The Morality of Birth Control by Margaret Sanger Essay

The Morality of Birth Control by Margaret Sanger Essay.

An example of bias in the work was written to show the stereotypes and bias experienced by women demonstrated by their male counterparts. She wrote, “We know that every advance that woman has made in the last half century has been made with opposition, all of which has been based upon the grounds of immorality. When women fought for higher education, it was said that this would cause her to become immoral and she would lose her place in the sanctity of the home.

When women asked for the franchise it was said that this would lower her standard of morals, that it was not fit that she should meet with and mix with the members of the opposite sex, but we notice that there was no objection to her meeting with the same members of the opposite sex when she went to church. ” (Sanger, 1921) Fallacies that I was able to locate in the work were the use of the appeal to tradition fallacy and the appeal to common practice fallacy.

In the work, Sanger explained that she had sent letters to different people regarding the issue, including those who felt differently on the issue. To those who opposed the birth control issue, she wrote: “…with the exception of one group whose reply to this important question as demonstrated at the Town Hall last Sunday evening was a disgrace to liberty-loving people, and to all traditions we hold dear in the United States. ” (Sanger, 1921) The aforementioned statement is a fallacy.

Yes, “liberty-loving people” enjoy their freedom of choice; however, it is illogical to call disgrace to those who oppose it. The author also used rhetorical explanations combined with the scapegoating fallacy when she wrote about the “third group. ” She wrote, “The third are those irresponsible and reckless ones having little regard for the consequence of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers.

Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent entirely upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. ” (Sanger, 1921) Another rhetorical device that the author used as the main argument was “motherhood may be the function of dignity and choice rather than one of ignorance and chance. ” (Sanger, 1921) Sanger successfully used alliteration to make her argument. It stated her position on the issue and did so in a manner that would compel the readers to, in a way, take her position.

The opposing argument that the author isted was that “however desirable it may be on economic or social grounds, it may be abused and the morals of the youth or the country may be lowered. ” (Sanger, 1921) Sanger’s counter-argument was “the reckless abandonment of the impulse of the moment and the careless regard for the consequences, is not morality. ” (1921)

The right to control size of family by controlling conception “is a better method, a civilized method [because it] involves not only a greater forethought for others [but also] sanctions higher value of life itself. (Sanger, 1921) Margaret Sanger’s use of rhetorical devices, fallacies, and demonstrating claims that are biased were extremely effective in effort to persuade her readers to agree with her side. She was able to state her arguments in an unbiased manner, provide opposing arguments, and counter-argue against opposing views. As one of the many readers/listeners of this work, I was convinced to side with author, Margaret Sanger. ?

The Morality of Birth Control by Margaret Sanger Essay

Human Nature – Are Humans Naturally Good or Evil? Essay

Human Nature – Are Humans Naturally Good or Evil? Essay.

What is thought of as immoral to one person can be seen as ethical to another, and vice versa. This is due to the difference in the way humans perceive things, which is part of the intricacy of mankind. “During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that conditions called war; and such a war, as if of every man, against every man. ” (Hobbes) Hobbes states that Humans are naturally evil and need a powerful government to control them.

Is it true?

Rousseau thinks otherwise. “In reasoning on the principles he (Thomas Hobbes) lays down, he ought to have said that the state of nature, being that in which the care for our own preservation is the least prejudicial to that of others, was consequently the best calculated to promote peace, and the most suitable for mankind? man in the state of nature is both strong and dependent involves two contrary suppositions.

Man is weak when he is dependent, and is his own master before he comes to be strong.

” (Rousseau) The issue of good and evil is brought up in “Lord of the Flies” by William Golding, when innocent boys find themselves on a deserted island attempting to create a society similar to ours. What circumstances occur to them? How do past influences affect them? Are their actions good or evil? The actions of the boys were not a matter of being good or evil, but were actions for survival. A person’s environment does not draw him towards good or evil, nor is he or she born with it inside.

Humans have instincts that are not affairs of good and evil, but of survival. By natural instinct, humans will do what is best for them especially for their survival. Animals, much like people, kill when in need. For instance, if they feel they are cornered, they would attack. If they need food, they will kill to eat. In “Lord of the Flies”, Ralph was being hunted by Jack’s tribe, and in a desperate attempt in his defense, thrusts his spear through a crack at the inspecting savages. Ralph attacked someone of his own kind for his own survival.

It can be believed that man is the derivative of others animals, and as such, they have certain instincts that were instilled from birth. The boys later began to simulate the behavior of animals. “At once the crowd surged after it, poured down the rock, leapt on to the beast, screamed, struck, bit, tore. There were no words, and no movements but the tearing of teeth and claws. ” (Golding 153) William Golding’s description of this scene leads a reader to believe that these boys acquired animal like qualities. Do you know of any human who tears with teeth and claws?

The boys mistake Simon for their beast and result in ruthlessly killing him. In their state of mind of savagery and hunting, they saw themselves in danger of this “beast” and their first instinct was to kill anything in sight that had the possibility of being it. Humans, like animals, have a natural instinct to protect themselves in case of danger, like attacking when cornered. Instincts are inherited, but indistinct characteristics such as good or evil are not. The significance of moral values do not apply to actions in situations for survival.

Instincts are not about being moral or immoral, because the issue of being good and evil is undefined. Whether an action or situation is good or bad depends on who it is and how it is being perceived. This makes this issue uncertain due to the way it is viewed from person to person. Since the way it is seen will differ, man cannot be exclusively evil or exclusively good. Consider the following example: A dog constantly jumps on the window of a door in an attempt to get the attention of the family inside. He is doing this in hopes to be let back inside the house.

Someone inside the house could view this as being evil, which would be different from the view of an animal lover. They would not consider this evil and would claim that the dog had not caused physical harm and just didn’t know any better. The dog doesn’t believe that it is evil because he is only obeying environmental charge. He’s been inside before and knows that it is much nicer than outside, and wants the attention that is inside. The dog has tried to jump on the door before, and had received the attention of someone who thus let him in.

This leads the dog to believe that what he is doing is the “right” thing to do. After all, he just wants in, right? So the dog is evil because someone inside says he is, but then he is not evil because he doesn’t think he is. The opinions on what is evil and what isn’t disagree with each other because of how it was perceived by each side. In “Lord of the Flies” there is a situation that deals with Piggy’s glasses, which is the key to fire on the island. The glasses were stolen in the middle of the night that leads to a fight in the dark among the boys.

The fact that the glasses were stolen, and they were Piggy’s only aid for sight, can be seen as evil, but what about Jack’s side? Jack acts upon his devoir to light a fire in order to cook the pig he killed with his tribe to fully enjoy their prize. Ralph and Samneric engage in a fight with whosoever they can touch first, without an attempt to reason. Which is evil in this situation? Humans are simply complex animals that respond to complex impulse, and their behaviors are influenced or are a product of everything that they learn starting from the day of their birth to the day of their death.

Society sets a mold for the “good” and “bad” conditions that humans are learning from day to day. The role of society in being good or evil is that it acts as this guideline for that long lived dream of acceptance. It’s where what’s good gets you in, and what’s evil is what will make you repulsive. The ideas of power and the abuse of that power are not learned from the environment. The environment is used as a resource to abuse that power. Jack manipulates the boys into joining his tribe and sets up his territory on the island.

He threatens people to join his tribe, and hunts those that refuse to. Jack’s tactics are an example of how he abuses power by using the environment and how he sets the society guidelines of acceptance. A society could not exist where people are brought up to know what they define as right or wrong, and could stick to that without problem. “We decide things. But they don’t get done. ” (Golding 79) On the island, the civilized rules of having drinking water, shelters, and having a spot for a lavatory are not followed.

The boys were brought up having rules like these, but they did not stick to them due to the problem that they didn’t have a strong enough authority figure to instill them. Society acts as this necessary component to life, and if it’s not there then it needs to be made. The creation of society begins with people who have the power to set the rules of acceptance, and they are the ones who establish what is good and what is evil. Society may manipulate others into believing what is good and evil, but those that manipulate society create that belief.

In conclusion, Hobbes and Rousseau are both, in a sense, right and wrong. Hobbes said that human nature is evil and need to be controlled while Rousseau said human nature is good and need to govern themselves. It’s not that humans are innately good or evil, it’s their natural instinct that drives them to do immoral or ethical deeds based upon what society leads them to believe. People cannot exclusively be good or evil because the state of good and evil is undefined. People are born with an instinct that drives them to do what is necessary in extreme measures.

This instinct overtakes any other preceding thought and becomes the need for survival. In Lord of the Flies, it wasn’t whether or not the inhabitants were evil or good, it was their human reaction and instinct in the case of survival. Golding, William. Lord of the Flies. New York, NY: Putnam Group, 1954. Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Ed. J C A. Gaskin. Oxford, NY: Oxford UP, 1998. Rousseau, Jean Jacques. The Social Contract and the First and Second Discourses. Ed. Susan Dunn. Binghamton, NY: Vail-Ballou P, 2002.

Human Nature – Are Humans Naturally Good or Evil? Essay

Morality and Lagoon Literary Essay

Morality and Lagoon Literary Essay.

The Lagoon is a story about a man who visits an old friend; they had been fighting in a war and became good friends since then. Nevertheless, a long time had passed without knowing much about each other, and these friends have a lot to talk about. The consequences of a selfish decision seem to doom the life of a man who suffers pangs of conscience. A story written by Joseph Conrad, who is considered one of the greatest novelists of the English Literature, shows how vulnerable and unstable the human morality can be.

What sort of desire would make a man betray his own brother? The selfish desire of a man who pursued love, happiness and peace with her beloved woman would be one of the answers. “There is a time when a man should forget loyalty and respect. Might and authority are given to rulers, but to all men is given love and strength and courage”. (Page 8) The strong love he felt for her, made him to go beyond the limits.

His beloved brother supported him; he bravely became selflessly involved in his brother´s love venture for they had always been very loyal to each other since they were children. Therefore, selfishness and cowardice were stronger than brotherhood.

Arsat was so focused on escaping with his woman that he seemed to forgot how much he loved his brother, he did not noticed it, he was risking his life and also the others´. “There is half a man in you now – the other half is in that woman. I can wait. When you are a whole man again, you will come back with me here to shout defiance. We are sons of the same mother”. (Page 9) But these words seemed to have been ignored by him, because what he seemed to have had in his mind was not love really, but obsession. “I longed to be with her in a safe place beyond the reach of men’s anger and of women’s spite. My love was so great, that I thought it could guide me to a country where death was unknown, if I could only escape from Inchi Midah’s spite and from our Ruler’s sword”. (Page 9) Thus, his obsessed mind led him to the despicable betrayal of his brother who loved him.

When the plan was being executed by the three of them, the situation turns out really bad. His brother was about to be caught by the guards and the weak loyalty he had for his brother in that moment of doubt and fear, was influenced by his selfish obsession which encouraged him to push the canoe and scape without his brother. His brother was left to his fate in spite of the desperate shouts he cried. “! I am coming! The men were close to him. I looked. Many men. Then I looked at her. Tuan, I pushed the canoe! […]I heard him cry my name twice; I never turned back”. (Page 10) He could bear all those years without thinking on what he had done to his brother because of his woman, but she was about to die and now he seems to be dying too.

The day he betrayed his brother, seemed to have doomed the rest of his life and certainly it did. His woman was suffering of a strange disease and died. He desperately

tried to recover her but his efforts were useless. And the past comes back to his mind every moment. Although he hopes to find his road to follow, he may not escape from his conscience, a nightmare he will have to face till the day of his death.

Morality and Lagoon Literary Essay

Morality as Anti-Nature Essay

Morality as Anti-Nature Essay.

Friedrich Nietzsche stands as one of the philosophers who tackled about the complexities of human existence and its condition. It is noteworthy to state that most of his works made several standpoints to what he refers to as the Ubermensch. The conception of such is designed to inspire the individual to substantiate his existence and rouse his self-overcoming and affirmative character. This can be said to arise from the idea of creating a self through the process of undergoing a destructive condition that enables the self to acquire greater power in relation to others.

The development of such a self is dependent upon the recognition of the anti-naturalistic character of morality which he discusses in The Twilight of the Idols in the section entitled “Morality as Anti-Nature”. Within the aforementioned text, Nietzsche argues that morality hinders the individual from experiencing life as it limits an individual’s freewill thereby in the process leading to the creation of an individual who is incapable of life itself.

He states, morality is a “revolt against life” (2006, p. 467). It is a revolt against life as it is based on the negation of an individual’s basic instinct to act freely in accordance to his passions. According to Nietzsche, this is evident in the case of Christian morality which places emphasis on the control of the passions. Within Christian morality, an individual who is incapable of controlling his passions is considered to be immoral as he is incapable of practicing restraint upon himself.

Examples of this are evident if one considers that within Christian morality, to be saintly requires restraining one’s desires and hence one can only follow the path of Christ if one denies all of his desires, the denial of which involves the denial of all worldly things. He states, within the context of this morality “disciplining…has put the emphasis throughout the ages on eradication…but attacking the passions at the root means attacking life at the root: the practice of the church is inimical to life (Nietzsche, 2006, p.

66). The practice of the church, its imposition of morality contradicts the essence of life which is the actualization of an individual’s self since it delimits an individual to one particular kind of existence. For example, Christian morality has the Ten Commandments. If an individual follows these commandments, the individual’s spiritual life is ensured in the afterworld. Nietzsche argues that by following these commandments, the individual is at once delimited to one particular form of existence.

This does not necessarily mean that Nietzsche applauds acts of murder; he is merely stating that by following moral rules and moral norms the individual is at once preventing himself from the experiencing a particular form of life and hence the actuality of life itself. It is important to note that by presenting a criticism of Christian moral values and moral values in general, Nietzsche does not necessarily prescribe an individual to follow his moral code. In fact one might state that Nietzsche does not possess a moral code. He states,

Whenever we speak of values, we speak under the inspiration…of life: life forces us to establish values; life itself evaluates through us when we posit values…It follows from this that even that anti-nature of a morality which conceives God as the antithesis and condemnation of life is merely a value judgment on the part of life. (Nietzsche, 2006, p. 467) Within this context, Nietzsche recognizes that the anti-nature of morality is a value in itself. It differs however from a moral code since it does not delimit an individual by prescribing actions which he ought and ought not to follow.

The importance of the anti-nature of morality lies in its emphasis on the affirmation of the individual. Within the text, Nietzsche claims, “morality in so far as it condemns…is a specific error…We seek our honour in being affirmative” (2006, p. 468). It is within this context that one may understand why for Nietzsche; the Ubermensch is an individual whose choices are dependent upon the ends justifying the means since to state that one performs a particular action since the means justifies the end is equivalent to performing a particular action since the act itself adheres to what a particular moral rule considers to be ‘good’.

This is evident if one considers that in order for an individual S to consider Q a ‘good’ act wherein Q is good due to P and Q necessarily follows from P, it is necessary for P to be good within the context of a moral norm M. For example, a person may consider giving alms to the poor good since the act of giving alms itself is considered ‘good’ within the context of a particular moral norm.

As opposed to the example mentioned above, the Ubermensch acts in accordance to what may be achieved by an act [the end of the act itself] since what the Ubermensch places emphasis on is the joy that may be achieved in the act itself. Alex MacIntyre states, “joy in the actual and active of every kind constitutes the fundamental end from which Nietzsche develops his critique of morality” (1999, p. 6). Although Nietzsche’s criticism of morality and its constraints upon an individual are valid, it is still impossible to conceive of a world wherein no morality is applied.

Within the context of social reality, moral norms function to ensure order within society. Although laws may function by themselves to ensure the order of society, laws themselves are dependent upon a particular moral norm which the society adheres to. References McIntyre, A. (1997). The Sovereignty of Joy: Nietzsche’s Vision of Grand Politics. Toronto: U of Toronto P. Nietzsche, F. (2006). Morality as Anti-Nature. The Nietzsche Reader. Eds. K. Ansell-Pearson & D. Large. London: Wiley-Blackwell.

You may also be interested in the following: morality as anti-nature summary, morality as anti-nature

Morality as Anti-Nature Essay

Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Suicide Essay

Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Suicide Essay.

There are over thirty-thousand suicides a year in the United States alone. Whether or not suicide is acceptable is a moral issue. Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative can be applied to this moral issue. Kant strongly disagreed with suicide, because it was not a morally responsible decision; I will give a summary of the Categorical imperative, and use this information to develop an argument that Kant or a Kantian would use to argue against suicide. Kant’s Categorical imperative argued that an action or rule is moral if it is universally good.

If everyone sees an action as good and can perform the action than it is moral. The categorical imperative applies to all rational beings regardless of one’s personal motives and desires. Kant believed that we those actions that if you would want an action performed on you than it are moral. “Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law (309).

” Based on the categorical imperative, Suicide is immoral because it is our purpose to acquire happiness.

If we all committed suicide as we pleased, then we would seize to exist, which is unethical. Because suicide prevents us being happy, it is not morally permissible under Kant’s categorical imperative. Humans should be thought of as a means not an ends. If we committed suicide than we are not achieving our potential to be happy, which is unmoral. To Kant suicide was “in no circumstance permissible. ” Kant believed that any man, who would survive a suicide attempt, had now discarded his humanity and was lower than a beast.

Suicide degrades our humanity, because it takes away our basic purpose. One could argue that Kant biased to a religious view of suicide being immoral. Kant believes that our lives belong to God and are not ours to end. It is also questionable to categorize our lives as a thing, and debase his humanity over a decision that they have made. Suicide is immoral because it does not bring happiness, and is not universally acceptable. Because we can no longer make moral decisions Kant argues that suicide is not morally acceptable.

Kant states that “It cannot be moral to root out the existence of morality in the world. ” Suicide prevents you from performing anymore acts of morality. According to the Categorical imperative, if we can perform a good deed we should, regardless of whether there is anything to be gained. We are bound by a set of universal laws that all should follow unconditionally. We should not commit suicide because; we have an obligation to perform good deeds in the world. Our purpose as humans is to perform good actions in the world, but we cannot do this if we are dead.

Committing suicide prevents us from performing actions and is an irrational decision to make, which violates the Categorical Imperative. If one wants to commit suicide they should think of all of the actions that they would no longer be able to perform in death. One should strive to perform moral actions in life and to continue living as long as possible. We are each unique, and have actions that only we can complete. Works Cited Cahn, Steven M. , and Peter J. Markie. Ethics: History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues. New York: Oxford UP, 1998. Print.

Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Suicide Essay

Kant vs Bentham Essay

Kant vs Bentham Essay.

Throughout the realm of philosophy there have been many arguments on the idea of ethics and what motivates human nature and guides our judgments. I will be focusing on two philosophers both of whom tried to answer that question. Jeremy Bentham whose views on what should be used to guide our judgments as to what’s wrong or right have been defined as utilitarianism. Focusing on a different idea using morals and a sense of duty to the greater good comes, Immanuel Kant’s ethics of deontology, or the ethics of rules and duties.

Jeremy Bentham’s ideas of utilitarianism focus on the experiences of pleasure over pain. To Bentham utility is the property in any object that tends to produce benefit, good, pleasure or happiness or prevent the happening of pain/evil, or unhappiness to the party where interest is considered. Kant on the other hand uses what he called imperatives to decide what should be considered morally right. The imperative, the law or choice must be respected, no matter what consequences come from the choice.

Also Kant looks at it this way, if the action in and of itself could be placed into a law for the morals of the people. Bentham: So Immanuel, are you saying that in order for a person to be moral that he has to possess his or her own free will? Kant: Yes Jeremy that is correct, your idea that morality can be dictated by a government or a majority of the people is ridiculous. Bentham: You’re wrong on that account Immanuel because human kind is evil in nature so they have a hard time deciding what is right and wrong so we need rules to govern us to make the right decisions.

Kant: Even though those rights may infringe on our personal beliefs? Our individuality is what makes us human, whole!! Bentham: You are wrong about that, the greater good is what is important, so what if a minority of the people is left out, it is important that the majority is happy, then and only then will it matter. Kant: No, as a human, we can govern ourselves. We have the knowledge within us to make the right or wrong choices; we do not need a bureaucrat sitting behind a desk somewhere to make that choice for us.

Bentham: Your idea of the use of morality sickens me Immanuel. You sit here on your high horse saying that if you decide that, oh let us just say killing is wrong, and someone breaks into your home and starts to rape or murder your wife or child then you are going to stand back and do nothing?? Kant: If I have made that decision that killing is wrong then yes, I will have to stand by that choice. Bentham: You know Kant, I think you would ignore that choice and you would defend your household because it is for the greater good of your family.

Kant: Well we will have to cross that bridge when we get there want we. So Benth old pal, you tell everyone that pure ethics are not practical, that you have to arrange things so it will compatible with human nature, why is that? Bentham: Because my friend, humans are in general like animals. We are instinctive and act on emotions; we need to have rules and regulations to keep us on the straight and narrow. Just knowing that there are consequences to our actions keep us in line, wouldn‘t you say?

Kant: No, I think people have a working knowledge of what is right and what is wrong; we do not need rules to keep us in line, which again, we can do those ourselves, unless, of course, a person is criminally insane and they can’t distinguish between the two actions. Kant: So then if your wheels are stuck in mud on this and keep spinning, how then do you see mankind in general? Bentham: Humans, by nature, are as follows. We are selfish and greedy, pleasure seeking, out for themselves, and in general not very trustworthy.

Kant: So you put me and you in those categories Jeremy? Bentham: Well we are human are we not Immanuel? Kant: You are impossible Jeremy!! I am done having this conversation with you Immanuel; it is like talking to brick wall. Bentham: You know you enjoyed it Mr. Kant, and I bet we will talk again real soon. Morality and ethics are different for all of us, and I believe that Kant makes some good points, and Bentham has some good points but there are flaws in both. We all face choices in our lives sometimes they are dictated by the situation or opportunity.

If a gunman walked into a crowded store, would I take the gunman down to save lives putting my life in jeopardy, would I tell him the police are on their way even though I may be lying? Kant follows a strict path, one that he may have broken if faced with a certain situation, we are human of course, and this is where I side with Bentham. Being a former law officer I have seen good and bad in this world and I do believe that we do need rules to govern us, even though we might not agree with the all.

Kant vs Bentham Essay

Kant Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives Essay

Kant Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives Essay.

In the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, by Immanuel Kant, Kant proposes a very significant discussion of imperatives as expressed by what one “ought” to do. He implies this notion by providing the audience with two kinds of imperatives: categorical and hypothetical. The discussion Kant proposes is designed to formulate the expression of one’s action. By distinguishing the difference between categorical and hypothetical imperatives, Kant’s argues that categorical imperatives apply moral conduct in relation to performing one’s duty within the contents of good will.

According to Kant, the representation of an objective principle insofar as it necessitates the will is called a command which formulates the notion of an imperative . Imperatives are simply a formula of a reason. It determines the will of the action. Imperatives can be expressed in terms of what ought to do. For example, take the command “Sit Down! ” Kant expresses this command as an imperative by stating, “You ought to sit down! ” All imperatives are formulated by doing an action according to the standard of a will that it will provide a good ending in some way.

If the end action is good, as a mean to something else than it is considered a hypothetical imperative. On the other hand, if the action is good according to itself than it is considered a categorical imperative. Thus, Kant implies a distinction between these two kinds of imperatives. The first imperative that Kant proposes is hypothetical. A hypothetical imperative states only that an action is good for some purpose, either possible or actual . In a hypothetical imperative the action is done out of necessary for some purpose. Hypothetical imperatives take on the general form of; “If …then…”

“If” is considered the antecedent and “then” is considered conditional. Hypothetical imperatives tell us what we should do provided the fact that we have certain desires. For example, “If you want to get an A, then you ought to study. ” Wanting to get an A is required of one insofar as one is committed to studying. In other terms, if one desire is to get an A then the action one must take is to study in order to fulfill that desire. Hypothetical imperatives can further more be explained by breaking them down into what Kant calls “rules of skills,” and “counsels of prudence”.

Rules of skills simply imply the notion that there is something that you have to do; how one must accomplish something. An example of this is, “If you want to get well than you ought to take your medications. ” The action in accordance to the rule of skills implies the importance of taking your medications. Kant noted that there is no question at all whether the end is reasonable and good, but there is only a question as to what must be done to attain it. Moreover, the counsel of prudence examines just that. The antecedent “If” refers to the varying degrees of happiness within an individual.

“If you want to be happy then you ought to invest in a retirement plan. ” One’s motive to be happy (happiness as it implies to individualism) is fulfilled through the action. The action is done through the perception of prudence as it commands not absolutely but only as a means to further the purpose. In this respect, hypothetical imperatives apply actions of good in a conditional way. It is formulated that you need to know what the condition is before you act. Conditions are based upon a posteriori referring to experiences of knowledge due to ones own result.

Therefore hypothetical imperatives do not allow us to act in a moral way because they are based upon desires and experiences rather than good will or moral conduct. In contrast with hypothetical imperatives, which is dependent on an indivdual having a particular desires or purpose (such as wanting to get an A), categorical imperatives describe what we are required to do independently of what we may desire or prefer. A categorical imperative is the only imperative which immediately commands a certain conduct without having as its condition any other purpose to be attained by it.

Categorical imperatives are moral obligations that do not have a “If… and then…” form. In this respect they provide behavior categorically. They are not if you want x then you ought to do y. Rather they take the form of, you should do y. Kant states that categorical imperatives are limited by no condition, and can quite properly be called a command since it is absolutely, through practically necessary. Categorical imperative are concerned with the form of action and the princple from which the that action follows. The moral action is good within itself such the notion of practical reasoning.

Unlike a hypothetical imperative, categorical imperatives rely on independent experience; a prior. This is due to the fact that one’s moral principle is not based upon previous experience, but instead it is rooted in good will and one’s ability to perform their moral duty. Kant refers to this principle as the principle of morality. For it is from this in which all our moral duties are derived. The basic principle of morality is important because it commands certain courses of action. It is a categorical imperative because it commands unconditional actions. It is also independent of the particular ends and desires of the moral actions.

One can never really no the end motivate to why such an action is preformed, but one can concure that the action was done according to the moral duty of good will. Having good will or practical reasoning, lays a foundation that implies categorical imperatives to do what is pure and simple. A good will is good not because one wants to attain happiness or a purpose but it is good in itself. Kant explains that there is no possibility of thinking of anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will.

Therefore in accordance to good will, one must act as if the maxim of their action was to become a universal law. Kant first mentioned the notion of categorical imperative when he proposed the moral or universal law. You should never act except in such as way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law. Since maxims are basicly principles of action, the categorical imperative commands that one should act only on universal principles, that could be adopted by all rational agents such as human beings.

Actions that are done from duty are out of respect for the moral law. Duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law set by the categorical imperative. Because the consequences of an act are not the source of its moral worth, the source must be the maxim under which the act is performed, excluding all aspects of desires. Thus, a categorical imperative must have moral content if, and only if, it is carried out solely with regard to a sense of moral duty in coordination with good will. Clearly one can see that Kant believes in the expression of actions through imperatives.

By proposing imperatives, he formulated a command of reason. As hypothetical imperatives address actions done for a desire or a purpose, categorical imperatives, on the other hand address actions that result from moral conduct and good will. In distinghing the difference between these two imperatives, Kant’s main objection is to provide his readers with a clear understanding that actions based upon imperatives can be projected from two different views but the end result always provides good, in some way.

Kant Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives Essay

The Immorality of Stealing Essay

The Immorality of Stealing Essay.


The researcher dedicates her desertion of work to her family. To my brothers that are always there to protect me. To my sisters that gave me all the things I needed in my daily living. To my uncle and my auntie who provided for me and lastly to my mother who is so supportive and willing to risk everything just for me. The researcher would also like to dedicate her work to her friends who’ve been my cheerleaders for life.

-Beatrice Lim


The researcher would like to express her gratitude to several individuals who in one way or another contributed and extended their valuable assistance in the preparation and completion of this study.

First and foremost to Miss Noemi Gigante, the researcher’s adviser and also the one who helped me with my work and for the insights she had shared. The researcher really appreciated your help. To the researcher’s loving family for supporting her thru thick and thin.

Supporting every move I take and every decision I make. Also, she would like to thank her family for sharing her their knowledge on how to do this research work. The researcher was so thankful to have a family like you.

The researcher would also like to thank her peer group for the happiness they brought me thru times of hardship when there was no reason to smile. But thanks to them they always brighten up my day To Sister Maria Dominica H. Seguban O.P. whose encouragement, guidance and support from the initial to the final level enabled me to develop an understanding of the subject. Last but not least, my family and the one above all us, the omnipresent God, for answering my prayers for giving me strength to plod on despite my constitution wanting to give up and throw in the towel, thank you so much Dear Lord.


Title: Stealing. Is it moral or Immoral?
Researcher: Beatrice Andrea G. Lim
Year and Section: IV- Blessed Jane of Aza
School: Dominican School
Teacher: Sister Maria Dominica H. Seguban O.P.
Date Completed: November 2014

Stealing is wrong and there won’t be a time that it will be legal. Some people consider it okay because of their situation. Nowadays, a lot of people think that stealing is a way on how to get out from poverty. That’s why the researcher decided to conduct a research about the topic “stealing”. When a person takes something that belongs to somebody else without permission that is stealing. The stolen object can be as small as a piece of candy or as big as a car. It can be taken from someone a person knows or from a stranger.

It can be taken from a store, a kind of stealing called shoplifting, or from someone’s home. But either way, it’s stealing. People can steal words and ideas, too. For instance, if someone takes your book report and tells the teacher that she — not you — wrote it, that’s another form of stealing. Imagine how upset you would be if that happened to you! The fact is that there are many ways to be guilty of stealing. There are many different kinds of stealing. While most people know that stealing is not right, many people still practice various forms of it! Some may not realize their guilt, but others justify it and even admire others who practice it.


These are the reasons why the researcher decided to do a study regarding to the topic “Stealing”. This study aims to answer the following questions:
1.) What is stealing?
2.) What are the factors that contribute to stealing?
3.) What are the different forms of stealing?
4.) What are the effects of stealing?
5.) How can we prevent stealing?


In the Philippines, stealing is very popular especially on Urban Places like Manila, Makati, Quezon City and many more. Increasingly, however, many are becoming victims of these so called stealing. This research will describe some of the problems involved with the different forms of stealing. For the past few years, they say that our country –Philippines is considered as the Rising Tiger which means we are progressing. But why are there still numerous crimes of stealing? As expected of our progress, stealing in our country should lessen. In this research, I will discuss some reasons why people still commit stealing. Stealing some say is immoral & wrong, but some would say that it was a necessary way of life. Stealing is just plain old wrong, but still that doesn’t stop people from doing it.

They don’t take the time to realize the amount of trouble that they’re getting themselves into. Or maybe they just don’t care, but they really should. Stealing has no excuses, explanations, or anything, because when you get caught that’s it. There are reasons why you shouldn’t do this, good ones, these are the things that people should think about before stealing. First of all what would God say, do you think that he would actually want you doing this. Sure He forgives us for our sins, but do you want that guilt hanging over your shoulders, no, you don’t. The bible says, “Thou shall not steal,” but do you think of that at all. Stealing is taking something that does not belong to you without asking. It is not borrowing, or finding something, or owning something, or having something with permission.


Stealing is taking something from someone else. We are commanded by the seventh commandment to respect what belongs to others, to live up to our business agreements, to pay our just debts and to not charge an exorbitant rate of interest when lending to another. We must also use the things we have wisely and treat our things with respect. In addition, this commandment includes that we do not keep others from having what they deserve or borrow things and not returning them. We ask ourselves why someone would take something that doesn’t belong to them.

We also ask ourselves how people are able to go on day by day knowing that they have cheated someone or some company of money and profits earned by hard work. Well there is no answer to that question; there are only things that the researcher can assume may be a reason for someone to want to do these things. There are more reasons than anyone could ever come up to explain why someone shoplifts. The researcher are not going to try and name them all just enough to give you an idea.



This one is pretty straight forward. This is the excessive desirous of wealth, profit, etc. This may also be identified as having a strong or great desire for food or drink. People who are greedy are keenly desirous; eager. People feel this greed whenever they want more of something they have. They want to possess more than one needs or deserves. A greedy person desires for everything and these sometimes lead to stealing. There will come a point on other people’s life wherein they become so greedy but don’t have any financial means so what they do is steal to get that thing for free and at the same time being benefited from the thing you stole that came for free.


This is wanting the other to be miserable, can also can be revenge driven. The feeling of hatred. The emotion of hate; a feeling of dislike so strong that it demands action.


People just pick things up without realizing they belong to someone else. This is the state or fact of being ignorant wherein you lack knowledge, education, or awareness. People sometimes don’t notice that they are committing stealing. Example of this is the saying “Finders keepers”. Well it feels good seeing a ball pen on the floor especially when you forgot yours at home and you badly need it for your lecture, quiz, seatwork etc. so without any knowledge of whom the owner of that ball pen you just get it and use it. Well it is still wrong to get things that aren’t yours. In that way you are practicing ignorance. The best thing to do is ask for whom it was and just borrow it afterwards.


Something necessary or indispensable: an imperative requirement or need for something. It is an unavoidable need or compulsion to do something. This is a state of being in financial need. This is the reason why some people steal food and clothes when starving or in need. Some people don’t have enough money to sustain their everyday needs that’s the reason why they steal. We can’t blame them, they don’t have any bad intentions they’re just stealing for their needs but even though you turn the world upside down stealing will always be and forever be wrong. Now, that we all know the reason why people steal. It’s now time to know the different ways on how people steal.



Let’s start with Cheating. Cheating includes acts of plagiarism, test copying and the use of unauthorized notes or materials. Such actions have negative effects on students. There are several reasons why students cheat in school and all of them reflect on three factors.


Students are being pressured by their parents to get good grades.
Students were unprepared.
Students were too lazy to review or to study their lesson.
Lastly, the challenge of trying to get away with it.
Unfortunately, by cheating the student is setting a pattern for life. Instead of accepting the challenge of learning they accept the challenge of not getting caught. Another things is when a student gets caught there are consequences to be followed.


When cheating is repeatedly successful it can become a habit. Cheating students learn they can receive credit for minimal work, which has negative effects on their work ethic later in life. Cheating or shortcutting on work in a business-like atmosphere can lead to serious professional problems, while claiming credit for other people’s work can lead to accusations of plagiarism, lawsuits or termination. These events may appear exaggerated, but the ethic at work in these scenarios is the same as that in cheating.


Second is Shoplifting. Shoplifting is the criminal action of stealing goods from a shop while pretending to be a customer. Shoplifters may be classified into two groups. The Professional and Non-Professional shoplifters.


Professional Shoplifters are addicts who steal to buy drugs or hardened criminals who steal for resale and profit as a lifestyle. These individuals frequently commit other types of crimes and lack any conscience or guilt. To deal with these shoplifters, the approach here is either a drug treatment program or jail.


Non-Professional Shoplifters are the people who make up the majority of shoplifters and who steal for a variety of reasons, mostly related to common life situations and their personal ability (or inability) to cope. They include people who are depressed, frustrated, anxious, influenced by peers, thrill seekers or kleptomaniacs. Non-professional shoplifting is rarely about greed or poverty. It’s about individuals struggling with personal conflicts and needs. These individuals know right from wrong, they know there are consequences and they often have the money to pay, but they continue to steal anyway.


The effects of shoplifting are harmful to consumers. Stores will often be forced to increase the price of their merchandise in order to make up for the cost of stolen goods. These increased prices may discourage customers from supporting some businesses which creates even more negative effects of shoplifting.

Because teens are often the perpetrators of shoplifting offenses, teenagers can also suffer the unfavorable effects of shoplifting. Even teens who have no intention of shoplifting may be discriminated because of the suspicion that they may intend to steal goods from a store. The effects of shoplifting may make store owners suspicious of teens and discourage them from coming into stores. The effects of shoplifting also impel store owners to have backpack or bag check in policies, security cameras, security guards or sensory systems, and other special alarms in order to deter shoplifters and catch offenders. Many businesses will prosecute shoplifters to the full extent of the law. The legal effects of shoplifting vary by state and circumstance. The penalties for shoplifting often depend on the value of the merchandise stolen, and any prior history of shoplifting.


Another way on how people steal is Plagiarism. Plagiarism is an illegal form of copying. It means taking another person’s work (without asking) and calling it your own. Plagiarism can be accidental or intentional. Copying an entire essay or story and calling it your own is plagiarism. Copying one sentence word-for-word without “quotations” is also plagiarism. Whether you hand it in to a teacher, or post it in your blog, plagiarism is against the law in most nations.


People don’t know how to put it in their own words.
They thought that the internet is a public domain.
They don’t understand the rules of copyright.
They wanted to impress their teacher.

They wanted to get a better mark.
They don’t understand their assignment.
They have small vocabulary.
They don’t have time to work.
Their parents want them to get better marks.
There are two main reasons why plagiarism is taken so seriously in the academic world: Authors and artists work very hard to create original work. They deserve the credit and teachers want to know that students understand their research.


Destroy the Student’s Reputation. Plagiarism allegations can cause a student to be suspended or expelled. Destroy a Professional Reputation. A professional business person, politician, or public figure may find that the damage from plagiarism follows them for their entire career. Not only will they be fired or asked to step down from their present position, but they will surely find it difficult to obtain another respectable job. The legal repercussions of plagiarism can be quite serious. Copyright laws are absolute. One cannot use another person’s material without citation and reference.

Identity Theft

Copying requires almost no effort. There are also people who steal and we call them Identity Theft. This happens when someone steals your personal information and uses it without your permission. It’s a serious crime that can wreak your finances, credit history, and reputation — and can take time, money, and patience to resolve.


Financial, because of the lure of easy money remains the biggest draw. Concealment because of the need to hide criminal involvement plays a powerful role in many identity theft crimes. Life Stresses because of a perceived need for immediate cash drives many identity thieves, as the Justice Department’s report suggests.


Victims of identity theft can suffer many negative financial effects including, paying higher interest and insurance rates, being denied for loans or lines of credit, and multiple bank fees, to name a few.

Snatch Theft

Another way of stealing is Snatch theft. A criminal act of forcefully stealing from a pedestrian’s person while employing rob-and-run tactics. It is typical for two thieves to work together and ride a moped to make theft and escape easier. A person steers the vehicle while another does the act of theft itself.


A person liable to theft is liable to:
A jail term which may extend to 3 years
A fine
A person convicted to theft with assault or criminal force is liable to: A jail term of not less than 1 year and not more than 7 years.
Shall also be liable to caning.
Next is Piracy. The term “piracy” refers to activities that are of a commercial nature, including activities that cause commercial harm. Anyone who obtains material without the permission of the person(s) who own the rights to the material is pirating intellectual material. Piracy of intellectual property is broken down into four different categories. These categories are physical music piracy, counterfeits, bootlegs, and internet piracy.

Physical music piracy is the making or distribution of copies of sound recordings on physical carriers without the permission of the rights owner. Pirate copies are often compilations, such as the “greatest hits” of a specific artist, or a collection of a specific genre, such as dance tracks.

Counterfeits are another type of physical piracy – These are recordings or duplicates made without required permission, which are packaged to resemble the original as closely as possible.

Bootlegs are the unauthorized recordings of live or broadcast performances. They are duplicated and sold – sometimes at a premium price – without the permission of the artist, composer or record company.

And lastly, Internet piracy is commonly used to refer to a variety of unauthorized use of music or other creative content on the internet. This includes illegal software, torrent movie download, mp3 downloads.


Here are some things that people whom are involved in pirating says.
It is a common practice.
Torrenting movies and downloading free copies of E-books are just a common way of `seeking entertainment nowadays Authors already have a plenty of money.
J.K. Rowling may not notice a loss in income.
Digital content is too expensive.
I will acknowledge that pricing on eBooks is not ideal, but pricing is a different conversation–you can’t just take what you want, when you want, because you disagree with what’s being charged. Everyone else is doing it.

There are a lot of examples of mainstream acceptance of pirating


If caught in a raid, all your pirated things can be taken away from you. A result of deficit. The illegal replication and distribution of audiovisual materials via illegal camcording cinemas had almost killed the film industry and had a negative impact on the country’s economy in terms of lost revenue and jobs. If caught camcording, you will be put in to jail for a year or it may depend on how big your crime is. Computer shops who uses illegal softwares can be raided provides that only the computer disks and other storage devices can be seized by the raiding team unless those items cannot be readily removed, in which case the computer unit can be taken.


Many states define robbery as theft/larceny of property or money through the offender’s use of physical force or fear against a victim. Where a deadly weapon such as a gun is used or the victim suffers injury. Essentially, robbery is theft accomplished by violence or the threat of violence.


Robberies are fairly common crimes, and there are several causes of robbery which differ from one crime to another. Here are some of the most common causes of robbery. The unemployment problems which motivates people to commit robbery in order to feed oneself or look after one’s family through tough times.

Another category of robbers are those who are just lazy, and are habitual thieves, looking to make quick money without any effort. These people are repeat offenders and they usually drift around committing burglaries and other types of theft as well. Drug addicts are usually potential thieves to support their drug habit if they do not hold down a job or have other ways to earn money in order to pay for their habit. Sometimes crimes are committed by those who have some form of mental deficiency or lack morals etc. Sometimes peer pressure among teens also leads to robberies, with robbers historically being looked up to in society. Another common type of offender is one from the lower economic bracket of society who is just looking to better his or her lifestyle.


Robbery is considered a felony. Most states and the federal government classify a crime that’s punishable by more than one year in prison as a felony. Some states consider a felony as any crime that’s punishable by any prison time.

Usual punishment for robbery conviction is a prison sentence. Sentence length depends on someone’s criminal history and case circumstances. A large fine may also be imposed on top of any prison sentence. States usually have increased punishments for aggravated robbery.


The first four commandments really have a lot to say regarding our relationship with God. The remaining commandments tell us more about how we treat one another. Stealing is an incredibly selfish act that does an immense amount of damage to everyone involved. Some people think that stealing is a victimless crime, because it’s just things. Yet, stealing not only means taking something you didn’t earn, but it also can cause people to feel vulnerable and less safe, even if they weren’t physically harmed in the theft. Stealing is not, however, limited to worldly possessions. It can also involve stealing spiritual items. We find ways to rob God of what is His. For instance, if we have successes in our lives, we need to give due credit to God.

He is the one who provides blessings. When we pull people away from God, we are stealing His people. Stealing can come with some hefty penalties. In some countries, if you are found stealing you may lose a body part or be whipped to near death. In some cases, it could mean death. However, in most cases it can mean a criminal record that Stealing can also mean losing friends and family. It is an utter violation of a relationship to steal from someone you know. Even if you aren’t stealing from them, how do they know they can trust you if you steal? Relationships are build on a foundation of trust and honesty. Even the appearance that we can’t be trusted means relationships can shatter.

And what happens when we take from God what is His? When we don’t use the spiritual gifts that God has provided, turn people away from God, and more, we steal from God. We destroy that relationship we have with Him by telling him through our actions that He cannot trust us. Eventually we will face a spiritual judgement for our actions can impact your ability to get a job or even in jail or prison time.


Exorbitant rate:going far beyond what is fair, reasonable, or expected: too high, expensive, etc.

Indispensable:extremely important and necessary.

Anxious:afraid or nervous especially about what may happen.

Kleptomaniacs:these are people who have mental illness in which you have a strong desire to steal things.

Larceny:the act of stealing something.

Deficita problem that causes a decrease in some ability.

Felony:a serious crime.


In conclusion, due to the hardships which accompany poverty, crime is sometimes a direct result of impoverishment. For example, a family may not be able to purchase groceries because of low income occupations which are not enough for the basic necessities a family requires for survival. Therefore, for the sake of feeding his or her family, a parent may steal food from a grocery store in desperation. However, while some crimes committed as a result of poverty have understandable reasons behind them, people also commit crimes with selfish intentions.

If an individual with an addiction to cigarettes or alcohol is low on money, he or she may resort to holding up a convenient store in order to gain the money he or she “needs” in order to acquire the items that make the person happy. Therefore, crime is definitely linked to poverty. STEALING IS WRONG. WHERE EVER YOU MAY GO STEALING WILL ALWAYS BE WRONG. AS GOD ONCE STATED IN THE TEN COMMANDMENTS “THY SHALL NOT STEAL”. STEALING DOESN’T DEPEND WHAT EVER YOUR SITUATION IS. IT IS UP TO US IF WE COMMIT SIN OR NOT. PEOPLE ALWAYS HAVE A CHOICE. IF YOU’RE IN A BAD SITUATION STEALING IS NOT THE ANSWER. IF WE WANT TO ACHIEVE SOMETHING WE SHOULD WORK HARD FOR IT.


There are several ways you can begin living good and to avoid stealing. Know your heart. What is in your heart matters. If you constantly desire things you don’t have and start to think about just taking them, it can lead to actions of stealing.

Learn your gifts. God has provided each of us with spiritual gifts. When we learn about our gifts, we give back to God by using them. By using our gifts, we avoid robbing from God.

Think hard about the consequences. There are consequences on both a worldly and spiritual level. In the world, you can face probation, jail, lack of job security, and more if you are caught stealing. Yet there are consequences that go well beyond this world that we cannot even see yet.

Think of others. When we steal from others we hurt them emotionally. Theft is a huge violation of trust and security, and it does a lot of damage to people that we may no think about. Think about how you would feel if something was stolen from you before you take something you didn’t earn.


The Immorality of Stealing Essay

Ethical Practices Essay

Ethical Practices Essay.

1. What are business ethics?

Business ethics are rules of conduct, principals, and patterns of behavior in business dealings that involve doing the right thing. An ethical business is a business which embraces universal morals and strives for equality of every job and workplace. Although laws and policies are different in every country, some have lower ethical standards than others which for example can promote child labor, unsafe workplace, and many other approaches which can harm a quality of a workers life.

The unethical businesses save money in cutting corners through ethic standards. But unfortunately many companies rely on factories based off unethical work to keep them in business. In some cultures unethical work is recognized to be normal such as child labor in an underdeveloped countries while here it is against the law and seen as inhumane because of how our culture is conditioned here.

2. Give two examples in which Primark is operating in an ethical way. Provide two additional examples of ethical practices or behaviours in a business not associated with retailing or clothing.

Primark operating in ethical ways:

– Primark bases its code of conduct on the International Labor Organization (ILO). The code of conduct provides an ethical standard code which enforces safe, labor free, and security in work.

– Primark provides audits to it suppliers to follow up and ensure the supplier is maintaining ethical practices.

Additional examples:

– To have no tolerance for discrimination in the workplace. Every race, culture, and gender is treated equally in every work environment. For example in an auto business a women is respected on the same level as men are.

3. Why is it so important for businesses to operate in an ethical way? Explain your answer by referring to the fashion industry.

It is so important for businesses to operate in an ethical way because it represents how a company is run in all aspects.

4. In what ways could ethical business practices incur costs to the business? Evaluate the extent to which the benefits to a business of operating in an ethical are likely to outweigh the costs.

Ethical practices will cost a business. When a company is ethical it builds confidence in the brand and its reputation, which shareholders are pleased to see. Also, it reduces the risk in bad reputation from bad publicity. In addition, many companies chose to save money and cut the corner with ethical standards. Although the benefit outweighs the cost because overall if a consumer understands and can view the company’s transparency they will be more confident in purchasing products or services from the certain business. Therefore, this will increase a based clientele due to their information of how your business runs and that their purchase adds to promoting standard work ethics.

For example if you told a customer that a pair of pants cost a few dollars more than the other ones, but explained that the cheaper pair is made by an 11 year old child working in factory for 14 hours a day getting paid pennies to produce the garment or a woman who made them and she is receiving proper incentives and benefits for working for the company to support her family. I believe every costumer would chose to pay those extra couple of dollars. This is why consumers should push for company transparency, to allow you to see what you really pay for! Therefore, for established company ethical standards will cost more to maintain but in the outcome more customers will be attracted and you will build a loyal client base due to many people who are against ethical issues.

Ethical Practices Essay

Why do people behave differently when wearing new clothes Essay

Why do people behave differently when wearing new clothes Essay.

Some claim that people behave differently when they wear different clothes. Do you agree that different clothes influence the way people behave?

Recently the issue whether different clothes influence the way people behave, or not has stirred up a heated debate. Some people approve that one will act differently when put on the cloth he/she has never worn before , while others oppose that a person won’t be influenced by external factors as dressing . From my perspective, the way of a person’s clothing affects his/her behavior.

In other words, I do agree with the statement above for the following reasons.

The researchers believe that clothing holds symbolic meaning. Firstly, they claim that the influence of clothes depends both on wearing the clothing and the meaning it invokes in people’s minds. For example, wearing a lab coat one may behave as a highly intelligent, precise, and scientific thinker, even not being an intern. Ergo, when a person ascribes a symbolic stereotype to an article of clothing while wearing that, then the characteristic, strength, and/or ability symbolized by the clothing itself actually seems to have measurable effects on psychological states and task-performance.

Secondly, there is a fact that majority tend to prioritize the social opinion towards them. People dress differently to fit in different situations, to be accepted by the people in those circumstances. They better and easily interact with whom they feel comfortable with. Thus, some consider they were unlucky or failed as did not wear an appropriate wearing, and could not, therefore, act out appropriately. As an example, it can be stated of a job interview, date or concert dress codes that imply already an excepted set of rules suitable only for that or this place. I can totally agree with this statement as it reflects my opinion.

However, there is the minority of people who do not need to change their clothes to impress or suit the audience they are addressing. This minority includes, probably, those self-confident or does not care-people who are comfortable with the same dress. These people think it is possible to gain a goal without being a psychologically manipulating person. It would be right to say that this amount of people on the Earth is decreasing as more and more professions nowadays keep their special uniforms or dress codes required.

While some people act differently wearing different clothes, others oppose the external factors as dress. From my perspective, the way of a person’s clothing does affect his/her behavior for different reasons.

Why do people behave differently when wearing new clothes Essay