Hedonism

is a school of thought which argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good. (pleasure minus pain).
[1]

In very simple terms, a hedonist strives to maximize net pleasure

The term hedonism, from the Greek word (hdon) for pleasure, refers to several related theories about what is good for us, how we should behave, and what motivates us to behave in the way that we do. All hedonistic theories identify pleasure and pain as the only important elements of whatever phenomena they are designed to describe. If hedonistic theories identified pleasure and pain as merely two important elements, instead of the only important elements of what they are describing, then they would not be nearly as unpopular as they all are. However, the claim that pleasure and pain are the onlythings of ultimate importance is what makes hedonism distinctive and philosophically interesting. Philosophical hedonists tend to focus on hedonistic theories of value, and especially of well-being (the good life for the one living it). As a theory of value, hedonism states that all and only pleasure is intrinsically valuable and all and only pain is intrinsically not valuable. Hedonists usually define pleasure and pain broadly, such that both physical and mental phenomena are included. Thus, a gentle massage and recalling a fond memory are both considered to cause pleasure and stubbing a toe and hearing about the death of a loved one are both considered to cause pain. With pleasure and pain so defined, hedonism as a theory about what is valuable for us is intuitively appealing. Indeed, its appeal is evidenced by the fact that nearly all historical and contemporary treatments of well-being allocate at least some space for discussion of hedonism. Unfortunately for hedonism, the discussions rarely endorse it and some even deplore its focus on pleasure. This article begins by clarifying the different types of hedonistic theories and the labels they are often given. Then, hedonisms ancient origins and its subsequent development are reviewed. The majority of this article is concerned with describing the important theoretical divisions within Prudential Hedonism and discussing the major criticisms of these approaches.

Utilitarianism
is an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "good" of the society. [1] It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its resulting outcome. The most influential contributors to this theory are considered to be Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism was described by Bentham as "the greatest happiness or greatest felicity principle".[2] Utilitarianism can be characterised as a quantitative and reductionist approach to ethics. It is a type of naturalism.[3] It can be contrasted withdeontological ethics (which do not regard the consequences of an act as a determinant of its moral worth), pragmatic ethics, and virtue ethics(which focuses on character), as well as with other varieties of consequentialism. Act utilitarianism states that, when faced with a choice, we must first consider the likely consequences of potential actions and, from that, choose to do what we believe will generate the most pleasure. The rule utilitarian, on the other hand, begins by looking at potential rules of action. To determine whether a rule should be followed, he or she looks at what would happen if it were constantly followed. If adherence to the rule produces more happiness than otherwise, it is a rule that morally must be followed at all times. The distinction between act and rule utilitarianism is therefore based on a difference about the proper object of consequential calculation specific to a case or generalized to rules. 'Also to achieve the greater good for the most amount of people.' Rule utilitarianism has been criticized for advocating general rules that, in some specific circumstances, clearly decrease happiness if followed. Never to kill another human being may seem to be a good rule, but it could make self-defense against malevolent aggressors very difficult. Rule utilitarians add, however, that there are general exception rules that allow the breaking of other rules if such rule-breaking increases happiness, one example being self-defense. Critics argue that this reduces rule utilitarianism to act utilitarianism and makes rules meaningless. Rule utilitarians retort that rules in the legal system (i.e., laws) that regulate such situations are not meaningless. Self-defense is legally justified, while murder is not. However, within rule utilitarianism there is a distinction between the strictness and absolutism of this particular branch of utilitarianism. Strong Rule Utilitarianism is an absolutist theory, which frames strict rules that apply for all people and all time and may never be broken. John Stuart Mill proposed Weak Rule utilitarianism, which posits that, although rules should be framed on previous examples that benefit society, it is possible, under specific circumstances, to do what produces the greatest happiness and break that rule. An example would be the Gestapo asking where your Jewish neighbours were; a strong rule utilitarian might say the "Do not lie" rule must never be broken, whereas a weak rule utilitarian would argue that to lie would produce the most happiness. Rule utilitarianism should not be confused with heuristics (rules of thumb), but many act utilitarians agree that it makes sense to formulate certain rules of thumb to follow if they find themselves in a situation whose consequences are difficult, costly or time-consuming to calculate exactly. If the consequences can be calculated relatively clearly and without much doubt, however, the rules of thumb can be ignored.

Collapse of rule utilitarianism into act utilitarianism

It has been argued that rule utilitarianism collapses into act utilitarianism, because for any given rule, in the case where breaking the rule produces more utility, the rule can be sophisticated by the addition of a sub-rule that handles cases like the exception. This process holds for all cases of exceptions, and so the rules have [5] as many sub-rules as there are exceptional cases, which, in the end, makes an agent seek out whatever outcome produces the maximum utility. Two-level Main article: Two-level utilitarianism Two-level utilitarianism states that one should normally use 'intuitive' moral thinking, in the form of rule utilitarianism, because it usually maximizes happiness. However there are some times when we must ascend to a higher 'critical' level of reflection in order to decide what to do, and must think as an act utilitarian would. Richard Hare supported this theory with his concept of the Archangel, which holds that if we were all 'archangels' we could be act utilitarians all the time as we would be able to perfectly predict consequences. However we are closer to 'proles' in that we are frequently biased and unable to foresee all possible consequence of our actions, and thus we require moral guidelines. When these principles clash we must attempt to think like an archangel to choose the right course of action.
[4]

Motive
Motive utilitarianism, first developed by Robert Adams (Journal of Philosophy, 1976), can be viewed either as a hybrid between act and rule or as a unique approach all on its own terms. The motive approach attempts to deal realistically with how human beings actually function psychologically. We are indeed passionate, emotional creatures, we do much better with positive goals than with negative prohibitions, we long to be taken seriously, and so on and so forth. Motive utilitarianism proposes that our initial moral task be to inculcate within ourselves and others the skills, inclinations, and mental focuses that are likely to be most useful (or in less perfectionist terms, merely highly useful) across the spectrum of real-world situations we are likely to face, rather than the hypothetical situations seemingly so common in philosophical publications. Indeed, motive utilitarianism can even be seen as a response to this unofficial rule against textured real-world examples. For example, similar to the 80-20 rule in business and entrepreneurship, we might be able to most improve the future prospects of all sentient creatures if we do a large number of activities in open partnerships with others, rather than a few perfect things done sneakily.Two examples of motive utilitarianism in practice might be a gay person coming out of the closet and a politician publicly breaking with a war. In both cases, there is likely to be an initial surge of power and confidence, as well as a transitional period in which one is likely to be losing old friends before making new friends, and unpredictably so on both counts. Another example might be a doctor who is a skilled diagnostician. Such a physician is likely to spend most of their serious study time or continuing education time on current research, direct skills for running a successful practice, etc., and only occasionally return to first principlesthat is, only occasionally do something as an interesting study in biochemistry, and then as much as a hobby as anything else.

Negative
Most utilitarian theories deal with producing the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. Negative utilitarianism (NU) requires us to promote the least amount of evil or harm, or to prevent the greatest amount of suffering for the greatest number. Proponents like Karl Popper, Christoph Fehige and Clark Wolf argue that this is a more effective ethical formula, since, they contend, the greatest harms are more consequential than the greatest goods. Karl Popper also referred to an epistemological argument: It adds to clarity in the fields of ethics, if we formulate our demands negatively, i.e., if we demand the elimination of suffering rather than the promotion of happiness.. [6] In the practical implementation of this idea the following versions can be distinguished: 1. R.N.Smart, an advocate of the utilitarian principle, was quick to suggest that the ultimate aim of NU would be to engender the quickest and least painful method of killing the entirety of humanity, as this ultimately would effectively minimize suffering. NU would seem to call for the destruction of the world even if only to avoid the pain of a pinprick.[7] 2. Negative preference utilitarianism avoids the problem of moral killing, but still demands a justification for the creation of new lives. [8] Optimistic negative utilitarians believe that, in time, the worst cases of suffering are defeated and a world of minor suffering can be realized. The principal agents of this direction can be found in the environment of abolitionism (bioethics).[9]Pessimistic negative utiliarians tend to remain childless. 3. Finally there are theoreticians who see NU as a branch within classical utilitarianism, which assigns a higher weight to the avoidance of suffering than to the promotion of happiness.[10] However, a theory which increases the moral weight of suffering relative to happiness (without giving it an absolute priority) can better be characterized by the termprioritarianism.

Average vs total
Total utilitarianism advocates measuring the utility of a population based on the total utility of its members. According to Derek Parfit, this type of utilitarianism falls victim to theRepugnant Conclusion, whereby large numbers of people with very low but non-negative utility values can be seen as a better goal than a population of a less extreme size living in comfort. In other words, according to the theory, it is a moral good to breed more people on the world for as long as total happiness rises.[11] Average utilitarianism, on the other hand, advocates measuring the utility of a population based on the average utility of that population. It avoids Parfit's repugnant conclusion, but causes other problems like the mere addition paradox. For example, bringing a moderately happy person into a very happy world would be seen as an immoral act; aside from this, the theory implies that it would be a moral good to eliminate all people whose happiness is below average, as this would

raise the average happiness. Most utilitarians consider this type of argument as flawed or merely hypothetical, however, since a real-world society allowing the non-consensual elimination of people would inevitably create severe amounts of suffering and unhappiness.

[12]

[who?]

Other species
Further information: Speciesism, animal welfare Peter Singer, along with many animal rights activists, has argued that the well-being of all sentient beings ought to be seriously considered. Singer suggests that rights are conferred according to the level of a creature's self-awareness, regardless of their species. He adds that humans tend to be speciesist (disciminatory against non-humans) in ethical matters. Bentham made a similar argument, writing "the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they [2] suffer?". In his 1990 edition of Animal Liberation, Peter Singer said that he no longer ate oysters and mussels, because although the creatures might not suffer, they might, its not really known, and its easy enough to avoid eating them in any case [13] (and this aspect of seeking better alternatives is a prominent part of utilitarianism). All the same, this view still might be contrasted with deep ecology, which holds that an intrinsic value is attached to all forms of life and nature, whether sentient or not. According to utilitarianism, most forms of life (i.e. non-animals) are unable to experience anything akin to either enjoyment or discomfort, and are therefore [citation needed] denied moral status. Thus, the moral value of one-celled organisms, as well as some multi-cellular organisms, and natural entities like a river, is only in the benefit they provide to sentient beings. Similarly, utilitarianism places no direct intrinsic value on biodiversity, although as far as indirect, contingent value, it most probably does.

Other consequentialists may consider happiness an important consequence but argue in addition that consequences such as justice orequality should also be valued, regardless of whether or not they increase happiness. Herbert Spencer (27 April 1820 8 December 1903) was an English philosopher, biologist, sociologist, and prominent classical liberalpolitical theorist of the Victorian era. Spencer developed an all-embracing conception of evolution as the progressive development of the physical world, biological organisms, the human mind, and human culture and societies. He was "an enthusiastic exponent of evolution" and even "wrote about evolution beforeDarwin did."[1] As a polymath, he contributed to a wide range of subjects, including ethics, religion, anthropology, economics, political theory, philosophy, biology, sociology, and psychology. During his lifetime he achieved tremendous authority, mainly in English-speaking academia. "The only other English philosopher to have achieved anything like such widespread popularity was Bertrand Russell, and that was in the 20th century."[2] Spencer was "the single most famous European intellectual in the closing decades of the nineteenth century"[3][4] but his influence declined sharply after 1900; "Who now reads Spencer?" asked Talcott Parsons in 1937.[5] Spencer is best known for coining the concept "survival of the fittest", which he did in Principles of Biology (1864), after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species.[6] This term strongly suggests natural selection, yet as Spencer extended evolution into realms of sociology and ethics, he also made use of Lamarckism.[1] The end point of the evolutionary process would be the creation of 'the perfect man in the perfect society' with human beings becoming completely adapted to social life, as predicted in Spencers first book. The chief difference between Spencers earlier and later conceptions of this process was the evolutionary timescale involved. The psychologicaland hence also the moralconstitution which had been bequeathed to the present generation by our ancestors, and which we in turn would hand on to future generations, was in the process of gradual adaptation to the requirements of living in society. For example, aggression was a survival instinct which had been necessary in the primitive conditions of life, but was maladaptive in advanced societies. Because human instincts had a specific location in strands of brain tissue, they were subject to the Lamarckian mechanism of use-inheritance so that gradual modifications could be transmitted to future generations. Over the course of many generations the evolutionary process would ensure that human beings would become less aggressive and increasingly altruistic, leading eventually to a perfect society in which no one would cause another person pain. However, for evolution to produce the perfect individual it was necessary for present and future generations to experience the 'natural' consequences of their conduct. Only in this way would individuals have the incentives required to work on self-improvement and thus to hand an improved moral constitution to their descendants. Hence anything that interfered with the 'natural' relationship of conduct and consequence was to be resisted and this included the use of the coercive power of the state to relieve poverty, to provide public education, or to require compulsory vaccination. Although charitable giving was to be encouraged even it had to be limited by the consideration that suffering was frequently the result of individuals receiving the consequences of their actions. Hence too much individual benevolence directed to the 'undeserving poor' would break the link between conduct and consequence that Spencer considered fundamental to ensuring that humanity continued to evolve to a higher level of development. Spencer adopted a utilitarian standard of ultimate valuethe greatest happiness of the greatest numberand the culmination of the evolutionary process would be the maximization of utility. In the perfect society individuals would not only derive pleasure from the exercise of altruism ('positive beneficence') but would aim to avoid inflicting pain on others ('negative beneficence'). They would also instinctively respect the rights of others, leading to the universal observance of the principle of justice each person had the right to a maximum amount of liberty that was compatible with a like liberty in others. 'Liberty' was interpreted to mean the absence of coercion, and was closely connected to the right to private property. Spencer termed this code of conduct 'Absolute Ethics' which provided a scientifically-grounded moral system that could substitute for the supernaturally-based ethical systems of the past. However, he recognized that our inherited moral constitution does not currently permit us to behave in full compliance with the code of Absolute Ethics, and for this reason we need a code of 'Relative Ethics' which takes into account the distorting factors of our present imperfections.

Positivism
refers to a set of epistemological perspectives and philosophies of science which hold that the scientific method is the best approach to uncovering the processes by which both physical and human events occur. Though the positivist approach has been a recurrent theme in the history of western [1] thought from the Ancient Greeks to the present day, the concept was developed in the early 19th century by the philosopher and founding [2] sociologist, Auguste Comte. Positivism asserts that the only authentic knowledge is that which is based on sense, experience and positive verification. As an approach to the philosophy of science deriving from Enlightenment thinkers such as Henri de Saint-Simon and Pierre-Simon Laplace, Auguste Comte saw the scientific method as replacing metaphysics in the history of thought, observing the circular dependence of theory and observation in science. Sociological positivism was later reformulated by mile Durkheim as a foundation to social research. At the turn of the 20th century the first wave of German sociologists, including Max Weber and Georg Simmel, rejected the doctrine, thus founding the antipositivist tradition in sociology. Later antipositivists and critical theorists have associated positivism with "scientism"; science as ideology. In the early 20th century, logical positivisma descendant of Comte's basic thesis but an independent movement sprang up in Vienna and grew to become one of the dominant schools in Anglo-American philosophy and the analytic tradition. Logical positivists (or 'neopositivists') reject metaphysical speculation and attempt to reduce statements and propositions to pure logic. Critiques of this approach by philosophers such as Karl Popper, Willard Van Orman Quine and Thomas Kuhn have been highly influential, and led to the development of postpositivism. In psychology, the positivist movement was influential in the development of behavioralism and operationalism. In economics, practising researchers tend to emulate the methodological assumptions of classical positivism, but only in a de-facto fashion: the majority of economists do not explicitly concern themselves with matters of epistemology. In jurisprudence, "legal positivism" essentially refers to the rejection of natural law, thus its common meaning with philosophical positivism is somewhat attenuated and in recent generations generally emphasizes the authority of human political structures as opposed to a "scientific" view of law. In contemporary social science, strong accounts of positivism have long since fallen out of favour. Practitioners of positivism today acknowledge in far greater detail observer bias and structural limitations. Modern positivists generally eschew metaphysical concerns in favor of methodological debates concerning clarity, replicability, reliability and validity.[3] This positivism is generally equated with "quantitative research" and thus carries no explicit theoretical or philosophical commitments. The institutionalization of this kind of sociology is often credited to Paul Lazarsfeld,[4] who pioneered largescale survey studies and developed statistical techniques for analyzing them. This approach lends itself to what Robert K. Mertoncalled middle-range theory: abstract statements that generalize from segregated hypotheses and empirical regularities rather than starting with an abstract idea of a social whole.[5]Other new movements, such as critical realism, have emerged to reconcile the overarching aims of social science with various so-called 'postmodern' critiques.

Moral Evolution
Charles Darwin agreed with William Wallace who independently developed the theory of human evolution that among human beings there has been for a long time little physical evolution. But the case is widely different Wallace insisted, in relation to the intellectual and moral faculties of man. Once humans develop certain physical traits such as larger brain and the use of tools, further evolution must occur exclusively in the development of mental, moral, and spiritual qualities such as the enhancement of language and reasoning, moral refinement, and spiritual transformation. All elements of physical evolution can be used either for positive or negative purposes: to encourage the complete realization of humankinds potential or for the deliberate debasement to a retrograde state. Since human can think and act in a manner either to evolve to a higher state or to devolve to a lower state, the critical factors are mental, moral, and spiritual development: the ability to understand and manifest capabilities in a positive manner. As human consciousness has evolved over the last approximately ten thousand years ago, its now reached a point at which a new mutation has become possibleand necessary. Those people who work within the prernnial tradition develop new organs of awareness, enabling them to evolve into supra-humans. The only way for a higher being to evolve spontaneous individuals is to allow them the freedom to manifest whatever ideas theyre abled to transmit through inspiration and awaken to their own ultimate reality. So humans are created with the possibility of freedom and allowed to discover themselves. That we discover is that the universe is a government of law: we wrap what we sow: wrong acts are their own punishment and right acts are their own reward.

Moral Sensism
(also known as sentimentalism) is a view in meta-ethics according to which morality is somehow grounded in moral sentiments or emotions. Some take it to be primarily a view about the nature of moral facts or moral beliefs (a primarily metaphysical view)---this form of the view more often goes by the name "sentimentalism". Others take the view to be primarily about the nature of justifying moral beliefs (a primarily epistemological view)---this form of the view more often goes by the name "moral sense theory". However, some theorists take the view to be one which claims that both moral facts and how one comes to be justified in believing them are necessarily bound up with human emotions. Popular historical advocates of some version of the moral sense theory or sentimentalism include the 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury (16711713), Francis Hutcheson (16941746), David Hume(17111776), and Adam Smith (17231790). Some contemporary advocates include Michael Slote, Justin D'Arms, Daniel Jacobson, Jesse Prinz, and perhaps John McDowell. Simon Blackburn and Allan Gibbard endorse a non-cognitivist form of sentimentalism. The moral sense is often described as providing information in a way analogous to other sensory modalities, such as sight in the perception of colors. It is contrasted with the way in which one acquires a priori, non-empirical knowledge, such as mathematical knowledge for example. One way to understand the moral sense is to draw an analogy between it and other kinds of senses. Beauty is something we see in some faces, artworks and landscapes. We can also hear it in some pieces of music. We clearly do not need an independent aesthetic sense faculty to perceive beauty in the world. Our ordinary five senses are quite enough to observe it, though merely observing something beautiful is not by itself enough to appreciate its beauty. Suppose we give a name to this ability to appreciate the beauty in things we see: lets call it the aesthetic sense. This aesthetic sense does not come automatically to all people with perfect vision and hearing, so it is fair to describe it as something extra, something not wholly reducible to vision and hearing. As the aesthetic sense informs us about what is beautiful, we can analogically understand the moral sense as informing us of what is good. People with a functioning moral sense get a clear impression of wrongness when they see (or perhaps even imagine) someone being mugged, for example. However, though the wrongness is obvious, we may find it very difficult to list the features of the scene which account for the wrongness. We discover wrongness through observing natural properties with our five senses. Can we list the necessary and sufficient conditions such that any action which satisfies these conditions is wrong? The Ethical Naturalist thinks that in principle, we can. For naturalists, rightness and wrongness are nothing more than certain combinations of natural, non-evaluative properties. Since we can in principle build mechanical detectors for all these natural properties, the Ethical Naturalist thinks wrongness is something that a machine could eventually detect. The ethical intuitionist typically disagrees (although, it is not essential to the view): they see a wide conceptual gap between natural facts and evaluations. There seem to be no valid arguments in which purely descriptive/factual premises entail a prescriptive/evaluative conclusion. Ethical intuitionists claim that only an agent with a moral sense can observe natural properties and through them discover the moral properties of the situation. Without the moral sense, you might see and hear all the colors and yelps, but the moral properties would remain hidden, and there would be in principle no way to ever discover them (except, of course, via testimony from someone else with a moral sense).

Communism
- is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate.[1] In Marxist theory, communism is a specific stage of historical development that inevitably emerges from the development of the productive forcesthat leads to a superabundance of material wealth, allowing for distribution based on need and social relations based on freely associated individuals.[2][3] The exact definition of communism varies, and it is often mistakenly, in general political discourse, used interchangeably withsocialism; however, Marxist theory contends that socialism is just a transitional stage on the road to communism. Leninists revised this theory by introducing the notion of a vanguard party to lead the proletarian revolution and to hold all political power after the revolution, 'in the name of the workers' and supposedly with worker participation, in a transitional stage between capitalism and socialism. Communists such as council communists and non-Marxist libertarian communists and anarcho-communist oppose the idea of a vanguard party and a transition stage, and advocate for the construction of full communism to begin immediately upon the abolition of capitalism. There is a very wide range of theories amongst those particular communists in regards to how to build the types of institutions that would replace the various economic engines (such as food distribution, education, and hospitals) as they exist under capitalist systemsor even whether to do so at all. Some of these communists have specific plans for the types of administrative bodies that would replace the current ones, while always qualifying that these bodies would be decentralised and worker-owned, just as they currently are within the activist movements themselves. Others have no concrete set of post-revolutionary blueprints at all, claiming instead that they simply trust that the world's workers and poor will figure out proper modes of distribution and wide-scale production, and also coordination, entirely on their own, without the need for any structured "replacements" for capitalist state-based control.

In the modern lexicon of what many sociologists and political commentators refer to as the "political mainstream", communism is often used to refer to the policies of states run bycommunist parties, regardless of the practical content of the actual economic system they may preside over. Examples of this include the policies of the Socialist Republic of Vietnamwhere the economic system incorporates "doi moi", the People's Republic of China where the economic system incorporates "socialist market economy", and the economic system of the Soviet Union which was described as "state capitalist" by some communists who increasingly opposed the post-Stalin era Soviet model as it progressed over the course of the 20th century (e.g. Maoists, Trotskyists and libertarian [4] communists)and even at one point by Vladimir Lenin himself. Communist theory generally states that the only way to solve the problems existing within capitalism is for the working class, referred to alternatively as 'the proletariat', who collectively constitute the main producer of wealth in society, and who are perpetually exploited and marginalised by the capitalist class, to overthrow the capitalist system in a wide-ranging social revolution. This revolution, in the theory of most individuals and groups espousing communist revolution, usually involves an armed insurrection. The revolution espoused can be explained by theorists in many different ways, and usually depends on the environment in which the particular communism theory originates; for example, the Chinese Revolution was both described as, and ultimately involved, military combat between the Chinese Red Army and the Chinese Nationalist army, while the Vietnamese Revolution was largely guerilla warfarebetween massive numbers of Vietnamese supporters of the Vietnam People's Army and various Western armies, in particular the final stage against the United States armed forces. TheCuban Revolution was meanwhile essentially a coup d'etat that did not involve intensive pitched battles or wide-scale military conflict between Fulgencio Batista's soldiers and those ofFidel Castro and Che Guevarain fact, Castro did not even believe a vanguard party was necessary in Cuba's case to begin with, a view boosted by the fact that Batista, by the time of the actual armed conflict between Cuban revolutionaries and his soldiers, was significantly weak in terms of his administration's political solvency. No matter what specific form the communist revolution takes, its aim is for the working class to replace the exploiter class (usually bourgeoisie) as the ruling class to establish a society without class divisions, called socialism, as a prelude to attempting to achieve the final stage of communism.[1] A variety of different forms of communism have developed, each based upon the ideas of different political theorists, usually as additions or interpretations of various forms of Marxism, the collective philosophies of Karl Marx.[5] Marxism-Leninism is the synthesis of Vladimir Lenin's contributions to Marxism, such as how a revolutionary party should be organised;Trotskyism is Leon Trotsky's conception of Marxism, influenced by Lenin, and meanwhile, Maoism is Mao Zedong's interpretation of Marxism to suit the conditions of China at that time, and is fairly heavy on the need for agrarian worker support as the engine for the revolution, rather than workers in the urban areas, which were still very small at that point. Pure communism is a term sometimes used to refer to the stage in history after socialism, although just as many communists use simply the term "communism" to refer to that stage. The classless, stateless society that is meant to characterise this communism is one where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made in the best interests of the whole of societya sort of 'of, by, and for the working class', rather than a rich class controlling the wealth and everyone else working for them on a wage basis. In this communism the interests of every member of society is given equal weight to the next, in the practical decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life. Karl Marx, as well as some other communist philosophers, deliberately never provided a detailed description as to how communism would function as a social system, nor the precise ways in which the working class could or should rise up, nor any other material specifics of exactly how to get to communism from capitalism. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx does lay out a 10-point plan advising the redistribution of land and production to begin the transition to communism, but he ensured that even this was very general and all-encompassing. It has always been presumed that Marx intended these theories to read this way specifically so that later theorists in specific situations could adapt communism to their own localities and conditions. The origins of communism are debatable, and there are various historical groups, as well as theorists, whose beliefs have been subsequently described as communist. Some theorists have considered hunter-gatherer societies to adhere to a form of primitive communism, whilst historical figures like Plato and Thomas More have been described as espousing early forms of the ideology. The communist movement as it is known today largely took shape in the nineteenth century, when it was developed. [5] In the twentieth century, revolutions led to openly communist governments taking power in many countries, leading to the creation of states like the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Cuba.

Self-love
-is the strong sense of respect for and confidence in oneself. It is different from narcissism in that as one practices acceptance and detachment, the awareness of the individual shifts and the individual starts to see him or herself as an extension of all there is. Ultimately, the identification of I from a personal individual perspective, shifts to I from a perspective of consciousness or life being experienced from the perceptual point of view that we call by our individual names.[citation
needed]

Self-love can be taught in childhood through honesty, acceptance and unconditional love. Since most parents have their own self-doubts and limiting beliefs, they project these onto their children and the cycles of self-rejection and self-abuse repeat themselves.[citation needed] In 1956 psychologist and social philosopher Erich Fromm proposed that loving oneself is different from being arrogant, conceited or egocentric. He proposed that loving oneself means caring about oneself, taking responsibility for oneself, respecting oneself, and knowing oneself (e.g. being realistic and honest about one's strengths and weaknesses). He proposed, further, that in order to be able to truly love another person, a person needs first to love oneself in this way.[1]

Love for others

-How do we do that? By believing that God loves us. What does believing that God loves us have to do with loving other people? The writer of Matthew 19:19 writes, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that we are to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. Most of us don't love ourselves. Therefore we treat ourselves badly, and in turn, we treat others that way as well . The solution is to love ourselves. The only effective way to do that is to believe that God loves us. He loved us so much that while we were yet sinners, He sent His Only Begotten Son, Jesus, to die for us. While He looked at us covered in lies, adultery, theft, covetousness, greed and selfishness, Jesus endured being beaten, bruised and nailed on the Cross to pay the price for our sin. The wages of sin are death (Romans 6:23), and the penalty is eternal separation from God.. God loved us so much that He couldn't stand for us be separated from Him for eternity. That's how much He loved and still loves us. He gave us the option to be with Him forever or to be separated from Him. The choice is now ours. God loves us so much that He has tattoos of us on His palms. He bottles our tears. His thoughts toward us outnumber the grains of sand and are to prosper us and not to harm us. We are the apple of God's eye. He is a doting Daddy, who loves to shower His kids with blessings. Not because we deserve them but because He loves us and are His children. Most of us are walking in love in our own strength We try to conjure up enough love in our hearts towards others. When we do this, though, we will always fail. However if we tap into God's strength within us, we can love even the unlovable. What is God's love like? It is unconditional. No matter what we say or do, God still loves us. He doesn't stop loving us because we hate someone or even commit murder. He always loved us and always will love us. What is our love like? Our love has conditions. When our husband comes home and admits to an affair, in our own strength, we find it hard to look at him, nevertheless forgive him. On the contrary, God's love is always forgiving, merciful and gracious. When we do wrong, what kind of love do we want be met with? Unconditional love? Or conditional? We want to be met with unconditional love. Many of us don't believe that God loves us. When we don't, we don't believe God forgives us. We berate ourselves and beat ourselves up. When we believe God loves us without conditions, we relax. We don't try to earn God's love. We don't worry about God being angry at us. There is nothing we can do to make God stop loving us. Obedience comes easier when we believe God loves us. When we know He loves us, we understand that God wants what is best for us, and are able to trust Him more and more in every area of our lives. How do we show love to others? For some people, like our neighbors, the people we come in contact with at the mall, work and the store, we may be the only glimpse of Jesus they will ever see. That is why we need to show the love of God to everyone we meet. I took an assertive training class in college. The teacher instructed us to say something positive about each student. Everyone told one woman how she shined with love. She revealed her secret. Every morning she prayed that God's love would flow through her to every person she met. That should be our daily prayer as well. I believe we would be amazed at the results if we prayed it before we left our homes in the morning. How do we show love toward others? By remembering them. Send a card for Christmas, New Years, their birthday, Friendship Day or for no reason in particular. We can call someone we haven't heard from in awhile or write a note to someone we appreciate. Pick up groceries for an elderly neighbor or pay her a visit.

If we know someone is going through a particularly bad time, we can send him a care package of books, verses, food, practical items as well as special things that he, in particular, would enjoy. We should to be careful to show the love of God wherever we go. We don't know who is in need of a kind word or deed or when God wants to minister to them through us. God loves us, and we are to spread His love wherever we go. On our own, in our own strength, we cannot change anyone's lives. With God's love, though, we can make a difference one person at a time.

Birth Control and Morality

Birth control is an umbrella term for several techniques and methods used to prevent fertilization or to interrupt pregnancy at various stages. Birth control techniques and methods include contraception (the prevention of fertilization), contragestion (preventing the implantation of the blastocyst) and abortion (the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from theuterus). Contraception includes barrier methods, such [1] as condoms or diaphragm, hormonal contraception, also known as oral contraception, and injectable contraceptives. Contragestives, also known as [2] post-coital birth control, include intrauterine devices and what is known as the morning after pill. Contraception Contraception include barrier methods, such as condoms or diaphragm, injectable contraceptives,[1]and hormonal contraception, also known as oral contraception. The most common methods of hormonal contraception include the combined oral contraceptive pill and the minipill.[3] Hormonalemergency contraception can be both contraceptive and contragestive. Contragestion Contragestives include intrauterine devices placed inside the uterus and some forms of hormonal "emergency contraception".[4]

Sterilization Surgical sterilization is available in the form of tubal ligation for women and vasectomy for men. Although sterilization is considered a permanent procedure due to the uncertainty of reversal possibility, it is possible to attempt a tubal reversal to reconnect the Fallopian tubes in females or a vasectomy reversal to reconnect the vasa deferentia in males. The rate of success depends on the type of sterilization that was originally performed and damage done to the tubes as well as the patient's age.[5] Behavioral methods Behavioral methods involve regulating the timing or methods of intercourse to prevent the introduction of sperm into the female reproductive tract, either altogether or when an egg may be present. Lactational Main article: Lactational amenorrhea method From ancient times women tried to extend breastfeeding in order to avoid a new pregnancy. Thelactational amenorrhea method, or LAM, gives guidelines for determining the length of a woman's period of breastfeeding infertility. Fertility awareness Symptoms-based methods of fertility awareness involve a woman's observation and charting of her body's fertility signs, to determine the fertile and infertile phases of her cycle. Charting may be done by hand or with the assistance of fertility monitors. Most methods track one or more of the three primary fertility signs:[6] changes in basal body temperature, in cervical mucus, and in cervical position. If a woman tracks both basal body temperature and another primary sign, the method is referred to as symptothermal. Other bodily cues such as mittelschmerz are considered secondary indicators. Calendar-based methods such as the rhythm method and Standard Days Method estimate the likelihood of fertility based on the length of past menstrual cycles. To avoid pregnancy with fertility awareness, unprotected sex is restricted to the least fertile period. During the most fertile period, barrier methods may be availed, or she may abstain from intercourse. The term natural family planning (NFP) is sometimes used to refer to any use of fertility awareness methods. However, this term specifically refers to the practices that are permitted by the Roman Catholic Church breastfeeding infertility for example. FA methods may be used by NFP users to identify these fertile times. Coitus interruptus

Coitus interruptus (literally "interrupted sexual intercourse"), also known as the withdrawal or pull-out method, is the practice of ending sexual intercourse ("pulling out") before ejaculation. The main risk of coitus interruptus is that the man may not perform the maneuver correctly, or may not perform the maneuver in [7][8] a timely manner. Although concern has been raised about the risk of pregnancy from sperm in pre-ejaculate, several small studies have failed to find any viable sperm in the fluid. Avoiding semen near vagina Non-penetrative sex is used to avoid pregnancy, but pregnancy can still occur with Intercrural sex and other forms of penis-near-vagina sex (genital rubbing, and the penis exiting from anal intercourse) where semen can be deposited near the entrance to the vagina and can itself travel along the vagina's lubricating fluids. Total abstinence Different groups define the term sexual abstinence in different ways. When used in discussions of birth control, usually the avoidance of all sexual activitytotal sexual abstinenceis the intended meaning. Sometimes people choose to be sexually abstinent to eliminate their risk of pregnancy, and abstinence may be [9] included in lists of birth control methods. Those who are sexually abstinent do not have unplanned pregnancies. Other sources instead classify abstinence as not being a form of birth control.[10][11] Abstinence is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy; however, not everyone who intends to be abstinent refrains from all sexual activity, and in many [13] populations there is a significant risk of pregnancy from nonconsensual sex. As a public health measure, it is estimated that the protection provided by [14] abstinence may be similar to that of condoms. Some authorities recommend that those using abstinence as a primary method have backup method(s) available (such as condoms or emergency contraceptive pills). [15] Abortion Surgical abortion methods include suction-aspiration abortion (used in the first trimester) or dilation and evacuation (used in the second trimester). Medical abortion methods involve the use of medication that is swallowed or inserted vaginally to induce abortion. Medical abortion can be used if the length of gestation has not exceeded 8 weeks.[citation needed] Someherbs are considered abortifacient.[16][17] Methods in development For females Praneem is a polyherbal vaginal tablet being studied in India as a spermicide, and a microbicide active against HIV.[18] BufferGel is a spermicidal gel being studied as a microbicide active against HIV.[19] Duet is a disposable diaphragm in development that will be pre-filled with BufferGel.[20] It is designed to deliver microbicide to both the cervix and vagina. Unlike currently available diaphragms, the Duet will be manufactured in only one size and will not require a prescription, fitting, or a visit to a doctor. [19] The SILCS diaphragm is a silicone barrier that is still in clinical testing. It has a finger cup molded on one end for easy removal. Unlike currently available diaphragms, the SILCS diaphragm will be available in only one size. A longer acting vaginal ring is being developed that releases both estrogen and progesterone, and is effective for over 12 months.[21] Two types of progestogen-only vaginal rings are being developed. Progestogen-only products may be particularly useful for women who are breastfeeding. [21] The rings may be used for four months at a time. [22] A progesterone-only contraceptive is being developed that would be sprayed onto the skin once a day. [23] Quinacrine sterilization (non-surgical) and the Adiana procedure (similar to Essure) are two permanent methods of birth control being developed. [24] For males Main article: Male contraceptive Other than condoms and withdrawal, there is currently only one method of birth control available. This option is undergoing a vasectomy, a minor surgical procedure wherein the vasa deferentia of a man are severed, and then tied/sealed in a manner which prevents sperm from entering the seminal stream (ejaculate). Several methods are in research and development: As of 2007, a chemical called Adjudin was in Phase II human trials as a male oral contraceptive.[25] Reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance is an experimental injection into the vas deferens that coats the walls of the vas with a spermicidal substance. The method can potentially be reversed by washing out the vas deferens with a second injection. Experiments in vas-occlusive contraception involve an implant placed in the vasa deferentia.
[12]

Experiments in heat-based contraception involve heating the testicles to a high temperature for a short period of time.

Family and social ethics

Since ethics deal with the formation and expression of character, there is no better place to begin their development than in the family home. This is the crucible in which the early stages of childrens character development take place. In fact, this process could be viewed from the perspective of parental responsibility in molding and shaping the minds of the children they bring into the world. Parents are responsible for building ethics into their children. This will stand them in good stead for the remainder of their adult lives and make them able to contribute to an orderly and peaceful society. Conversation with children is a fantastic way to impart ethical standards, and parents need to seize every opportunity. Young developing minds have an insatiable appetite for knowledge, and a lot of the knowledge our kids need can be imparted by appropriate conversation. The biblical example is one of parents who talk with their children in order to impart Gods ethical standards: . . . you shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down and when you rise up (Deuteronomy 6:7). This means at each and every opportunity. It is important for children to realize that they are a part of something much bigger and greater than themselves. If a home is child centered, then the child learns to focus on personal wants and desires without consideration for how others feel or what their needs might be. What is a child-centered home? A child-centered home places the interests and activities of the child at the center around which the adult members of the family revolve. The adults submit their activities (and conversations) to that of the child. However, when child-centered homes become family-centered homes, society reaps the benefits and rewards. This is beautifully demonstrated in an article by syndicated columnist and author Betsy Hart in which she recounts a recent discussion between Jeff Zaslow of The Wall Street Journal and Manhattan-based child psychiatrist Alvin Rosenfield. Rosenfield studies families and their interaction.

Ethics and Justice

Ethics concerns what is morally right or wrong. Justice concerns what is legally right or wrong. Ideally, justice is ethical, and one assumes that doing what is ethical is legal. Justice cares about peoples rights, and righting wrongs when those rights are violated. Although Cain denied being his brothers keeper, we expect ethical standards and administered justice to function as a brothers keeper to someone (especially ourselves). Justice can be restorative (compensatory), requiring the wrongdoer to restore the innocent victim, to the extent possible, to the same (or a similar) condition the victim was in before the wrong was committed (such as paying to repair damaged property, paying hospital bills, returning stolen goods, etc.). Or, justice can be punitive (penal), punishing the criminals, as a matter of social morality, for the wrong committed (involving jail time, fines, loss of a drivers license, a criminal record, or even capital punishment). But sometimes the boundaries of what is morally right (ethical), individually and/or socially, are controversial. What about cloning, or artificial insemination, or various forms of contraception? What about informing human subjects that they are being experimented on for scientific or marketing research purposes? What about the use of deception by government officials (rationalized as required for national security, or to avoid a riot, or to promote a social injustice policy)? What about civil rights, discrimination, and the persecution of Christians? The Bible provides knowable answers to all of these moral decision-making questions, either directly or indirectly. The Bibles moral values are not like relativistic situational ethics. The Bible provides moral absolutes such as thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not murder, and as ye would that men should do to yo u, do ye also to them likewise.

Christian Concept of the State

God, in His infinite goodness and love willed existence, or being, from out of nothing or non-being. By an act of His almighty will, He created entities, distinct from Himself, capable of knowing and sharing in His existence and goodness. He endowed them with His image and likeness. This existence which was brought from non-being, this entity created in the Creators image and likeness is called Man. Now, it can be learned from the Book of Genesis, especially the first two chapters, that man was the final act of Gods will in the creation of the universe. The Cosmos was created from nothing and mans existence was effected by this creation. The Church teaches that: Creation was Gods free act and that it occurred in time; the cosmos has an aim and an end; God orders and guides His creation according to His almighty will and wisdom. It is quite correct to say that creation of the cosmos effected mans creation, for, man, when he existed in potentiality, was conceived by his creator as being both material and spiritual. As such he needed, of necessity, a material environment in which to exist. He is, therefore, the link joining the material and the spiritual orders of creation. In body, man belongs to the physical order of matter, while in soul or spirit he belongs to the spiritual. Yet man is not two, he is not divided. He does not have two natures. If we say that ordinary man has two natures, then we have to say that Christ has threethe two necessary for His manhood and the divine one. Of course to believe such a teaching would plunge us into the deepest heresy. The fifth Ecumenical Council of the Church (Chalcedon), as well as her conscience, proclaims only two natures in Christhuman and divine. There is no dualistic antagonism between a mans soul and body as though he were also endowed with intrinsic schizophrenia. To overemphasize either aspect would lead to a denial of the truth. The body does not imprison the spirit as was taught by Platonism, but is meant to be forever united with it. Spirit and matter in man are not in opposition to each other. Man has one nature human. He is a unity of body and soul, the latter being called spirit in its higher aspect. In Genesis, first and second chapters, we are told that mankind is derived from a single pair, our first parents. This fact is born out not only from scripture which tells us that all men share in a common state of sinfulness and in a common need of redemption, but also through the study of Psychology, History, and Philology. All men, for example, regard the family as the unit of human life: also, there is a sense of corporate unity with the rest of mankind. Furthermore, in his relationship with God, each man shares a certain consciousness of the necessity of religion and the worship of God. Whether or not man evolved from a lower species is of no consequence, for, even if he did, there would still have to be a certain period in time when the lower species became infused with the image and likeness of God and given the gift of an immortal soul. The Church, as a wise mother, has made no formal pronouncement for or against the theory of evolution. Holy Scripture and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church teach that the soul has its direct origin from God. While the fifth Ecumenical Council did not define any particular theory of the souls origin as being DE FIDE, it did condemn the doctrine of the preexistence of the soul. Neither can the Orthodox Catholic entertain the Pantheistic theory, i.e., the human soul is a part of the very essence of the divine nature. The Church believes that the origin of the soul lies in a combination of Divine and human activity, with Gods creative power involved and exercised in the generation of each individual. Of the immortality of the soul, the Church teaches that mans soul is not immortal by nature. The gift of immortality was given by God as a free expression of His love for man, so that man, if he so chooses, may be able to share in the bliss of his creator. In all of creation, only man, as far as we are able to know, was endowed with this most sublime gift. All of creation has an aim and an end, and so, man was created with all the physical and spiritual endowments necessary for the fulfillment of the end for which God has foreordained him. Psalm 8, verse 6, tells us that man was made a little less than the angels. He therefore stands second in the order of the creation of spiritual beings. The Church and Scripture also teach that some of the first order fell by disobedience, and became evil spirits. The Bible says Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness (Gen. 1:26) . . . in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them (Gen. 1:27). Now, while Orthodox theologians differ as to the meaning of image and likeness, perhaps the closest explanation would be that image indicates the mind and the will as innate powers, and likeness expresses the desire and the impulse which the first man would need in order to use his mind and will to become like God, and develop as much as lay in him, actual perfection. It does not refer to the bi-sexuality of God, or to the divinity of man. The original state of man was one of harmony in a three-fold relationshiptowards himself, towards nature, and towards God. However, the first man (according to I Cor. 15:45-47, and Eph. 4:24) had to develop his own powers. The original state of man was, therefore, one of potential perfection. Had man been absolutely and completely perfect, the fall would have been impossible. This view is in contrast with the Roman Catholic and Protestant views. Protestantism teaches that man was created with complete and perfect holiness and righteousness and that this was a natural endowment independent of Grace. The Roman Church teaches the same except that mans perfection was attained by means of a special super-added gift, or grace, of God. But there occurred in the history of mankind a most unfortunate transgression against obedience toward God. The first man fell away from original righteousness because of this and with him fell the whole human race which descended from him. He committed a grievous sin in disobeying the will of God and fell away from his own true end foreordained by his creator. The Evil One appeared to him and man easily succumbed to temptation. Adam in his original state had need of trial and testing, so God gave man a free will which enabled him to make choices. Therefore, man is not a slave of God but can freely choose to either obey or disobey him. Had Adam chosen to resist evil and maintain obedience to God, this one free exercise of his free will would have firmly

rooted mankind in perpetual obedience and the vision of God. But alas, Adam sinned by disobeying God and he and his entire progeny were estranged from God and suffered a diminishing of wisdom and knowledge. It became more and more difficult for man to discern and practice what was good. Sin darkened his spiritual eyes and the truth was made difficult in attainment and understanding. Man was cursed with Original Sin. Here we must use caution when speaking of Original Sin. The non-Orthodox teach that Original Sin is the Personal sin and guilt of Adam transmitted from him to all mankind. The Church does not agree with this teaching. Original sin is the sinful state of our nature with which we are born. Because of the fall, human nature is disposed toward sinfulness: human nature is corrupt and that which we refer to as man, is really less than man: human nature has been weakened, therefore, the ability to resist every temptation (without the special Graces of God) has been taken away. The Church teaches that when man fell he did not receive Adams sin and guilt but his punishment, which is corrupt human nature. He also lost physical immortality. And since the bond between the individual soul and God was broken, there occurred an eternal separation between God and man. Yet, man was not abandoned to the penalties and consequences of Original Sin, for, there was promised to him a Saviour, a redeemer, the Son of God and the second person of the Blessed Trinity. As redeemer and Saviour, Christ came to make salvation possible. He bridged the gap between man and God. He was Himself the atonement for sin, and the means of our salvation. It was impossible that a finite created being could offer atonement and thereby achieve salvation for all of mankind. We needed a being who was God and man. As man he had to be perfectly obedient to the will of God. In these ways Christ brought salvation through his incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection, and through his mystical body the Church. One of the greatest single mysteries to man is that he is. To be, and to contemplate the truth of being, is to approach the Royal Doors that lead to the answer to the secret of life itself. On this earth only man stands consciously and subconsciously in this vessel of truth. The way which leads assuredly to the source of truth and consequently to its possession is Christ and the Church. Only in the Church and by living according to her teachings can man arrive at the true concept of himself.

Jean-Jacques Rosseau
(28 June 1712 2 July 1778) was a major Genevan philosopher, writer, and composer of 18th-century Romanticism. His political philosophy heavily influenced the French Revolution, as well as the overall development of modern political, sociological and educational thought. His novel, mile: or, On Education is a seminal treatise on the education of the whole person for citizenship. His sentimental novel, Julie, ou la nouvelle Hlose, was of great importance to the development of pre-romanticism[1] and romanticism in fiction.[2] Rousseau's autobiographical writings: his Confessions, which initiated the modern autobiography, and his Reveries of a Solitary Walker were among the pre-eminent examples of the late 18th-century movement known as the Age of Sensibility, featuring an increasing focus on subjectivity and introspection that has characterized the modern age. His Discourse on the Origin of Inequality and his On the Social Contract are cornerstones in modern political and social thought and make a strong case for democratic government and social empowerment. Rousseau was also a successful composer and made important contributions to music as a theorist. During the period of the French Revolution, Rousseau was the most popular of the philosophes among members of the Jacobin Club. He was interred as a national hero in the Panthon in Paris, in 1794, 16 years after his death. As a brilliant, undisciplined, and unconventional thinker, Jean-Jacques Rousseau spent most of his life being driven by controversy back and forth between Paris and his native Geneva. Orphaned at an early age, he left home at sixteen, working as a tutor and musician before undertaking a literary career while in his forties. Rousseau sired but refused to support several illegitimate children and frequently initiated bitter quarrels with even the most supportive of his colleagues. His autobiographical Les Confessions (Confessions) (1783) offer a thorough (if somewhat self-serving) account of his turbulent life. Rousseau first attracted wide-spread attention with his prize-winning essay Discours sur les Sciences et les Arts (Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts) (1750), in which he decried the harmful effects of modern civilization. Pursuit of the arts and sciences, Rousseau argued, merely promotes idleness, and the resulting political inequality encourages alienation. He continued to explore these themes throughout his career, proposing in mile, ou l'education (1762) a method of education that would minimize the damage by noticing, encouraging, and following the natural proclivities of the student instead of striving to eliminate them. Rousseau began to apply these principles to political issues specifically in his Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'ingalit parmi les hommes (Discourse on the Origin of Inequality) (1755), which maintains that every variety of injustice found in human society is an artificial result of the control exercised by defective political and intellectual influences over the healthy natural impulses of otherwise noble savages. The alternative he proposed in Du contrat social (On the Social Contract) (1762) is a civil society voluntarily formed by its citizens andwholly governed by reference to the general will [Fr. volont gnrale] expressed in their unanimous consent to authority. Rousseau also wrote Discourse on Political Economy (1755), Constitutional Program for Corsica (1765), and Considerations on the Government of Poland (1772). Although the authorities made every effort to suppress Rousseau's writings, the ideas they expressed, along with those of Locke, were of great influence during the French Revolution. The religious views expressed in the "Faith of a Savoyard Vicar" section of milemade a more modest impact.

Surrogate Motherhood
What is Surrogate Motherhood? Surrogate Motherhood is to carry a child for the entire period of pregnancy and then give to another couple. This child and the surrogate mother may or may not share a genetic relationship, since the unrelated embryo can also b implanted in her womb. Now the question is are all women who are capable of reproduction become Surrogate mothers. So let us have a look at the qualifications that a Surrogate Mother should have. What are the requirements to become a Surrogate Mother? To become a Surrogate Mother the Qualities that a woman should have are as follows: The Surrogate should be in a healthy physical condition She should be more than eighteen years of age. Some agencies require that the surrogate should be a mother but there are others who do not have such demands. Surrogate should not be a patient of any sexually transmitted disease. She should also be a non-smoker nad should also live in a smoke free environment. The individual should be psychologically prepared and should be ready to go through a physical and psychological test. It is better if the surrogate as a partner who can act as an emotional anchor and in case the surrogate has a partner he also has to go through physical and psychological tests. The most important requirements according to most of the agencies is that the woman should not go through the process only because of financial gains, therefore she has to belong to financially stable family. So these are the fundamental requirements of becoming a Surrogate Mother. What is the process of Becoming a Surrogate Mother? The process of becoming a Surrogate Mother is not very complex. Once you decide that you want to become one you can contact an agency who might do a background check, some physical and psychological tests for you in order to ensure that their clients know that the person carrying their baby comes from a good family and has healthy habits. Moreover to get you a couple who would be like minded about things related to the child can only be searched for if they know the background you come from. Once they have decided on one couple that match the requirements you have, they would arrange foe a meeting of both the parties where you can meet the parents and they can meet you so that the decision-making becomes easier. After the meeting they would call both the parties to know if they like each other. With the assent of both the parties ends the initial formalities of the process. Now a contract has to be made wherein it is ensured that all the parties get what they expect out of the whole deal. Mostly the contract is made to ensure that the Surrogate mother gets medical expenses, her insurance and payment. So this is all about becoming a Surrogate Mother but in spite of the fact that the answers are all quite to the point and clear, I have several other questions in mind regarding the fact that the deal of a mother renting out her womb and giving her children to a couple after the baby is born completely falsifies the fact that mother understands the child better because she keeps it inside her body for nine months and that is where the innate and inherent love and understanding come from. It means a woman never has any emotions for the child she carries; it is just a biological phenomenon wherein the female partners body is capable of accommodating the child, which is why she does it!! There is nothing great or momentous about becoming a mother. Certainly I can understand when the motive is altruism but I thought they said that women become selfish when it comes to their children.