Support for labor government essays

Support for labor government essays It is easy to criticize a government in power but the truth is that the opposition, the Conservative government, is so weak that they wouldnt enthuse anymore faith than the labour party. The image that the Conservatives depict is one that is of disorganisation. Since Tony Blair came in to power they have had 3 leaders. Firstly they had William Hague who went on to loose the next election by very big landslide. Then Ian Duncan Smith who ended up resigning and now they have Michael Howard who used to be home secretary under John majors alleged sleazy government. When the conservatives were previously in power they were constantly accused of corruption and lacking the big picture. In 1994, Grapham Riddick and David Tredinnink, the two Tory MPS exposed by the Sunday Times allegedly paid people 1000 to ask them questions in the commons. Later that year the guardian exposed the cash for questions scandal alleging that Neil Hamilton received cash from Mohamed Al fayed. Hamilton then re signed and denied the alleges, suing the guardian. However, he later admitted accepting commissions of 6000 and 4000 for introducing new clients to Mr Greer. This further proved that he had been lying. However, he wasnt the only corrupt MP in March 1997 10 out of 25 MPS were found to have accepted payments for questions. Labours mistakes are always highlighted, but since they have been in power they have also made many improvements. They have achieved the lowest inflation since the 1960s, 1.4 million fewer children are in poverty than there would have otherwise have been, one and a half million benefit from minimum wage, theres the highest number of police officers and there are 39 thousand more nurses and over ten thousand more doctors since 1997. In the workplace they have given both parents the right to time off when a child is born or adopted. They have also brought in ...

Summary and Analysis of Platos Euthyphro

Summary and Analysis of Plato's 'Euthyphro' The Euthyphro is one of Platos most interesting and important early dialogues. Its focus is on the question: What is piety?  Euthyphro, a priest of sorts, claims to know the answer, but Socrates shoots down each definition he proposes. After five failed attempts to define piety Euthyphro hurries off leaving the question unanswered. The Dramatic Context It is 399 BCE.  Socrates and Euthyphro meet by chance outside the court in Athens where Socrates is about to be tried on charges of corrupting the youth and impiety (or more specifically, not believing in the citys gods and introducing false gods). At his trial, as all of Platos readers would know,  Socrates was found guilty and condemned to death. This circumstance casts a shadow over the discussion.  For as Socrates says, the  question hes asking on this occasion is  hardly  a  trivial, abstract issue that doesnt concern him.  As it will turn it will turn out, his life is on the line. Euthyphro is there  because he is prosecuting his father for murder. One of  their servants had killed a slave, and Euthyphros father had tied the servant  up and left him in a ditch while he sought advice about what to do.  When he returned, the servant had died.  Ã‚  Most people would consider it impious for a son to bring charges against his father, but Euthyphro claims to know better.  He was probably a kind of priest in a somewhat unorthodox religious sect.  His purpose in prosecuting his father is not to get him punished but to cleanse the household of blood guilt.  This is the kind of thing he understands, and the ordinary Athenian does not. The Concept of Piety The English tern piety or the pious translates the Greek word hosion.  This word might also be translated as holiness or religious correctness.  Piety has two senses: A narrow sense: knowing and doing what is correct in religious rituals. For example, knowing what prayers should be said on any specific occasion, or knowing how to perform a sacrifice.A broad sense: righteousness; being a good person. Euthyphro begins with the first, narrower sense of piety in mind.  But Socrates, true to his general outlook, tends to stress the broader sense.  He  is less interested in correct ritual than in living morally. (Jesus attitude toward Judaism is rather similar.)   Euthyphros 5 Definitions Socrates says, tongue in cheek, as usual, that hes delighted to find someone whos an expert on piety.  Just what he needs in his present situation. So he asks Euthyphro to explain to him what piety is.  Euthyphro tries to do this five times, and each time Socrates argues that the definition is inadequate. 1st Definition: Piety is what is Euthyphro is doing now, namely prosecuting wrongdoers. Impiety is failing to do this. Socrates Objection:  Thats just an example of piety, not a general definition of the concept. 2nd Definition:  Piety is what is loved by the gods (dear to the gods in some translations). Impiety is what is hated by the gods. Socrates Objection:  According to Euthyphro, the gods sometimes disagree among themselves about questions of justice.  So some things are loved by some gods and hated by others.  On this definition, these things will be both pious and impious, which makes no sense. 3rd Definition: Piety is what is loved by all the gods. Impiety is what all the gods hate. Socrates Objection:  The argument Socrates uses to criticize this definition is the heart of the dialogue. His criticism is subtle but powerful.  He poses this question: Do the gods love piety because it is pious, or is it pious because the gods love it?  To grasp the point of the question, consider this analogous question:  Is  a film funny because people laugh at it, do people laugh at it because its funny?  If we say its funny because people laugh at it, were saying something rather strange. Were saying that the film only has the property of being funny because certain people have a certain attitude towards it.  But Socrates argues that this gets things the wrong way round.  People laugh at a film because it has a certain intrinsic property, the  property of being funny.  This is what makes them laugh. Similarly, things arent pious because the gods view them in a certain way.  Rather, the gods love pious actions such as helping a stranger in need, because such actions have a certain intrinsic property, the property of being pious. 4th definition: Piety is that part of justice concerned with caring for the gods. Socrates Objection: The notion of care involved here is unclear. It cant be the sort of care a dog owner gives to its dog since that aims at improving the dog, but we cant improve the gods. If its like the care a slave gives his master, it must aim at some definite shared goal.  But Euthyphro cant say what that goal is. 5th Definition: Piety is saying and doing what is pleasing to the gods at prayer and sacrifice.   Socrates Objection: When pressed, this definition turns out to be just the third definition in disguise. After Socrates shows how this is so, Euthyphro says in effect, Oh dear, is that the time?  Sorry, Socrates, I have to go. General Points About the Dialogue The Euthyphro  is typical of Platos early dialogues: short; concerned with defining an ethical concept; ending without a definition being agreed upon. The question: Do the gods love piety because it is pious, or is it pious because the gods love it? is one of the great questions posed in the history of philosophy.  It suggests a distinction between an essentialist perspective and a conventionalist  perspective.  Essentialists apply labels to things because they possess certain essential qualities which make them what they are.  The conventionalist view is that how we regard things determines what they are.  Consider this question, for instance: Are works of art in museums because they are works of art, or  do we call them works of art because they are in museums?   Essentialists assert the first position, conventionalists the second. Although Socrates generally gets the better of Euthyphro, some of what Euthyphro says makes a certain amount of sense.  For instance, when asked what human beings  can give  the gods, he replies that we give them honor, reverence, and gratitude.  The British philosopher Peter Geach has argued that this is a pretty good answer.