Morals

Good in the Moral Context i. e. Objectivisit, Subjectivist and Functionalist

‘Good’ can be described from three views:

1. Objectivist
2. Subjectivist
3. Functionalist
4. Objectivist point of view

One main philosopher who defended the objectivist point of view was George Edward (G. E. ) Moore. In his book Principia Ethica, Moore discussed the definition of the word ‘good’. With this book he influenced the philosophers who came after him. The objectivist point of view is naturalism i. e. (what moral law predictates, usually from the natural law). In defining the word ‘good’, G. E. Moore attacks the objectivist point of view. He criticizes the naturalistic point of view.

Moore, an intuitionist (meaning he is someone who decides if something is good or wrong by reflecting on his own, without anyone explaining to him) disagreed that good could be explained objectively. Moore criticised Utilitiarians as they were emotivists, i. e. depending on feelings. Thus they defined ‘good’ according to feelings. So good = pleasure. Thus utilitarians do not judge whether an action is good or bad by the quality of the action but by the consequence of the effects. Moore also criticised Christian morality, because these reason an action is good because it pleases God.

He said, something is not defined as good because it pleases someone else. Moore invented an interesting term called ‘The Naturalistic fallacy’. Naturalistic fallacy, according to Moore, is to define a term, in this case ‘good’ by means of something which is a state of fact. To explain ‘good’ in terms of pleasure, is committing a Naturalistic fallacy.

His reasoning is as thus: if something gives me pleasure, and thus because of this feeling, I say it is good; I conclude, since it is good, then I ought to do it – this is a wrong conclusion. ‘Is’ is a statement of fact, while ‘ought’ is a moral statement.

Moore was an intuitionist. Moore says that the word ‘good’ is not defined by its natural qualities (the qualities which are natural to something and which describe the object e. g. a red, juicy strawberry. If someone is asked why the strawberry is good, his answer will be, ‘because it is red and juicy’ thus defining ‘good’ by its natural qualities). For Moore, good is good and cannot be defined. The objectivists say that moral terms are explained by means of natural qualities. Objectivism is the view that the claims of ethics are objectively true. They are not relative to subject or culture.

A term is defined as thus because it is as thus. So good is good not because of feelings or situations, the definition of which would be from a subjectivist point of view, giving rise to relativism. ‘Good’ is defined as thus, because the actions showing good are inscribed in us in the natural law. So according to objectivists, ‘good’ is described by its natural qualities. Naturalism, which the objectivists used, is a term which interprets the word as it is standing for natural characteristics. This may be misleading as good might stand for a quality of pleasure or for something to be desired, and this is not always right.

Something pleasurable may in actual fact be wrong. One argument against naturalism, which the objectivists use, is that attribution (is) is confused with identity (ought). ‘Is’ is a statement of fact, while ‘ought’ is a moral statement. These (‘is’ and ‘ought’) are sometimes confused. Thus if something is pleasurable, thus it is good, thus it ought to be done, is

1. a wrong definition of ‘good’,
2. a wrong assumption as not all pleasures are good.

One cannot equate good with solely pleasure. Moore goes deeper. In defining a word, he tried to split it into simpler terms. According to Moore, ‘good’ cannot be split into any simpler terms as it is already in the simplest term. So Moore’s philosophy states that ‘good’ is ‘good’. ‘Good’ is indefinable. Subjectivist point of view Subjectivism means that what is right or wrong is defined from the perspective of one’s attitudes, one’s theories and one’s emotions. Subjectivism is based on feelings, and as a result of emotivism. Subjectivism may also be called emotivism. Subjectivism is ethical values expressed in emotional values; personal emotions which can differ from one person to another.

Thus there is no fixed standard, no norm, no mean. David Hume He is a basic figure in subjectivism. He was a 17th century philosopher. Hume was also an empiricist (tries to tie knowledge to experience) as he did not use rationalism (reason) but got experience from things around him. Hume said that all we know comes from around us, from our senses 9what we see, what we feel). Decante on the other hand used rationalism. Kant tried to fuse empiricism and rationalism. Hume thus says that a person, basically, is a bunch of sense experiences. He also says that the senses can never lead us to the universal truth.

We cannot say that something is right or wrong just from our senses. According to Hume, ethics is not built on reason (which is what Aristotle says) but on the senses. The universal truths (which are basically what the natural law states – do good to others, harm no one etc) are simply cut off by Hume’s subjective approach. Hume emptied ethics from any rational foundation – he shifted ethics based on reason (like that of Aristotle) to ethics based on emotions or feelings. Hume says not to look for reason but for sentiments – thus if something feels good – do it.

He said that passion not reason is what leads us to do something – reason alone is ineffective. According to Hume, it is sentiments and not reason which are the foundations of morality. Hume said that statements like ‘This car is red’ (descriptive) and ‘This action is good’ (evaluative) are statements both of the same nature. He mixed descriptive and evaluative argument. In the statement, ‘This person is good’ one is not saying something about the person, but it is my reaction towards that person.

Three philosophers affected by Hume were AJ Ayer, CL Stevenson and Hare.

AJ Ayer According to Ayer, when we make a judgement, it can be classified as

1. empirical or factual
2. logical or analytical
3. emotive

Ayer said that ethical statements are non-statements because you cannot verify them (as in analytical statements) and you cannot make them as a statement of fact (empirical statement or factual). Ethical statements such as good, just expresses one’s emotions (emotivism) – a statement depending on one’s feelings. For Ayer ethical statements are meaningless. Ethical concepts, such as good, cannot be analysed because they are not real oncepts at all – they are false concepts. He stated, ‘The presence of an ethical symbol (good is an ethical symbol) in a statement adds nothing to its factual content, meaning nothing is stated about the nature of the ethical symbol. Thus ‘good’ has no value when describing someone or something – for Ayer ‘good’ was just a way of expressing a feeling about the person/object concerned. CL Stevenson Statements such as ‘good’ do not say anything about state of facts but says only about one’s behaviour, one’s attitudes and one’s feelings.

Ethical statements such as ‘good’ do not express a belief, only attitudes. Beliefs are based on reason, attitudes and one’s emotions (emotive). ‘Moral discourses are primarily not informative but influential’, says Stevenson. Thus when I say ‘John is good’, I am expressing my feelings and at the same time influencing others by my statement. Stevenson, being emotive, says that ethical language, such as good, does not give us information about the person or object – they simply express one’s emotions. They simply intent to inform, they do not say anything about the nature.

Hare While Ayer and Stevenson said that ethical statements are non-rational, non-logical, Hare is introducing rationality. He says that by a statement one influences another person, if the latter accepts it, and to do so he must understand it and he has to use his reason. Another point that Hare brought up is that an ethical statement can be

1. emotive
2. action guiding

To guide it involves rationality. So ethical statements are not simply giving a piece of information, but action guiding (presciptivism – moral commitment to the giving or accepting of a command). Hare says that ‘a right action is one which ought to be done’ while ‘a wrong action is one that ought not to be done’. The prescriptive theory holds that the words ‘good’ or ‘bad’ are used not simply to command but to comment (=give an advice to do or not to do). ‘Good’ as applied to objects. It is important to distinguish between ‘meaning’ and ‘criteria’. Meaning always has a value, but criteria (the description) is different. ‘This marker is good’ or ‘This microphone is good’. The meaning is the same as the marker writes and the microphone amplifies sound. As applied to people, if I say, ‘John is a good man’.

If we stick to the idea of Hare, that moral discourse, ethical statements, are action guiding, am I saying that ‘if you want a good man choose John’. It does not make sense. So when we place human beings as morally good, we are not talking about use or function. Hare deals with the distinction of the function and by treating the moral sense of good, it becomes an advice for imitation rather than a choice. A weak point of Hare: he still says that moral statements (such as good) still not saying anything about the person, but simply is a matter of influencing others and telling others to imitate him.

Moral discourse is not only influential but action guiding – brings in rationality. He is still an emotivist saying that if an object is good, I am action guiding you; if a person is good I am just telling you to imitate him. Functionalist approach The functionalist approach is defining good in terms of aim and purpose. Good is the fulfilment of a function. For example a marker is good because it fulfils its function – it writes. If you are saying something is good, you are saying something about the object. O am not reflecting my emotions on an object (thus not an emotivist).

A functionalist approach is based on its function. An emotivist approach is based on the attitude. A person chooses the good from the bad chooses a good life, because we are aiming at a ‘goal’ at an ‘end’. Aristotle is saying that there is something in-built in every object, in every person, to seek the good – the good being that at which all things aim. For a person to live a good life, he must understand the purpose of the human life. The purpose of human life is common to all humans, from a philosophical point of view – to have a good life.

Aristotle defined end or purpose as ‘that for the sake a thing is done’ and good ‘as that at which all things aim’. Aristotle aid that God and nature do nothing in vain – that everything in the universe has been created to achieve a particular purpose. According to Aristotle the purpose of all human beings is the same. To understand the meaning of the word ‘good’ and of the ‘good life’, we have to understand the purpose of the human life and thus the metaphysics of the universe. In attempting to answer the meaning of ‘good’, Aristotle looked at the dynamic elements of the world around us (oak tree, chimpanzees, humans and so on).

This is the general characteristics which defines Aristotle’s philosophy (metaphysics and ethics) and teleological (the study of the ends and purpose of things). According to Plato’s metaphysical views, he came with two kinds of worlds, the world of ideal and the world of reality. What we see is not the real world but an imitation of the ideal world. So substance in the ideal world is not included in the real world. Aristotle was Plato’s student but he still rejected Plato’s approach. Aristotle brought together the world of ideal and the world of reality.

What we see is not an imitation – it is real. To explain the universe, Aristotle gave the theory of the four causes.

1. natural cause
2. formal cause
3. effective cause
4. final cause

The theory of the four causes explains the dynamic nature of all the animate objects including human beings. In that way we can understand the goal, the purpose of the life of a human being, thus the meaning of a good life and the meaning of the word good. Metaphysics gives us a way of understanding reality how the human person acts and behaves, this behaviour can be living a good or a bad life.

Ethics and metaphysics are distinct but interrelated. The theory of the four causes goes to explain, that if we think of an example of something which is produced by an agent such as a statue – then

1. Material cause – that which constitutes the statue eg marble
2. Formal cause – the pattern or blue print determining the form and the result
3. Efficient cause – agency producing the result eg tools, sculpture
4. Final cause – the sake for which the cause is produced ie the end towards which the production is directed In the case of humans:
5. Material cause – genes
6. Formal cause – human
7. Efficient cause – freedom, intention, responsibility, practical reasoning
8. Final cause – the good life In humans the efficient cause and final cause are dependent of the formal cause – the fact that I am a human being.

We are free to make choices in the efficient cause, choosing responsibility or lack of it, thus effecting the final cause. Aristotle also spoke about potency and actuality. Potency is the potentiality of something or someone – characteristics, which if cultured, become actual. Actuality means when something, which is potential, becomes actual. So we have to ask…what is our potentiality? We have a potential to reach our goal in life.

Conclusion

Having been exposed to these three views, in the definition of the word ‘good’, I think that subjectivism is the view which least defines well the word ‘good’. This view shows relativism and emotivism. To define a word well, especially one with a moral value/a virtue, there has to be a norm, a mean, a standard and subjectivism fails to do this. On the other hand, the functionalist definition of the word ‘good’ is the best definition of all as it shows a standard – its function; so there is no relativism involved.

 Ethics and morals are essential to the success of a business. The two are synonymous with one another. According to DeGeorge, “ethics is a systematic attempt to make sense of our individual and social moral experience to determine the rules that ought to govern human conduct, the values worth pursuing, and the character traits deserving development in life (DeGeorge, 2010, pg. 13). ” Consumers rely on business to make moral and ethical decision regarding all business transactions.

If the consumer does not believe that a business is moral or ethical he or she will not patronize the business, which in turn causes the business to lose money causing adverse effects on the economy. This essay will ascertain the differences between ethical and moral issues, the difference between personal and business ethics as well as provide examples of common ethical problems in business for each of the aforementioned ethics. Ethics and morals are words that people use interchangeably in regards to conduct and how people interact with society.

However, some differences exist between the two in business. Ethics are a set of rules or codified system implemented by a company that explains how one should act on-the-job whereas morals are set in stone and is principles by which an entire society is supposed to live by. One can distinguish between ethics and morals by understanding that ethics is the action or conduct of what an individual deems right or wrong, therefore morals are the basis to which ethics stand on.

For instance, if two big businesses were in competition with one another for the same customers one of the companies may choose to bribe an employee of the other company for internal information to use against the other company to gain a competitive advantage. Bribery is a common ethical problem that occurs in business. Personal ethics can refer to an individual’s life outside of work whereas business ethics pertain to the moral aspects of business to consumer interaction or business to business interaction. The foundation of personal and business ethics are equivalent.

What differentiates the two are how they are enacted. For example, there are retail stores that require their employees to promote the sale of store credit cards. The customers may not be knowledgeable of the rules in the fine print; however the customer service associate is well aware but cannot disclose certain information because he or she has to comply with code of ethics of the company. This directly conflicts with the personal ethics of the employee and the business ethics to which he or she has to comply with.

The aforementioned example is a common ethical problem seen in the retail business. Ethics and morals are essential in the success of a business because they determine whether or not a customer will continue to patronize the business or take his or her money to another business. A company is only as successful as the people who work there. The employee in a business goes to work and employs his or her personal ethics in conjunction with the code of ethics implemented in the place he or she works. Differences are apparent in morals and ethics.

The difference is ethics are a codified system in a business to which employees have to adhere to and morals are the basis to which one determines right from wrong. Just as there are differences in ethic and morals, there are differences between personal and business ethics. The difference is how personal and business ethics are enacted. Businesses can prevent scandals within the company by ensuring that all employees including management adhere to the business code of ethics.

Reference

1. DeGeorge, R. T. (2010). Business ethics (7th ed. ). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

EXAMINE THE KEY FEATURES OF NATURAL MORAL LAW & DICUSS WHETHER ITS STRENGTHS OUTWEIGH ITS WEAKNESSES Natural Law has roots that stem back to Ancient Greece, and it was Aristotle who really created the approach. It was also depicted in Sophocles’ play Antigone, where the protagonist claims her right to bury her brother despite the King (Creon) ordering that he be fed to dogs. Antigone, (the protagonist) proclaimed this because she believed that there was a higher law than the King’s, particularly, Natural Law.

However, it was not until the 13th Century until Thomas Aquinas developed its key features, that it was actually more widely recognised as a moral theory. When we focus on the recipient of the natural law, that is, us human beings, the proposition of Aquinas’s natural law theory that comes to the forefront is that the Natural law establishes the basic principles of practical rationality for human beings, and has this status by Nature. These are to be followed universally, as Cicero puts it; it is ‘one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times’.

According to Aquinas, all humans seek good and when we do wrong or evil, it is only because we are only seeking ‘apparent’ goods and not real goods. So, we could ask ourselves, how does Aquinas define a ‘real’ good? A real good is when the said ‘good’ falls under the five primary precepts. These are: self-preservation and preservation of innocents, educating children, living in society, reproducing and worshipping God. Aquinas also believed that we can use our rationality to know Natural Law.

It is inherent within our human nature, God reveals specific commands but these do not go against natural law but rather, further develop it. Aquinas said that a moral life is a life entirely followed ‘according to reason’. Aquinas allowed for the Aristotelian insight that the particulars of the situation always outstrip one’s rules, so that one will always need the moral and intellectual virtues in order to act well. But he denies that this means that there are no principles of right conduct that hold everywhere and always and some even absolutely.

On Aquinas’s view, killing of the innocent is always wrong, as is lying, adultery, sodomy, and blasphemy; and that they are always wrong is a matter of natural law. Therefore, Natural law is absolute, but surely, we can ask ourselves, what about double effect? What if a dying mother had to give an abortion to preserve her life? For Aquinas, there are two key features of the natural law, features the acknowledgment of which structures his discussion of the natural law.

The first is that, when we focus on God’s role as the giver of the natural law, the natural law is just one aspect of divine providence; and so the theory of natural law is from that perspective just one part among others of the theory of divine providence. The second is that, when we focus on the human’s role as recipient of the natural law, the natural law constitutes the principles of practical rationality, those principles by which human action is to be judged as reasonable or unreasonable; and so the theory of natural law is from that perspective the preeminent part of the theory of practical rationality.

Whilst Natural law may be a particularly easy, universal theory that can apparently be followed by all people it has shortcomings. BEGAN FIRST WITH STOICS IN THE WEST THIS IS ONE OF THE FIRST ‘HYBRID THEORY’ HUMAN REASONING + DIVINE COMMANDS THE 13TH CENTURY WAS A GOLDEN AGE FOR CATHOLICISM, RULED BY THE IDEA OF REVELATION/FAITH/PRIESTHOOD THOMAS AQUINAS REASONED THAT WE ARE MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD THAT HE GRANTED US REASONING AND THAT WE CAN USE THIS REASONING THAT LINKS WITH PHILOSOPHY WHICH OVERLAPS WITH FAITH/DIVINE COMMANDS. REASON IS 1+1=2.

AQUINAS SAID WE CAN USE HUMAN REASON TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. DIVINE LAW – THIS COMES FROM GOD. UNIVERSAL LAW = NATURAL LAW BROKEN DOWN INTO HUMAN LAWS. Ironically, all the primary precepts are about perpetuating the human race… DOUBLE EFFECT STATES THAT IF IN ORDER TO GOOD YOU HAVE TO DO ‘LESSER/UNINTENDED EVIL’ ONE MAY PROCEED BUT IT HAS TO UNINTENTIONAL. NATURAL LAW DEFENDS THE JUST WAR THEORY – CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS ALLOWED/JUSTICE WHAT ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY? THEY’RE VIOLATING PRINCIPLE NUMBER 2 – PROCREATION BUT NEITHER WOULD BIRTH CONTROL OR CELIBACY.

JUSTICE (LEGALISTIC)/EQUALITY/REASON-BASED/CONCISE IT CAN TELL YOU WHAT TO DO IN ALMOST ANY MORAL DILEMMA UNIVERSAL. IF THERE IS A GOD, JUSTICE WILL BE ASSURED. THEREFORE, EVEN IF YOU SUFFER BY FOLLOWING NATURAL LAW, BALANCE WILL BE DEALT. GOD MAKES SURE THAT THE INNOCENT ARE VINDICATED AND GUILTY ARE PUNISHED. CONS: NO GRACE, MERCY OR FORGIVENESS ALLOWED. ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH’. A LIFE FOR A LIFE BECAUSE IT IS A REASON BASED THEORY, IT CAN BE RATIONALISED AND CAN BE SUBJECTIVE.

BY USING DOUBLE EFFECT YOU COULD RATIONALISE ALMOST ANY BEHAVIOUR YOU WANT. BIRTH CONTROL IS A BAD THING. BUT WHAT ABOUT IN AFRICA, HIV/AIDS ETC. EFFECT YOUR SELF PRESERVATION. PERSONAL OPINION OF NATURAL LAW – IT CAN BE MASSAGED INTO JUSTIFYING ALMOST ANYTHING BY THINKING ABOUT IT. I LIKE AQUINAS I LIKE ITS SIMPLICITY BUT THE WORLD IS NOT THAT NEAT AND TIDY, THE RULES ARE TOO VAGUE. I DON’T WANT TO LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE THERE ARE NO SECOND CHANCES. ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE WILL LEAVE THE WHOLE WORLD BLIND. ’

A Moral Evaluation of Child Labor in the Philippines in the Perspective of Immanuel Kant’s Second Formulation of Categorical Imperative- Formula of End Itself Introduction Children are the prime movers of the country. They are very much endowed with so much potentialities in which may contribute for the betterment of the many. They are indeed really important in everybody’s life not only of their own family but also of their fellow human persons. Every person including the child must be respected and valued in virtue of his/her being a human person.

Thus, children must and necessarily be treasured by valuing their own dignity as human persons capable of rationalizing for the betterment of the future. However, in the Philippines; most of the children in the past and even until now are being exploited in many different ways. Every child in this country is somehow is in the state of danger because the child may be abused at anytime, anywhere, and of anyone. Evidently, Philippines is a young country by which most of the people are composed of youth and/or children. By this, Philippines is very vulnerable to any forms of child exploitation.

Similarly, one of the most evident forms of child exploitation in the Philippines is the child labor. Child labor is prevalent in the Philippine society. It should be noted that children are abused by forcing them to bare labor at their very young age. They are supposed to be in the classroom to learn and become educated but because of child labor they could be seen in many places working to earn a living. Because of child labor, it is evidently that children at their very young age are dehumanized. Their own inherent dignity has been taken away from them and thus makes children as objects of exploitation.

Moreover, the researcher has decided to conduct a study on this matter to find out the reality of this phenomenon. The researcher wants to assess the morality of child labor in the Philippines and to see its moral implications to other moral agents. Through the aid of Immanuel Kant’s ethical concept, the researcher may find philosophical and moral basis of child labor. The philosophy of Kant particularly his Categorical Imperative and it second formulation- Formula of end itself- will be applied in the subject matter.

Library research, internet surfing, journals, and other sources related to the study will be used to achieve the main objectives. By this, the study is reliable and substantial in nature. The substantiality of the study focuses on the child labor in the Philippines. Body The Categorical Imperative Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative clearly states that “act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant, 1964, p. 88).

By this very definition of categorical imperative, Kant contends that morality involves universality and necessity. That is, morality should be applicable to all, and the action must and necessarily be done. Kant distinguishes between two imperatives- categorical and hypothetical. The latter for Kant cannot be the standard of morality since it only applies to some and thus cannot be universalized. It comes to man’s selfish inclination since it is only a “necessary as a means to the attainment of something else that one wills” (Kant, 1964, p. 2) and therefore this cannot be accepted. On the one hand, categorical imperative derive from rational inclination where in reason is that which makes the categorical imperative universal. For Kant, categorical imperative is based on human reason because it must be “entirely a priori, since here we do not enjoy the advantage of having its reality given in experience and so if being obliged merely to explain, and not to establish, its possibility” (Kant, 1964, p. 87).

This, however, does not mean that Kant totally rejected the consequence of any action to determine whether the action is morally right or wrong but he only emphasize the rational faculty of man to act morally which is universal and necessary. Kant further expound his moral philosophy by presenting the four formulations derive from categorical imperative but only the second formulation shall be discussed in the succeeding section because it is the focal point which is needed in the study, formula of end itself. Formula of End Itself

This second formula of Kant stresses the value of human person. It states that “act in such a way that you will always treat humanity whether in your own person or in the person of any other never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end” (Kant, 1964, p. 96). In this formula, Kant argues that any person should not be used as a mere tool or instrument for the attainment of something else. Every human person then has inherent value regardless of his/her culture, physical stature, nationality, and the like. Thus, every human person has dignity.

He added, human person should not be used as a mean because of the person’s rationality. It is his/her rational faculty that which makes man a man and thus should be respected and developed further. Human person is always treated as end because his/her “rational nature exists as an end in itself” (Kant, 1964, p. 96). Kant explains his contention about man’s inherent dignity by distinguishing inherent value from instrumental value. The latter primarily are the things which do not have innate value such as money, food, and any material beings.

Things such as those are really intended to the service for the human person. They are just the means and not the ends of themselves. “Beings whose existence depend, not on our will, but on nature, have nonetheless, if they are non-rational beings only a relative value as means and consequently called things” (Kant, 1964, p. 86) as Kant says. Thus, it cannot be that the things around us will be regarded as an end for they could only have value when they are being used but after they are being used, then their value is lost. So to say, things only have temporal value.

In contrary, human persons are “persons because their nature already marks them out as an ends in themselves- that is, as something which ought not to be used merely as means- and consequently imposes to that extent a limit on all arbitrary treatment of them (and is an object of reverence)” (Kant, 1964, p. 96). Here, Kant firmly justifies his contention on human value by reiterating the nature of man, rationality, as the prime factor by which every man should be considered as the finality of all actions. Man, in virtue of his/her reason, is the end and not as a mean which leads to his/her dignity.

Kant emphasizes more this second formulation by saying: Persons, therefore, are not merely subjective ends whose existence as an object of our actions has a value for us: they are objective ends- that is, things whose existence is in itself an end, and indeed an end such that in its place we can put no other end to which they should serve simply as means; for unless this is so, nothing at all of absolute value would be found anywhere. But if all value were conditioned- that is contingent- then no supreme principle could be ound for reason at all. (Kant, 1964, p. 96). Nevertheless, Kant presented in the second formulation of categorical imperative, formula of end itself, the value of man (man’s dignity) which is justified by man’s nature that is capable of reasoning. Thus, through and through, man regardless of anything has the absolute value of being as man higher than any other worldly beings. Child Labor The innocence of the child simply makes the child as a child. No other beings could have an equal innocence of the child except the child itself.

Child’s innocence is very unique characteristic. It is self evident to every child that he/she possesses such quality. Since the child is born, innocence has already been inherited by the child. Innocence is not given to a child but it is already in every child without the influence from the outside. This innocence is equal among other children regardless of child’s parental background, physical appearance, or culture. This equality is evidently true for the fact that every child is born naked, dependent, and innocent. Thus, every child, indeed, is innocent.

In the same way, this child’s innocence is not static which stagnates on that particular stage but child also develop towards maturity. Every child has innate potentials and capacities to become adult. The child does not remain as a child forever but he/she is always going towards adulthood. However, most of the children especially in developing countries are being exploited and abused. Children at very young age have already engaged to dangerous and oppressive labor. In the Philippines, it is prevalent that most of the children are working to earn money.

Children in such case could be seen in the streets, factories, or agricultural heavy activities. Definitely, children of those cases have bet their lives into death. Summing up these kinds of oppression of children, it water down to child labor. Child labor is a perennial societal problem not only of the other countries but also of this country- Philippines. Basically, children are expected to enjoy their childhood and should be in the school so as to develop their selves and discover their identity and skills.

Childhood is a complex stage of personhood where the child is starting to grow up with dependency to other persons especially of the children’s parents. Children should be protected and nurtured because most of the children are exploited in many ways. This exploitation has become real because of child labor. Child labor is so rampant in the Philippines. Child labor prevents the natural and proper development of children. Thus, child labor has become a threat to every child’ innocence. The Child Child, according to the law, is defined as person below eighteen (18) years of age.

Anyone who haven’t yet attain the age of eighteen may considered as a child or youth. Nevertheless, that person below eighteen years has no civil obligation in the state. But when a person has attained the age of eighteen, “he/she is no longer considered a child and becomes automatically entitled to do all acts of civil life…” (Diokno, 1998). By this, a person then has the duty to follow the civil law and become responsible for any misconduct. Moreover, the child has been defined in a broader sense in conformity to R. A. 610 (Child Protection Law) which states that, “persons who below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of physical or mental disability or condition” (Diokno, 1998). It should be noted that the term child in this Child Protection Law is in wider perspective because child refers not only to physical aspect of a person which could be seen empirically but it includes the inner dimension of the person.

The law states that a child is primarily be classified as incapable or less capable to protect itself because of disabilities from any harmful influence or oppression. Thus, it does not only imply that person over eighteen years of age may consider as adult or not anymore a child. This law is trying to emphasize the innocence and dependency of a person to persons outside itself. In addition, every child is endowed with rights of the society. Child at his/her young age must enjoy his/her childhood by giving to the utmost his/her needs as a child.

The child must be provided with his/her basic needs such as food, shelter, clothes, care, and education. Because the child is really dependent on others, it is imperative to care, protect, feed, and educate such child. These are important in the child’s development towards maturity. Thus, “parents [should] go into all sorts of sacrifice to provide the highest educational opportunities for their children” (Andres & Ilada-Andres, 2005, p. 34). Child Work vs. Child Labor To understand the oppression happening in most of the children in the Philippines, it is better to distinguish and clarify these terms- child work and child labor.

Child labor, as defined by the ILO-IPEC, is work situations where children are compelled to work on regular basis to earn a living for themselves and their families, and as a result are disadvantaged educationally and socially; where children work in conditions that are exploitative and damaging to their health and to their physical and mental development; where children are separated from their families, often deprived of educational and training opportunities; where children are forced to lead prematurely adult lives. Diokno, 1998). This definition implies then that any work which could harm and will destroy the development of a child, either physically or mentally or both, including his/her social and emotional aspects is regarded as child labor. In addition, work that which could hinder the child’s education and his/her better future. Child labor is really an illness of the society which annihilates the child familial growth and that which really “deprives children of their childhood, their potential and their dignity…” (About Child Labor, 2002).

Child labor, nevertheless, is a form of injustice in the society which needs to be responded by the authority and most especially “for those willing to stake their time and efforts to save the country’s children” (Diokno, 1998). Child work, on the one hand, is very much different to child labor. Although, both of them have similarity because they are both engaging with work, child work deals with any activities which do not hinder the well-development of a child. Work that does not maltreat and exploit the child is classified as just.

Generally, if the work does not affect the development of a child’s body and holistic dimensions, and also his/her education then that work could help the child and contributes positively (About child labor, 2002). Why Child Labor? There are certain reasons on why child labor is continually happening in the Philippines. Child labor does not emerge out of the blue but it has come into reality brought by various problems. Thus, child labor is not the only problem in the Philippines but it becomes the result of combining societal problems. Basically, there are four prime reasons which cause this problem according to Jose W.

Diokno (1998) and these are poverty, tradition and culture, educational opportunity, and economy. The Philippines is one of the poorest countries in the world. Poverty has been regarded as the root-cause of many social problems in the country including child labor. Because of poverty, a big number of Filipino families are living in slums areas with limited food. Their hunger, which is needed to be satisfied, is pushing the families to work in any ways including their children. Thus, children cannot refuse to do so but “to satisfy basic requirements” (Diokno, 1998).

Although parents should work and earn a living for their children, their money is insufficient to sustain their needs and thus the parents has to decide that their children “must work to help in their family’s struggle for survival” (Diokno, 1998) otherwise, the whole family will suffer from hunger. In Filipino cultural context, children are expected to work at their young age because it has been practiced by the people in the past. It has been a “centuries-old tradition that the child must work through solidarity with the family” (Diokno, 1998) as a sign of respect and obedience to the Filipino culture.

Filipinos have the kind of mentality that a child must work “to compensate… the economic burden that he/she represents and to share in the maintenance of his/her family” (Diokno, 1998). So to say, children have become the burden in the family. Moreover, every child at his/her young age has the responsibility to take share with the family’s needs especially of its financial matters. Thus, Filipino culture has regarded the children’s work “as a phase of socialization where future roles are learned and working to share in the family is seen as training” (Diokno, 1998).

Lack of educational opportunity is one of the reasons of child labor it deprives children to learn and develop their skills as persons. Parents usually prefer not to send their children in school because of family’s home far distance to the school, opportunity to earn more money through children’s labor, or to the expensive cost of schooling. Nevertheless, family could not take this kind of education system because “poor schooling has little credibility… since it does not promote economic improvement” (Diokno, 1998) in the family. Education is important yet the ind of education in the Philippines most of the time does not give learning quality to them and thus cannot contribute to be competitive individuals. Finally, the economy of the country has influenced child labor. The fact that the country is mostly composed of young people, the economy demands young workers. The economic sectors look for more profit and thus they employed children to work so as to pay minimally. Employers prefer to hire children because “they represent docile work face, which could be hired and replaced at a fraction of adult wages” (Diokno, 1998) that which is an advantage for the employer.

Children could easily be exploited because they cannot refuse the opportunity to help their family through labor. The economy does not only give good opportunities for progress but it also deteriorates the potentials and personhood of every child engages in “hazardous work” (About Child Labor, 2002). Exploitation of Children Nevertheless, child labor is a perennial issue in the Philippines which slowly destroy the humanness of every child. This ethical issue is continually growing as the local government and international organizations are trying to eliminate this problem.

The United Nations (2008, p. 241) has recognized the value of children in particular as it issued the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that all human beings are born equal in dignity and rights. By this, it recognizes the inherent value of human persons including the children. Despite the attempts of the public and private organizations to terminate this societal problem, child labor is still do exist at the present. Some of these forms of child labor in the Philippines have been identified by the International Labor Organization (ILO).

It has been reported that children are abused in agricultural works such as the “sakada,” domestic work where children are victims of child trafficking and physically, verbally, and/or sexual abuse. Manufacture where children work as adult employees with heavy labor, scavenger and street children because of extreme poverty, mining and quarrying where children work dangerously as they unravel minerals inside the mountains. Unconditional worst forms where children are very much exploited by recruiting them as to become child soldiers training them to fight in the battle field and young girls are said to be sex slaves which contribute to rostitution minors (What kind of work children do? , 2012). Analysis Human person in virtue of hi/her reason has innate dignity. This is a basic truth which man holds as he/she exists in the world. To live in the world without dignity is futile. Man cannot live having without value to himself/herself and to others. His/her dignity gives man the right to be respected and protected. Man is quite different to other beings such as the material objects, plants, and animals precisely because man has a rational nature. Without it, man is perhaps the valueless being. So, man in nature is a dignified being.

Because the term man is used in this in general sense, it encompasses any human person including the children. Children are also human persons and thus they have rational faculty which in return causes their dignity. Every child, therefore, has inherent dignity. Child is, nonetheless, a mature rational individual but it does not compel the dignity of the child because the child even in that stage of childhood has the mind which continually develops as the child is going toward maturity. Reasoning of a child may differ to one another but it remains the dignity to the child because of the child’s innate capacity of reasoning and rationalizing.

Thus, child is always endowed with reason which makes the child a dignified person. The dignity of a child must be respected, protected, and preserved. However, child labor makes the child undignified being. It is said that labor is different from work although both of them have similarity because the former pertains to involvement in economy while the latter is a general notion of any human activities. Human labor in a sense is not bad in itself because “through labor, man realizes and humanizes himself; …” (Timbreza, 2008, p. 94). By this, labor also makes man a man because it distinguishes man to other beings.

Although reason primarily causes the distinction of man to other beings, labor has also become a factor which causes man to realize his/her humanness. Thus, labor does not only give negative implication but also good realization. However, child labor, although labor in form, is not the same with the true meaning of the word labor. In this context, child labor does not humanize children but it certainly dehumanizes every child. Child labor exploits and abuses the child in terms of heavy work which greatly affects the child’s natural development.

Child labor is a form of oppression and it does not give any value to the child. Thus, child’s dignity has been taken away because of child labor. In Kant’s perspective, child’s dignity is justified through his second formulation of categorical imperative- formula of end itself. His contention is that any human person in virtue of his rationality must be regarded as the end of all actions. Man should not be used as a mean to acquire something else. All action should be done by considering man as an end. Similarly, every child, regardless of anything except of his/her reason, must be regarded as an end in itself.

Reason will tell us that child’s dignity is important. It is morally right, universal, and necessary that the child’s dignity must be promoted. And any inhuman activity which destroys the dignity of the child must be eradicated especially child labor. Child labor, nevertheless, promotes oppressions and exploitations in which make the child a valueless human being. Such reasons of child labor like poverty, culture, educational opportunity, and demand of economy are nonetheless insufficient and unjustifiable reasons for the dignity of every child does not depend on these.

Poverty is a perennial societal problem in the Philippines and this issue is not new to everybody. By extreme poverty, the family members, including the child, are push to bare labor even though it is not yet proper to the child to do so. A child engaging in hard labor is not yet proper because the child is supposed to be in the home or in the school so as to develop himself/herself and eventually realizes his/her meaningful existence. It cannot be that the child labor is morally right because of poverty which gives way to a child earning money for the family.

Child here is not the end of labor precisely because labor is intended to get away from poverty but not for the sake of child’s benefit. It uses the child to overcome poverty rather than dignifying the child without poverty. In the midst of poverty, a child must be dignified as a human person. The parents should sustain the needs of the family and the community should protect the dignity of every child. Culture and tradition, on the one hand, must not dehumanize the child. Every child must not be enslaved by the culture.

Culture also involves a matter of choice and thus anything which destroys the dignity of a child must be avoided and stopped. People are the makers of certain culture, and then people also have the capacity to change culture through man’s rationality. Human person’s rational faculty could obliterate such acquired and practiced culture and tradition. Nevertheless, culture in a way makes use of the child as a mean in order to continue such culture and not for the dignity of the child. This cannot be morally right that the child’s dignity be destroyed because of culture. It is irrational to follow certain culture which dehumanizes a child.

Lack of educational opportunities and the demand of the economy, in the same way, make the child undignified human person in a way that they affect the natural development of a child. Lack of educational opportunities compels the right of the child to learn and to know his/her identity and demand of economy, in the same way, exploits the innocence of every child. They are both factors which give nevertheless worthless value to every child. In the end, children’s dignity has been destroyed because of child labor. Child labor does not respect, protect, and nurture the humanness of every child.

Children in a sense have become mere objects to attain certain goal. They became instruments to alleviate poverty, maintain culture and tradition, victims of poor educational system, and exploited by economic interest. Child labor treated every child in a subjective end by which inclined by selfish interest. Objective end then must be realized and should be done so as to give dignity to every child. Summary and Conclusion The subject matter of this research study is about the morality of child labor. Through the second formulation of categorical imperative by Immanuel Kant, child labor has been assessed.

The definition and meaning of the term “child” also has been presented that which aging below eighteen (18) years and above yet holistically incapable to protect and dependent to other people because of mental or physical disabilities. The distinction between child labor and child work has been discussed also. After which, child labor then has been evaluated that which hinders the natural development of a child. The reasons of child labor have been discussed in this study such as poverty, culture and tradition, lack of educational opportunity, and the demand of economy.

Kant’s ethical ideas have been presented and discussed particularly the categorical imperative and its second formulation formula of end itself. Finally, the combining of facts and theory has been discussed in the analysis. In conclusion, child labor through evaluation using the second formulation of categorical imperative- end itself- of Kant is certainly unethical because it humiliate the dignity of every child. Child labor is the result of other societal problems and thus it should be answered. Certainly, child labor in effect gives an unethical implication in every child.

It is morally wrong that the dignity of every child should be taken away because of child labor. Child, in virtue of being a human person, is always endowed with gift of rationality by which makes every child unique and higher than any other temporal beings. Rationality gives the child to have the right to be respected. Child’s dignity is innate in him/her thus it should be protected. Indeed, child labor is morally wrong because it primarily dehumanizes every child by destroying his/her dignity. Bibliography Primary: Kant, I. (1948). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (H. J. Paton, Trans. ). New York:

Harper and Row Publishers, Inc. Kant, I. (1993). Grounding for the metaphysics of moral: On supposed right to lie because of philanthropic concerns. In J. W. Ellington (3rd ed. and Trans. ). Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hacket Publishing Company, Inc. Secondary: Andres, T. D. & Ilada-Andres, P. L. B. (2005). Understanding the Filipino (8th ed. ). Quezon City: New Day Publishing. Timbreza, F. T. (2008). Filipino philosophy today. Kalayaan Avenue Diliman, Quezon City: Kalayaan Press Mktg. Ent. Inc. United Nations. (2008). Universal declaration of human rights: Dignity and justice for all of us.

New York: UN Department of Publication. On-line: About child labor. (February 24, 2012). International Labor Organization. Retrieved March 2, 2012, from http://www. ilo. org/ipec/fects/lang–en/index. htm Diokno, J. W. (1998). Part one: Understanding child labor. Working Together Against Child Labor: Philippine Campaign. Retrieved March 2, 2012, from http://ipecphils. tripod. com/pillaws/intro. htm What kinds of work do children do? (2012). Retrieved March 2, 2012, from http://www. knowledgelabor. org/child labor/kinds of child labor. php

Good vs. Evil the Moral Flaws in Young Goodman Brown

In Salem, Massachusetts religion was very prominent in the 1700s, especially during the Salem Witch Trials. Salem, Massachusetts was known for the numerous witch trials, and the persecutions. Many people were accused for practicing witchcraft, being bewitched, and for making covenants with the devil. Nathaniel Hawthorne introduces Goodman Brown as a newlywed husband who is going to embark on a tedious journey into the forest. This journey into the forest was to meet the Devil, and to establish a covenant with him.

As he travels, Brown is faced whether to go against his morals, beliefs, and religion. Goodman Brown realizes not everything is what it seems, and he learns about the true morality of the people around him. In “Young Goodman Brown,” Nathaniel Hawthorne reveals the common differences between good versus evil, and the weakness of public morality, As the story begins we meet Goodman Brown, and his newly wed wife Faith. The couple is talking about the journey Brown is going to take, and Faith is trying to convince him to stay until the morning to travel into the forest.

Faith then tells Goodman that “A lone woman is troubled with suck dreams and such thoughts that she’s afraid of herself sometimes. ” When Faith says that it is to let Brown know that she is scared to be alone at night, nor does she want him to tarry off to the forest at the moment. She would rather him stay with her so that she can feel safe, secured, and unharmed. Brown assures her that everything is okay, and that it is going to be a one nigh endeavor. Goodman clings on to this idea of Faith as he starts his journey into the forest. He hopes that as long as Faith stays holy, he can somehow find himself to resist the devil.

Goodman Brown feels that the good in Faith’s heart will keep him making irrational decisions. The good that is in faith is shown so that Goodman can travel without worrying about her. Nathaniel Hawthorne uses Goodman’s wife Faith to represent her purity as a woman. In the 1700s, a pure woman was the best thing in the world. If the woman was pure it made her worth more than anything that an impure woman could offer. Brown states that “she’s a blessed angel on earth; and after this one night I’ll cling to her skirts and follow her to heaven. Hawthorne is trying to convey that even though Brown has done wrong in his life Faith’s purity could save him from a life of sin. It was known in these times that the men would leave the family for religious purposes. Faith’s purity brings the well-being out of Goodman Brown because he knows that he can’t go wrong with her. Brown realizes that her purity is what keeps him in line, and it is why he insists on remaining good. If he remains on this path, remembers the purity of Faith, and resist wrong doing then he can remain faithful to his religion.

The ribbons that Faith puts on her hat also represent her purity. The color pink is often used when newborn baby girls are born to symbolize that they are young, innocent, and pure. As little girls get older they tend to like this color more than the rest. Pink is used frequently to show the feminine side of girls, and how they are different from boys. The pink ribbons are associated with innocence and modesty. Faith is considered pure because at the beginning she shows to Goodman that she doesn’t want him to leave her alone. The newly wed wife would rather have her husband around her than him travel afar.

Hawthorne mentions the ribbons several times in the beginning, and this states her youthfulness as well as her happiness. Traveling into the forest is when the tone shifts from innocent and kindhearted to gloomy and melancholy. Angie Sole states that, “Goodman Brown’s experience in the dark, evil forest correlated and would have been recognized by Puritans as a symbol of mistrust of their own corrupt hearts and faculties. ” Soler says this because it represents the deceit, and the darkness of man’s heart. Brown walking into the forest that was gloomy, dark, and the shadows he saw were fighting him.

Brown felt like he couldn’t trust the figures because they were deceiving him by their looks. The evil in the story the forest was just like the evil in all the movies, and in the plots of story books. Going into a dark forest doesn’t symbolize anything good. Being in the forest, Brown knew he couldn’t trust his own self, nor could he trusts his desires to keep from doing wrong. The forest with all its evil, deceit, and darkness shows Brown that he doesn’t need to follow in to the path of evil. As Brown travels deeper into the forest, a man who informs him that he is late approaches him.

The second traveler with Brown is much older than he is, and Hawthorne describes him to be “Considerable resemblance to him, though perhaps more features still they have been taken for father and son. ” This is because they looked alike in similar ways. Older man carried a rod hat resembled “A great black snake. ” This snake is the significance in the story because it is known for being a deceiver. In the Old Testament, the snake deceived Eve into eating the fruit from the Forbidden tree. The snake lay to Eve and Adam because the snake was sneaky, mischievous, and deceitful.

This is why Eve was easily persuaded to the fruit. Another “rod/snake” reference is when Moses was trying to convince Pharaoh to let the people of Israel go. When meeting with Pharaoh, Moses casted out his rod, and it turned into a snake. Hawthorne describes the rod in the story as like it was somewhat alive. The snake represents the common evil Brown face throughout the story. Hawthorne uses the weakness of morality throughout the story. This shows how Brown was ashamed of what he was doing as well as what the people around him were doing.

Going in the forest is when Brown recognizes the familiar faces. He notices the minister, deacon Gookin, and Good Cloyse traveling into the forest as well. As they are walking, Brown quickly throws his staff, and goes out of sight. It was as if he vanished into the deepening of darkness. Hiding behind the tree, Brown is staying out of sight of the three Salem church members. Making sure that the familiar people of town Brown uses the branches to hide do not see him. He didn’t want as much as a shadow of him to be seen, and while he was hiding Brown begins to pray.

As he praying the atmosphere changes, and the clouds start to shift. The Brown hears the indistinct voices laughing, and conversing among each other. This is when he notices something floating in the sky, and this is when he realizes that is its Faith’s pink ribbon. Goodman Brown proclaims “My Faith is gone! There is no good on earth; and sin is but a name. Come, devil1 for to thee is this world given. ” He says this in spite of the possibility of Faith being in harm’s way. Faith being alive is how Brown was so comfortable with making this journey to speak with the Devil.

Her being safe, secures, and out of harm’s way is what made the trip easier, and he used her faith to allow him to resist into temptation. Brown begins to continue walking at a faster pace because he wants the journey to be over with. Getting closer to his destination he comes across an open space that has poles lit up with fire, and this is followed by the thunderous cry of people chanting hymns. Brown comes to the space, and he notices some of the Salem towns people were there too/ He see the minister, Deacon Gookin, and Goody Cloyse, but Faith is nowhere to be found.

Brown is confused with what he is seeing. There were two figures that were vaguely noticeable, but Brown thinks they are his parents. Nether the less, he was seized by the arms by the minister and the deacon. They start walking him to the blazing rock where he sees the unveiled. The morality of the people had been changed because Goodman Brown thought all the people were of one faith when they weren’t. The people all walk to the middle of the open space, and the woman who was wearing the veil followed them. A voice begins to speak and this is led to believe that it is the Devil.

He calls everyone to attention letting the people know that things are about to come to order. The woman under the veil then reveals herself, and she is no other than Faith. Brown realized that she is a part of the demonic meeting he speaks to her and says “Look up to the heaven, and resist the Wicked one. ” Brown feels that Faith shouldn’t go down the path that he was going down. Since Faith is believed to be the only pure soul in his life, and he wants her to stay in that shape, form, and fashion Regardless of the temptation that she is faced he wants her to resist it.

Brown returns to the Salem village the next morning with a new perspective about everyone. The people surrounding him seemed to be coming off as unrealistic, and this is when he starts to think that everything is not supposed to happen. Goodman feels that not only were his morals changed, but the people around him did too. Their morals, beliefs, and religions have changed because before he went into the forest. Brown felt that he was the only one doing wrong, but until he goes into the forest is when he sees the true nature of the people.

Hawthorne reveals man weakness to their moral, religion, and beliefs could easily be different… Hawthorne shows that the holiest man could very well be a sinner. Not one man is subjected to being holier than the other. Brown saw the further he went into the forest the more vulnerable to following into evil. Once Faith sees Goodman Brown she runs up to him with joy of knowing that he returned without being harmed. After being in that forest for a night, Brown could not decipher what was right, and he could not tell if what he was seeing was wrong.

Being release from Faith’s embracing hug he can not look at her the same. The look was so stern, and sadly given to her, that he passed her without even acknowledging her with a proper greeting. Her female purity was once sacred to Goodman Brown, and he felt that if she kept her faith he too could to right in his life. With the feeling of being deceived, lied to , and bamboozled her purity is no longer void, and it dissolves into nonexistence. Goodman’s innocence left him as he began the journey into the forest, but doing this made him feel corrupted beyond reasons explainable.

This shows that everything Brown has seen could very much be a figment of his imagination. In conclusion, Goodman Brown sees that there is more than meet the eye, and that no man is far from sin. Nathaniel Hawthorn shows that your faith may betray you, but it is also the truth of a waking experience. In this short story Hawthorne uses the differences of good versus evil, and the weakness of morality to convey how people were in the 1700s. By using Goodman Brown, he was able to show the understanding of sin, and to let go of world dependence, and to strive for the life without sin.

The legal system continuously endeavours and reforms to provide effective legislative remedies and modify existing legislation to reflect the changing nature of the Australian family structure. Family law has always been a colossal aspect of Australian society with many effective measures in place for family matters. Numerous values and their effectiveness have been debated through various features of family law, and these debates continue to the present day.

Divorce is the legal dissolution of a marriage by an official court decision and was once frowned upon within society, and prior to 1974, married couples who wished to divorce had to apply under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1959 (Cth) on the ground of “fault” – that is, on the basis that one or both spouses admitted to acting in a way that undermined their marriage (for example, adultery, cruelty, insanity and desertion).

However, the first major change to family law in Australia occurred when the law took reform in this aspect with the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), which states that the only ground for divorce is the “irretrievable breakdown of the marriage”, such as the case in the marriage of Todd (1976), one or two of the spouses must consent for divorce. The declining influence of religion and the idea that marriage does not always “last for life” were social factors that influenced this change.

The erosion of the concept of fault and the establishment of a single ground for divorce thus demonstrates changing societal values and how law is changed over time. Australian society believes that it is important to protect the disadvantaged, or those who cannot act to preserve their own rights – particularly children. After a marriage has been dissolved, it is the responsibility of both parents to provide financial support for their children as the case of Campbell and Campbell (1998) established that it is in the best interests of the child to maintain the lifestyle to which they have grown accustomed.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics Marriages and Divorces 2011 Media release indicates there are 44,000 children under 18 affected by divorce. As such, the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Cth) requires that children receive a proper level of financial support from their parents and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Cth) ensures that periodic amounts payable by parents towards the maintenance of their children are paid on a regular and timely basis.

Prior to the Acts, only 40% of claims for child maintenance were being met, whereas after the Acts were passed, approximately 70% of claims are being met. The new emphasis on children’s rights and parental responsibility reflects the social perception that children are vulnerable members of our society and thus require greater legal protection.

Another important change in social attitudes has been the increasing acceptance of same-sex relationships, and recent law reforms have centred on providing same-sex couples with the same rights as de facto heterosexual relationships, and removing discrimination based on sexuality. At the State level, the De Facto Relationships Act 1984 (NSW) was amended to the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW), for the growing acceptance of heterosexual and homosexual relationships highlighted by news article ‘Partners who just can’t wait (2010)‘ which states the growth in unmarried couples living together.

It now recognises same-sex relationships as having the same legal standing as heterosexual de facto relationships, and thus provides protection to people in same-sex de facto relationships in property division, inheritance and decision-making in illness and after death. The Miscellaneous Acts Amendment (Same Sex Relationships) Bill 2008 (NSW) creates amendments to 57 pieces of state legislation to ensure de facto couples (including same-sex couples) are treated equally with married couples.

This Act also creates amendments to the Anti-discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) to ensure that same-sex couples are protected from discrimination on the basis of their “marital or domestic status” in employment, accommodation and access to goods and services, articulated in the Daily Telegraph ‘Gay couple win foster care case (2008)’, after a gay couple won $10,000 in damages when their application to become foster carers was refused. However in terms of federal laws at present, same-sex couples are unable to marry.

The Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) defines marriage as “the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life”, a definition established by the case of Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee (1866) and repeated in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). In 2004, the Commonwealth Government reconfirmed the traditional concept of marriage as the “union of a man and a woman” when it passed the Marriage Amendment Act 2004 (Cth) meaning same-sex marriage is automatically void in Australia, ncluding overseas marriages. Over time, both State and federal governments in Australia have enacted legislation to encourage and enforce practices which are not only in the public interest, but also reflect the moral and ethical standards of society. While legislative mechanisms have been reasonably successful in achieving this goal with regard to the introduction of “no-fault” divorce and the protection of children, there is the need for further review and reform of legislation concerning same-sex couples.

Huck’s Moral Conscience In the classic novel The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by the great Mark Twain the memorable character of Huck Finn is constantly choosing between the social morals of the southern states during the time of slaves in America and his own self morals. Throughout the novel Huck is being taught that slaves are lesser beings compared to white folk and that they do not deserve the same amount of respect, this leading to the main example of Huck’s struggle with his conscience.

Huck has a good heart and knows what is right from wrong even in the smallest situations and is tested many times through strangers and friends. After Huck fakes his death he finds a true friend where he never thought to look before, in the heart of a supposed socially unacceptable, escaped slave named Jim. Jim sticks with Huck through thick and thin regardless of the consequences, whether they are returning to slavery or a broken finger. In the entirety of Huck’s life, he was taught that someone who confides with an escaped slave is no better than the black man himself.

This thought haunts his mind throughout the book, making him even considers turning Jim in but he realizes that Jim has been “might good’ to him and is his best friend. Their relationship is tested when the duke and king sell Jim to the Phelps and Huck decides to rescue him whatever way it takes, no matter how long it takes. The king and the duke are two trouble making characters who lie about everything to whomever they talk to just to get a few coins. The two misfits even take it so far as to attempt to steal a dead man’s money before Huck realizes it’s a horrible deed and his conscience takes over.

The money belonged to a family known as the Wilks, the three sisters Mary Jane, Susan, and Jenna. When the duke and king impersonate their uncles in order to get the money and Huck meets the three gals he says, “ I felt so ornery and low down and mean that I says to myself, my minds made up, it’s either hive that money for them or bust. ” Huck then does everything in his power to do the morally right thing and get them their money, in which he succeeds. Near the end of the book after the too bad men had sold Jim, Huck goes to the Phelps’s ranch to go get him.

The misses Phelps, known as Aunt Sally, comes running up to Huck to call off the dogs as he came strolling in and believed he was the good old Tom Sawer, her nephew. Since Huck is an opportunist he then claimed to be Tom, and later found out that the real Tom was actually coming to the ranch that very day. The two devised an elaborate plan thanks to Tom who just wanted adventure to bust Jim out. When the zero day finally came and the two actually busted Jim out, there happened to be a mob chasing them thanks to a faulty part of the plan and one of the members shot Tom in the calf.

The three escaped to an island and Huck came back to town to get a doctor who sailed to the island alone leaving Huck to be found by uncle Silas who took him back to the ranch. Since innocent Aunt Sally doesn’t believe Huck, or “Tom,” had anything to do with the escape she tells him to go to his room. She also tells him that she wanted him to stay put in the room because she was worried enough. Huck truthfully wanted to go out and look for Tom but his conscience wouldn’t let him, so Aunt Sally could be calm at mind.

Huck clashed with his conscience and social morals throughout the book and was able to decipher right from wrong. He made the right choice in keeping his friend close and never letting him go no matter what. Huck also realized it was wrong what they were doing to the Wilks and even did what was right when the opportunity presented itself. Finally Huck topped it off with a bang in resisting what he wanted to do most, to look for Tom, just so someone might be able to sleep better.