'How far do you agree that poverty has a direct link to health' Essay

'How far do you agree that poverty has a direct link to health' - Essay Example Karl Marx, a great philosopher, believed that societies progress through a coherence of class struggle between the rich who controls societal systems and underprivileged members of society who act as their subjects. According to Marx, the scenery of societal systems could be improved through the idea of socialism where all members of the society enjoy a fair and equal share. The essay will examine how the societal systems contribute to poverty whose impacts are felt in access to health care. This essay offers valuable and elaborate guidance for health service providers. The assessment of the aspects poverty in relation to access to health care shows a close link both abstractly and operationally. Link between Health and Poverty Access to good health care is dependent on the financial status of an individual. Poor people have limited access to health care facilities as compared to the rich people. It is worth noting that material deficiency and the numerous social disadvantages associ ated with poverty makes it impossible for poor people to access health care (Pieratt-Seeley, 2002, p. 232). Due to the strong connection between poverty and health, there have been deliberate efforts to reduce poverty as one of the ways to make it possible for all people to access health care. ... These mechanisms can help clarify why the impacts of poverty on health may continue to hit if poverty is considered in relation provisions rather than as an absolute deficiency (Saunders, 1998, p. 13). Assessing the links between poverty and health is significant for policy makers since it draws consideration to the likelihood that poverty can be associated with adverse health outcomes. It also helps in examining the distribution of income and health inequalities. Moreover, social aspects of health and social environment give rise to the values and practices that control health conditions and costs (Saunders, 1998, p. 17). Since the health sector has minimal authority over most powerful influences on health, such as education, food, shelter, environmental risks, and work conditions, it meets the practical difficulties of recognizing how it can successfully work to disrupt the brutal cycle of poverty to access to health care (Pieratt-Seeley, 2002, p. 234). Marx criticized capitalism s ystem arguing that it resulted in class struggle where some enjoyed prime services at the expense of the underprivileged (Pieratt-Seeley, 2002, p. 234). The basic principle of human rights, which include health, upholds all people equally. The issue of the guidelines to be adopted in human rights has been controversial due to differing policies, culture and beliefs in the society (Young, 1999, p. 269). Marx stipulated that the human dignity should be respected including other necessities of life. He argued that capitalism results in discrimination, which may cause high poverty levels in a country due to poor policies and implementation of the government policies, high incidences of impunity, skewed

Disaster Management and Emergency Planning Essay

Disaster Management and Emergency Planning - Essay Example This report would highlight, in clear terms, the actions expected of the emergency response units: with a great emphasis on how the casualties are attended to; how the public is being warned of the danger of the incident; and how media representatives are properly handled in the course of this catastrophe. The magnitude of this disaster calls for rapid establishment of an effective command structure. According to the classification of emergencies in UK, this scenario can be categorized as a â€Å"serious emergency† (Level 2), because it is a terrorist attack on the welfare of people. In such a situation, a Co-ordinated Combined Government Command Structure (CCGCS) may be necessary to help the casualties. This depends on which section first of all responds to the incident. The UK Central Government, after deliberating on the urgency of the issue may firstly activate Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR), chaired by the Prime Minister. Since this incident occurs in the Promenade of Blackpool, which is located in Lancashire, North West of England, the response would be led by the appropriate Lead Government Department in that English Region. Initially, local responders are naturally expected to start the rescue operations: and when this is carried out by the local police led by Police Gold Commander, Strategic Co-ordination Group (SCG) would be activated (which comprises of all the representatives of rescue/ emergency organizations and agencies in that locality). The main guiding principles behind the operations of the Co-ordinated Combined Government Command Structure include preparedness, situation monitoring, continuity, subsidiarity, crisis detection support, containment, communication, integration, response, de-escalation and recovery (Moore & Lakha 2006). The Strategic Co-ordination Group may involve Regional Resilience Team

Memo and sales letter Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Memo and sales letter - Assignment Example I urge that you To employ humanity in dealing with the issue. I also would like to take you back to an issue that occurred 2 months ago where Jane Sanders, another employee, was forced out of her parking space by male employees under threats of physical abuse. The company appeared not to accord the occurrence the seriousness it deserves. Although the male employees have been reprimanded, I feel that was not at all due appeasement to the harassed employee. Furthermore, Mrs. Sanders did assert repeatedly that some of the male employees in the incident in question have made inappropriate passes at her in the past. This brings the focal point of that particular case not only to gender inequality but also sexual harassment. I would like to remind the company of the country’s constitutional provisions for gender sensitivity. The constitution provides that female members of the workforce be treated in a just and fair manner as the male members of the workforce. An oversight of this is therefore liable to legal complaint. It is only after this assertion is taken into account that the situation will be remedied. An assurance from the Human Resource department that the issues above will be handled with the utmost solemnity and reassurance of our safety in the workplace will go a long way to instill change. This would be the first, among many steps to remedy the crisis. Our company is extremely appreciative of the time that we have been able to serve you. We are honored that you have chosen us as your product provider. The last time you wrote to us you had a challenge with the gear that you purchased. I believe that the issue was well taken care of by our repair and maintenance team. Kindly get back to us and inform us whether you were fulfilled with the results. Our customer service team will review your recommendations depending on your response. We take great pride in being able to learn from our most valued and loyal

Psychological Biological Bases of Behavioral Replies to Classmates Essay

Psychological Biological Bases of Behavioral Replies to Classmates Papers- - Essay Example 41). Generally, the paper presents details in precise manners, carefully satisfying what is asked of the author. Reference Smith, F. P. (2001). Neurology and neurosurgery: Basic principles. Suffolk, UK: University of Rochester Press. sara9.doc Both the pyramidal and extrapyramidal systems have delineated functions in movement. In her paper, Holland accomplishes the tasks of describing the structures and known functions of both systems. The parts of the pyramidal systems are presented together with their anatomy and physiology, including the importance of decussation. Paralysis as a result of injury to either upper or lower motor neurons and their corresponding affected sides are mentioned, but specific conditions to exemplify them are not given. The different extrapyramidal tracts are also elaborated with their specific functions. The paper concludes by briefly passing through the discussed points, but an idea probably overlooked is that a dichotomy between the pyramidal and extrapyr amidal systems do not really exist, where both of these descending tract systems are interconnected with the basal ganglia anatomically and functionally (Noback et al., 2005, p. 419). Reference Noback, C. R., Strominger, N. L., Demarest, R. J., & Ruggiero, D. A. (Eds.). (2005). Nervous system: Structure and function (6th ed.). Totowa, NJ: Humana Press maggie4.doc Tygart’s article on the significance of the concentration of potassium ions in the neuron relative to the concentration of sodium ions in the extracellular fluid and the contrast between the inhibitory and excitatory postsynaptic potentials is clearly and comprehensively stated. Beginning with a background on the fundamentals of a neuron and how it works, she enables readers not to â€Å"get lost† in her article. The importance of the sodium-potassium pump and its balance is emphasized to play key roles in life functions, and the effects of imbalances are also presented. Through this carefully-written paper, t he author implies to readers that indeed the said system is important in the human body. To take as an example, the case of using potassium chloride in lethal injection is evidence that induced unregulated amounts of potassium can cause death (Bear, Connors, & Paradiso, 2007, p. 72). Reference Bear, M. F., Connors, B. W., & Paradiso, M. A. (2007). Neuroscience: Exploring the brain (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lipponcott Williams & Wilkins. overlie.doc The human brain is likened to a high-rise executive office complex, and the tour given in the article is detailed in its structures and form. By emphasizing on the different divisions and then elaborating on it systematically, the investor may be more compelled to buy the investment. The article presents how the human brain is capable of performing numerous and complex tasks, and how it controls our life functions. It is also noticed that despite the wonders of the brain, malfunction may occur as a result of damage in a certain part, a nd exemplified in the paper is Huntington’s chorea. Moritz (2005) illustrates the brain’s capability to do numerous tasks in one setting in the case of an artist working his art, minding his music, the audience, and various functions and responses that would affect his performance (pp. 39-40). Indeed, â€Å"

Memo and sales letter Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Memo and sales letter - Assignment Example I urge that you To employ humanity in dealing with the issue. I also would like to take you back to an issue that occurred 2 months ago where Jane Sanders, another employee, was forced out of her parking space by male employees under threats of physical abuse. The company appeared not to accord the occurrence the seriousness it deserves. Although the male employees have been reprimanded, I feel that was not at all due appeasement to the harassed employee. Furthermore, Mrs. Sanders did assert repeatedly that some of the male employees in the incident in question have made inappropriate passes at her in the past. This brings the focal point of that particular case not only to gender inequality but also sexual harassment. I would like to remind the company of the country’s constitutional provisions for gender sensitivity. The constitution provides that female members of the workforce be treated in a just and fair manner as the male members of the workforce. An oversight of this is therefore liable to legal complaint. It is only after this assertion is taken into account that the situation will be remedied. An assurance from the Human Resource department that the issues above will be handled with the utmost solemnity and reassurance of our safety in the workplace will go a long way to instill change. This would be the first, among many steps to remedy the crisis. Our company is extremely appreciative of the time that we have been able to serve you. We are honored that you have chosen us as your product provider. The last time you wrote to us you had a challenge with the gear that you purchased. I believe that the issue was well taken care of by our repair and maintenance team. Kindly get back to us and inform us whether you were fulfilled with the results. Our customer service team will review your recommendations depending on your response. We take great pride in being able to learn from our most valued and loyal

Marley is warning Scrooge Essay Example for Free

Marley is warning Scrooge Essay Charles Dickens wrote A Christmas Carol in October 1843. It was the voice of the poor in London at that period. There was a great divide between the classes, Dickens wrote a Christmas Carol so that his readers could learn about the class divide and the suffering of the poor in London; Dickens shows the contrast very well in A Christmas Carol. Dickens came from a family who experienced debt. Charles younger years where evidently very hard, although he quoted that himself and his family loved Christmas and celebrated it with a smile, even thought he family lived on a low wage. When Dickens started to write A Christmas Carol he often walked the streets of London gathering ideas and looking at the poor people living in their slums. There is no doubt that Dickens life encouraged him to write A Christmas Carol, his father was thrown in prison for being in debt and Charles had to work at a boot blackening factory on the banks of the Thames. In A Christmas Carol we meet Scrooge a tight fisted and very rich man, who lived life on as little as possible so not to waste his well earned money. In a Christmas carol he is a caricature the worst possible person anyone could have met. Dickens lists negatives in the story to display the kind of man he is; Scrooge was a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous old sinner Dickens also uses similes to describe him through out the book, it begins on a simile as dead as a door nail this is a clichi d simile a simile that is constantly used in common vocabulary. Dickens used a clichi because the poor and uneducated would have recognised and enjoyed his language, and the wealthy would realize the unarguable nature of the fact. He also uses then to describe Scrooge he was as solitary as an oyster he refuses to speak with anyone long terms at the start of the book, Dickens writes that even blind mans dogs even hide form him, backing up that scrooge was a caricature. Scrooge plays the part of the upper classes in London, not noticing the divide in society. The upper classes believed that the poor where too lazy to work. Therefore the Victorians created workhouses a place where the poor worked for a bed and food for them self and their families. These places were help slightly by the work of the philanthropists. Scrooge also does not like philanthropists people who want to collect money to help the poor are there no prisons? asked Scrooge. The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then? said Scrooge. Both very busy, sir. This show that Scrooge considers money over human welfare, and that he does not want to learn about the plight of the poor; this reflects the views of many wealthy businessmen of the day. Im very glad to hear it answers Scrooge to help the philanthropists regarding the workhouse. Many cant go there; and many would rather die. This depicts the truly callous side to the class division. If they would rather die, said Scrooge, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. The poor law was the only way of collecting money for the poor, and this tax was so very little that it hardly helped any of the poor or needy. The first ghost Scrooge is haunted by is that of his old business partner Jacob Marley. He warns of three other ghosts that will haunt Scrooge in the coming night. Jacob and Scrooge ran the business of loan agents their aim was to target the poor people of London lending them large amounts of money, money these people could ill afford and when the deadline came to pay him back; and may couldnt they where thrown into prison and their belongings sold. Marley wore chains I wear the chain I forged in life, said Marley I made it link by link, and yard by yard; I girded it on of my own free will, and of my own free will I wore it. Marley wore the chains because of every bad thing he did in his lifetime another link was added to the chain. This shows us that Marley was not a kind person. Is its pattern strange to you? The ghost questions Scrooge. Marley is warning Scrooge that when he dies he shall have a chain of his own due to all his bad deeds. Marley states that making money was his business mankind was my business At one oclock, the ghost appears, the features of the ghost were ever changing an old man a young child. This portrays the two ages that would suffer the most at Christmas time; it also shows the in fluctuation between past Scrooges youth and the present -Scrooge nowadays.

Cosmopolitanism Ethics In A World Of Strangers Philosophy Essay

Cosmopolitanism Ethics In A World Of Strangers Philosophy Essay The book, Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers, is a clear and well-written book which is enjoyable to read. K. A. Appiah is himself a citizen of the world: a professor of philosophy at Princeton, with a Ghanian father and an English mother, he was raised in Ghana and educated in England, and also lived in Africa, Europe and North America. After reading this book, I have to say that Appiah skillfully blends his philosophical ideas with anecdotes about his own life and background. It brings us too many places and we come to know him a little and also his father, mother, and various other kinsfolk and tribe members. He introduces us to many traditions, practices and ideas of his African ancestry to clarify his ideas on human interactions, conversations, and globalisation. It reassesses the case for reviving an ancient stream of thought in a world full of strangers, and finds that Cosmopolitanism is a universal trait of humankind. The overall scheme of the book concerns the p rinciples of the existence of different people bound by a simple nexus of common values and humanity.   1.1 Introduction: Marking Conversation Appiah starts with the fact that our ancestors lived in small tribes where they interacted with a small set of people who they knew. Others were of rival tribes and to be viewed with suspicion. Information about other ways of life didnt really flow into the village. That was in the old days. Nowadays, our human world is getting smaller now, because people have more access to each other than ever before in history. We are getting to know and access each other through migration, international trade, tourism, and the worldwide web of information, which comes from radio, television, telephones, and especially the internet. This mass media and the amazing cyberspace give us plenty of opportunities not only that we can affect the lives of others everywhere but that we can to learn about life anywhere, too'(p xiii). The world is getting smaller and we are living in a new global tribe in the face of the world globalization. How are we to deal with these new circumstances? What ideas and institutions can help us to live together in this global village? Appiah addresses the notion of cosmopolitanism, that is the challenge to take minds and hearts formed over the long millennia of living in local troops and equip them with ideas and institutions that will allow us to live together as the global tribe we have become'(p xiii). The notion actually combines two inter-related strands: One is the idea that we have obligations to others, obligations that stretch beyond those to whom we are related by the ties of kith and kin, or even the more formal ties of shared citizenship'(p xv). The other is that we take seriously the value not just of human life but of particular human lives, which means taking an interest in the practices and beliefs that lend them significance (p xv). Appiah believes that it is an obligation to understand those with whom we share this planet. People are different, and there is much to learn from our differences. Because there are so many human possibilities worth exploring, we neither expect nor desire that every person or every society should converge on a single mode of life. Appiah also stresses that whatever our obligations are to others (or theirs to us) they often have the right to go their own way (p xv), it is respect for difference. According to Appiah, cosmopolitanism is more accommodating of diversity than the current liberal consensus but does not fall into moral relativism. Cosmopolitanism embodies two core values: universal concern for all humanity above family and nation and a respect for legitimate difference. Appiah recognizes that these two values clash, and as such cosmopolitanism is the name not of the solution but of the challenge (p. xv). Appiah takes a step further to summarise the challenges, which are: (1) to avoid falling into moral relativism while respecting difference; (2) to find a middle way between an unrooted abstract universalism and self-interested nationalism; (3) to recognise that cultural difference has been exaggerated by an order of magnitude (p. xix); and (4) to work for conversation, in the sense both of association and exchange of ideas, while realising that humanity will never arrive at an agreed hierarchy of universal values. Cosmopolitanism is a process involving the human co mmunity in habits of co-existence, of conversation in its older meaning, of living together, association (p. xix). The crux of getting along is to recognise that while one might live with integrity in accordance with ones own beliefs, one does not need to share the same rationale with someone else to develop this habit of conservation. In the interpretation of cosmopolitanism, Appiah is sympathetic to the view that local loyalties and allegiances are important because they determine who we are. So he encourages us to embrace both local and universal loyalties and allegiances and denies that they necessarily come into conflict with each other. He holds that we need to take sides neither with the nationalist who abandons all foreigners nor with the hard-core cosmopolitan who regards friends and fellow citizens with icy impartiality. The position worth defending might be called (in both senses) a partial cosmopolitanism. So he stakes out his middle ground of partial cosmopolitanism more by talking about what its not. On the positive side, we get a lot of generalities: its important to talk with people from other cultures, to maintain mutual respect, to learn about other ways of life. We need the curiosity inherent in a partial cosmopolitan outlook so that we can get used to one another and live peacefully together. We do not, he stresses, need to share underlying values or agree on everything. 1.2 The Shattered Mirror Appiah argues that looking at the world clearly shows that there are a variety of ways of life and thought. Human beings are different and that we can learn from each others differences (p4). When we are exposed to the range of human customs and beliefs, a cosmopolitan openness to the world is perfectly consistent with picking and choosing among the options you find in your search (p5). However, such exposure to different human customs and beliefs hardly leaves the traveler unattached from his own. Thus, not all disagreements can be resolved and it urges us to accept differences. (pp.4-7) Appiah holds that a complex truth is like images of the shattered mirroreach shard of which reflects one part of a complex truth from its own particular angle. He supposed the deepest mistake is to think that your little shard of mirror can reflect the whole. Actually, Appiah points out that there is no singular truth. In that case, theres no one shattered mirror; there are lots of mirrors, lots of moral truths, and we can at best agree to differ (p11), therefore, we need to embrace pluralism, and adopt a live-and let-live attitude. Appiah cites works by ethnographers, and draws a number of persuasive parallels to establish universality and shared values (good and bad). He stresses that people in far-flung places are the same in that [they] have gods, food, language, dance music, carvings, medicines, family lives, rituals, jokes and childrens tales.   They smiled, slept, had sex and children, wept, and in the end, died (p.14). Another commonality according to Appiah, is that a lot of what we take to be right or wrong is simply a matter of customs.   His argument about ideas and concepts which are common to most cultures in the world, draws further on acts like good parenting, as well as taboo, which exists in his native Ghana (akywandee), or in Igbo land (nso), but is Polynesian in origin. 1.3 The Escape from Positivism Appiah writes of relativism, positivism, and particular the fact and value distinction in this chapter. Appiah claims that the influence of positivism has led to value relativism by splitting values (or ends) from facts about the world (or means), in other words, what philosophers have called the naturalistic fallacy, or the inability to derive an ought from an is. Appiah avers that relativism and positivism often get in the way of the cosmopolitan project and undermine conversation across boundaries. Because every people finds its own ways (to be) good (p16), this conversation is important. It helps us to know others who are different and to learn from them. Simply put, if when we disagree we are both right, then there is nothing to talk about. if we cannot learn from one another what it is right to think and feel and do, then conversation between us will be pointless (p31). From a positivist slant, Appiah observes that what is custom is linked to values, which in the end, guide our acts, thoughts and our feelings (p 25). It is in this context that he underscores that being kind is an attribute of experience more than any other variable since people learn to be kind by being treated kindly and noticing it.   Appiah also emphasises the way our values are shaped by conversations with others, in which we try to shape each others views and feelings, but relativism of that sort isnt a way to encourage conversation, its just a reason to fall silent (p 31) because of the relativists toleration. 1.4 Facts on the Ground The chapter is an attack on the positivist notion of fact. Appiah argues that facts are not as solid as we may suppose. He tries to show that facts are on no more solid ground than values. He uses the example of trying to persuade a traditional Asante (his kinfolk) that witchcraft cannot harm people, to show that facts largely depend on what you already believe and what ideas you already have. 1.5 Moral Disagreement In this chapter, Appiah goes on to look at the various ways we can come in conflict over values, which are more likely to arise between people from different societies. They are: (1) no shared vocabulary of evaluation. Value terms are essentially contestable and they will always be argued about both across cultures and within them. (2) Even when we share the same moral vocabulary, conflict over values might come in varying interpretations of the same vocabulary and (3) giving the same values different weight. However none of this is insurmountable: we can agree to do things without agreeing on why (p67), but more important is Appiahs point, pace Samuel Huntingdon, that most conflict is not articulated through warring values in the first place. In fact, intense conflict may arise through dispute over the meaning of the same values (p67), e.g. on abortion, American pro-lifers and pro-abortionists both respect the sanctity of life, but differ on why it is precious and on when life begin s. To better understand this point, Appiah gives us other example that, the US and Iraq being at war is not because the people of the two countries have different values. But this is not a point the politicians in Washington would readily accept, certainly, not the ideologues.  Here, Appiah analyses that the Golden Rule-what you do not wish done to yourself, do not do to others- requires that we should take other peoples interests seriously, take them into account. Appiah suggests that encouraging cosmopolitan engagement, presupposes the acceptance of disagreement.   Perhaps, this is why cosmopolitans endorse as a key aim, that we learn about other peoples situations and then use our imagination to walk in their Moccasins (p.68). He also exposes the failings of the Golden Rule as a principle to live by. Its just that we cant claim that the way is easy. 1.6 The Primacy of Practice Appiah argues that even though moral disagreements can happen and are real, crosscultural conversations about values do not have to end in disagreement, because it is often possible to agree about what to do even when we do not agree on the reasons behind it. For example, we can live in peace and harmony without agreeing on the underlying values. (pp.69-81) Appiah discourages us from insisting on reaching agreements on values by means of reasoned arguments and persuasion. These very often fail to move people. Moreover, if we make this insistence, then we will lose what is worthwhile about conversations across boundaries. As Appiah avers, conversation is hardly guaranteed to lead to agreement about what to think and feel. Yet we go wrong if we think the point of conversation is to persuade, and imagine it proceeding as a debate, in which points are scored for the Proposition and the Opposition. Often enough, as Faust said, in the beginning is the deed: practices and not principles are what enable us to live together in peace (pp.84-85).When Appiah proposes conversations between people, what he has in mind by conversation is really an engagement with the experience and the ideas of others (p85). In this sense, conversations do not have to lead to consensus about anything, especially not values; its enough that it helps people get used to one another (p85). 1.7 Imaginary Strangers Appiah argues that the points of entry to crosscultural conversations are things that are shared by those who are in the conversation. They do not need to be universal; all they need to be is what these particular people have in common (p97). And human beings everywhere have so much in common. These include everyday activities, such as buying things, eating, reading the paper, laughing, going to movies, parties and funerals. They also include universal values such as kindness and generosity. He argues that these can be entry points to cross cultural conversations, because once we have found enough (things which) we share, there is the further possibility that we will be able to enjoy discovering things we do not yet share'(p97), and we can open up more to other ways of thinking, feeling and acting. That is one of the payoffs of cosmopolitan curiosity. Appiah also notes that the problem of cross-cultural communication can seem immensely difficult in theory, when we are trying to imagine making sense of a stranger in the abstract. But the great lesson of anthropology is that when the stranger is no longer imaginary, but real and present, sharing a human social life, you may like or dislike him, you may agree or disagree; but, if it is what you both want, you can make sense of each other in the end (pp.98-99). 1.8 Cosmopolitan Contamination In the seventh chapter called Cosmopolitan Contamination, Appiah argues against those who criticize globalization for producing homogeneity and getting rid of cultural differences. He claims that globalization is also a threat to homogeneity because it creates new forms of difference (p101-105). He thinks that instead of the talk of preserving diversity and trapping people in conditions they want to escape from, we have got to let people choose for themselves. He mentions that cosmopolitans think human variety matters because people are entitled to the options they need to shape their lives in partnership with others (p104). Appiah also writes of the trouble with cultural imperialism, he believes that people in each place make their own uses even of the most famous global commodities (p113). Such as the fact that Levis are worn on every continent. In some places they are informal wear; in others they are dressy'(p113).They are not blank tablets on which global capitalism can write wh atever it wants, they are not fools but they can resist. That is why something does not ever change, like the identity of a society can survive when cultures are made of continuities and changes. 1.9 Whose Culture Is It, Anyway? Appiah begins by pointing out that some of the museums of the world, particularly in the West, have large collections of objects and artefacts which were looted from poor and developing countries. He then asks: who owns these cultural artefacts and properties? Our first answer may be that since they make up the cultural heritage of a people, they belong to the people and culture from whom they were taken. Appiah disputes this and argues that the right way is to take not a national but a cosmopolitan perspective: to ask what system of international rules about objects of this sort will respect the many legitimate human interests at stake (pp.126-127). If some cultural artefacts are of potential value to all human beings, they should belong to all of humanity. He thinks that when they make a contribution to world culture, they should be protected by being made available to those who would benefit from experiencing them and put into the trusteeship of humanity (pp.130-134). Appiah argue s that rather than focusing on returning stolen art and putting a lot of money and effort into it, it may serve the interest of those whose artefacts were stolen better to be exposed to a decent collection of art from around the world, like people everywhere else. 1.10 The Counter-Cosmopolitanism Appiahs writing on Believers without Borders as in Doctors without Borders is instructive in explaining universalism as well as its driving motives and consequences: They believe in human dignity across nationsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ share ideals with people in many countries, speaking many languagesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ they would never go to war for (a) country, but they will enlist (in a) campaign against any nation that gets in the way of universal justice.   They are young, global Muslim fundamentalist; they are the recruiting ground of Al Qaeda (pp. 137-138). Appiah goes on to suggest that such fundamentalism exemplifies the universal ethics, which inverts the picture of Cosmopolitanism and in the absence of toleration, turns easily to murder (p141).  For example, Islamic and Christian fundamentalists who seek a community of those who share their faith and reject all national and local allegiances have no tolerance for religious difference. We should be wary of and reject universal community, because they can lead to bloodbaths, which is one lesson we can learn from the sad history of Christian religious warfare in Europe (p141). Then Appiah turns to argue that their universalism is contrary to cosmopolitanism which embraces pluralism and promotes the view that our knowledge is imperfect and provisional and that we might learn something from those we disagree with. As he writes: to say what, in principle, distinguishes the cosmopolitan from the counter-cosmopolitan, we plainly need to go beyond talk of truth and tolerance. One distinctively cosmopolitan commitment is to pluralism. Cosmopolitans think that there are many values worth living by and that you cannot live by all of them. So we hope and expect that different people and different societies will embody different values. (But they have to be values worth living by.) Another aspect of cosmopolitanism is what philosophers call fallibilism the sense that our knowledge is imperfect, provisional, subject to revision in the face of new evidence (p 144). If cosmopolitanism is, in a slogan, universality plus difference, there are the other enemies of cosmopolitanism. They reject universality altogether, and claim that not everyone matters. One such inescapable obligation is this: when you do something that harms someone else, you must be able to justify it. Those we think of are willing to claim that not everyone matters. They tell us why. Such and such people are destroying our nation; they are inferior; It is not actually that they dont matter; its that they have earned our hatred or contempt. They deserve what we are doing to them (pp.150-152). Appiah avers that the real challenge to cosmopolitanism isnt the belief that other people dont matter at all; its the belief that they dont matter very much. Its easy to get agreement that we have some obligations to strangers. We cant do terrible thing to them. (p153) 1.11 Kindness to Strangers Appiah looks at the question of what do we owe strangers? His answer is mainly negative. Appiah begins by referring the viewpoints of Peter Singer and Peter Unger. The Singer principle (from the works of Peter Singer) states: If you can prevent something bad from happening at the cost of something less bad, you ought to do it (p 160). Unger takes it a step further by stating that it would be immoral not to donate all of ones wealth to organizations, such as UNICEF and Oxfam, which benefit less fortunate people. Based on these beliefs, Singer and Unger would likely agree that it would be wrong to spend money on the opera if that money could otherwise be used to save the life of a child (p159-162). Appiah, however, doesnt agree with that decision. He believes that Singer and Unger are missing a key piece of morality and human nature: It is illogical-and just plain wrong- to assume that a person values all lives equally. In reality, a person is likely to value the people around them, su ch as family and friends, and even themselves, over those whom they have never met. Thats not to say that such a person does not care about other, unknown people; it is only to reaffirm the fact that humans prefer familiarity. Cosmopolitanism cannot and does not demand from us to have more sympathy and concern for strangers than those close to us. In addition, Singer and Ungers principles are vague and without exceptions. They dont seem to consider all possible situations and they fail to account for human nature. As Appiah mentions, if everyone spent all of their money to save starving children and none on activities they enjoy, the world would be a flat and dreary place. (p 166) No one would want to live at all if they werent able to do things other than saving other peoples lives. People need entertainment and joy in their lives in order to be happy and successful. These thinkers are mistaken to burden us with incredible obligations which would dramatically reduce the quality of our lives (pp.156-166). It is much more helpful, as Appiah believes, to contribute, in whatever way possible, to a cause that will focus on improving the general living conditions of a location, which, in turn, will eliminate the hunger of the children living there. Providing clean water or a better education system to Third World children will do more for their future than simply feeding them for a day, which, as Appiah points out, may actually be detrimental to the farmers and the economy of the area. And it wouldnt necessarily require all of ones wealth to be donated to the cause in order to make it happen. As Appiah points out, Singer and Unger seem to imply that all values can be measured in a single thin currency of goodness and badness and those decisions should be made based on a comparison of the amounts of this currency for each possible outcome (p 166). That theory is a misguided and an inaccurate one, as it fails to account for outside forces. All decisions must be made by considering the many variables involved; this morality price, as one might call it, is only one such variable. According to Appiah, whatever our obligations are to strangers, they must not be too burdensome because these are not the only obligations that matter. As such, Appiah is correct in his conclusions that neither the Singer principle nor Ungers beliefs should be the sole guiding force in ones decision-making process. While it may be appropriate to assign the morality price a heavy weight when it comes to making a decision, it is impossible to force the human mind to think only of such a value. As Appia h argues, human values and decision making processes should be based on more than just one specific rule-designed by one specific human. The world is too complex for one sentence to handle. Appiah also makes an argument based on the saying that the end justifies the means. Slavery, in and of itself, is wrong; the existence of the pyramids or of the United States, however, is not. Plus, it is unreasonable to assume that giving away all of ones wealth will cause any permanent change. It is more likely that doing so would simply prolong the possibly-dreadful life of a starving child for a set period of time. After that, the living conditions of the child would simply return to their previous state. 2 Evaluations 2.1 The Notion of Cosmopolitanism Appiahs chosen word to describe this task in this book is cosmopolitanism. This term can be traced back to the founding father of the Cynic movement in Ancient Greece,  Diogenes of Sinope  (c. 412 B.C.). Of Diogenes it is said: Asked where he came from, he answered: I am a citizen of the world (kosmopolità ªs)  [1]  . The word of Cosmopolitan derives from Greek  cosmos  (the  Universe) and  polis (city). Appiah picks this term to suggest the possibility of a cosmopolitan community in which individuals from varying locations (physical, economic, etc.) enter relationships of mutual respect despite their differing beliefs (moral, religious, political, etc.). According to the meaning which is intended , he finds cosmopolitan superior to globalization, which is an overused word that can mean everything from a marketing strategy to an economic thesis, or multiculturalism, which he says is another shape shifter, which so often designates the disease it purports to cure. App iah admits that cosmopolitanism can have elitist connotations. But its actually a term rooted more in the idea of cosmos the universe: talk of cosmopolitanism originally signaled a rejection of the conventional view that every civilized person belonged to a community among communities. In order to better understand the notion of Cosmopolitanism in the book, it is necessary to make a brief survey of the differences in meaning among some conceptions, which are: relativism, universalism, nationalism, patriotism and liberalism. Relativism refers to any of several descriptive, meta-ethical, or normative positions  regarding the differences in moral or ethical judgments between different people and cultures. Universalism is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for all similarly situated individuals, regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality, or other distinguishing feature. Nationalism  involves a strong identification of ones social identity with that of a  nation  or state.  Patriotism  is love and devotion to ones country.  Liberalism is the belief in the importance of  liberty  and  equality. And, Cosmopolitanism is in a slogan, universality plus differen ce (p151). 2.2 Relativism and Cosmopolitanism Relativists claim that not everything is local custom, and they argue that education must be morally neutral, and that all values are situational and negotiable. Appiah thinks it is mercifully fading out. Appiah rejects cultural relativism, he pushes it further toward obsolescence and denies a key tenet of relativism, which he describes as the basic suspicion that moral claims just reflect local preferences rather than universal truths. Before relativisms destruction, its proponents relied on the comfortable certainty that tolerance trumped all other values. For relativists, dealing with multiple cultures was easy: Just tolerate everything. But in the absence of that idea, how do we relate to what Appiah calls a world of strangers? Since there are some values that are, and should be, universal, do we deliberately rinse away all expressions of cultural diversity that dont uphold those universals? If values are universal, how can we maintain them while still respecting cultural distinctness? How can we avoid the pitfall those relativists feared, that of imposing our values on others? Appiah makes it work. He avers that Cosmopolitanism helps us find ways to consider such conceptual complexities. As mentioned before, Appiahs cosmopolitanism intertwines two ideas, obligations to others and value of particular human lives. For the cosmopolitan, then, no local loyalty can ever justify forgetting that each human being has r esponsibilities to every other. Those responsibilities are best played out in conversations across differences where the language of values helps us coordinate our lives with one another. 2.3 Globalization Appiah talks about globalization in chapter 7. He is dismissive of those who are critical of globalization and focuses only on one aspect of their criticisms, namely their worry that globalization wipes out local cultures. So he does not address the worry that the global financial institutions and multinational corporations want to expand the world markets for their own interests and that they undercut and weaken local governments, laws, and decision-making. Western industrial nations promote free trade, but this in fact benefits them and makes them richer and more powerful. The agriculture and export subsidies in the West are one of the main causes of agricultural decline in many developing countries. So globalization per petuates and worsens the unequal balance of power between rich industrial and poor developing countries, rather than addressing it in any way. Appiah casts the critics of globalization as people who are afraid of change, but some of the critics are legitimately con cerned with global justice and local sovereignty. 2.4 Cosmopolitan Justice Cosmopolitan justice is discussed in Chapter10, but it is a little weak. One of the main components of Appiahs cosmopolitanism is ethical commitment to strangers. But his view of what this amounts to is very thin. Instead of speculating about what commitments we incur if we want to make the world a substantially better place, Appiah comes up with a list of constraints. He is very critical of the idea of world government as a vehicle for upholding and guaranteeing peoples basic rights. For Appiah the primary mechanism for ensuring basic rights is the nation-state. Appiah then warns us about those who want to burden us with too much and urge us to overlook our obligations to those close to us and to our own self and projects. It is difficult to see how the concerns which underpin cosmopolitan ethics or justice can be addressed solely in the context of national politics. Those who are passionate about cosmopolitan justice are concerned about extreme poverty, tyranny, oppression, and environmental degradation. Seriously addressing these seems to also require working with international organizations which go beyond national borders and forming connections and associations with others elsewhere who have similar goals. Moreover, despite Appiahs legitimate worries about establishing a world government, it is clear that world governing bodies and institutions, such as United Nations and World Bank, already exist, deal with cosmopolitan justice issues, and have much power. At the least, making the world more just would demand that these institutions become more democratic and fair and do a better job of protecting peoples rights. 2.5 Global Conversation Cosmopolitanism works because values like courtesy, hospitality, generosity and reciprocity are widely shared, alongside other basic concepts and social customs, to enable differences to be explored. Appiah thinks that we share enough to work through human differences. Commonality allows for a global conversation. In the end, attaining a state of peaceful, diverse co-existence is more important to cosmopolitanism than resolving all conflict over human values either philosophically or politically. Appiah calls for a global conversation to make our world suitable for coexistence and living well. But he does not refer to appropriate ways. When we look for some enlightenment in the context of Chinese Confucianism, we can find that Confucian toleration has some characteristics of engagement in such conversations; the characteristics are: openness to t