellectual environment he lived in. The ideas he had were intelligible in a philosophy setting. Social laws associated with him were unique cases of the general principles he believed. His social theories in the United States of America bought much appeal because of the association they had with his belief in productive integration of knowledge (Macy, 2000).
Earlier philosophers contributed towards obsolescence just as the pre-Newtonian philosophers engaged did during their time. The change into naturalism was brought about by world-systems that are mechanistic; its trend is proposed by various philosophers including Spencer (Smith, 2001). Spencer had his ideas relating to those of the eighteenth century philosophers. He attempted to merge the implications in science to action and social thought. Spencer’s deductive system began with what he termed as the persistence of force; this is popularly known as the Conservation of Energy. Philosophy is expected to build persistence of energy which is in the form of motion and matter. This manifestation is what makes up human inquiry. All over the universe, man struggles to observe the (incessant) redistribution of motion and matter, which is apportioned rhythmically between dissolution and evolution.
Looking at evolution; it can be defined as the integration of matter that is progressive followed by the dissipation of motion while dissolution is matter disorganization that is followed by motion being absorbed in the process (Heilbroner, 199). Life is considered evolutionary as it is made of continuous changes from unrelated homogeneity to a common heterogeneity. This can be explained by the life forms of lowly placed protozoa to complex systems in higher animals and man.
Focusing on persistence of force, Herbert claimed that all things that are homogeneous have unstable incoherence. This is due to the different future results obtained after this force has acted on their parts. After this process, the developed outcome is heterogeneous. It is this transformation that accounts for the change in earth forms from simple forms to complex forms. For instance, the development of human structures from a common mass of cells or the transformation of human societies. He points out that everything that man associates with has undergone some evolutionary process. The final outcome of this process in society and animals is caused by achieving an equilibrium state. This process is called equilibration according to Spencer’s ideologies. The final achievement of equilibrium is considered inevitable by many philosophers; this is because the process of evolution cannot proceed towards heterogeneity forever (Masy, 2000). This process has its own end point called limit where there is no increase in heterogeneity. It is during this time that dissolution comes into effect, universal rhythm patters the process. It is in this way that the process of integration is followed by disintegration. In the case of society, the change is towards the realization of a harmonious, fully adapted and stable state unlike animals where they die and then decay. Here, evolution results into a system that is of complete happiness and perfection. In America, this positive impact would have been met with mixed reactions if it was not for its relation to religion. Spencer gave a doctrine called the Doctrine of Unknowable, which bound the ideas he had on evolution (Masy, 2000). The controversial point was whether these beliefs were in accordance to religion, explaining the reconciliation of science and religion.
Herbert satisfied this concern and went on to give an assurance on future scientific progress. He claimed that any new developments from science relating to religion and the world are naturally inviolable. Those religious leaders who could dally with his views in liberalism praised these sentiments. On the other hand, others could not come to terms with his opinion in spite of reason, they insisted that faith could not unite with Spencer’s views (Heilbroner, 1999). There were some leaders who connected Christian teachings with his thoughts on evolution.
It was Spencer’s belief that the evolutionary laws in biology and science could apply to society. He compared the principles of change and social structure to the nature of the universe. Spencer and the next group of social Darwinists did poetic justice to society. Assessing the concept of survival of the fittest, the idea was a generalization of biology for the (cruel) procedures that reflective observers experienced at work early in the nineteenth century society (Dombrowski, 1966). Darwin derived the political economy at that time. The devastating social conditions present during the early times of industrial revolution proved another philosopher, Malthus, right about a matrix transformation for the natural selection theory.
The social selection theory, for Spencer, was brought about by his concern for human. He believed that the human race was benefiting from pressure of subsistence on population. Progress from past human times was entirely caused by the pressure on population. The application for the theory is evident with need to adapt due pressure on skill, self-control, intelligence by way of innovation in technology; only made the best generations survive. His arguments focused on the mental state of evolution, thus agreed with Lamarck’s theory of evolution. The thought of relating the development of man to the inheritance of characteristics gave him optimism in evolution (Ebenstein, 1960). He valued his belief in the theory that he could back it up despite any scientific opinion.
Spencer first wrote a book called Social Statics as a reaction attack upon the Benthamite belief and challenge. This reaction was from the innate notion of Benthamites that legislation plays a positive role in social reforms. The ethics of utilitarianism did not apply to him except that of the final standard of value; which relates “greatest happiness for the greatest numbers”. It was his deep belief that human adaptation in terms of character to any conditions of life is due to adaptation.
Eward Bellamy wrote a book talking about the “Horrid World” during his childhood in Massachusetts. He speaks of seeing children work under horrid conditions and families living in harsh conditions. Bellamy, on account of his past experiences, writes that he could not think of letting a human being go through this situation. It is his sensitivity to human pain that made him protest against this organization. This book was embraced by a number of readers, who saw reform in social and political life (Smith, 2001). His Utopian view of the future world put his thoughts in the eyes of many leaders and citizens in America.
The label of the nineteenth century’s end, by Mark Twain, was the Gilded Age. This is because of the triumph by the tycoons after amassing huge fortunes (Masy, 2000). This time was only favoring the rich who struggled to boost their status, according to Marx. Bellamy supports the views of socialism and even called it “Nationalism”. In his book, he talks about waking from a long sleep to realize almost ideal concept to his perception of socialism. The year 2000 for him is near perfect for harmony, prosperity and cooperation present. In his Utopian world, the loyalty which is given to the (solidarity) of the state is what binds the society together.
Bellamy criticizes the treatment of citizens during these harsh times. He did not support the idea of excessive efforts from individuals for the benefit of equal degree. It was unfair for the tyrannical individuals to share in the efforts of the poor; this explains why he did not agree with capitalism. In this Utopian world, he does not see the “tyranny” and big “corporations” benefiting unfairly (Heilbroner, 1999). Those individuals who subjected mankind to cruel servitude had been rid off in this type socialism; they only valued greed and ignored humanity. He calls the corporations hideous as capitalism can only lead to enlargement of these corporations. It is in this Utopian world that Bellamy profits are eliminated through creating one large business corporation and the ultimate monopoly. His world is governed by the Principle of Universal Military Service. These principles are not common but the benefit is that there is satisfaction in working. Socialism is considered the only truth which can free mankind of these problems.
The nation assures them of support through education, nurture and the citizens are given maintenance for life. Men who are fairly sensible make up the central government; they organize the world. They work to ensure that there are traces of inordinate luxury or poverty. Mankind in this world is focused on building the nation and not personal interests just the same way soldiers honor their country. This military approach is designed to organize every detail of the nation. Unlike capitalism, where individuals work to meet the interests of other people, the efforts of individuals are directed towards the nation.
The respect for specialized work is interesting for Bellamy. He compares this with the past scenario, and favors the respect and cooperation of citizens. The satisfaction is because every individual is given that which suites them. Capitalism champions for individualism while socialism promotes cooperation (Heilbroner, 1999). It only through this type of cooperation that the state is build. It was America that was the pioneer for this evolution. Socialists believe that capitalists are greedy farm owners who are out to enslave everyone.
The socialists are inclined to the betterment of the nation for the general happiness of citizens. The modern corporations do not agree with the thought of individual interests through capitalism. It is this ideal world that talks of a perfect society but critics argue that socialism is the cause of poverty in society.
The socialists had a speculation that concerned achieving the ideal politician. This is the practicability of the concept. According to Spencer, the defects that are found in a society are not wiped out but are carried on to the next generations. The passing of these evils in society do not have to do with the society’s structure. In Spencer’s view, the evils surrounding greed, oppression will thrive on in society through human nature. This is completely different from the idea of Bellamy’s ideal world, Bellamy talks of a system that is free from evil intent. In spite of the organization in Bellamy’s Utopia they sources end up becoming irresistible for the leaders. This leads to subsequent forms of evils in society through greed and corruption.
According to Bellamy’s world, the system of working is focused on achieving the greater good. The state is the main concern for socialists who work in cooperation to build the state. Individualism is only purposed to give more to the rich and oppress the citizens. For instance, Spencer’s argument is in the line of, a government system that uses its citizen to build their political economy and is administered by honest minds, but the notion of embezzlement state is inevitable. The two philosophers do not contrast in terms of philosophical stands but their application of the concept is different. Herbert does not ignore the presence of evil or potential greed in the socialism concept. On the other hand, Bellamy does not account for evil as the new society is transformed and united for one cause (Heilbroner, 1999). The fact that Bellamy disqualifies envy and fighting in his world prompted doubts. For a state to be fully united, the citizens must be totally perfect in terms of character.
Humans cannot co-exist completely without fighting and envying. The utopia created by Bellamy is not practical for the real situation. Spencer, in this evolutionary analysis of society and its transformation, talked of a society that would inherit the characteristics of their predecessors. This explains why he supports the idea of evil moving throughout all social transformations. Bellamy argues that in his Utopia the ideal government takes care of this inordinate greed for resources and supplies the citizen’s needs fully. His belief on having state support forever is impractical as Spencer does not support full support for all citizens.
In his idea of a perfect world, the transformations of one generation to the next discard evil in society (Smith, 2001). He compares the year 2000 with the notion he had on society and politics. The only impracticability was on human nature. He discarded the idea of individuals working for the benefit of others. These greedy individuals only notice their market competition for better profits. The conditions of citizens are not important for them, they are mere slaves and a source of labor. In his book, he talks of families living in wild scenarios without the concern of their masters.
Social ethics advocate for humane working conditions. For the leaders to ignore the needs of their slaves and only anticipate their labor, they must have had a perception of social classes. This puts the citizens at the lowest of classes while they rule with cruelty. This marginalization in terms of social status affects American citizens before the dawn of socialism. It was until the concept of socialism was created that citizens took interest and understood its benefits that they adopted it. This harmony in terms of working, would improve the status of the state thus citizens benefit.
Another difference in terms of concepts in socialism for Bellamy and Spencer is the satisfaction of the work given (Dombrowski, 1966). Bellamy speaks of content from the work given to the citizens by the central system. The process of allocation is according to the qualifications and merits levels of citizens. For instance, working positions would be allocated through a transparent system. Spencer’s view of human nature disputes this point. Still focusing on the evil character of citizens, the different levels of performance and income would finally bring envy and evil intent amongst each other. These bring about social crimes like stealing, looting and hijacking for the well-off individuals. Before working one needs some experienced and knowledge of what they are to do. A society cannot boost their social status by using unskilled individuals in their system. The application of these concepts of not practical. Bellamy claims that the support from the state on education would ensure a literate and satisfied society.
Looking at the present scenario in America, the social system is more inclined to Spencer’s ideology. Bellamy’s Utopia is not concurrent to the present times in America; this is because the idea of perfection in terms of character is not present. For instance, the country has recorded deadly criminal attacks for many years. Internal conflicts by citizens of states are as a result of envy or corruption cases. This means that his long dream lacked its practicality in terms of human nature. The expected outcome from Bellamy would have been a socially united generation. This proved Spencer’s concept on the evolution of character from one generation to another right. Just like the horrid society, the social generation still posses these traits despite their development.
Another disapproving example to Bellamy is the international wars that have occurred. World War and Cold War show that there is no full cooperation or understanding in the current system. Many nations fought against each other with fatal results; for example, Japan suffered Nuclear Poisoning from these conflicts (Masy, 2000). Spencer’s idea on human nature can satisfy this concern on socialism and character. It explains the violation of Bellamy’s concept on the ideal world.
On the idea of state support to its citizens is not practically available. Educational needs are not met for every individual in America thus literate level are low. This puts those who are illiterate at a disadvantaged position as they would not face standard qualifications with the learned. It marginalizes this group of people thus forming a disadvantaged minority. The elimination of poverty from the state is far from achievement. In America, many states host ghettos that consist of the poor and needy. According to Bellamy the present case of socialism is inadequate to qualify as his Utopia.
Spencer’s argument on evolution characteristics is seen as more practical than the Utopian concept. Greed in society is at its climax as cases of leadership involved in corruption are reported and prosecuted daily. This means that the rich still posses the trait of greed and opportunism. They struggle to build more assets despite the relative social differences; this is just like capitalism and greed. The ideal authority according to Bellamy should prevent social greed but socialism in the United States does not show this Utopia (Masy, 2000). Ironically, the authorities are the key figures in mismanagement and corruption.
The future socialism according to Edward is far from attainment; this is because social evils like greed are still found in the modern socialism in these states. This puts the applicability of his ideas in question. Utopia is seen as a dream and ideal thus impractical in life. Character is thus seen to move from one generation to another despite other social changes. A society whether united or separated, maintains its characteristics in social evil.
The Utopian experience is considered a perfect example of socialism due the ease on human life (Smith 2001). Consider where the citizens of a state are provided with both primary and secondary needs by the state. There would be no hardships in life due to sufficient provisions from the system. This is a desirable condition for any state as the central government would receive equal participation. This would eliminate greed as the state caters for all citizens in the manner. The society would be truly free from criminal activities as all citizens are income earners. Financial capabilities would be the same and the economic strain would be minimal. Lack of corporate cartels who overstep their duty in deciding market values.
The present international relations need this Utopian concept. It would promote international cooperation among current enemy states. The resources present in these nations would be developed for the benefit of citizens and not individual interests of leaders. Human fatalities and government instabilities would be averted. The social structure of Bellamy’s Socialism is ideal for full realization of societal evolution (Dombrowski, 1966).
Conclusion
Socialism is a set of political beliefs and principles that have a general interest of creating a system that allows all individuals to benefit from the resources of a country. Herbert Spencer and the contribution he made towards philosophy were related to English industrialism. His ideas had the intention of joining in one structure that is coherent the recent and findings in biology and physics. Social laws associated with him were unique cases of the general principles he believed. His social theories in the United States of America bought much appeal. Spencer had his ideas relating to those of the eighteenth century philosophers. He attempted to merge the implications in science to action and social thought. Spencer’s deductive system began with what he termed as the persistence of force; this is popularly known as the Conservation of Energy.
Looking at evolution; it can be defined as the integration of matter that is progressive followed by the dissipation of motion while dissolution is matter disorganization that is followed by motion being absorbed in the process (Heilbroner, 1999). Herbert claimed that all things that are homogeneous have unstable incoherence. This is due to the different future results obtained after this force has acted on their parts. After this process, the developed outcome is heterogeneous. The final outcome of this process in society and animals is caused by achieving an equilibrium state. This process is called equilibration according to Spencer’s ideologies. The final achievement of equilibrium is considered inevitable by many philosophers.
Bellamy supports the views of socialism and even called it “Nationalism”. In his book, he talks about waking from a long sleep to realize almost ideal concept to his perception of socialism. Bellamy supports the views of socialism and even called it “Nationalism”. In his book, he talks about waking from a long sleep to realize almost ideal concept to his perception of socialism. He did not support the idea of excessive efforts from individuals for the benefit of equal degree. It was unfair for the tyrannical individuals to share in the efforts of the poor; this explains why he did not agree with capitalism. His world is governed by the Principle of Universal Military Service. These principles are not common but the benefit is that there is satisfaction in working.
Spencer’s argument is in the line of, a government system that uses its citizen to build their political economy and is administered by honest minds, but the notion of embezzlement state is inevitable. Humans cannot co-exist completely without fighting and envying. The utopia created by Bellamy is not practical for the real situation. Spencer, in this evolutionary analysis of society and its transformation, talked of a society that would inherit the characteristics of their predecessors. The two philosophers do not contrast in terms of philosophical stands but their application of the concept is different. The state is the main concern for socialists who work in cooperation to build the state. Individualism is only purposed to give more to the rich and oppress the citizens.
In his idea of a perfect world, the transformations of one generation to the next discard evil in society (Smith, 2001). He compares the year 2000 with the notion he had on society and politics. The only impracticality was on human nature. Spencer’s argument on evolution characteristics is seen as more practical than the Utopian concept. This means that the rich still posses the trait of greed and opportunism. They struggle to build more assets despite the relative social differences. The future socialism according to Edward is far from attainment; this is because social evils like greed are still found in the modern socialism in these states. There would be no hardships in life due to sufficient provisions from the system. This is a desirable condition for any state as the central government would receive equal participation.
References
Dombrowski, J. (1966). The early days of Christian socialism in America. New York: Octagon
Books.
Ebenstein, W. (1960). Great political thinkers: Plato to the present. New York: Rinehart.
Heilbroner, R. (1999). The Worldly Philosophers (7th ed.). New York, NY: Touchstone Books.
Macy, J. A. (2000). Socialism in America. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday, Page & Co.
Smith, K. (2001). Socialism in America. Washington.