Categories
Philosophy

Empirical Evidence

The knowledge gained through observation and recording of such actions and patterns or through an experiment is empirical evidence. The expression comes from the word for experience in Greek, ἐμπειρία (empeiría). It is popular in philosophy, after Immanuel Kant, to call knowledge acquired a posteriori knowledge (as opposed to a priori knowledge). Empirical evidence is an important component of a scientific research process that is used in many disciplines.

The scientific method begins with scientists developing questions or theories, then gaining the expertise to either support or disprove a particular hypothesis through observations and experiments. In the scientific world, the group can consider a hypothesis only if ample (empirical) evidence is given that supports the hypothesis. Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College in Vermont, said, “Empirical evidence requires measurements or data obtained by direct observation or experimentation.” To collect analytical measurements and data, there are two research approaches used: qualitative and quantitative.

  • Qualitative: The type of data which describes non-measurable information is qualitative evidence It is also used in the social sciences and explores the factors behind human actions in market analysis and finance. As well as its subjective analysis, the non-measurable existence of qualitative data makes it vulnerable to possible biases.
  • Quantitative: Quantitative evidence requires tools that are used to obtain and interpret numerical data using statistical methods. In almost every discipline in science, quantitative data is used.

Example of Empirical Evidence

Empirical evidence is data that verifies the validity of an argument (which correlates accurately to reality) or falsity (inaccuracy). It is obtained mainly through observation or experimentation. As primary sources, the findings or experiments are known. It can, however, also be obtained from various secondary sources, like papers, studies, journals, etc. Empirical science is also the method of discovering empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is data gained by perception or experimentation, as recorded information, which might be the subject of investigation (for example by researchers). This is the essential wellspring of experimental proof. Auxiliary sources depict, examine, decipher, remark upon, break down, assess, sum up, and measure essential sources.

The compilation of unbiased data is the principal concern of scientific science. Researchers must plan the study carefully while minimizing exposure to possible mistakes. There are some things one should search for when deciding if a proof is empirical, according to the Pennsylvania State University Libraries.:

  • Can the experiment be recreated and tested?
  • Does the experiment have a statement about the methodology, tools, and controls used?
  • Is there a definition of the group or phenomena being studied?

It is normal in the scientific world that, through the replication of the same study, many scientists or researchers collect evidence simultaneously. Furthermore, a peer review is a primary scientific instrument that is used to verify the evidence presented in a study or analysis. Statements and statements are sometimes referred to as a posteriori (following experience) as distinct from a priori (preceding it), based on empirical proof. Empirical, narrative, and intelligent proof ought not to be befuddled. They are independent sorts of proof that can be utilized to attempt to demonstrate or negate and thought or guarantee.

 

Information Sources:

  1. livescience.com
  2. corporatefinanceinstitute.com
  3. wikipedia
Categories
Philosophy

Human Dignity

The concept of human dignity is the belief that all people hold a special value that’s tied solely to their humanity. It has nothing to do with their class, race, gender, religion, abilities, or any other factor other than them being human.

Dignity is the right of a person to be valued and respected for their own sake and to be treated ethically. It is of significance in morality, ethics, law, and politics as an extension of the Enlightenment-era concepts of inherent, inalienable rights. The term may also be used to describe personal conduct, as in “behaving with dignity”. The English word “dignity”, attested from the early 13th century, comes from Latin Dignitas (worthiness) by way of French dignité. It aligned much closer with someone’s “merit.” If someone was “dignified,” it meant they had a high status.

There are a number of competing conceptions of human dignity taking their meaning from the cosmological, anthropological, or political context in which human dignity is used. Human dignity can denote the special elevation of the human species, the special potentiality associated with rational humanity, or the basic entitlements of each individual.  There are, by extension, dramatically different normative uses to which the concept can be put. It is connected, variously, to ideas of sanctity, autonomy, personhood, flourishing, and self-respect, and human dignity produces, at different times, strict prohibitions and empowerment of the individual. It can also, potentially, be used to express the core commitments of liberal political philosophy as well as precisely those duty-based obligations to self and others that communitarian philosophers consider to be systematically neglected by liberal political philosophy.

The original meaning of the word “dignity” established that someone deserved respect because of their status. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that concept was turned on its head. Article 1 states: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Suddenly, dignity wasn’t something that people earned because of their class, race, or another advantage. It is something all humans are born with. Simply by being human, all people deserve respect. Human rights naturally spring from that dignity.

English-speakers often use the word “dignity” in proscriptive and cautionary ways: for example, in politics, it can be used to critique the treatment of oppressed and vulnerable groups and peoples, but it has also been applied to cultures and sub-cultures, to religious beliefs and ideals, and even to animals used for food or research.

“Dignity” also has descriptive meanings pertaining to the worth of human beings. In general, the term has various functions and meanings depending on how the term is used and on the context. In ordinary modern usage, the word denotes “respect” and “status”, and it is often used to suggest that someone is not receiving a proper degree of respect, or even that they are failing to treat themselves with proper self-respect. There is also a long history of special philosophical use of this term.

However, it is rarely defined outright in political, legal, and scientific discussions. International proclamations have thus far left dignity undefined, and scientific commentators, such as those arguing against genetic research and algeny, cite dignity as a reason but are ambiguous about its application

As a consequence of these antagonistic currents of thought, philosophical analysis of human dignity cannot be separated from wider debates in moral, political, and legal philosophy. Nor can a certain level of selective reconstruction be avoided. The genealogy of the concept has been traced, tendentiously, through the whole history of Western, and sometimes non-Western, philosophical thought; such genealogies are not always illuminating at a conceptual level. More specifically, it is a desideratum of a philosophical analysis of human dignity that the concept can be shown to have sufficient clarity to make a useful contribution to modern philosophical debate.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted in 1966, continued this understanding. The preamble reads that “…these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person.” This belief goes hand in hand with the universality of human rights. In the past, only people made dignified by their status were given respect and rights. By redefining dignity as something inherent to everyone, it also establishes universal rights.

Human dignity can be violated in multiple ways. The main categories of violations are: Humiliation, Instrumentalization or objectification, Degradation, and Dehumanization. The concept of human dignity isn’t limited to human rights. In fact, for centuries, religions around the world have recognized a form of human dignity as we now understand it. Most (if not all) religions teach that humans are essentially equal for one reason or another.

In Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, it’s because humans were created in the image of God, becoming children of God. Dignity is something that a divine being gives to people. In Catholic social teaching, the phrase “Human Dignity” is used specifically to support the church’s belief that every human life is sacred. This defines the denomination’s dedication to social issues like ending the death penalty. In the 20th century, dignity became an issue for physicians and medical researchers. It has been invoked in questions of the bioethics of human genetic engineering, human cloning, and end-of-life care (particularly in such situations as the Terri Schiavo case, a controversial situation in which life support was withdrawn from a woman diagnosed in a persistent vegetative state).

 

Information Sources:

  1. humanrightscareers.com
  2. iep.utm.edu
  3. wikipedia
Categories
Philosophy

Types Of Humanism

Humanism is a philosophy, world view, or life stance based on the naturalism-the conviction that the universe or nature is all that exists or is real. Humanism serves, for many humanists, some of the psychological and social functions of a religion, but without belief in deities, transcendental entities, miracles, life after death, and the supernatural. Humanists seek to understand the universe by using science and its methods of critical inquiry-logical reasoning, empirical evidence, and skeptical evaluation of conjectures and conclusions-to obtain reliable knowledge.

The word “humanism” is ultimately derived from the Latin concept humanitas. It entered English in the nineteenth century. However, historians agree that the concept predates the label invented to describe it, encompassing the various meanings ascribed to humanitas, which included both benevolence toward one’s fellow humans and the values imparted by bonae litterae or humane learning (literally “good letters”).

Humanitas meant the development of human virtue, in all its forms, to its fullest extent. The term thus implied not only such qualities as are associated with the modern word humanity understanding, benevolence, compassion, mercy but also such more assertive characteristics as fortitude, judgment, prudence, eloquence, and even love of honor. Consequently, the possessor of humanitas could not be merely a sedentary and isolated philosopher or man of letters but was of necessity a participant inactive life. Just as action without insight was held to be aimless and barbaric, insight without action was rejected as barren and imperfect. Humanitas called for a fine balance of action and contemplation, a balance born not of compromise but of complementarity.

In the second century AD, a Latin grammarian, Aulus Gellius (c. 125–c. 180), complained:

Those who have spoken Latin and have used the language correctly do not give to the word humanitas the meaning which it is commonly thought to have, namely, what the Greeks call φιλανθρωπία (philanthropy), signifying a kind of friendly spirit and good-feeling towards all men without distinction; but they gave to humanitas the force of the Greek παιδεία (paideia); that is, what we call eruditionem institutionemque in bonas artes, or “education and training in the liberal arts”. Those who earnestly desire and seek after these are most highly humanized. For the desire to pursue of that kind of knowledge, and the training is given by it, has been granted to humanity alone of all the animals, and for that reason, it is termed humanitas, or “humanity”.

Gellius says that in his day humanitas is commonly used as a synonym for philanthropy or kindness and benevolence toward one’s fellow human beings. Gellius maintains that this common usage is wrong, and that model writers of Latin, such as Cicero and others, used the word only to mean what we might call “humane” or “polite” learning, or the Greek equivalent Paideia. Yet in seeking to restrict the meaning of humanitas to literary education this way, Gellius was not advocating a retreat from political engagement into some ivory tower, though it might look like that to us. He himself was involved in public affairs. According to legal historian Richard Bauman, Gellius was a judge as well as a grammarian and was an active participant the great contemporary debate on harsh punishments that accompanied the legal reforms of Antoninus Pius (one these reforms, for example, was that a prisoner was not to be treated as guilty before being tried). “By assigning pride of place to Paideia in his comment on the etymology of humanitas, Gellius implies that the trained mind is best equipped to handle the problems troubling society.”

Humanism says people can find purpose in life and maximize their long-term happiness by developing their talents and using those talents for the service of humanity. Humanists believe that this approach to life is more productive and leads to a deeper and longer-lasting satisfaction than a hedonistic pursuit of material or sensual pleasures that soon fade. While service to others is a major focus of Humanism, recreation and relaxation are not ignored, for these too are necessary for long-term health and happiness. The key is moderation in all things. Humanism considers the universe to be the result of an extremely long and complex evolution under the immutable laws of nature. Humanists view this natural world as wondrous and precious, and as offering limitless opportunities for exploration, fascination, creativity, companionship, and joy.

Actually, the word “humanism” has a number of meanings, and because there are so many different meanings it can be quite confusing if we don’t know what kind of humanism someone is talking about.

  • Literary Humanism is a devotion to the humanities or literary culture. Renaissance Humanism is the spirit of learning that developed at the end of the Middle Ages with the revival of classical letters and a renewed confidence in the ability of human beings to determine for themselves truth and falsehood.
  • Cultural Humanism is the rational and empirical tradition that originated largely in ancient Greece and Rome, evolved throughout European history, and now constitutes a basic part of the Western approach to science, political theory, ethics, and law.
  • Philosophical Humanism is any outlook or way of life centered on human needs and interests. Subcategories of this type include the two following.
  • Christian Humanism is defined by Webster’s Third New International Dictionary as “a philosophy advocating the self-fulfillment of man within the framework of Christian principles.” This more human-oriented faith is largely a product of the Renaissance and is a part of what made up Renaissance humanism.
  • Modern Humanism, also called Naturalistic Humanism, Scientific Humanism, Ethical Humanism, and Democratic Humanism is defined by one of its leading proponents, Corollas Lamont, as “a naturalistic philosophy that rejects all supernaturalism and relies primarily upon reason and science, democracy and human compassion.” Modern Humanism has a dual origin, both secular and religious, and these constitute its sub-categories.
  • Religious Humanism emerged out of Ethical Culture, Unitarianism, and Universalism. Today, many Unitarian-Universalist congregations and all Ethical Culture societies describe themselves as humanist in the modern sense. The most critical irony in dealing with Modern Humanism is the inability of its supporters to agree on whether or not this world view is religious. The Secular Humanists believe it is a philosophy, where the Religious Humanists obviously believe it is a religion. This has been going on since the early years of the century where the Secular and Religious traditions combined and made Modern Humanism.  Secular and Religious Humanists both share the same world views as shown by the signing of the Humanist Manifestos I and II. The signers of the Manifestos were both Secular and Religious Humanists. To serve personal needs, Religious Humanism offers a basis for moral values, an inspiring set of ideals, methods for dealing with life’s harsher realities, a rationale for living life joyously, and an overall sense of purpose. To serve social needs, Humanist religious communities offer a sense of belonging, an institutional setting for the moral education of children, special holidays shared with likeminded people, a unique ceremonial life, the performance of ideologically consistent rites of passage (weddings, child-welcoming, coming of age celebrations, funerals, etc.), an opportunity for affirmation of one’s philosophy of life, and a historical context for one’s ideas. Religious Humanists maintain that most human beings have personal a social need that can only be met by humanism. They do not feel that one should have to make a choice between meeting these needs in a traditional faith context versus not meeting them at all. Individuals who cannot feel at home in traditional religions should be able to find a home in non-traditional religion. A popular example of Secular Humanists views of the world was said by author Salman Rushdie on ABC’s “Nightline” on 13th February 1989.

In short, humanism called for the comprehensive reform of culture, the transfiguration of what humanists termed the passive and ignorant society of the “dark” ages into a new order that would reflect and encourage the grandest human potentialities. Humanism had an evangelical dimension: it sought to project humanitas from the individual into the state at large.

The word “humanism” as a philosophy centered on humankind (as opposed to institutionalized religion) was also being used in Germany by the Left Hegelians, Arnold Ruge, and Karl Marx, who were critical of the close involvement of the church in the German government. There has been a persistent confusion between the several uses of the terms: philanthropic humanists look to what they consider their antecedents in critical thinking and human-centered philosophy among the Greek philosophers and the great figures of Renaissance history; and scholarly humanists stress the linguistic and cultural disciplines needed to understand and interpret these philosophers and artists.

The Secular Humanist has been known for defiance, defiance that dates back to ancient Greece. Humanist themes that are shown in Greek mythology are rarely ever shown in the mythologies of other cultures. And they are certainly not shown in modern religion. The best example from Greek mythology is the character of Prometheus. Prometheus stands out because he was idolized by ancient Greeks as the one who defied Zeus. He stole the fire of the gods and brought it down to earth. He was punished and still, he continued his defiance despite the torture. The next time we see a Promethean character in mythology it is Lucifer in John Milton’s Paradise Lost. But now he is the devil. Whoever defies God must be evil. That seems to be a given of traditional religion. But the Greeks didn’t agree. To them, Zeus, for all his power, could still be mistaken. This exemplifies the Secular Humanists tradition of skepticism. Just like every religion has it’s sage, so does Secular Humanism. All other sages created rules or laws save the Secular Humanists sage, Socrates. Socrates gave us a method of questioning the rules of others.

In modern times, humanist movements are typically non-religious movements aligned with secularism, and today humanism may refer to a nontheistic life stance centered on human agency and looking to science rather than revelation from a supernatural source to understand the world.

Humanism advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice. Free of supernaturalism, it recognizes human beings as a part of nature and holds that values-be they religious, ethical, social, or political-have their source in human experience and culture. Humanism thus derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny.

 

Information Sources:

  1. schoolworkhelper.net
  2. americanhumanist.org
  3. britannica.com
  4. wikipedia
Categories
Philosophy

Humanism

Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility. It advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice.

The meaning of the term ‘humanism’ has fluctuated according to the successive intellectual movements which have identified with it. Generally, however, humanism refers to a perspective that affirms some notion of human freedom and progress. It views humans as solely responsible for the promotion and development of individuals and emphasizes a concern for humans in relation to the world.

In modern times, humanist movements are typically non-religious movements aligned with secularism, and today humanism may refer to a nontheistic life stance centered on human agency and looking to science rather than revelation from a supernatural source to understand the world.

Humanism, a system of education and mode of inquiry that originated in northern Italy during the 13th and 14th centuries and later spread through continental Europe and England. The term is alternatively applied to a variety of Western beliefs, methods, and philosophies that place central emphasis on the human realm. Also known as Renaissance humanism, the historical program was so broadly and profoundly influential that it is one of the chief reasons why the Renaissance is viewed as a distinct historical period. Indeed, though the word Renaissance is of more recent coinage, the fundamental idea of that period as one of renewal and reawakening is humanistic in origin. But humanism sought its own philosophical bases in far earlier times and, moreover, continued to exert some of its power long after the end of the Renaissance.

It is a democratic and ethical life stance which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethics based on human and other natural values in a spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.

Humanists believe that this is the only life of which we have certain knowledge and that we owe it to ourselves and others to make it the best life possible for ourselves and all with whom we share this fragile planet. A belief that when people are free to think for themselves, using reason and knowledge as their tools, they are best able to solve this world’s problems. An appreciation of the art, literature, music, and crafts that are our heritage from the past and of the creativity that, if nourished, can continuously enrich our lives. Humanism is, in sum, a philosophy of those in love with life. Humanists take responsibility for their own lives and relish the adventure of being part of new discoveries, seeking new knowledge, exploring new options. Instead of finding solace in prefabricated answers to the great questions of life, humanists enjoy the open-endedness of a quest and the freedom of discovery that this entails.

The word “humanism” is ultimately derived from the Latin concept humanitas. It entered English in the nineteenth century. However, historians agree that the concept predates the label invented to describe it, encompassing the various meanings ascribed to humanitas, which included both benevolence toward one’s fellow humans and the values imparted by bonae litterae or humane learning (literally “good letters”).

In the second century AD, a Latin grammarian, Aulus Gellius (c. 125–c. 180), complained:

Those who have spoken Latin and have used the language correctly do not give to the word humanitas the meaning which it is commonly thought to have, namely, what the Greeks call φιλανθρωπία (philanthropy), signifying a kind of friendly spirit and good-feeling towards all men without distinction; but they gave to humanitas the force of the Greek παιδεία (paideia); that is, what we call eruditionem institutionemque in bonas artes, or “education and training in the liberal arts”. Those who earnestly desire and seek after these are most highly humanized. For the desire to pursue of that kind of knowledge, and the training is given by it, has been granted to humanity alone of all the animals, and for that reason, it is termed humanitas, or “humanity”.

It was first employed (as humanismus) by 19th-century German scholars to designate the Renaissance emphasis on classical studies in education. These studies were pursued and endorsed by educators known, as early as the late 15th century, as umanisti that is, professors or students of Classical literature. The word umanisti derives from the studia humanitatis, a course of Classical studies that, in the early 15th century, consisted of grammar, poetry, rhetoric, history, and moral philosophy. The studia humanitatis were held to be the equivalent of the Greek paideia. Their name was itself based on the Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero’s concept of humanitas, an educational and political ideal that was the intellectual basis of the entire movement. Renaissance humanism in all its forms defined itself in its straining toward this ideal. No discussion of humanism, therefore, can have validity without an understanding of humanitas.

The first Humanist Manifesto was issued by a conference held at the University of Chicago in 1933. Signatories included the philosopher John Dewey, but the majority were ministers (chiefly Unitarian) and theologians. They identified humanism as an ideology that espouses reason, ethics, and social and economic justice, and they called for science to replace dogma and the supernatural as the basis of morality and decision-making.

 

Information Sources:

  1. americanhumanist.org
  2. britannica.com
  3. wikipedia
Categories
Agriculture Philosophy

Permaculture Design Principles

Permaculture was originally a word made up of the two words ‘permanent’ and ‘agriculture’. But now the scope is broader, and permaculture is more often defined as ‘permanent culture’.

Permaculture (the word, coined by Bill Mollison, is a portmanteau of permanent agriculture and permanent culture) is the conscious design and maintenance of agriculturally productive ecosystems which have the diversity, stability, and resilience of natural ecosystems. It is the harmonious integration of landscape and people providing their food, energy, shelter, and other material and non-material needs in a sustainable way. Without permanent agriculture, there is no possibility of a stable social order.

Permaculture design is a system of assembling conceptual, material, and strategic components in a pattern which functions to benefit life in all its forms.

The philosophy behind permaculture is one of working with, rather than against, nature; of protracted and thoughtful observation rather than protracted and thoughtless action; of looking at systems in all their functions, rather than asking only one yield of them; and allowing systems to demonstrate their own evolutions.

Permaculture is not exclusive; its principles and practice can be used by anyone, anywhere:

  • City flats, yards and window boxes
  • Suburban and country houses/garden
  • Allotments and smallholdings
  • Community spaces
  • Farms and estates
  • Countryside and conservation areas
  • Commercial and industrial premises
  • Educational establishments
  • Waste ground

Permaculture encourages us to be resourceful and self-reliant. It is not a dogma or a religion but an ecological design system that helps us find solutions to the many problems facing us both locally and globally.

The Twelve Principles of Permaculture –

Permaculture gives us a range of practical solutions for a better world. These principles are most commonly used in relation to food growing systems, but can also be used to guide us in all parts of our lives.

Twelve Permaculture design principles articulated by David Holmgren in his Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability:

Observe and Interact – Being observant and responding to what we see is really important in moving towards a more ethical and sustainable way of life.

We can learn from nature, and from other people, observing how others have moved to a greener and more ethical approach, and working with the world around us to succeed in our goals.

Catch and Store Energy – Energy is abundant on our planet. Learning how to catch and store that energy in plants, with renewable energy infrastructure, or in other ways, is key to living a sustainable way of life.

Growing our own food at home is a great way to catch and store energy from our sun. The passive solar design also offers opportunities for architects, engineers, and designers to make further use of this abundant energy source.

Obtain a Yield – Taking the three core ethics of permaculture into account, we can work with nature to get all the things we need. Obtaining a yield can be as simple as using organic gardening techniques to provide food for our families but it can also be about obtaining a non-tangible yield: happiness, health or mental well-being.

Living a sustainable lifestyle that sticks to permaculture principles can allow us to obtain all sorts of more intangible yields as well as the obvious tangible ones.

Apply Self-Regulation and Feedback – Understanding where we’ve succeeded and where we’ve gone wrong is vitally important to creating real and lasting change. For example, by analyzing and evaluating all the things that we bring into our homes, we can make better purchasing decisions moving forwards: reducing, reusing, recycling, and regulating our worst consumerist tendencies.

Use and value renewable resources and services – By using the power of the sun, the wind, or the water, we can power our homes, grow our food, and regenerate our environments.

Rather than relying on finite and polluting fossil fuels, we should make full use of renewable sources of energy: for example, switching to a green energy supplier or even generating our own power with solar panels or other renewable infrastructure at home is something many of us can do to move to a more sustainable way of life.

Produce no waste – Moving towards a zero-waste lifestyle means looking at all the trash we chuck out and trying to eliminate it. We can do this by reducing the amount we buy, by buying wisely, by reusing or recycling where possible, by composting, and by working with ethical companies who look at waste throughout the entire life-cycle of their products.

Design from Patterns to Details – Whether designing a new vegetable garden or an entirely new sustainable way of life, we have to look at the big picture before we get bogged down in the little things.

Thinking wholistically, about all areas of our lives, can help us move forwards in a positive direction.

Integrate Don’t Segregate – Plants work well in diverse systems the same is true of people too. Planting polycultures (guilds of plants that work together) is just one example of how this principle works in the real world.

And as well as applying this in the garden, we can also apply it to communities, groups or organizations. Sustainability is something we achieve together through collaboration and co-operation it’s not something we do alone.

Use small and slow solutions – Every journey begins with a single step. Whenever we try to do too much too soon, it’s easy to become overwhelmed and though big changes can bring big benefits, they bring bigger risks too. Making small, incremental changes is the best way to move towards sustainable change.

For example – don’t start a farm, try a small windowsill garden. Don’t overhaul your entire shopping philosophy change things one ethical purchase at a time.

Use and Value Diversity – Diversity reduces vulnerability to a variety of threats and takes advantage of the unique nature of the environment in which it resides. Just as ecosystems work best when filled with a greater variety of different plants and animals, so human society functions best when a variety of different people are represented.

In our garden, home, and our life in general, it’s a good idea to promote and value diversity in all its forms.

Use Edges and Value the Marginal – Sustainability is about making use of all the resources that we have at our disposal. Whether we’re talking about land use, workplaces, homes or society in general, making use of all we have involves valuing fringes and fringe elements.

This might be as simple as using a neglected corner of our outside space to grow more food, or something more abstract, like thinking outside the box.

Creatively Use and Respond to Change – Finally, change is an inevitable part of life. It’s important to remember that permaculture isn’t just about now, but about the future. We design for change, understanding that things will alter over time. The changing seasons, changing attitudes, our changing climate… how we respond to these changes will shape sustainable progress in the years to come.

These principles are a starting point for an understanding of permaculture and can begin to give us an idea of how we can translate thought to action, and transition to a more ethical and truly sustainable way of life.

Each principle can be thought of as a door that opens into whole systems thinking, providing a different perspective that can be understood at varying levels of depth and application.

People and Permaculture –

Permaculture uses observation of nature to create regenerative systems, and the place where this has been most visible has been on the landscape. There has been a growing awareness though that firstly, there is the need to pay more attention to the people care ethic, as it is often the dynamics of people that can interfere with projects, and secondly that the principles of permaculture can be used as effectively to create vibrant, healthy and productive people and communities as they have been in landscapes.

Besides permaculture practitioners who study and learn about permaculture and consciously use permaculture to live in a more sustainable way, there are many people who practice permaculture without realizing it concerned environmentalists, organic gardeners, conservationists, land-use planners, urban activists, recyclers, indigenous peoples and anyone working toward creating a sustainable human civilization. The reason for this is that the philosophy of permaculture draws on a lot of ideas and practices that have been around for a long time.

The terms ecological design, sustainable design, applied ecology or green design are other terms that describe the basic philosophy of using nature as a model to foster sustainability. The difference between these approaches and permaculture is their scope and focus. Permaculture draws on these systems and incorporates them into a broader framework. Permaculture is a comprehensive system that can be applied to all aspects of one’s life although food production remains an important focus. As mentioned earlier, it is a dynamic, living philosophy that is continuing to evolve.

 

Information Sources:

  1. ethical.net
  2. permaculturenews.org
  3. permaculture.co.uk
Categories
Agriculture Philosophy

About Permaculture

“Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labor; of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system.” – (Bill Mollison)

By thinking carefully about the way we use our resources – food, energy, shelter, and other material and non-material needs, it is possible to get much more out of life by using less. We can be more productive for less effort, reaping benefits for our environment and ourselves, for now, and for generations to come.

This is the essence of permaculture the design of an ecologically sound way of living in our households, gardens, communities, and businesses. It is created by cooperating with nature and caring for the earth and its people.

Permaculture is not exclusive its principles and practice can be used by anyone, anywhere:

  • City flats, yards and window boxes
  • Suburban and country houses/garden
  • Allotments and smallholdings
  • Community spaces
  • Farms and estates
  • Countryside and conservation areas
  • Commercial and industrial premises
  • Educational establishments
  • Waste ground

Permaculture encourages us to be resourceful and self-reliant. It is not a dogma or a religion but an ecological design system that helps us find solutions to the many problems facing us both locally and globally.

It has many branches including ecological design, ecological engineering, regenerative design, environmental design, and construction. Permaculture also includes integrated water resources management that develops sustainable architecture, and regenerative and self-maintained habitat and agricultural systems modeled from natural ecosystems.

The term permaculture is a contraction of the words “permanent,” “agriculture,” and “culture.” Although the original focus of permaculture was sustainable food production, the philosophy of permaculture has expanded over time to encompass economic and social systems.  It is a dynamic movement that is still evolving.  For example, some practitioners are integrating spirituality and personal growth work into the framework of permaculture.

The term permaculture was coined by David Holmgren, then a graduate student at the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education’s Department of Environmental Design, and Bill Mollison, senior lecturer in Environmental Psychology at the University of Tasmania, in 1978. It originally meant “permanent agriculture”, but was expanded to stand also for “permanent culture”, since social aspects were integral to a truly sustainable system as inspired by Masanobu Fukuoka’s natural farming philosophy.

Besides permaculture practitioners who study and learn about permaculture and consciously use permaculture to live in a more sustainable way, there are many people who practice permaculture without realizing it concerned environmentalists, organic gardeners, conservationists, land-use planners, urban activists, recyclers, indigenous peoples and anyone working toward creating a sustainable human civilization. The reason for this is that the philosophy of permaculture draws on a lot of ideas and practices that have been around for a long time.

The terms ecological design, sustainable design, applied ecology or green design are other terms that describe the basic philosophy of using nature as a model to foster sustainability. The difference between these approaches and permaculture is their scope and focus. Permaculture draws on these systems and incorporates them into a broader framework. Permaculture is a comprehensive system that can be applied to all aspects of one’s life although food production remains an important focus. As mentioned earlier, it is a dynamic, living philosophy which is continuing to evolve.

Permaculture design emphasizes patterns of landscape, function, and species assemblies. It determines where these elements should be placed so they can provide maximum benefit to the local environment. Permaculture maximizes useful connections between components and synergy of the final design. The focus of permaculture, therefore, is not on each separate element, but rather on the relationships created among elements by the way they are placed together; the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. Permaculture design, therefore, seeks to minimize waste, human labor, and energy input by building systems and maximizes benefits between design elements to achieve a high level of synergy. Permaculture designs evolve over time by taking into account these relationships and elements and can evolve into extremely complex systems that produce a high density of food and materials with minimal input.

The design principles, which are the conceptual foundation of permaculture, were derived from the science of systems ecology and the study of pre-industrial examples of sustainable land use. Permaculture draws from several disciplines, including organic farming, agroforestry, integrated farming, sustainable development, and applied ecology. Permaculture has been applied most commonly to the design of housing and landscaping, integrating techniques such as agroforestry, natural building, and rainwater harvesting within the context of permaculture design principles and theory.

Permaculture’s central theme is the creation of human systems that provide for human needs, but using many natural elements and drawing inspiration from natural ecosystems. Its goals and priorities coincide with what many people see as the core requirements for sustainability.

Permaculture tackles how to grow food, build houses and create communities, and minimize environmental impact at the same time. Its principles are being constantly developed and refined by people throughout the world in very different climates and cultural circumstances.

The real difference between a cultivated (designed) ecosystem and a natural system is that the great majority of species (and biomass) in the cultivated ecology is intended for the use of humans or their livestock. We are only a small part of the total primeval or natural species assembly, and only a small part of its yields are directly available to us. But in our own gardens, almost every plant is selected to provide or support some direct yield for people. Household design relates principally to the needs of people; it is thus human-centered (anthropocentric).

This is a valid aim for settlement design, but we also need a nature-centered ethic for wilderness conservation. We cannot, however, do much for nature if we do not govern our greed, and if we do not supply our needs from our existing settlements. If we can achieve this aim, we can withdraw from much of the agricultural landscape, and allow natural systems to flourish.

Vegan permaculture (also known as veganic permaculture, veganiculture, or vegaculture) avoids the use of domesticated animals. It is essentially the same as permaculture except for the addition of a fourth core value; “Animal Care.” Zalan Glen, a raw vegan, proposes that vegaculture should emerge from permaculture in the same way veganism split from vegetarianism in the 1940s. Vegan permaculture recognizes the importance of free-living animals, not domesticated animals, to create a balanced ecosystem. Soil fertility is maintained by the use of green manures, cover crops, green wastes, composted vegetable matter in place of manure.

We have abused the land and laid waste to systems we never need have disturbed had we attended to our home gardens and settlements. If we need to state a set of ethics on natural systems, then let it be this:

  • Implacable and uncompromising opposition to further disturbance of any remaining natural forests, where most species are still in balance;
  • Vigorous rehabilitation of degraded and damaged natural systems to stable states;
  • Establishment of plant systems for our own use on the least amount of land we can use for our existence; and
  • Establishment of plant and animal refuges for rare or threatened species.

Because permaculture is a comprehensive, dynamic system it can be practiced in different ways and at different levels. To help us begin to use permaculture in our life, the rest of this course will present (1) the ethics – the philosophical core of permaculture, (2) some principles – guidelines for applying permaculture, (3) strategies – goals to help us focus as we apply permaculture, and (4) techniques – concrete ways that we can apply permaculture.

We believe we should use all the species we need or can find to use in our own settlement designs, providing they are not locally rampant and invasive.

 

Information Sources:

  1. permaculturenews.org
  2. heathcote.org
  3. permaculture.co.uk
  4. wikipedia
Categories
Agriculture Philosophy

History Of Permaculture

Permaculture is a process, continually rethought and built upon. It does not belong to anyone person or rely on one charismatic leader. However, certain insightful individuals are important to the history of permaculture and to the future of the movement. This list is far from complete and will continue to grow as new names innovate with permaculture principles.

The term permaculture was coined by David Holmgren, then a graduate student at the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education’s Department of Environmental Design, and Bill Mollison, senior lecturer in Environmental Psychology at the University of Tasmania, in 1978. It originally meant “permanent agriculture”, but was expanded to stand also for “permanent culture”, since social aspects were integral to a truly sustainable system as inspired by Masanobu Fukuoka’s natural farming philosophy.

It has many branches including ecological design, ecological engineering, regenerative design, environmental design, and construction. Permaculture also includes integrated water resources management that develops sustainable architecture, and regenerative and self-maintained habitat and agricultural systems modeled from natural ecosystems.

Mollison has said: “Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted and thoughtful observation rather than protracted and thoughtless labor; and of looking at plants and animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system.”

In the 1970’s Mollison and his student David Holmgren wrote and published some books explaining his ideas. In the 1980s he published his design manual and started teaching permaculture design courses to spread his ideas around the world. By the 1990s permaculture had started spreading throughout the US, although it’s more well-known in other countries around the world. To this day, it’s continuing to grow as a global grassroots movement and people primarily learn about it through permaculture design courses and workshops that generally happen outside of academia.

David Holmgren is best known for his influential work, Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability (2002). Unlike many permaculture books that focus primarily on agricultural design, Holmgren’s book is an in-depth look at how sustainable systems function and how we can apply these lessons to our current culture. His theories are firmly rooted in the understanding that we are reaching peak energy. Holmgren lays out a system for us to live and thrive within nature’s limits.

Several individuals revolutionized the branch of permaculture. In 1929, Joseph Russell Smith added an antecedent term as the subtitle for Tree Crops: A Permanent Agriculture, a book which sums up his long experience experimenting with fruits and nuts as crops for human food and animal feed. Smith saw the world as an inter-related whole and suggested mixed systems of trees and crops underneath. This book inspired many individuals intent on making agriculture more sustainable, such as Toyohiko Kagawa who pioneered forest farming in Japan in the 1930s.

In Australian P. A. Yeomans’ 1964 book Water for Every Farm, he supports the definition of permanent agriculture, as one that can be sustained indefinitely. Yeomans introduced both an observation-based approach to land use in Australia in the 1940s and the Keyline Design as a way of managing the supply and distribution of water in the 1950s.

Holmgren noted Stewart Brand’s works as an early influence to permaculture. Other early influences include Ruth Stout and Esther Deans, who pioneered no-dig gardening, and Masanobu Fukuoka who, in the late 1930s in Japan, began advocating no-till orchards and gardens and natural farming.

The definition of permanent agriculture as that which can be sustained indefinitely was supported by Australian P. A. Yeomans in his 1964 book Water for Every Farm. Yeomans introduced an observation-based approach to land use in Australia in the 1940s and the keyline design as a way of managing the supply and distribution of water in the 1950s.

Among some of the more recognizable names who received their original training within Mollison’s Permaculture Design Course (PDC) system would include Geoff Lawton and Toby Hemenway, each of whom have more than 25 years experience teaching and promoting permaculture as a sustainable way of growing food and providing for human needs. Simon J. Fjell was a Founding Director of the Permaculture Institute in late 1979 and a teacher of the first Permaculture Design Course, having first met Mollison in 1976. He has since worked internationally and is currently listing a major social enterprise on NASDAQ.

By the early 1980s, the concept had broadened from agricultural systems design towards sustainable human habitats. After Permaculture One, Mollison further refined and developed the ideas by designing hundreds of permaculture sites and writing more detailed books, notably Permaculture: A Designers Manual. Mollison lectured in over 80 countries and taught his two-week Permaculture Design Course (PDC) to many hundreds of students. Mollison “encouraged graduates to become teachers themselves and set up their own institutes and demonstration sites. This multiplier effect was critical to permaculture’s rapid expansion.”

Because permaculture is a comprehensive, dynamic system it can be practiced in different ways and at different levels. To help us begin to use permaculture in our life, the rest of this course will present (1) the ethics – the philosophical core of permaculture, (2) some principles – guidelines for applying permaculture, (3) strategies – goals to help us focus as we apply permaculture, and (4) techniques – concrete ways that we can apply permaculture.

 

Information Sources:

  1. permadomia.com
  2. thecarrotrevolution.com
  3. wikipedia
Categories
Philosophy

Bioethical Issues

Typically, Bioethical Issues are addressed from many different disciplines. People contribute to the bioethics discussion drawing on expertise and methods from the sciences, social sciences, and the humanities. Professionals working in the field of bioethics include philosophers, scientists, health administrators, lawyers, theologians, anthropologists, disability advocates, and social workers. People may teach, do research, and treat patients in the clinical setting or work to change laws or public policy. The issues of bioethics are at the intersection between medicine, law, public policy, religion, and science. Each field contributes important insights, resources, and methodologies, and efforts to think about or make changes to practices and policies that raise ethical concerns are often strongest when they draw on resources across disciplines. The Showcase submission formats include some commonly used formats to present bioethics-related proposals or findings.

The term Bioethics (Greek bios, life; ethos, behavior) was coined in 1926 by Fritz Jahr in an article about a “bioethical imperative” regarding the use of animals and plants in scientific research. In 1970, the American biochemist Van Rensselaer Potter used the term to describe the relationship between the biosphere and a growing human population. Potter’s work laid the foundation for global ethics, a discipline centered around the link between biology, ecology, medicine, and human values. Sargent Shriver, the spouse of Eunice Kennedy Shriver, claimed that he had invented the word “bioethics” in the living room of his home in Bethesda, Maryland in 1970. He stated that he thought of the word after returning from a discussion earlier that evening at Georgetown University, where he discussed with others a possible Kennedy family sponsorship of an institute focused around the “application of moral philosophy to concrete medical dilemmas.”

Bioethics is commonly understood to refer to the ethical implications and applications of the health-related life sciences. These implications can run the entire length of the bench-to-bedside “translational pipeline.” Dilemmas can arise for the basic scientist who wants to develop synthetic embryos to better study embryonic and fetal development but is not sure just how real the embryos can be without running into moral limits on their later destruction.

Once treatments or drugs are in clinical trials involving human subjects, a new set of challenges arise, from ensuring informed consent, to protecting vulnerable research participants to guarantee their participation is voluntary and informed. Eventually, some of these new approaches exit the pipeline and are put into practice, where providers, patients, and families struggle with how to best align the risks and benefits of treatment with the patient’s best interest and goals. The added costs of new therapies inevitably strain available resources, forcing hard choices about how to fairly serve the needs of all, especially those already underserved by the health care system.

Examples of topic areas that have been the focus of bioethics for a long time are organ donation and transplantation, genetic research, death and dying, and environmental concerns.  New developments in science and technology have focused attention on topics such as assisted reproductive technologies, neuroethics (ethical issues around brain imaging and testing), and nanotechnologies (using small particles to deliver medicine or other medical treatments).

Social and legal issues –

Many of these philosophical questions, however, they are answered, have significant social and legal dimensions. For example, advances in medical technology have the potential to create disproportionate disadvantages for some social groups, either by being applied in ways that harm members of the groups directly or by encouraging the adoption of social policies that discriminate unfairly against them. Accordingly, questions of discrimination in bioethics have arisen in a number of areas. In one such area, reproductive medicine, recently developed techniques have enabled parents to choose the sex of their child. Should this new power be considered liberating or oppressive? Would it be viewed positively if the vast majority of the parents who use it choose to have a boy rather than a girl? Similar concerns have been raised about the increasing use of abortion as a method of birth control in overpopulated countries such as India and China, where there is considerable social and legal pressure to limit family size and where male children are valued more highly than female children.

In the field of genetics, the use of relatively simple tests for determining a patient’s susceptibility to certain genetically transmitted diseases has led to concerns in the United States and other countries that the results of such tests, if not properly safeguarded, could be used in unfair ways by health-insurance companies, employers, and government agencies. In addition, the advent of so-called “genetic counseling” in which prospective parents receive advice about the chances that their offspring will inherit a certain genetic disease or disorder has allowed couples to make more informed decisions about reproduction but also has contributed, in the view of some bioethicists, to a social atmosphere considerably less tolerant of disability than it ought to be. The same criticism has been leveled against the practice of diagnosing, and in some cases treating, congenital defects in unborn children.

Research on the genetic bases of behavior, though still in its infancy, is controversial, and it has even been criticized as scientifically invalid. Whatever its scientific merits, however, it has the potential, according to some bioethicists, to encourage the adoption of crude models of genetic determinism in the development of social policies, especially in the areas of education and crime prevention. Such policies, it is claimed, could result in unfair discrimination against large numbers of people judged to be genetically disposed to “undesirable” forms of behavior, such as aggression or violence.

This last point suggests a related set of issues concerning the moral status of scientific inquiry itself. The notion that there is a clear line between, on the one hand, the discovery and presentation of scientific facts and, on the other, the discussion of moral issues the idea that moral issues arise only after scientific research is concluded is now widely regarded as mistaken. Science is not value-neutral. Indeed, there have been ethical debates about whether certain kinds of research should be undertaken at all, irrespective of their possible applications. It has been argued, for example, that research on the possible genetic basis of homosexuality is immoral, because even the assumption that such a basis exists implicitly characterizes homosexuality as a kind of genetic abnormality. In any case, it is plausible to suggest that scientific research should always be informed by philosophy in particular by ethics but also, arguably, by the philosophy of mind. Consideration of the moral issues related to one particular branch of medicine, namely psychiatry, makes it clear that such issues arise not only in areas of treatment but also in matters of diagnosis and classification, where the application of labels indicating illness or abnormality may create serious disadvantages for the individuals so designated.

Many of the moral issues that have arisen in the health care context and in the wake of advances in medical technology have been addressed, in whole or in part, in legislation. It is important to realize, however, that the content of such legislation is seldom if ever, dictated by the positions one takes on particular moral issues. For example, the view that voluntary euthanasia is morally permissible in certain circumstances does not by itself settle the question of whether euthanasia should be legalized. The possibility of legalization carries with it another set of issues, such as the potential for abuse. Some bioethicists have expressed the concern that the legalization of euthanasia would create a perception among some elderly patients that society expects them to request euthanasia, even if they do not desire it, in order not to be a burden to others. Similarly, even those who believe that abortion is morally permissible in certain circumstances may consistently object to proposals to relax or eliminate laws against it.

A final class of social and legal questions concerns the allocation of health care resources. The issue of whether health care should be primarily an individual or public responsibility remains deeply controversial. Although systems of health care allocation differ widely, they all face the problem that resources are scarce and consequently expensive. The debate has focused not only on the relative cost-effectiveness of different systems but also on the different conceptions of justice that underlie them. The global allocation of health care resources, including generic forms of drugs for life-threatening illnesses such as HIV/AIDS, is an important topic in the field of developing world bioethics.

Bioethical Issues in Pandemics –

Influenza pandemics which occur with remarkable, if unpredictable, regularity raises important bioethical issues that need to be examined as part of countries’ pandemic planning, said Benjamin Berkman, a faculty member in the Department of Bioethics at the U.S. National Institutes of Health, during a brown bag talk on January 27 at the headquarters of the Pan American Health Organization/World Health Organization (PAHO/WHO).

Berkman, who has served as a consultant for WHO on the ethical and legal aspects of public health interventions for pandemic influenza, said pandemics raise special concerns, including questions about the allocation of limited supplies of vaccines and antivirals among different population groups, the obligation (or not) of health workers and other essential personnel to report for duty during pandemics, and whether or not wealthier nations have the responsibility to make vaccines and antivirals available to developing nations at a lower cost or despite limited supplies.

Berkman noted that absent a clear domestic or international consensus on many key bioethical issues related to pandemics, more discussion was needed before any new pandemic breaks out.

“The magnitude of the risk is such that it demands a discussion about global equity,” he said.

Many religious communities have their own histories of inquiry into bioethical issues and have developed rules and guidelines on how to deal with these issues from within the viewpoint of their respective faiths. The Jewish, Christian, and Muslim faiths have each developed a considerable body of literature on these matters. In the case of many non-Western cultures, a strict separation of religion from philosophy does not exist. In many Asian cultures, for example, there is a lively discussion on bioethical issues. Buddhist bioethics, in general, is characterized by a naturalistic outlook that leads to a rationalistic, pragmatic approach.

In Africa, their bioethical approach is influenced by and similar to Western bioethics. Some are calling for a change, and feel that indigenous African philosophy should be applied. The belief is that Africans will be more likely to accept a bioethical approach grounded in their own culture and that it will empower African people and give them dignity. In Chinese culture and bioethics, there is not as much of an emphasis on autonomy as opposed to the heavy emphasis placed on autonomy in Western bioethics. Community, social values, and family are all heavily valued in Chinese culture, and contribute to the lack of emphasis on autonomy in Chinese bioethics. The Chinese believe that the family, community, and individual are all interdependent of each other, so it is common for the family unit to collectively make decisions regarding healthcare and medical decisions for a loved one, instead of an individual making an independent decision for his or her self.

 

Information Sources:

  1. bioethics.msu.edu
  2. paho.org
  3. britannica.com
  4. bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu
  5. wikipedia
Categories
Philosophy

Types And Benefits Of Faith

The English word “faith” can be explained in many ways. It is thought to date from 1200–1250, from the Middle English Feith, via Anglo-French fed, Old French feid, feit from Latin fidem, accusative of fidēs (trust), akin to fīdere (to trust). The meaning of faith is different according to the uses of the word. In a simple concept, we know faith as confidence or belief, which can be on anyone or anything.

In the context of religion, one can define faith as “belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion”. Religious people often think of faith as confidence based on a perceived degree of warrant, while others who are more skeptical of religion tend to think of faith as simply belief without evidence.

Types of Faith –

Nowadays, there are various types of faith and belief in the world. Many religions and non-religious people also have faith and trust in someone. The trust and faith is an idea of believing to anyone without seeing that.

Blind Faith: The term of blind faith used when someone believes with no reason and evidence and any logic. There are some reasons on the side but not having any base of that. This is a traditional faith that people follow.

For example, if someone says that this doctor is right, then others will believe in their statement without checking and with no reason. Mostly in blind faith, it happens, and people follow blindly.

We observe this blind faith in the religious field. If any spiritual leader explains anything to their follower with no philosophy and reason, their followers will trust and trusts him blindly. If anybody raises the cross-question against him, they become an enemy of that person. So it is called that blind faith is perilous.

We usually see that a person killed someone or his kids as a sacrifice before the idol goddess on the advice of any priest. This is because he has faith in that person blindly. Here, they not used their mind and logic.

Religious Faith: We relate this faith and belief to any religion. In this faith, people of a particular religion have faith in their system of religion and its natural or supernatural power. This is a spiritual belief of this faith. There is a unique type of religion in the world. Followers of this religion follow their system and believe in God and its power.

In religious belief, people follow the rules because they have faith. For example, Christians wear the cross symbol mostly because of having faith in it. In Islam, also people use a cap or cover his head during the prayer and having a beard. Women used to wear a unique dress to cover the complete body as they believe in the ruling of a religious system.

The population of having faith in religion in the world is increasing fast. In this futuristic time, we will find a vast number of people who follow Christianity and Islam in the world. In religious faith and belief, people of that religion accept the spiritual and supernatural power. They believe in the holy books of those religions.

Benefits of faith

Faith brings salvation. Whosever believes in Him has eternal life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. The just shall live by faith.

Faith, whether it is religious faith or blind faith, it has some common positive characteristics which provide the right thing and guidance to the followers.

Increase Unity: If some people or groups of people having faith in anything, then their unity increases. They collect at a place on a particular time for any meeting, spiritual conference, and teaching classes.

They discuss together and solve the issues related to their belief and their group or community. So we can see it that unity increases the unity between the people.

Increase Hope: Hope increases the hope is the key to faith. If faith has its existence, then the hope exists there. Without hope, faith is not valid and meaningless. Followers or believers accept the rules and religious cultures because they see a glimpse of hope it.

Hope is there in many faiths. In blind also people keep their promise. In religion, also people have great faith for their wishes and betterment of the world and humanity.

Provides Inner strength: Faith and trust provide a lot of moral support and inner satisfaction and power. The faith and trust provide the opportunity to be selfless and to be helpful for others. The faith offers to the people to see and search for life and the purpose of life.

Faith brings all the benefits of salvation into our lives. This includes healing, prosperity, peace, love, joy, deliverance from demons and the curse, sanctification of the mind and emotions (the salvation of the soul) and any other benefit which the word of God promises to us.

Categories
Philosophy

Ethical Issues In Education

Ethical issues in Education Organizational Structure Ethics are a set of principles that people use to decide what is right and wrong. Other words such as principles and morals are used concurrently when discussing ethics.

As Sydney J. Harris American journalist Quotes “The whole purpose of education is to turn mirrors into windows”. Education brings about the change in the physical, mental, and social development of an individual develops insight and beliefs about the purpose of education, conveys strength to one’s sentiments, and widens the perceptions and leading to a healthier attitude of viewing at realism.

In the words of Bill Beattie, one of the famous authors and writers “The aim of education should be to teach us rather how to think, than what to think rather to improve our minds, so as to enable us to think for ourselves, than to load the memory with thoughts of other men.”

Indeed, education is an ongoing process. We are always receiving and passing it on, adding something in the process, sometimes even taking certain things, impertinent from time to time, away from it while passing it on further. However, the industry of education is a serious one, requiring well-defined ethics and values, well-bound in visible legal outlines to regulate its exchange and distribution. Let us take a brief look at some of the most common issues of ethics in education.

Every child should be trained, and the UN has rendered it one of every child’s fundamental human rights, acknowledging the harm of having uneducated people and the significance of educated citizenship. Unfortunately, there are some issues in this system as well which the students and teachers face on an everyday basis.

  • Gender and social inequality – Gender and social inequality in India is still a huge problem that is one of the hindrances in the way of educational growth. Especially in rural areas, girl’s children still can’t go to school because the mindset is that they are born to do the household works.
  • Caste Issues – Caste plays a significant role in ethical issues in education. The scheduled tribes, scheduled castes reservation in India, make headlines every now and then. Many deserving candidates lose their chance in higher studies because of the caste issue.
  • Lack of Vocational Education – In today’s world, the conventional ways of education don’t really fit. The education system should introduce more vocational courses in our country. Because of the new age system, which is continuously evolving, demands practical knowledge. Students with theoretical knowledge often stay behind in this fast-moving era.
  • Lack of Digitalization – In this era of new-age media, digitalization is the goal that we are heading towards. But, the lack of digitalization is making it hard for our education system to grow the way it should by now. The issues in taxation and other regulatory guidelines, poor connectivity, digital access are roadblocks to the digitalization in education.
  • Politics in Higher Education – Politics in higher education causes a lot of problems in the curriculum itself. The atmosphere in an educational institute is one of the significant issues in the system nowadays.
  • Vast and Varied Syllabus Lacking Relevance – The vast and varied syllabus in education is one of the ethical issues the system is facing. The huge, irrelevant syllabus makes it hard for the students to prepare themselves for the future because the world is now getting ready for digitalization, and mugging up theories is not the right way.

The following are some of the most common moral, legal and ethical concerns in education that are most often faced by the givers and receivers of education, along with the education institutes, management thereof, and sometimes, parents and guardians of students.

  • Issues of Discipline – The notion of a zero-tolerance policy against the give-them-another chance policy cannot work across the board. Some quarters, especially parents and guardians might be against the zero-tolerance policy for reasons best known to them, others support the idea. Both concepts can be applied simultaneously in all educational institutes. While the zero-tolerance policy is used for aggressive and anti-social and behavioral in-disciplinary actions like carrying firearms in the school and bullying, the second chance policy can be used for the encouragement of better academic performance. The second chance policy does not necessarily mean one should spare the rod and spoil the child.
  • Choice of Instructor /or Teacher – One of the commonest ethical issues in education is the choice of teacher a particular child or set of children will have in the following year. Such issues usually ensue between the principal, school administration, and parents of the children. The choice of instructor /or teacher usually ensues between the principal, school administration, and parent. Two predictable outcomes usually result from such an issue the principal either reluctantly concurs to the parents’ request or he makes a blanket statement stating the policy against honoring parents’ opinion as regards the choice of teachers for a particular class.
  • Ethnic and Social Diversity – Schools are continuously faced with the issue of diversity stemming from students having different social and ethnic backgrounds. Public schools in particular, have had to deal with issues relating to racial inequality and ethnic differences. All educational institutes, particularly the public ones, need to address the issue of diversity by modifying the curriculum. Ethnic sports and multicultural festivals should be organized at schools, helping to bring together students of diverse backgrounds and helping to promote unity amongst them. The inclusion of prominent historical issues from different ethnics would also help students to get familiar with one another’s cultural, ethnic, racial, and even religious differences.
  • Grading – It has often been argued that examinations are not a true test of knowledge, as some students suffer from what is sometimes referred to as “examination fever”, where even a brilliant student finds it difficult to pass the simplest examination. On a serious note, the argument of how students should be graded and the parameters guiding such grades are always questionable. On the other hand, who takes the blame for the failure of the student(s) the rather incompetent teacher or the lazy student. In addition to the ethical issues affecting learning mentioned above, other issues worth noting include flexibility in the curriculum development, teaching strategy, continuous assessments, knowledge transfer, and best practices across the board. Each of the issues mentioned requires deep understanding and careful scrutiny to proffer effective solutions and enhance the educational system.

Besides the above mentioned ethical issues in education, there are other noteworthy issues teacher evaluations, sex education, value education, tracking, and random drug tests on campuses that prevail surrounded by controversy. Each of these issues requires fine scrutiny and deep understanding but even then, there would always be that “depends upon the situation” factor that would decide which way the verdict rests.

 

Information Sources:

  1. iicedu.org
  2. bartleby.com
  3. futurereadyedu.com