Battery Rule

In every social gatherings and institution, ethics and moral regarding one’s thoughts, actions and verbal expression should constantly observed to avoid any morally and physically damaging results from an inappropriate engagement of certain individuals. For social institutions and gatherings involving authority aspect, every individual especially those with superior authority must cautiously observe the said ethical principle.Take for example the case that occurred in the Betts Lincoln-Mercury Dealer Company involving the physical damage incurred by an employee resulting from the inappropriate horse playing of the president during an office party. The sequel of the event at the office party led to the legal pursuit of Caudle, the employee, suing the president of the company for his inappropriate action leading to serious nervous damages to the former.However, the president countered by saying that the action was part of the horseplay of the entire group during the party and th at he had not intended to hurt anyone specifically the plaintiff. In the aspect of ruling for this case, one must actually and critically consider the event scenario and the ethical aspect of it. It is not clearly indicated in the case whether Caudle is involve in the collective term of the group that participated in the horseplay during the office party thus this author will consider him to be excluded.Because of which, this author argues that the plaintiff did not participate from the horse playing thus it is very much inappropriate for the president who is involved to play the said trick on him. Another argument is that, it is a known fact that the electric auto condenser that is involved in the incident posts a risk of shock for anyone who holds it.Because of which, playing with the said item on a very vital nervous spot mainly the back of the head right below the temporal of the brain and posterior of the spinal cord is very much inappropriate since it can lead to serious nervo us damages. Because of the said arguments and reasons, this author strongly rules with the side of plaintiff wherein president Betts indeed committed an action that led to serious nervous damages though without any grave intentions. His must indeed be responsible for his actions and thus must compensate the victims for the reported damages and complications.

Grief in “Hamlet” Essay

Grief is a universal emotion felt by everyone at some point or another during the course of their lives. Its effects can be very diverse and adverse, causing different people to act in very different ways. It is very unpredictable because it is unique for each person, thus it is difficult to ease or even ascertain. It is accompanied by many other painful and confusing emotions and if not dealt with properly, it may prove to be cataclysmic. The theme of grief is quite prevalent throughout William Shakespeare’s â€Å"Hamlet†, as virtually every character in the play experiences it. In fact, all of the main characters experience this emotion before the play is through. Grief has many causes and as a result, many outcomes, but the one thing that remains the same is that it has a profound effect on each person it touches. Grief is sometimes caused by feelings of guilt or remorse, and in cases such as this, it affects the sufferer by making the burden of guilt even more substantial. Oftentimes, feelings of guilty grief are intensified by placing too much blame on oneself. For example, Ophelia, who is being used by her own father and her king, tries to do what she thinks is best to help her love, Hamlet. She is told that this is the right thing to do, but suffers as a result of doing it. Polonius and Claudius use her to spy on Hamlet, but when the plan miscarries, she is the one who feels â€Å"†¦most deject and wretched†¦Ã¢â‚¬  saying: â€Å"[I] that sucked the honey of his musicked vows† (Hamlet, III, I, 169-170). Ophelia already feels bad for having to lie to Hamlet, but this negative feeling is amplified by the fact that she completely blames herself for what happens. Although Polonius seems heartless in using his daughter in this situation, his grievous feelings may prove otherwise. He instructs his daughter not to see Hamlet, but if she must not to respond to his love. This is because he thinks it would be bad for his career, as the king does not like Hamlet. Nevertheless, Hamlet comes to her after seeing the ghost and truly frightens her. Being the obedient daughter that she is, she runs to her father, and he cannot help but feel in part responsible for not having protected her. He tells her that he was somewhat worried for her to begin with and that â€Å"[He is] sorry that with better heed and judgment / [He] had not coted [Hamlet]. [He] feared did but trifle / And meant to wrack [her].† Alas he was wrong, Hamlet does more than  trifle, and now Ophelia is full of dread. Polonius reprimands himself for this, saying: â€Å"†¦beshrew my jealousy!† (Hamlet, II, II, 124-126) He may not have been able to foresee Hamlet’s actions toward his daughter, but he blames himself anyway, intensifying his feelings of grief over what has happened to his daughter. Even the seemingly heartless all have hearts; no matter how evil one may seem one’s conscious always manages to plague one’s guilty soul and cause grief. Claudius, a man who murdered his own brother and stole his crown and wife, is a perfect illustration of this. Claudius finally has everything he wanted but he cannot fully enjoy it because of the guiltiness he feels. â€Å"The harlot’s cheek beautied with plast’ring art / is not more ugly to the thing that helps it / Than is [his] deed to [his] most painted word,† says Claudius in an attempt to explain how this lie he has built up now weighs upon his shoulders, â€Å"O heavy burden!† (Hamlet, III, I, 59-62) Claudius finds covering up lies and pushing them aside does not make them go away, it only makes the angst they cause worse. Hamlet learns this lesson too, not because he is hiding a terrible secret, but because he will not confront his father’s killer or do what he must to exact his revenge. He thinks about it too much and in doing so pushes his courage aside. However, his feeling of culpability continues to cause him more and more grief as the situation progresses. After seeing Fortinbras leading his army to Poland with such charisma and vigour, he wonders:  how [stands he] then, [he] that [has] a father killed, a mother stained, / And let all sleep, whil e to [his] shame [he sees] / The imminent death of twenty thousand men /†¦ for a plot / Whereon the numbers cannot try the cause.† (Hamlet, IV, IV, 59-66) He becomes so angry and ashamed of his lack of action; he even goes so far as to call himself a coward. This only serves to amplify the misery he feels over the murder of his father and speedy marriage of his mother. All of these people have a reason to grieve and a reason to feel accountable, but completely blaming themselves or dwelling on this remorse does nothing but deepen their grief. The death of a loved one also causes extreme grief, but in these cases, many  people look to blame another for this misfortune. In turn, one may feel that the only way to relieve the negative feelings is to seek revenge and kill the person whom one blames for them. Hamlet clearly shows a deep love for his father, and he is utterly heart-broken over his death, especially after seeing his uncle take his place. Therefore, when his father’s ghost informs him that it is a murderer, not a snake, who is responsible for his death, Hamlet immediately responds: â€Å"Haste me to know [who], that I, with wings a swift / As meditation or thoughts of love, / May sweep to my revenge.† (Hamlet, I, V, 35-37) He does not even know whom he has to kill yet, but he is already sure that he must avenge his father, no matter the cost. Hamlet is so lost without his father, he needs somewhere to place the blame for his death. Thus, when this opportunity arises he endeavours to seize it in an attempt to avenge his father, and alleviate his own heartache as well. Fortinbras, too, seeks revenge for his father’s death. However, unlike Hamlet, he does not have a ghost to incite him, only thirty years of hatred and anger toward the ruler of Denmark. He spends his whole life trying to win back the land his father lost to the Danes, take vengeance for Old Fortinbras, and regain dignity for him and his people. When, finally, he storms the castle to assume the throne and the â€Å"†¦ rights of memory [he has] in this kingdom, / Which now to claim [his] vantage doth invite [him],† (Hamlet, V, II, 432-433) he can finally rest. His feelings of grief can be almost completely forgotten as the Great Chain of Being is restored. The knowledge that he has retaken all that his father lost in war provides him with satisfaction and appeases his soul. However, sometimes revenge is not about the soul, in fact, certain people must completely disregard it to seek their revenge. For example, Laertes, after hearing about the strange death of his father bursts into the castle to demand his revenge of Claudius. â€Å"To hell, allegiance! [He] vows, to the blackest devil! /†¦ [He dares] damnation†¦Ã¢â‚¬  saying to the king: â€Å"Let come what comes, only I’ll be revenged / Most throughly for my father.† (Hamlet, IV, V, 149-154) Evidently, Laertes cares nothing about the consequences of his actions. His grief is so strong that he will have his revenge no matter what will happen to him as a result. In his mind, his anger and scorn over the loss of Polonius can only be assuaged when the person responsible for his death is also dead. Like Hamlet and Fortinbras, he does not care who he kills, as  long as someone pays for this heinous crime. This shows just how much personal grief plays a role in their desire for revenge. All three men want to kill someone, but none are sure who it is that they must kill when they make the decision to become assassins. As long as the desired result is achieved, and as long as they feel better for having killed the person they choose, e verything will be all right, or at least they hope so. True justice is not an easy thing to find, so they will settle for their own grief relief. The emotions and thoughts that accompany grief can be extremely overwhelming. These innermost feelings of sorrow, anger, and confusion can push one to the brink of insanity and sometimes even further. After seeing the ghost of his father, and hearing that Claudius murdered him, Hamlet decides to display an antic disposition as a trap for his uncle. There are both arguments for his true madness and against it, but either way the case is proved, Hamlet acts exceedingly abnormally. His sorrow drives him to act as though he is mad. According to Ophelia: †¦as [she] was sewing in [her] closet / Lord Hamlet†¦ / With a look so piteous in purport / As if he had been loosed out of hell / To speak of horrors – he comes before [her] /†¦And thrice his head thus waving up and down, / He raised a sigh so piteous and profound / As it did seem to shatter all his bulk / And end his being. (Hamlet, II, I, 87-108) Whether Hamlet planned an antic disposition or not, he must be very shocked and bewildered by the news given to him by the ghost, and this outburst with Ophelia is clear proof of this. His woe almost triggers him to go totally mad, causing everyone around him to believe he has lost his sanity. Laertes too suffers from a brief lapse in sense after seeing what has become of his beloved sister. Ophelia does not remember who Laertes is when he returns from France, but speaks to him as though he is someone else. Laertes is astonished, he cannot believe this; he lost a father while in France, and now that he is returned, he loses his sister to madness. â€Å"O heat, dry up my brains! Tears seven times salt / Burn out the sense and virtue of mine eye,† (Hamlet, IV, V, 177-178) he cries aloud, displaying to all present his crazed frame of mind. He is already infuriated by the circumstances  surrounding his father’s death, and now this. It takes great effort from Claudius to finally calm him down and stop his thoughts of self-destruction. Because his emotions are so overwhelming, he seems to lose the will to live, if only for a short while. Ophelia, the primary cause of Laertes’ near madness, also seems to lose her will to live. She loses her wits due to many reasons, mainly her father’s death at the hands of her true love. Consequently, she is completely unable to restore order to her fragile mind. She babbles and sings mindlessly, and hands out flowers that are not really there to the king, queen, and her brother. She is driven completely berserk with grief, so crazy that she drowns shortly afterward. As Gertrude recounts: †¦she chanted snatches of old lauds, / As one incapable of her own distress / †¦Till that her garments, heavy with their drink, / Pulled the poor wretch from her melodious lay / To muddy death,†(Hamlet, IV, VII, 202-208) telling her audience just how lunatic this pitiable girl is at the time of her death. Ophelia is totally destroyed by the plethora of bad news she receives, so much that her rational mind is completely paralyzed and her mental faculties are truly lost. These three people feel grief so deeply that their minds are put at great risk. Pathos is created for all three, because of their innocence in these situations and their inability to control what has happened to them. They are victims, for the most part, of the malicious act going on around them, and the grief they feel because of this nearly drives each of them past their mental limits. Because grief is so overwhelming, it may cause people to do things they would not usually do. Many people act quite irrationally under grief’s powerful influence. It can be so consuming that oftentimes there is no room left for logic in one’s mind, so one acts without thinking. Hamlet does this in killing Polonius, who is hidden behind the arras. He stabs through the curtain before he even finds out who is concealed within it. When Gertrude questions Hamlet: â€Å"O me, what hast thou done?† he can only reply: â€Å"Nay, I know not, is it the king?† (Hamlet, III, IV, 31-32) because he is not really thinking when he commits this fatal crime. Hamlet is a strong-minded person and is able to control his emotions for the most part. However, the added grief of his current quarrel with his mother seems to cause a lapse in  judgment which in turn makes Hamlet do something that is very grave indeed, commit murder. Laertes, too, decides that murder is not out of t he question when he allows his pain to consume him. In fact, Laertes is so caught up in his fury and wrath that he would â€Å"†¦cut his [father’s killer’s] throat i’ th’ church† (Hamlet, IV, VII, 144) something that he obviously would not do if he was thinking clearly. During the Elizabethan Era, revenge is a commonly respected notion, but to seek revenge in a church is certainly not regarded with the same esteem. Laertes would undoubtedly go to hell if he were to go through with this rash statement, something he would decide against if he were not so frenzied by grief. Horatio also becomes taken over by his anguish, watching the whole story unfold and witness its gruesome and bloody finish. Seeing his best friend wounded and dying before his eyes makes Horatio â€Å"†¦ more an Antique Roman than a Dane† and he is about to take his own life proclaiming, â€Å"here’s yet some liquid left† (Hamlet, V, II, 374-375). Nevertheless, Hamlet, who is finally free of his grief and now thinking clearly, takes the cup and saves his companion. When one’s mind is full of grief it is very hard to think about anything else, like the good things in life or any reasons there may be to continue on living as usual. It is also difficult to foresee the consequences of one’s actions, or, moreover, to care about them because grief clouds the mind so. Many things that one would typically not even be able to conceive doing become viable possibilities, when grief is equated into the situation. Grief has the staggering ability to cause almost anyone to perform acts that one will surely regret later, making it a very dangerous emotion. Grief affects each person differently because each person possesses their own causes for grief and their own mechanisms with which to deal with it. When one is grieving because of guilt over past mistakes or a personal loss, one most often blames themselves wholly. This makes the guilt worse, and in turn misery only grows stronger and stronger. It is a vicious cycle of remorse and repentance that is difficult to stop once it is begun. Grief is also caused by losing someone that is very dearly loved. To the griever, revenge often seems like the only way to find release from this mourning. Most find that it is not justice they seek, but refuge, from the heavy feelings of sorrow and anger, which they believe they can find in the death of the  person responsible for this grief. These feelings of regret and resentment, caused by angst, often prove to be quite overpowering and sometimes too much to bear. Some unfortunate individuals lose their wits due to extreme emotional pain. Some go further and lose their will to subsist, even further still, their lives. Grief also has the ability to fully envelop a person’s mind and take away their ability to think about anything except for what they are feeling at the moment. It may cause the person to act in a way they are not accustomed to or to do something they would never dream of doing in any other circumstance. It can be very dangerous, in that it can cause one to do things that are absolutely irrational and devastating to oneself or others. As is demonstrated in the play, the effects of grief vary greatly, but to all whom they affect they are profoundly detrimental and destructive. Grief can cause the loss of one’s mirth in life, the incitation to do something rash and ill advised, even the key to one’s undoing. In all cases grief is difficult to avoid, and therefore must be dealt with, and it is how one deals with grief that determines how one’s life will be affected by it. Works Cited: Shakespeare, William, Hamlet, (New York: Washington Square Press, 1992)

The Economic System of Western After the Breakup of Fuedalism

The distinguished in the nineteenth century and it†s collapse in the twentieth century have led to similar, though much slower and less obvious, process in the course of modern science. Today†s frantic development in the field of technology has a quality reminiscent of the days preceding the economic crash of 1929. The clearest evidence of it may be seen in such comparatively young sciences such as psychology and political economy. In psychology, one may observe the attempt to study human behavior without reference to the fact that man is conscious. In political economy, one may observe the attempt to study and device social systems without reference to man. Political economy came into prominence in the 19th century, in the era of philosophies post kantian disintegration, and no one rose to check its premises or to challenge its base. Political economist-including the advocates of capitalism-defined their sciences as the study of management or direction or organization or manipulation of â€Å"community†s† or nations resources. The author goes on to say that the European culture regarded material productions as work that should be done by slaves or serfs but not first class citizens. It must be remembered that the institution of private property, in the full, legal meaning of the term, was brought into existence only by capitalism. In the pre-capitalist eras, private property existed de facto but not de jure, i. e. by custom and sufferance, not by right or by law. In law and in principle all land belonged to the head of the tribe, the king, and was held only by permission, which could be revoked at any time. CAPITALISM, a term used to donate the economic systems that has been dominate in the western world since the breakup of feudalism. Fundamental to any system called capitalist are the relations between private owners of non-personal means of production (land mines, industrial plants, etc†¦. collectively known as capital) and free but capitalizes workers, who sell their labor services to employers. The resulting wage bargains determines the proportion in which the total products of society will be shared between the class of laborers and the class of capitalist entrepreneurs. Productive use of the â€Å"social surplus† was special virtue that enabled capitalism to outstrip all prior economic systems. Instead of building pyramids and cathedrals, those in command of the social surplus chose to invest in ships, warehouses, raw materials, finished goods and other material forms of wealth. There is of course, no such thing as a â€Å"social surplus. † All wealth is produced by somebody and belongs to somebody. Mans essential characteristic is his rational faculty. man†s mind is his basic means of survival-his only means of gaining knowledge. If some men do not choose to think, they can survive only by imitating and repeating a routine of work discovered by others-but those others had to discover it, or none would have survived. If men do not choose to think or to work, they can survive (temporarily) only by looting the goods produced by others-but those others had to produce them or none would have survived. Man cannot survive as animals do, by the mere guidance of perceptions. He cannot provide for his simplest physical need without process of thought. e needs a process of thought to discover how to plant and grow food or how to make weapons for hunting. His precepts might lead him to a cave. No precepts or instincts will tell him how to light a fire. Is man a sovereign individual who owns his person, his mind, his life, his work and it†s products-or is he the property of the tribe (the state, the society, the collective) that may dispose of him any way it pleases, that may dictate his convictions, prescribe the course of his life, control his work and expropriate his products? Does man have the right? To exist for his own sake-or is he born of bondage, as an indentures servant who must keep buying his life by serving the tribe but can never acquire it free and clear. In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate. They can deal with one another only in terms of and by means of reason, i. e. by means of discussion, persuasion, and contractual agreement, by voluntary choice, by voluntary choice of mutual benefit. The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that crucial. It is the institution of private property the protects and implements the rights to disagree-and thus keeps the roaf open to man†s most valuable attribute (valuable personally, socially, and objectively): the creative mind. The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated by only means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government is such a society is, the task of protecting man†s rights, i. e. the task of protecting him from physical force. The author goes on to say that the only time the government can use force is when there is retaliation. Such there is no such entity as â€Å"society† since society is only a number of individual men, this meant, in practice, that the rulers did not abide by the moral laws only subject to traditional rituals, they held total power and exacted blind obedience. They believed good which is good for the society. The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was subordination of society to moral law. The principle of man†s individual rights represented the extension of morality into the social system-as a limitation tot he power of the state, as man†s protection against the brute force of the collective. He goes onto say the United States was the first moral state. I don†t know what kind of morals the author is actually referring to. A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a mans freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental â€Å"right†: mans right to his own life. The right to life is the source of all rights-and the right to property is their only implementation. He goes on to say all previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the end of others, and society as a means to a peaceful, orderly, voluntary, coexistence of individuals. All previous systems had regard man†s life as society property that they could dispose of him anytime they felt like it Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain life by his own effort, the man who has no right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that am man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earn it. It is the right to gain, to keep , to use and to dispose of material values. To violate man†s right means to compel him against his own judgment, or to expropriate his values. there is only on why to do it: by the use of physical force.

Violation of School Rules and Regulations Essay

Violation of School Rules and Regulations - Essay Example Come to think of it, all results to its inclusion and not exclusion of cocaine as evidence to her case. Apart from academic deficiency, the violation of school rules is another ground for denying a student's re-admission, his right to stay in school until he graduates not withstanding. Prof. Jacinto D. Jimenez explained- The objective of every institution is to search for the truth, to preserve the truth and to communicate the truth. The proper education atmosphere is necessary for the attainment of this goal. The disruption of the proper academic environment hinde4rs the accomplishment of the mission of every school. Because of this a school has the inherent authority and duty to preserve order and to discipline students. When a student has proven himself morally unfit to participate in the search for the truth, the school may impose upon him the extreme penalty of expulsion. The investigating committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case must base the decision only on evidence or testimony presented and heard by both parties. The decision should not be predicated on matters not presented to the parties particularly the respondent-student or else this would constitute a denial of due process since the student did not have the chance the allegations made.. In the case of De Jesus vs. Penberthy, a school decision to impose the penalty of expulsion was overturned by the court because the school board considered evidence on a charge which was different from