Should Exams Be Abolished Essay Example for Free

Should Exams Be Abolished Essay According to a recent survey of â€Å"Education Newspaper†, what cause students to be frightened the most is â€Å"exams†. Some students say that the exams should be abolished because they make students absolutely anxious and stressful. However, the exams play an important role in school’s life and also have many advantages. So I believe that the exams should not be abolished because of some reasons. The most important reason is that exams are a method to examine students’ level and .Depending on results of exams; teachers can determine how students acquire knowledge. If marks are from 7-10 that mean students apprehend well the content of subjects, teachers will give them some difficult exercises to help students develop their creation. On the other hand, if marks are below 7 that mean students don’t understand clearly the subjects. In addition, after doing exams, students can know more about their knowledge. Students will determine what are weak points, where are the holes in their knowledge. From these, students review these parts in order not to puzzle when do them later Another reason is that exams make students to study harder. Some fast or mini exams will force students to attend the classes frequently.Some teachers don’t want to remind when students have mini exams. Any time teachers see some interesting exercises, teachers will gives students do those which are like mini tests. If students don’t attend class those days, they will lose one or two column marks, which make their mid-term results low It’s true that exams make students stressful and anxious. Some students say that when exams come near, they have to cram a lot of lesson in short time, which make them exhaust. That is the reason why students wish exams would be abolished. However, these pressures aren’t caused by exams but students. During the studying, students should take note the main points of each subject and review after classes. And when they have exams, they just read again but can remember the important information. They no longer feel stressful in order to cram the lessons. Moreover, if there are no the exams, how can students examine their levels? They study more and more, but they don’t know what the destinations are and how many percents they apprehend the knowledge after studying. As the result, they feel vague and bored. In the end, students’ studying will not be effective if there are no exams. Although they make students absolutely anxious, they  shouldn’t be abolished.

outline of socrates :: essays research papers fc

Socrates: 1. Sophists ~> professional teachers... Socrates was the greatest of them all (469-399 B.C.E.) 2. Followed the Sophists' lead in turning away from the study of the cosmos and concentrating on the case of the human. Unlike the way the Sophists discoursed about the human being, he wanted to base all argumentation on objectively valid definitions. 3. Socrates' discourse moved in two directions A. Outward - to objective definitions B. Inward - to discover the inner person, the soul, the source of all truth to Socrates. 4. He was hardly ever able to answer the questions he asked. 5. Spent much time in the streets and markets of Athens. A. Querying every man he met about whether that man knew anything. B. Said, "If there was an afterlife, he would pose the same question to the shades in Hades." 6. Socrates professed, ironically, that he knew nothing, because he at least knew that he knew nothing, whereas the others falsely believed themselves to know something. 7. He, himself, wrote no books, but his conversations were remembered by his disciple Plato, and later published by him as dialogues... Very often these questions emphasized a specific philosophical question. The typical Socratic dialogue has 3 divisions: A. A question is posed. Socrates becomes excited and enthusiastic to find someone who claims to know something. B. Finds "minor flaws" in his companion's definition and slowly begins to unravel it, forcing his partner to admit ignorance (in one dialogue, his target ended up in tears). C. An agreement is reached by the admittedly ignorant companion to pursue truth seriously. 8. In his quest for truth, Socrates managed to offend many of the powerful and pompous figures of Athens, who later conspired against him, getting him indicted for teaching false doctrines, for impiety, and for corrupting the youth. 9. Socrates was brought to trial, with the hopes to humiliate him by forcing him to beg for mercy. A. On the contrary, Socrates maligned his prosecutors and angered the unruly jury of 500 by lecturing to them about their ignorance. When he was asked to suggest his own punishment, he recommended that the Athenians give him free board and lodging in the town hall... The jury condemned him to death by a vote of 280 to 220

Actus Reus – Paper

ACTUS REUS: OMISSION & CAUSATION The general basis for imposing liability in  criminal law  is that the defendant must be proved to have committed a guilty act whilst having had a guilty state of mind. The physical elements are collectively called the actus reus and the accompanied mental state is called the mens rea. It is the fundamental duty of the prosecution to prove both of these elements of the offence to the satisfaction of the judge or jury beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of such proof the defendant will be acquitted.ACTUS REUS An actus reus consists of more than just an act. It also consists of whatever circumstances and consequences are recognised for liability for the offence in question – in other words all the elements of an offence other than the mental element. The term actus reus has been given a much wider meaning by Glanville Williams in his criminal law. He says : When he use the technical tern actus reus we include all the external circumstance s and consequences specified in the rule of law as constituting the forbidden situation.Reus must be taken as indicating the situation specified in the actus reus as on that, given any necessary mental element, is forbidden by law. In other words, acus reus means the whole definition of the crime with the exception of the mental element – and it even includes a mental element in so far as that is contained in the definition of an act. Actus reus includes negative as well as positive elements. For example, as stared earlier, the actus reus of murder is the causing of death of a person.It also includes circumstances, such as the person whose death has been caused was not as a consequence of a sentence or death given to him or that the death was caused within the territorial jurisdiction of the state. OMISSIONS IN CRIMES Omissions are controversial for two main reasons_ first, whether and to what extent it is justifiable omissions rather than acts; and secondly, whether liabilit y for omissions rather than act requirement in criminal law. Pursuing the second point here, much has been made above of the importance f requiring proof that the defendant voluntarily did something to produce prohibited conduct or consequence. In so far as this can be termed an ‘act requirement’, are omissions a true exception to it? If they are, is this another argument against criminalizing them? One much-discussed preliminary question is the distinction between acts and omissions. Sometimes it is argued that certain verbs imply action and therefore exclude liability for omissions, and that the criminal law should respect. The distinctions flowing from this. English courts have often used this linguistic or interpretive approach.It has led to a variety of decisions in different statutes, without much discussion of the general principles underlying omissions liability. The law commissions considerably draft criminal code may be said to signal the continuation of this approach, by redefining the homicide offences in terms of ‘causing death’ rather than ‘killing’, and refining the damage offences in terms of ‘causing damage’, rather than ‘damaging’, so as ‘to leave fully open the courts the possibility of so constructing the relevant (statutory) provisions as to impose liability for omissions’.The draft cod would therefore remove any linguistic awkwardness in saying, for example, that a parent killed a child by failing to feed it; but it does so in this specific instance, and without proclaiming a general principle, that the act requirement may be fulfilled by an omission of a duty can be established. Attachment to the vagaries of the language is no proper basis for delineating the boundaries of criminal liability.In some situations the courts, following the linguistic approach, have nevertheless found themselves able to impose omissions liability. In Speck (1977)3 the defendant was charged with committing an act of gross indecency with or towards a child. The evidence was that an 8 yr old girl placed her hand on his trousers over his penis. he allowed that hand to remain there for some minutes, causing him to have an erection.The court of appeal held that the defendants failure to remove the hand amounted to an invitation to the child with the act, or it created a duty in an adult to put an end to the innocent touching of this kind, with omissions liability for not fulfilling the duty. The analysis is similar to that in miller (1983) where D fell asleep whilst smoking, woke up to find the mattress smouldering, but simply left the room and went to sleep elsewhere. He was convicted of causing criminal damage by fire, on the basis that a person who initiates a sequence of events nnocently and then fails to do anything to stop the sequence should be regarded as having caused the whole sequence. On this view the conduct constitutes a single, continuing act; Miller caused the damage because he took no steps to extinguish the fire he had innocently started. It must be doubted whether these efforts to find an act which then coincides in point in point of time with defendants knowledge and intentions are convincing. surely the courts are imposing liability for an omission on these cases, by recognizing that a duty arises.Speck is a little different from miller since the original act of the speck was of the girl, and the duty must therefore amount the recognition of an obligation on an adult to put an end to the indecent yet innocent touching by a child. In so far as these decisions appear to extend the statutory wording, are they objectionable on grounds of retroactivity and lack of fair warning, or defensible as applications of existing common law doctrine to new situations?In other situations it seems possible to offer plausible reasons for regarding the same event as either an act or an omission, and in some cases the courts have sought to exp loit this ambiguity when dealing with problematic medical issues. Yet it is one thing to say that a healthcare professional who decides not to replace an empty bag for a drip-feed has made an omission, whereas switching a ventilator off is an act; is another thing to maintain that the act-omission distinction should be crucial to any determination of the criminal liability in the two situations.In Airedale NHS trust v bland (1993)the house of lords held that it would be lawful for a doctor to withdraw treatment from a patient in a persistent vegetative state, even though death would inevitable be hastened by that conduct. The house held that the withdrawal of treatment would constitute and omission, and thus regarded the duties of the doctor as the central issue. The decision was that the doctor a doctor has no duty to continue life supplying treatment when it is no longer in the best interest of the patient, having regard to responsible medical opinion.However the court of appeal d eclined to adopt this subterfuge in Re A(conjoined twins: Surgical separation), holding that the surgical separation of the twins would undoubtedly an act, and subsequently deciding that carrying out an operation which would result in the death of one twin in order to save the life of other could be justifies on the grounds of necessity. This demonstration of the fragility of the act-omission distinction of the vagaries fthe English language indicates that it may be simplistic to oppose omissions liability in the principle.There are some clear cases of omission in which it is desirable to have criminal liability, such as the parent who neglects to feed her or his child or neglects to protect it from abuse. Omissions can be involuntary or not, in the same way as acts; and provided, that the harm resulted because D failed to intervene, it can be argued that omissions are also causes. Omissions liability ay therefore satisfy the principles that no one should be held liable for bodily m ovements that he or she did not or could not direct.It may also satisfy the principle that no person should be held liable for the conduct or consequences that he or she did not cause. But one point of the act requirement is to exclude liability for mere thoughts that do not result in some bodily movement, and omissions fall foul to that. They do so for a good reason – that certain positive duties to act are so important that they can rightly be made the subject of criminal liability. Of course, such a duty should also be defined with sufficient certainty and made known to those affected by it.So long as these formal requirements are fulfilled there can be no fairness objection to holding a person liable, provided that he or she is capable of taking some steps to carry out the duty. CAUSATION IN CRIMES An event is very often the result of a number of factors. A factor is said to have caused a particular event if, without that factor or, the event would not have happened. Thus , a man is said to have caused the actus reus of a crime, if, that actus would not have occurred without his participation in what was done. Some casual relationships has to be established between his conduct and the prohibited result.A man is usually held criminally liable only for the consequences of his conduct as he foresaw, (or is crimes of negligence, he ought to have foreseen). The act must be the causa causans, ie, the immediate or proximate cause of the effect. When the facts are direct and simple, then establishing the causal nexus between the act and the effect may not be difficult, as for instance in a case of person shooting another person and thereby killing him. The causation can also be without any direct physical act. if the victim asks his way on a dark night nd the accused with the intention of causing his death, directs him to a path that he knows will bring him to a cliff edge , and the victing suffers a fatal fall, this is clearly murder, though the accused has done nothing more than utter words. This can be true in cases of abetment, incitement and conspiracy. In the instances stated above, it is not difficult to establish the direct result between the cause and the effect. The difficulty arises only in cases of multiple causation, where it is difficult to establish the imputability. Example: A, intending to kill B but only wounds him very slightly.A clearly has the requisite mens rea for murder, that is, he foresees and desires B’s death. Not let us assume that on his being ta ken to the hospital in an ambulance, a piece of masonry from a building falls on the ambulance and kills B; or, alternatively, that B has a rare blood disease which prevents his blood from coagulation so that the slight wound leads to his death, which it would not have done if he had not been suffering from this disease; or, alternatively, that B refuses to have the wound treated and dies of blood poisoning, which would not have occurred if B had had the wo unded treated.In all these cases, a problem of causation arises, i. e. , did A cause B’s death for the purposes of the criminal law so that he can be convicted of murder? If the result is too remote and accidental in its occurrence, then there is no criminal liability. CAUSATION AND NEGLIGENCE The difficulty of causation arises very often n cases of negligence. It has t be established that first, the conduct of the person was negligent and secondly, that but for the negligent act of accused, the accident would not have occurred. In other words, the actus reus should be causally connected to the act, which should be proved to be a negligent.In order to impose criminal liability under S 304A, IPC, it is essential to establish that death is the direct result of the rash or (and) negligent act of the accused. It must be causa causans – the immediate cause and not enough that it may be quasa sine qua non, ie, proximate cause. There can be no conviction when rashness or negl igence of third party intervenes. In Suleman rahiman mulani v state of Maharashtra the Supreme Court has approved his rule. In Suleman rahiman mulani the accused who was driving the jeep struck the deceased, as a result of which he sustained serious injuries. The ccused put the injured person in the jeep for medical treatment, but he died. Thereafter, the accused cremated the body. The accused was charged under s304A and 201 of the IPC. As per s 304A, there must be direct nexus between the death of a person and rash and negligent act of the accused that caused the death of the deceased. It was the case of the prosecution of the accused had possessed only a learner’s license and hence was guilty of causing the death of the deceased. The court held that there was no presumption in law that a person who possesses only a learner’s license or possesses no license at all, does not know driving.A person could for various reasons, including sheer indifference, might not have b een taken a regular license . there was evidence to show that the accused had driven the jeep to various places on the previous day of occurrence. So before the accused convicted under s304A, there must a proof that the accused drove in a rash and negligent manner and death was a direct consequence of such rash and negligent manner. In the absence of such evidence no offence under s 304A was made out. The accused was acquitted of the charges. MINIMAL CAUSATIONWhen death of a person is caused after medical treatment, it cannot be said that the treatment was not proper or inadequate, or had better treatment been given, the death would not have taken place. This is because, the intervention of the doctor is in the nature of minimum causation and hence its intervention would have played only a minor part, if any, in causing death. As far as the IPC is concerned, explanation 2 of s 299 specifically states that if an act causes death, even death could have been avoided by proper remedies and skilful treatment, the act shall be deemed to have caused death and the person will be criminally liable.If death results from an injury voluntarily caused, the person who causes the injury, therefore, is deemed to have caused the death, although the life of victim might have been saved if proper medical treatment, provided that it was administered in good faith by a competent physician or surgeon. In Moti singh v state of uttar Pradesh the deceased gayacharan had received two gunshot wounds in the abdomen which were dangerous to life. The injury was received on February 1960. There was no evidence when he was discharged from the hospital and whether he had fully recovered or not.He, however, died on march 1 1960. His body was cremated without post mortem being done. The supreme court held that the two gunshot injuries were dangerous to life were not sufficient for holding that gyancharans death, which took place about three weeks after the incident, was on account of the injuri es received by him. The court observed that in order to prove the charges on gyancharans murder, it was necessary to establish that he had died on account of injuries received on him.Since, the was no evidence to establish the cause of death, the accused could not be said to have caused the death of gyancharan. A crucial aspect highlighted by the court in the case was that the connection between the primary cause and the death should not be too remote. CONCLUSION Causation is a complex topic, with which we have been able to deal only brief here. Proof of causation is often said to be an essential precondition of criminal liability, but there is reason to doubt the generality of that requirement, notably in respect of accomplice liability and vicarious criminal liability.Rather than insisting on a universal requirement of causation, it may be preferable to argue that liability should be negatived, in general, by the voluntary intervening act of another. Several criticisms of the judi cial approach to three exceptional categories of case hace been advanced above. Often the explanations given by the courts are unconvincing. Whilst the traditional or standard causal theory emphasizes the significance of the last voluntary act, there is no reluctance to took wider or to massage the term ‘voluntary’ in certain situations, especially where D clearly stated that the sequence of events by doing a wrongful act.The challenge is to re-examine the intuitions that lead judges and others to their conclusions (the wrongful act theory, the approach to medical mistakes etc. ) with a view to constructing a law that ensures that the courts respect the various principles . BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. P. S. A. Pillai – Criminal law 2. Glanville Williams book on criminal law 3. www. lawteacher. com ——————————————– [ 1 ]. Page 427, principles of criminal law, Glanville will iams [ 2 ]. Duff, criminal attempts, 317-20 Glanville Williams [ 3 ]. 65 CR App R 161. [ 4 ]. (1983) 2 AC 161 [ 5 ]. Criticisms by jc smith (1982) Crim LR 527 and 724, and D.Husak, philosophy of criminal law(1987), 176-8 [ 6 ]. See I. M Kennedy, Treat me right (1988) 169-74 [ 7 ]. (1993) AC 789 [ 8 ]. 4 ALL ER 961 [ 9 ]. Emery (1993) 14 Cr App R (s) 394, aand the new duty by the domestic violence, crime and victims act 2004. [ 10 ]. Glanville Williams, ‘criminal law- causation’) [ 11 ]. Rustom sherior Irani v state of Maharashtra(1969) ACC Cj 79 (SC) [ 12 ]. Md rangawalla v state of mahaarashtra AIR 1965 [ 13 ]. However a driver is expected to anticipate reasonably foreseeable negligent act to road users as contributory negligence has no application in criminal law. [ 14 ]. Re san pai (1936) 14 rang 643

Essay about Hegel Reason in History - 565 Words

Hegel: Reason in History The second chapter of the Introduction to the Philosophy of History bears the title Reason in History; however, careful study reveals that it could just as aptly been dubbed Reason is History or better, History is Reason. Although Reason exists in a finite form within the human being, the whole—infinite Reason—is necessarily greater than the sum of its parts—the sum of finite Reasons. Hegels Reason is the infinite material of all reality—the substance, form, and power. History is the increasing self-consciousness of the Spirit i.e. Reason; that is, a progressive increase of Reason within the world. This relationship between history and Reason is expressed by Hegels agreement with Leibniz that this†¦show more content†¦the absolute, rational end-goal of the world, and links it to Reason: Thought, quite freely determining itself (15-16). When combined with Hegels prescriptive dictum that it is mans duty to know God i.e. Reason, this bridge between Reason and theology helps Hegel to further define his historical approach as a theodicy—a justification of the ways of God. The necessity for justification arrives when one seeks to explain dissatisfying events of the present relative to the glorious whole of history. So, in this complex relationship lie two of Hegels fundamental contributions to thought. First, the claim that the Absolute can and should be known and, second, the assertion that the whole is the Truth. In summary, History is the progressive path of Reason within the world. Reason, therefore, is a guiding force which steers history towards its teleological end-goal of the actualization of absolute Reason in the objective form of the free State. Hegels description of Reason and History prompt serious questions and objections concerning not only the content of his beliefs but also of his justification for them. First, Hegel asks the reader to presuppose important features of his system including the nature of Reason as the infinite power of reality. Philosophy, he says, has already proven such assertions, but with no further description, the foundations of hisShow MoreRelatedHegel Essay Analysis990 Words   |  4 PagesIn this passage from Hegel he is saying that freedom is terribly misunderstood in its formal subjective sense, and has been far removed from its essential purpose and goals. People think they should be able to do whatever they want and that is what freedom is, and that anything limiting there desires, impulses , and passions is a limit of there freedom. Hegel is saying this is not true, but these limitations are simply the condition from which they must free themselves from, and that society andRead MoreEvol ution Of Freedom Through History Essay1240 Words   |  5 PagesEvolution of Freedom Through History The relationship of the â€Å"historical consciousness† of man and its part in his freedom, is a philosophical ideology discussed by many philosophers. Whether by means of Spirit, Geist, reason, individualism, or other ideas, philosophers have theorized the correlation between history and it unfolding into eventual true freedom. Three such philosophic minds are that of G.W.F. (Georg Wilhelm Friedrich) Hegel, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Friedrich Nietzsche. Although eachRead MoreHegel and The Phenomenology of Spirit824 Words   |  3 PagesGeorg Hegel (1770-1831) is one of the more difficult philosophers to read and understand. His works, though, had an extremely important effect on the European and American philosophers from the 18th century on, and one of the more important changes in the post-Industrial Revolutionary World, Marxism, had Hegel to thank for a basic overview of historical systems. In general, Hegel developed a basic paradigm (system) that accounts for the manner in which nature and mind or for him, subject and objectRead More Communism vs. Hegelism 1679 Words   |  7 PagesGeorg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel emerged, presenting an analysis of history that would echo through the future, an understanding of the human condition, and an estimate of the end of said history and what would bring it about. This end of history would be brought about by the State, for the State’s sole purpose was to bring positive change and freedom to the individual. Less than a century later, Karl Marx released the Communist Manifesto. Marx had drawn heavily from Hegel for basis of his thoughtsRead MoreThe Freedom Of The Will1425 Words   |  6 PagesFriedrich Hegel and Pelagius were two philosophers that had an extensive debate over the freedom of the will. Hegel in his â€Å"Lectures on the Philosophy of History† presented that free will is completely based on a divine providence. In the other hand, Pelagius, founder of Pelagianism, explained an op posite view about what Hegel thinks in regards to free will. Hegel contributed in different fields including history, society, and the state. As the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy stated, â€Å"Hegel boldlyRead MorePhilosophy 101 Essay826 Words   |  4 Pageswho pursued that intellectual means, those who investigated, even those who reasoned Reason. Because volumes could be written and this is a rather quick, unworthy paper: apologizes. Hegels philosophy of History, on of the greatest in the philosophy cannon, is the great philosophers greatest body of work. The philosophy of History is based on such ideals as the idea that Reason rules history. George Hegel used Immanuel Kants system of philosophy as a basis for his own, discarding a few ideasRead MoreHegel Legitimised the French Revolution but not the Revolutionaries Themselves1272 Words   |  6 PagesHegel Legitimised the French Revolution but not the Revolutionaries Themselves Hegel views on the role of the individual can be seen and used to justify the Revolution. Individual freedom can also be woven into these ideas and living in a community or society is how Hegel saw the individual fulfilling their life. Hegel agreed with the ideas of the classical Greeks in as much that he thought the individual should lead an ethical life. In this ideal each individual has obligationsRead MoreComparing Hegel, Marx, Kants Views on Pantheism Essay978 Words   |  4 PagesComparing Hegel, Marx, Kants Views on Pantheism 1.Hegel is a pantheist, meaning that he believes that everytng toeather comes to being God. Subsequently he believes that everythenig is one, menatin gtat reason and reality actually are the same thing, fuirtheremore Hegel believst that reality is reason, this is his first Principle. In contrast to this Kant believes that all we really know are our persc=eptions of the real (Nominal world) and tat we cannot really knowanything aobut the realRead MoreKarl Marx on the German Ideology843 Words   |  3 Pageswas never published during Marx’s lifetime. This was a clear expression of the theory of history by Marx and its associated materialist metaphysics. One of the main reasons this text is a classic text by these philosophers is the fact that it introduces students to the basic tenets of the philosopher’s approach. Notably, Karl Marx produced The German Ideology in 1846 as a critique of George Friedrich Hegel and his followers in Germany. The philosophers sought to d ifferentiate their concept ofRead MoreEssay on The Philosophies of Georg Hegel and Herbert Spencer1267 Words   |  6 Pages The Philosophies of Georg Hegel and Herbert Spencer The Philosophy of Georg Wilhelm Hegel (1770-1801) Metaphysics nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Georg Wilhelm Hegel aspired to find a philosophy that would embody all human experiences with the integration of not only science, but also religion, history, art, politics and beyond. Hegel’s metaphysical theory of absolute idealism claimed that reality was the absolute truth of all logic, spirit, and rational ideas encompassing all human experience and