Myth of Money and Success Essay Example for Free

Myth of Money and Success Essay The American Dream is different for everyone, though it is most commonly associated with success, freedom, and happiness. The concept of the American Dream seems to have dwindled from where it was in the past few generations. It has gone from success, freedom, and happiness to having lots of money and the nicest possessions. In today’s society, we all hope and strive for this dream, but how many actually achieve the American Dream? Is it a reasonable goal that Americans should strive for, or is it a myth that only leads to self-destruction? According to Horatio Alger and Toni Cade Bambara, they both believe the concept that the American Dream is a myth and prove these fundamentals through their writing. A single person or a small group does not create the notion of success, but it is created by our whole society. The myth of instant wealth is one of the most popular myths society uses. In fact society uses the hope of instant wealth to make people work harder. The fact that they do not have a real chance of obtaining that wealth by competing in the economic system stays invisible to the most of people. But people have believed that if they will work hard then they can achieve success. Richard Hunter, main character of the book â€Å"Ragged Dick† has been a typical example of American notion of success. According to this book, by Horatio Alger, everybody can become well recognized and financially prosperous if they would work hard and show their merit. Dick, â€Å"a young gentleman on the way to fame and fortune,† as his friend Fosdick from the story â€Å"Ragged Dick† describes him in the end of the story, climbs on the social ladder, starting from the very bottom. Being absolutely illiterate and having no money in the beginning, Dick gets into business circle of people, by working hard and showing his merit. While reading this book, I really was able to put myself in the story, and live Dick’s life with him. This typical story of â€Å"Rags to Riches†, is a general theme for many people’ lives. Today, as well as back in the 1800’s when the story was written, most people’s dreams are to achieve success. This formally became known as â€Å"The American Dream†. Although this may seem strange for everyone to have the same idea, it really isn’t when you look at it with an open perspective. Each and every person’s perception of success is extremely different and individual, which makes everyone’s dreams different. There may be people who strive for big goals, and there may be others who take it one day at a time, achieving happiness on a less formal level. In comparing the time period of the story to our society today, there are many similarities and differences to consider. According within the world we live today, people tend to set much higher goals and expectations for themselves, whereas, in Ragged Dick, it was more of a day-to-day type situation. When people set smaller, more realistic goals, it results in more happiness and comfort in their lifestyle. However, in today’s world, Americans have become so incredibly competitive and successful, that the standards have been significantly raised to the point where personal happiness is no longer good enough. After reading a novel like Horatio Alger’s Ragged Dick, you subconsciously make yourself realize the important underlying message that he is trying to portray. To me, this message is to always be optimistic, and no matter how bad your life is, it can always get better if you are honest, hardworking and determined. Another good source that brings forth the concept of money and success is through Bambaras writing, â€Å"The Lesson†. The major theme of the story was creating awareness in adolescents about what life has to offer. The nature of human beings of accepting the realities of life to such an extent that apathy and lethargy sets in, is what proves to be destructive for the social fabric of today’s world. In this stagnation, Mrs. Moore provides the impetus required for people to realize their god given right to something better. We are told that Mrs. Moore has a college degree, is well dressed most of the times, and has a good command on her language. She seems to be a kind of a person who has seen the world. She has experienced life, and wants to use that experience in providing the children with an opportunity to broaden their horizons. This opportunity that she strives to provide is opening their eyes to the true nature of life and not by giving them money and bombarding their psyche with moralistic attitudes. The story showcases the lack of aspirations of a culture. It takes us through the point of view of the children, who think of nothing but entertainment, and through the mind frame of the adults who have resigned their lives to mediocrity. Mrs. Moore proves to be the catalyst that sets alight the imagination of the children. She realizes that by just telling the children that there is something better out there, she will not be able to instill in them a sense of longing; an aspiration to achieve something better in life. So the morale of this story was to show how one could achieve success with certain disadvantages and still work towards the realistic â€Å"American Dream†. As a result, Americans are never satisfied with what they have. It has been said that Americans are no longer trying to keep up with the Joneses, but instead looking at celebrities, and envisioning themselves with the same expensive possessions. Americans today do in fact look at celebrities and long for their lavish lifestyles, but also still do try and keep up with the Joneses. This scenario is also similar with possessions of luxury items. Ever look at your neighbor’s new car and want one of your own? It is very common to see your neighbor pull in their driveway with a new Mercedes, then look at your car and think of going and getting a nice new car that is comparable to the Mercedes. We as Americans are never satisfied with what we have. The American Dream is still alive, though it is not what it used to be. One can be successful, have freedom, and be happy. But are they fulfilling their version of the American Dream? Some of us may take it to further extremes than others, but there will always be the desire to have something better than everyone else. Society today tells us that we should have the best of everything if we don’t; we are of a lower class of people. We are sucked in by these beliefs because we as Americans do not want to be shown up, and want to be part of the higher class. Americans are always demanding more, while in poverty-stricken countries people are just thankful for what they do have. Maybe we as Americans should just be thankful for the opportunities that this great country has to offer and live our OWN dreams. . Works Cited Alger, Horatio Jr.. Ragged Dick Or, Street Life in New York with the Boot Blacks. New York. Penguin, 2005. Print. Bambara, Toni. â€Å"The Lesson†. Literature: Reading and Writing the Human Experience. Shorter 7th ed. Ed. Richard Abacian and Marvin Koltz. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2000. 121-126.

Langston Hughes Essay -- essays research papers

Few poets in the twentieth century, and perhaps even in any century, can be compared to Langston Hughes. Hughes wrote with his heart and soul, creating poems that everyone could understand. He expressed love for all races, colors, and religions and did not judge anybody until he had reason to judge them. He wrote to entertain, to inspire, to teach, and to make a point. His way with words made him the most popular and prolific black writer of the twentieth century (Offinoski, 32). Hughes was born in Joplin, Missouri on February 1, 1902. He was born into a black family of abolitionists and his parents were both bookkeepers. When Hughes was young his parents separated, causing his father to move to Mexico and his mother to leave him for quite a while in search of a steady job. Hughes could never call a place ?home? for too long because he was always moving from one place to another or living with different family members and friends. This constant movement affected his writing because he learned about many different people and life styles from the places he lived. Hughes started writing poetry in high school, but the major turning point in his poetic career was when he was working as a bus boy in Washington, D.C. A very famous critic, Vachel Lindsay, was at the place that Hughes worked. Hughes had always admired him and looked up to him, but he was too timid to confront him. Instead, he ran up to Lindsay, gave him a few poems that he had written, and ran away without saying anything. The next day Hughes was bombarded by reporters because Lindsay had published his poems in the paper. Since Lindsay had not known his name, he had received the name ?bus boy poet? in the paper. That was the jump start of Hughes?s career. In 1919 and... ...te101.com/article.cfm/modern_us_poetry_97582>. Haskins, James S.. Always Movin' On. London: Franklin Watts, 1976. "Langston Hughes." America's Story from America's Library. 19 December 2008 . "Langston Hughes (1902-1967)." Books and Writers. 2003. 2 January 2008 . Modern American Literature G-O. Curley, Dorothy Nyren, Maurice Kramer, and Elaine Fialka Kramer. Vol. 2. New York: Frederick Unger Publishing Co. Inc., 1969. Otfinski, Steven. Great Black Writers. New York: Facts on File Inc., 1994. Page, James A.. Selected Black American Authors. Boston: G.K. Hall & Co., 1970. Warlick, David. "MLA Web Document." Son of Citation Machine. April 2006. Landmark Project. 2 Jan 2008 .

Kant Theory and Justice Essay

Immanuel Kant concerns himself with deontology, and as a deontologist, he believes that the rightness of an action depends in part on things other than the goodness of its consequences, and so, actions should be judged based on an intrinsic moral law that says whether the action is right or wrong – period. Kant introduced the Categorical Imperative which is the central philosophy of his theory of morality, and an understandable approach to this moral law. It is divided into three formulations. The first formulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative states that one should â€Å"always act in such a way that the maxim of your action can be willed as a universal law of humanity†; an act is either right or wrong based on its ability to be universalized. This belief is part of the â€Å"universal law theory† and states that to determine if an action is essentially â€Å"good† or â€Å"bad,† one must essentially imagine a world in which everyone performed that same action constantly, and imagine if this would be a desirable world to live in. If not, then it is not okay to perform the action. He believes that this â€Å"universal law† lives within us; it is not something that is imposed on us from the outside. For example if one kills oneself out of self-love, it is logically contradictory because self-love refers to respect for one’s self as a rational being and rationality is based on objective (undistorted by emotion or personal bias). So, one can never justify suicide. The maxim of killing oneself cannot possibly exist as a universal law. The second formulation states that one must â€Å"treat humanity whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as means only. † For example, if I were to lie to a girl so that she would choose to go out with me then I, in effect, use her. Kant would say that I treated her as a means to achieve my end, and he specifically prohibits manipulating or deceiving a person for the purposes of achieving a personal end. According to Kant, only people are valuable as ends. Any action that disregards this is in clear violation of Kantian morality, and purports to reduce an individual’s autonomy; this consequently undermines a person’s rational capability and reduces him/her to a thing. This implies that if someone robs you and takes your wallet, he is treating you as a thing and not as a person. The third and last formulation requires that one sees oneself as the source of all moral law. This simply emphasizes the fact that the moral agent is the one who chooses to act morally. This third formulation tells us to imagine ourselves as the sole lawmaker in a society, and to choose the best possible set of laws that the society of rational beings would live by. Kant believes that we all have reason within us, but some choose to respond and act upon it while others do not. We can reason the way things ought to be, and based on that is how we should act, which explains Kant’s view that a moral action must be chosen through moral reason. For example, one does not cheat on a test because one’s reason tells him or her that it is wrong, not the consequences that follow if one gets caught. Another example is that we do not need the law to tell us not to steal because it is immoral; we simply have to access our ability to reason to rationalize this. In a world where each individual recognizes his/her moral dignity and freely chooses to adopt the same universalizable moral law, all actions become good. In opposition to the Categorical Imperative is Kant’s Hypothetical Imperative, which states that a particular action is necessary as a means to some purpose. Kant believes that these actions are not always moral because they are not performed out of â€Å"pure good will† (pure duty), which is the only thing in the world that is unambiguously good. In the case of the ethical credibility of the principles of affirmative action, Kant’s Categorical Imperative provides for the basis of approval. It is primarily out of a sense of duty that a society would seek to assist its struggling members who are in need of help. The action so far seems good, but we must test its universality. Can we imagine ourselves living in a world in which all societies seek to aid the underprivileged and the disadvantaged at the slight expense of others? Absolutely yes. It is important for one to bear in mind, however, that it is the very action of helping that is being judged as inherently good or bad, and not the action’s admirable or overbearing surrounding consequences. Secondly, we must test that the action is regarding everyone involved as ends and not as means to any particular purpose. Since the aim of affirmative action is to help the current predicaments of those people who were victimized in the past, focus is placed on respecting every individual’s autonomy. In this way, we can see that affirmative action is not a devious plan that seeks to manipulate, but one that seeks to compensate by adjusting the means (circumstances) and not the ends (individuals). Lastly, we must see if the action is establishing a universal law governing others in similar situations; one should behave as if one is the absolute moral authority of the universe. Is completing this action consistent with the application of moral law? If so, the affirmative action passes these three tests and the action is good. In his â€Å"Objections to Affirmative Action†, James Sterba talks about why he believes that Affirmative Action is morally wrong. He argues that a person’s race shouldn’t control his or her point of interest. Sterba argues that Affirmative Action leads to injustice and it is unfair to the white nonminority males because â€Å"it deprives them of equal opportunity by selecting or appointing women or minority candidates over more qualified nonminority male candidates. † He believes that the job of the government is to eliminate all kinds of discriminatory policies. He thinks that â€Å"alternative programs are preferable. † Thus, the government should instead promote equal opportunities through programs within agencies and departments instead of through Affirmative Action which he believes is a fancy word for discrimination. He argues that it is not fair to those who are more qualified for certain opportunities and cannot receive them either because they are not women or because they are not part of the minority. In his First Objection, he argues that Affirmative Action â€Å"is not required to compensate for unjust institutions in the distant past. † He talks about Morris’ argument that what occurred in the past is not the primary issue that puts all present-day African Americans at an unfair disadvantage; it is more about the issues of more recent origin. He makes a point that discrimination today could very well be the source of the disadvantaged disposition of African Americans and other minority groups, and it is certainly something that society could do without. The question remains that in attempting to â€Å"level the playing field† and eliminate present-day discrimination in America, is Affirmative Action a practical approach and should such a program be endorsed? The Fourth Objection goes on to say that Affirmative Action â€Å"hurts those who receive it† because in many ways the people benefitting from it would not see the need to work as hard, and it places â€Å"women and minorities in positions for which they are not qualified. † Sterba proposes that one of the solutions to this problem could be the installation education enhancement programs to compensate for any lack of skills. He believes that this will in a short time ensure that minorities are appropriately qualified for a position. In response to Sterba’s First Objection, Kant would agree that the rightness of Affirmative Action should be based upon the circumstances of the present situation and not what had occurred in the past; this is evident mainly through his a priori form of philosophical deductive reasoning that judges an action before the experience, or â€Å"in the moment. † However, Kant would disagree with Sterba’s Fourth Objection because in my opinion, Kant’s deontological theory correlates with the correctness of the affirmative action in its very aim toward helping â€Å"the right† people. Affirmative action has not significantly diminished gender, racial, and all other forms of discrimination, but the action has promoted equality and diversity to a large extent. In a world where everyone performs the â€Å"good will,† there is justice; and the installation of this program only serves to come closer to this justice. Discrimination is wrong because it violates a person’s basic and intrinsic moral rights. Thus, in itself the adoption of this program is an action that is good because without Affirmative Action it is true in many ways that minorities would remain at a disadvantaged position in the educational system and not be allowed the opportunity to exercise their true potential. Kant would argue that it is a duty out of â€Å"good will† to treat people equally. The concepts of equality and autonomy are emphasized in the nature of this program because it strives to treat everyone as a free person equal to everyone else. According to Kant, one should be treated as ends not as mere means. It can be argued that African Americans at a disadvantaged position were being treated as means by the dominant culture to achieve its own ends in the system. Discrimination cannot exist as a system of nature because those who discriminate would not want to be similarly discriminated against if things were reversed, and so Affirmative Action is justified because it aims to open the door of opportunities to those who have been oppressed for years. That being said, Kant would examine the action itself and not the consequences of the action. When making decisions, one has to put oneself into other people’s shoes and see if one wants to be treated the same way others have been treated; it is a duty to treat others as we ourselves want to be treated. Affirmative Action not necessarily needed in this society to reduce the inherent inequalities that are still existent, but it can certainly be used to assist in leveling the playing field. Affirmative Action has been successful on a short term basis, that is, in increasing the representation of minorities (including women) in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded. However, on the long term basis it can be argued that the program only serves to perpetuate a cycle of need. Kant advocates the idea of equality through his deontological theory by saying that all people deserve equal treatment as rational ends in themselves and that this should never be compromised by the flaws in any social system.

Censorship and Banned Books in Schools

While reading Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in school, teachers often spend full class periods discussing a very important issue: Mark Twains use of the n word throughout the book. Its important to not only explain that the book must be looked at through the context of the time period but also what Twain was trying to do with his story. He was trying to reveal the plight of the slave and he was doing so with the vernacular of the time. Students may make wisecracks, but its important to address their humor with information. Students need to understand the words meaning and Twains reasons for using it. These conversations are difficult to have because they are controversial and many people are very uncomfortable with the n word—for good reason. Due to its origins in slavery and racism, it is often the topic of disgruntled phone calls from parents. Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is the 4th most banned book  in schools according to Banned in the U.S.A. by Herbert N. Foerstal. In 1998 three new attacks arose to challenge its inclusion in education. Reasons for Banned Books Is censorship in schools good? Is it necessary to ban books? Each person answers these questions differently. This is the core of the problem for educators. Books can be found offensive for many reasons. Here are just some reasons taken from Rethinking Schools Online: I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou. Reason: Rape scene, anti-white.Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck. Reason: Profanity.Go Ask Alice by Anonymous. Reason: Drug use, sexual situations, profanity.A Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Newton Peck. Reason: Depiction of pigs mating and being slaughtered. More recent books that were challenged according to the American Library Association include the Twilight saga due to its religious viewpoint and violence and The Hunger Games because it was unsuited to the age group, sexually explicit and too violent. Many ways exist to ban books. Our county has a group which reads the questionable book and determines whether its educational value exceeds the weight of the objections against it. However, schools can ban books without this lengthy procedure. They just choose not to order the books in the first place. This is the situation in Hillsborough County, Florida. As reported in the St. Petersburg Times, one elementary school will not stock two of the Harry Potter books by J.K. Rowling because of the witchcraft themes. As the Principal explained it, the school knew they would get complaints about the books so they did not buy them. Many people, including the American Library Association, has spoken out against this. There is an article by Judy Blume on the website for the National Coalition Against Censorship to be very interesting. Its title: Is Harry Potter Evil? The question that faces us in the future is when do we stop? Do we remove mythology and Arthurian legends because of its references to magic? Do we strip the shelves of medieval literature because it presupposes the existence of saints? Do we remove Macbeth because of the murders and witches? Most would say there is a point where we must stop. But who gets to pick the point? Proactive Measures an Educator Can Take Education is not something to be feared. There are enough hurdles in teaching with which we must deal. So how can we stop the above situation from occurring in our classrooms? Here are just a few suggestions: Choose the books you use wisely. Make sure that they fit nicely into your curriculum. You should have evidence which you can present that the books you are using are necessary for the student.If you are using a book that you know has caused concerns in the past, try to come up with alternative novels that students can read.Make yourself available to answer questions about the books you have chosen. In the very beginning of the school year, introduce yourself to parents at  an open house  and tell them to call you if they have any concerns. If a parent calls you there will probably be less of a problem then if they call administration.Discuss the controversial issues in the book with the students. Explain to them the reasons those parts were necessary for the authors work.Have an outside speaker come to class to discuss concerns. For example, if you are reading  Huckleberry Finn, get a Civil Rights Activist to give a presentation to students about racism. Final Word Ray Bradbury  describes a situation in the  coda to  Fahrenheit 451. It is about a future where all books are burned because the people have decided that knowledge brings pain. It is far better to be ignorant than knowledgeable. Bradburys coda discusses the censorship that hes faced. He had a play that he sent to a university to be produced. They sent it back because it had no women in it. This is the height of irony. Nothing was said about the content of the play or the fact that there was a reason it featured only men. They did not want to offend a certain group at the school: women. Is there is  a place for censorship  and banning of books? Its hard to say that children should read certain books in certain grades, but education is not to be feared.