closely related to one of our assigned readings. You will write a one-page summary of the article
in which you state the author’s thesis and the way that thesis is supported. Remarks on the
article’s critical approach to its topic and/or of relevant secondary points would be appropriate,
as well. You may also wish to offer your assessment of the article and how it can serve to inform
our class discussions of our assigned readings.
Your selected article must come from either a peer-reviewed journal or a book of collected
scholarly essays published by a university press.
On your chosen date, you will read your summary to the class, and you will submit a copy of the
summary on Canvas.
Your summary must adhere to the MLA Handbook, 9th edition.
You do not need a separate Works Cited page. The title of your summary should be:
Summary of … (the bibliographic entry of the source as it would appear in a Works Cited page)
Student’s Name Final Paper Philosophy 1301 A Comparison of Punishment Theories Punishment
A Comparison of Punishment Theories
Punishment is a contentious term subjected to retributivist and consequentialist arguments trying to dissect the pervasive and ancient concept entrenched into structures to counter immoral or unlawful behaviors. Contemporary societies employ punishment in several guises and for various reasons, including in household or educations systems, to punish or deter undesirable behaviors. Consequently, retributivists and consequentialists pose competing arguments concerning the rationale and appropriateness of punishment in modern society. On the one hand, retributivists justify punishment because the offender deserves it for breaking social or legal rules. Conversely, consequentialism validates punishment on account of consequences. Accordingly, prevalent theories justify punishment based on retribution or consequences grounds. This paper compares Anderson’s nullification of punishment theory with Mabbott’s punishment theory to explore rationales justifying punishment, emphasizing publicity, and validating the consistency of penalties. It examines divergent views regarding the causes of crimes and inflicting pain on offenders.
On the one hand, both theories justify punishment based on the retributive claims that impose penalties on offenders. Anderson justifies the imposition of punishment on offenders based on Hegel’s model in Understanding Punishment as Annulment. The insistence on punishing a person is centered on the notion that people possess things and engage in willful engagements that establish rightful ownership. Thus, the person owns the willful actions that lead to crimes. As a result, any willful act that denies another person their right is punishable based on nullifying wrongs and validating rights. On this note, Anderson argues that punishment is the means for annulling a crime and actualizing the victim’s rights (“Understanding Punishment as Annulment” 218). Mabbott advances the retributive concept by drawing different examples to show how punishment is directed to individuals for crimes committed. For instance, his narrative about punishing students for failing to attend the Chapel shows the strict application of punishment on offenders irrespective of the outcomes. Thus, Mabbott reveals that he did not have any intention to reform the students rather than punish them for breaking rules they knew about (“Punishment” 155). Thus, both concur that punishment is meted out on individuals for offenses committed against others.
In addition, Anderson and Mabbott’s theories agree that publicity is a critical component of punishment. Both postulations consider publicity a critical that indirect works as a deterrent tool that annul or dissuade crimes. In this regard, Anderson believes that publicizing punitive crimes is a necessary condition for punishment to annul crime. It allows society members to know what criminal will is punishable for violating other people’s rights. Besides, individuals become aware of their rights and recognize what they can legitimately do without invoking punishable acts. Anderson maintains that inflicting a punishment in secret does not signify the wrongness of the wrong since it cannot nullify it (“Understanding Punishment as Annulment” 219). Thus, publicity is necessary to facilitate righting wrongs and building public awareness about the validation of rights. Mabbott holds a comparable impression that publicity is imperative in staving off crimes, arguing that it deters offenses. For this reason, courts allow reporters in hearings to publicize the punishments and assist in discouraging potential offenders. Hence, Mabbott concedes that he tells the truth where a lie would do more good and keep promises to avoid adverse outcomes when the truth is uncovered (“Punishment” 156). Therefore, both theories consider publicity a critical component for deterring crime and discouraging wrongful actions, such as lying.
Moreover, both punishment concepts embrace consistency of punishment penalties to annul crimes. Crimes vary depending on the degree of responsibility and the offender’s intentions. However, a lack of consistent laws or penalties implies that offenders could be subjected to different punishments for comparable crimes. Thus, Anderson believes that punishment should be practiced consistently to annul crimes and distinguish between unlawful and lawful acts (“Understanding Punishment as Annulment” 219). Uniform punishments would ensure that criminals receive similar treatment for comparable crimes irrespective of space and time. Harmonized punishment would help people recognize consistent criminal wills that violate related rights and identify consequent penalties. The approach avoids ambiguity is mitigating crimes by imposing consistent retributions to annul them. On the other hand, Mabbott establishes that uniformity in punishments is imperative to prevent judges from practicing a degree of moral aversion when imposing judgments (“Punishment” 162). The prevalent wickedness implies offenders commit crimes with varying degrees of responsibility and complacence. Nonetheless, punishments do not focus on balancing the rights and wrongs rather than deterring crimes and making offenders bear the burden of their illegal actions. Consistent penalties produce consistency in sentencing and make punishments a threat, leading to good behaviors to avoid them. Therefore, Anderson and Mabbott agree that punishments should be consistent with promoting responsible behavior and discouraging biased judgments.
However, Mabbott’s theory emphasizes the legality rather than the morality of actions to determine punishments. On this note, Anderson and Mabbott disagree on elements that constitute a crime, with both taking divergent claims. On the one hand, Anderson centers his argument on moral tenets to identify the grounds for delineating criminal acts. Violating rights is a primary ground that constitutes a crime from a moralistic perspective. Accordingly, punishments are imposed to restrict offenders from committing crimes that lead to abusing the victim’s rights. Thus, judging wrong actions requires a normative rather than a correct description judgment to annul a crime (“Understanding Punishment as Annulment” 221). Mabbott diverges from the moralistic argument and emphasizes the legality perspective to describe acts that comprise a crime. Hence, he advocates for legalistic retribution in describing the rationale for punishing criminals. He argues that nobody should be punished based on moral, reformative, or deterrence grounds; breaking the law is the only justification for punishment (“Punishment” 156). The legalistic perspective implies that a crime involves breaking existing laws, implying that punishment results from law-breaking. A person is convicted for committing an offense of violating a law. The moralistic argument and the legalistic grounds indicate the primary difference between Anderson and Mabbott’s theories of punishment.
Furthermore, Anderson’s theory emphasizes the rationale for inflicting pain, while Mabbott avoids the discussion and discusses the accessories of punishment. Notably, Anderson posits that inflicting pain is the only way to distinguish criminal from non-criminal wills. Arguably, punishment is synonymous with pain in the form of socioeconomic deprivation or other agonizing outcomes. Armstrong describes the retributive definition of punishment as inflicting pain on a guilty person for a committed crime by an appropriate authority (“The Retributivist Hits Back” 478). This definition aligns with Anderson’s argument that pain must accompany any punishment and avoid imposing special treatments that would not distinguish a criminal from a non-criminal will. Besides, avowing infliction of pain on criminals equates to denunciations that validate a criminal will. On the other hand, Mabbott does not engage in the infliction of pain matter but considers accessories to punishment that have nothing to do with it. He maintains that starving or physically abusing a prisoner constitutes injustices that are unrelated to punishment (“Punishment” 165). This position indicates that punishment does not include deprivations in prison, which deny inmates food or conducive environments. Thus, implemented aids in prisons only eliminate indirect and regrettable consequences rather than modify or diminish punishment. Hence, Mabbott’s theory does not engage the infliction of pain matter but offers some hope for reformists, contrary to Anderson’s concept.
In conclusion, Anderson’s punishment nullification theory and Mabbott’s model show compromising positions that justify punishment, emphasize publicity, and validate the consistency of penalties despite the divergent views. Notably, both theorists agree that punishment is necessary to deter criminal activities. The retribution is justified by downplaying the consequentialism notion that punishment should be based on consequences instead of the means. Besides, both concur that publicity is necessary for deterring crimes by informing the public about acts that constitute a crime and consequent punishments. Thus, the theorists reject private crime resolution means and prefer publicized approaches that ensure punishment uniformity. The consistency of punishments is essential to avoid potential ambiguities. On the other hand, Anderson employs a moralistic approach to explaining elements that constitute a crime. Mabbott follows a legalistic model to associate crime with breaking existing laws. Anderson maintains that pain should accompany punishment, while Mabbott avoids the discussion and engages in a discussion that gives reformists hope. Despite the differences, Anderson and Mabbott’s theories provide comprehensive rationales that justify punishment.
Qualitative Analysis: A Green Planet is Good for Business Student’s Name Institutional
For this assignment, select a scholarly article about any of our assigned readings or about a topic closely related English Assignment Help Qualitative Analysis: A Green Planet is Good for Business
A Green Planet is Good for Business
Responding to environmental issues has always been a no-win proposition for businesses and proponents agree it is not going to be easy to go green. Recently, there has been a conception promising to eventually reconcile environmental and economic concerns, where both can win. Responding to environmental issues and going green is no longer a cost implicating course for business, but a catalyst for innovation and new opportunities creating wealth and emerging markets. This new idea that environmental management is likely to increase business profitability is great, yet highly unrealistic given the reality that environmental costs are skyrocketing globally, businesses may question the efficacy of the win-win proposition to inform corporate environmental strategies. This exploration assesses various standpoints and draws insights from respondents’ comments to understand, What challenges – and opportunities – are there for businesses as they decarbonize their operations?
This research utilizes the grounded theory approach to analyze this qualitative research. This method of qualitative analysis generates a theory informed by the perceptions of the subjects. The article What challenges – and opportunities – are there for businesses as they decarbonize their operations? Contains the view of 66 business representatives and top managers. The interviewer asks the respondents open-ended questions as it comprises the opportunities, by adding “What.” Besides this point, the responses offered by the subjects are not simply yes or no. They comprise long explanations for the open-ended questions.
The initial stage of grounded theory for this report involves note-taking. Drawing insights from the article involves reading through all 66 interviews and highlighting the themes stated in every response. Several rounds of re-reading are important to narrow down the main points (Miller, 2015). For instance, the first round of reading summaries are taken word by word from responses. However, for the second turn, and after keen scrutiny of the lengthy statements and quotes, short and relevant topic statements can be summarized.
All presenting themes in the responses are considered relevant and meaningful concerning the primary question in the article. In this thematic analysis, all repeated terms and ideas are color-coded for convenience when clustering for similar ideas. In this focused coding, all arguments are incorporated to eliminate the likelihood of bias. The first categorization based on the interviewers’ question includes recognizing what opportunities are available, presenting challenges, and ambiguity on the decarbonization subject. Where color codes overlap, it was identified by highlighting the text. For the anonymity of the respondents, the initials of their names will be used in the order of the sequence the interviews took place.
After note-taking and memoing, the next phase involves coding. According to Bryant, (2017) deliberations on grounding theory, coding involves analyzing the data. The first step involves open and axial coding to identify connections between themes. Interestingly, some themes have to be subcategorized to discern the varying opinions. Inductive reasoning applies largely in the primary and secondary phases. Finally, selective coding is critical to discern the most reasonable responses depicting the identified categories.
Themes from the Interviews
Reduce Fossil fuels
Funding environment projects
Funding environment project
Low carbon processes
Reduce Fossil fuels usage
Sustainable business strategy
Science based targets
Digital emission tracking
Hybrid work model
Next generation fuels.
Reduce fossil fuels
Sustainable business strategy
Funding environment project
Avoiding fossil fuels
Circular business model
Renewable energy sources
Funding environment project
Funding environment project
Reduce Fossil fuels
Sustainable supply chains
Sustainable supply chains
Lean resource production strategy
Greater international cooperation
Sustainable supply chains
Climate action policies
In this section, the final stage of the grounded theory will apply. As noted in the previous section 66- respondents were interviewed and analyzed based on their responses to the question of What challenges – and opportunities – are there for businesses as they decarbonize their operations? The findings discussed are augmented by three coding approaches used in the analysis section aforementioned. First, we take a look at the major themes coded: greening buildings, shift toward renewable energy, science-based targets initiatives, decarbonizing transport, funding, sustainable supply chains, and technological innovations. The following section will expound on the strongest themes to develop a theory that will highlight the interconnectedness of these themes.
The first theme surrounds the perception that innovative technologies can be adopted by different companies for decarbonization attempts. Among the 66 respondents, 16 were in favor of technological innovations to intervene in environmental issues. Besides, it is critical to note that the respondents believe that the integration of innovative technology can be the way for businesses to help in the decarbonization attempts.
The second, third, fourth, and sixth themes can be categorized as relatable strategies that can be vital in the decarbonization attempts as they tend to overlap around sustainable business practices to reduce the amounts of emissions and waste. A compact majority of the respondents cite reshaping existing practices to integrate greener and cleaner options towards environmental conservation, including the migration from fossil fuels, lean production, and greener and renewable energy sources including next-generation fuels such as hydrogen, electricity, and. Instead of viewing these opportunities as cost implications, it is important to consider the benefits associated with green migration.
There is a widespread notion that the success of decarbonization efforts is data-driven. Thus, the integration of data science and technological emission trackers can be vital for attaining environmental sustainability. A section of the respondents notes the significance of global cooperation to attain environmental sustainability goals. For instance, financial institutions recognize their role in funding global projects while others note the importance of restrictive policies and regulations governing emissions and environmental control. These proponents advocate for global participation as a key to attaining the decarbonization goals.
The overall findings of this study are that the presenting challenge of environmental degradation offers numerous opportunities for businesses. While acutely aware of the intricate relationship between stewardship and business performance, some may view climate risk as a financial risk driving business insecurity. However, in a world of concerned parties, failure to mitigate emissions can result in a damaged reputation. Many businesses have outlined their decarbonization efforts to achieve global targets. Such strategies rely on various levers including a shift to renewables, decarbonizing with strategic foresight, adopting sustainable practices, introducing regulatory agility, advocating for climate-focused corporations, and integrating technology in businesses.
While governments across the world are aligning on the dire need of addressing climate change, the burden weighs on all sectors. The decarbonization efforts do not fall entirely on big companies as even small businesses have a critical role to play. Together in a cooperative effort, we can spur innovation, develop best practices, and work towards achieving the collective decarbonization goals through joint action. Collaboratively, we can provide a cleaner, more sustainable planet by delivering a low-carbon economy for future generations.
Bryant, A. (2017). Reflecting and recording. Grounded Theory and Grounded Theorizing, 197-216. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199922604.003.0010
Miller, W. (2015). Understanding grounded theory. American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science, 28(3), 197-200. https://doi.org/10.29074/ascls.28.3.197
The outbreak of the civil war was occasioned by extending slavery into
The outbreak of the civil war was occasioned by extending slavery into more western territories. The issue of slavery was a highly divisive one, and it became increasingly clear that the country was heading towards secession. The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 was the final straw for the southern states, and they took action to secede from the Union. The Civil War was a tragic and bloody conflict, but it was also a defining moment in American history.
In the years between 1845 and 1861, the issue of slavery and its expansion into western territories became increasingly controversial. This was due in part to the growing abolitionist movement, which argued that slavery was morally wrong and should be abolished. At the same time, many southern slaveholders were pushing for the expansion of slavery into new territories, in order to maintain their way of life. As the two sides became more entrenched in their positions, the country became increasingly divided. This division ultimately led to the Civil War. This was brought about by the southern states as they separated from the 1860 union to protect their right to withhold slaves. During the Civil War, both sides fought for their beliefs about slavery. The Union army eventually emerged victorious, and in 1865 the Thirteenth Amendment was passed, which abolished slavery throughout the United States.
One example is the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was a bill that created the territories of Kansas and Nebraska. It was passed by the US Congress in 1854 and signed into law by President Franklin Pierce. The Act was designed to appease the slave-holding states of the South by allowing them to extend slavery into the new territories. This led to increased tensions between the North and South and was one of the main causes of the Civil War. This led to violence which eventually spread to other parts of the country, contributing to the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861. Another example was the Dred Scott decision. The Dred Scott decision was a ruling by the US Supreme Court that held that African Americans could not be US citizens and that the federal government had no authority to regulate slavery in the territories. This ruling was one of the major causes of the Civil War.
The Second World War was fought from 1939 to 1945 and saw
The Second World War was fought from 1939 to 1945 and saw the Allies, led by the United States, the UK, and the Soviet Union, pitted against the central powers, consisting of Nazi , Fascist Italy, and Japan. The war began after Poland was invade by Germany in 1939, and quickly escalated into a global conflict that saw fighting in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Pacific. Over the course of the war, millions of people were killed, making it one of the deadliest conflicts in history. The Allies were eventually victorious, and in 1945 the Axis powers were defeated. Canada played a significant role in the Allied victory as will be discussed.
The Canadian contribution to the Allied war effort was significant for several reasons. The War fought from 1939 to 1945 involved nearly every part of the world. Canada’s contribution to the Allied war effort was significant. First, Canada was one of the few Allied countries that had a large, well-trained and well-equipped army. More than one million Canadians served in the armed forces during the war, and more than 45,000 were killed.
Canada also made a major contribution to the war effort on the home front, producing food, munitions, and other supplies for the Allied forces. Canada declared war on Germany on September 10, 1939, just two days after Britain. Canada’s involvement in the war was initially limited to the sending of troops to defend Britain.
In 1940, however, Canada began to play a more active role in the war, taking part in the Battle of the Atlantic and the bombing of Germany. In 1941, Canada joined the Allied invasion of North Africa, and in 1942, Canadian troops took part in the unsuccessful Dieppe raid. In 1943, Canadian troops helped to defeat the Germans in the Battle of Sicily, and in 1944, they took part in the D-Day invasion of Normandy.
Finally, Canada played a significant part in the postwar reconstruction of Europe. Canadian troops also played a major role in the liberation of the Netherlands in 1945. After the war, Canada remained part of the Allied forces, taking part in the occupation of Japan and the Korean War.
The Buddha Vairocana is one of the most popular images of the
The Buddha Vairocana is one of the most popular images of the Buddha during the first millennium of the common era. There are many reasons for this popularity. First, the Buddha Vairocana is one of the most important figures in Buddhism. He is the Buddha of the present age and the founder of the Mahayana tradition.
Second, the Buddha Vairocana is often depicted as the teacher of the other Buddhas. This makes him a very important figure in the Buddhist tradition. Third, the Buddha Vairocana is often depicted as the protector of the Buddhist faith. This makes him a very important figure in the Buddhist tradition. Fourth, the Buddha Vairocana is often depicted as the embodiment of the Buddhist law. This makes him a very important figure in the Buddhist tradition.
Fifth, the Buddha Vairocana is often depicted as the source of all wisdom. This makes him a very important figure in the Buddhist tradition. Sixth, the Buddha Vairocana is often depicted as the bringer of peace and happiness. This makes him a very important figure in the Buddhist tradition. Seventh, the Buddha Vairocana is often depicted as the saviour of all beings. This makes him a very important figure in the Buddhist tradition.
Eighth, Vairocana’s popularity may have been his association with the sun. In many of his images, he is shown seated in the centre of a large sun, which symbolizes his role as the “Illuminator” or “Light of the World.” This would have been particularly appealing to people living in cultures where the sun was seen as a powerful and benevolent force. Finally, Vairocana was also seen as a protector of Buddha, and his images were believed to have the power to ward off evil.