Doing Good vs. Helping

Doing Good vs. Helping Doing good deeds for people does not always lead to beneficial results. Even if something is done with good intentions, there is always the possibility that it can backfire and actually cause damage. There is a large dependency on what the person doing the deed sees as good. Also, deeds done with good intentions do not always result in wholly good outcomes. Actions can have a positive effect on the situation at hand, but, in turn, have a negative effect on some related situation. There is also the possibility that an action may prevent something better that would have otherwise occurred.When a person tries to help another, the deed that is done might only appear beneficial to the person trying to be generous. For example, when a samurai is defeated in battle but is not killed, rescuing them may appear to be the humane thing to do. However, the samurai would see dying in combat much more honorable than fleeing.I took this photo of a document I ownIn this, point of view is the key fact or in deciding whether or not the action taken is truly good. Giving starving people food from an animal they held sacred would achieve a similar result. If a country wished to ship relief materials, which included beef, into a country highly populated by Hindus, a seemingly good deed could turn disastrous. The Hindus would not only have no use for the meat, but also be offended by the offer because the Hindu people regard the cow as a holy animal. The amount of good that is done is again dictated by point of view. In a milder way, if a person having software issues is using a program that is outdated, a technician might see upgrading to a newer program as the simplest solution. If the user is familiar with...

Presidential Election of 1888 essays

Presidential Election of 1888 essays In the year 2000, the presidential campaign between George W. Bush and Al Gore proved to be an inconclusive test of the most popular candidate, with Bush winning the electoral vote and Gore winning the popular vote. The last time a close election produced a split decision in the popular vote and the Electoral College was 1888. The 1888 presidential campaign is known as the most corrupt campaign in U. S. history. The current President, Stephen Grover Cleveland, won more popular votes than his opponent, but somehow Benjamin Harrison wound up with the larger share of electoral votes. Cleveland, the current Democratic President, had been through a close campaign once before. The Democratic Party unanimously nominated President Cleveland at the Democratic convention in New York. At the Republican convention, Benjamin Harrison was nominated and placed on the eighth ballot. The election campaign itself was very controlled with neither side actively campaigning. The major issue in the campaign was concerning tariffs. Benjamin Harrison supported a strong tariff policy and Grover Cleveland's policy was to reduce tariff's. The election itself was very close with President Cleveland winning the popular vote, but losing the electoral votes to Benjamin Harrison. When a reporter asked President Cleveland to talk about his defeat, Cleveland smiled and said, "It was mainly because the other party had the most votes." He never complained that he had more votes than Benjamin Harrison. President Cleveland dealt with his defeat with a lot of dignity. There were no recounts or lawsuits. His grace in defeat was even more amazing considering that the loss meant he had to surrender power he already possessed, not merely accept failure to reach it. One of the reasons that people did not challenge the election was that during this time, the government didnt matter as much in their lives as it does today. In 1888, Washington only collect...

TEXTBOOK CJ2012 FAGIN-Which philosophy of punishment do you believe in Essay

TEXTBOOK CJ2012 FAGIN-Which philosophy of punishment do you believe in and why - Essay Example 285). The theory of incapacitation, on the other hand, is founded on the philosophy that criminal circumstances must be negated so that the crime will not occur again while deterrence theory contends that the punishment awarded to an offender should be â€Å"sufficient to prevent future instances† of such crimes (285). Rehabilitation theory attempts to provide the offender a positive environment and creating awareness whereas restoration theory focuses on a restoring process by bringing the stakeholders together, with the offender taking responsibility for the offence and providing restitution to the victim. I believe restoration is the best approach because while refuting the effectiveness of other theories, it strives to bring positive outcomes for both the victim as well as the perpetrator. Punishments should rather address the crime than the criminal, especially in the context that an offender commits a crime not merely based on the faculty of free will. Several factors, such as biological, psychological and social influences contribute to criminal behavior in people. Therefore, punishments need to be focused on these causative elements rather than on the person who commits a crime. The approaches of vengeance and deterrence are found on the concept of punishing the perpetrator and not on eliminating the tendency to commit crimes. Thus, these may not yield any positive outcomes either for the person who commits the crime or the one who falls prey to it. Similarly, the philosophy of incapacitation also will not preempt a criminal from committing a crime, when the opportunity ripens. The concept of rehabilitation, focuses on providing positive environment for the criminal, and can be understood as a better approach than the other three. However, it does not guarantee a transformation of the offenders because they may embark on criminal behavior when the environment changes. Besides, it does not take into account the victim in any manner. On the other