Critically examine the Ten commandments in the following ways:?
This is something I found on the web, it may be where you got the question at. I don't have anything to add to it. I was particularly amused by the answer to question five, although, I am not sure that I completely agree with it. Putting a certain type of morality on a pedestal seems somewhat unmoral. I guess it’s cool as long as the other aspects are not forgotten due to lesser importance. 5. Why is the social aspect the most important? Social Morality is the most important aspect of morality. Critically examine the Ten Commandments in the following ways: (a) Separate them to show how they would fit into any of the four aspects of morality. 1. I am the LORD your God, you shall have no other gods before me. Religious Morality 2. You shall not take the Name of the LORD your God in vain. Religious Morality 3. Keep holy the Sabbath day. Religious Morality 4. Honor your father and your mother. Individual Morality 5. You shall not kill. Individual Morality 6. You shall not commit adultery. Individual Morality 7. You shall not steal. Individual Morality 8. You shall not bear false witness. Social Morality 9. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife. Social Morality 10. You shall not covet your neighbor's goods. Social Morality (b) Which commandments do you consider to be absolutely necessary for any society to be moral? Why? All ten because they are the basis of morality. (c) Which commandments can be enforced legally, and which cannot? Why? Legally enforced: You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shallnot steal, You shall not bear false witness. All these are punished by both God’s and Men’s Law. Not legally enforced: I am the LORD your God, you shall have no other gods before me, You shall not take the Name of the LORD your God in vain, Keep holy the Sabbath day, Honor your father and your mother, You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, You shall not covet your neighbor's goods. These are not punishable by law and because they are individual and religious aspects of Morality.
Critically examine the sociological arguments and evidence for the view that Third World countries?
Ummmm.... Is this just your homework? Is this university or high school? Do you want books or summaries? In any case, if you really want to know, go check out Manuel Castell's trilogy on the Network Society. Off the cuff in my opinion, however, there are several reasons developing nations cannot industrialize with the best. The first is that developed nations don't want them to, and put policies in place accordingly. The most notorious are the practices of the IMF, who loan money to developing nations to develop, but then set up the system such that it's practically impossible to pay off the debt. In Jamaica, for example, the government owes so much money to the IMF that they can't even pay their interest, much less their principle, so all their work exporting bananas doesn't help them a bit. Then there's the thought that third world culture and expertise is just plain different than developed worlds. Do not mistake this as saying third world folks are dumb, they're not, they can integrate over 3-d surfaces with the best of them, but they might not have the expertise necessary to develop industrially like Western Europe or the US. Developing African nations like Nigeria are a good example of this, really smart people, who mimic Western Europe in many ways, but they don't really have the goal of becoming Western Europe, for a lot of reasons (I have a friend from Nigeria, so you'll have to trust both of us - this might be totally off the mark). You might also want to check out Anthony Giddens, and there's a great book suitable for college undergrads called "Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism" that will really answer your question, if you have time to get it.
Why are uneducated people so difficult to deal with?
I don't think education is the issue so much as being able to think. Education has value, but it isn't the only way to get things done. I am assuming by "education" you mean formalised education rather than general learning. A person with a degree is not necescarily better than someone without. I think the most important aspect is ones ability to think. Whilst university may help some to think critically, others may not need this assistance; they may think critically already.
What is meant by PHILOSOPHY and EDUCATION? critically examine the relationship of philiosophy to education ?
There are two sets of theories in this universe: scientific knowledge an philosophy. All theories begin as philosophy, and then some of them are confirmed by observing real-world phenomena, and can be used to predict real-world events. These special theories are then termed scientific theorems, laws, etc. Theories that are not proved by observation, or CANNOT be proved or disproved (such as the existence of a god) are philosophy. Education must identify three sets of information: facts, science, and philosophy, and make sure that students are taught which is which, and how to determine for themselves what the difference is. This is known as critical thinking, and it saves people from being victimized by pyramid scams and snake-oil salesmen.
Critically examine Aristotle's classification of governments?
It had some interpretative value for his contemporaries, but I cannot see much value in attempting to wrap the modern world around it. Representative democracy, the most widely practised form of government in today's world, was not in Aristotle's sights. Military dictatorship, the second commonest now, bears some relationship to his "tyranny", but is not coterminous. The one-party-state, as practised by both Communists (China, NK, Cuba) and others (in Africa, e.g. Libya) has no parallel in Aristotle's world because party politics is a response to mass participation in countries much larger than Aristotle ever conceived of. Other contemporary models also absent from the Aristotelian schema include "Islamic Republic" (guidance by Sharia law) and "constitutional monarchy" (I don't mean places like the NW European countries where the monarch is little more than a symbol or at most a mediator after unclear elections, I mean ones where the monarch has a real role) e.g. Jordan, Morocco, Thailand. Aristocracy, as Aristotle conceived it, literally "the rule of the best" is a wonderful idea and was practiced in ancient India and to a degraded extent by the pre-Christian Celts, in the latter case based structurally on the practice of a prince being selected from among those eligible by birth, the voters being a princely selectorate on the advice of wise spiritual counsellor(s). The last recorded example of this practice was when St. Columba (Colum Kille) successfully advised the royal house of Dalriada to select the younger son of the late king to be the new king and not the elder (c575AD, I don't have the exact date). This "true aristo-cracy" does not exist in any polity today, because nowhere do the people trust their spiritual leaders to be wiser than themselves. If it were to come into being this century, I would think a free Tibet would be the most likely place.
Do you think a majority of America has become intellectually lazy?
Absolutely they have. The age of the pundit can tell us that. We aren't presented with facts for us to make up our own minds about, we're presented with talking points that says if you aren't this then you're a bad person. Both sides do it, and it is a ridiculous truth, but true nonetheless.