What Similarities and differences can you find between Growing Up :: English Literature

What Similarities and differences can you find between Growing Up and The Son’s Veto? You should pay particular attention to the way the relationships between parents and children are portrayed by the authors. Thomas Hardy Thomas Hardy was a pre-twentieth, post-nineteenth century author, he wrote short stories and novels, even poems. Hardy explores the different levels of relationships between men and women. He delves into the environments and the circumstances in which they live upon. Hardy digs deep to find the love hate and sacrifice in this story, ‘The Son’s Veto.’ It is basically about the relationship between mother and son, husband and wife and two lovers. ‘The Son’s Veto’ is a roller coaster of emotions, happy, sad, frustrating, sorrow, love, remorse and hate, each feeling immense in themselves. Joyce Cary passed away in 1957. When he died he had become accepted as one of the best modern novelists. In ‘Growing Up’ one of his famous novels, there is a moral, ‘no matter how old we are we are never too old to learn.’ This story concentrates on the relationships of the two sisters and their father, it grasps the meaning of love from the father, hate from the daughters to their father but most of all it grasps the meaning of growing up vividly in a more modernist twentieth century way. In ‘The Son’s Veto’ it goes on about a story of a woman in a wheelchair, with beautiful braided hair, and it is basically a story of the relationships revolving around this woman, and with her. This story starts off with a full-blown introduction of this woman, with a description of her hair, and her stance, and her features. Then it goes onto her past, like a premonition, describing the village of where she lived, and the emotions of the goings on around the village. We meet Sophy; Sophy is the woman from the present, with the beautiful braided hair. She is a strong character, the parlour maid in the parson’s house. Then we move on to meet another character, Sam. He is the gardener of Sophy’s acquaintance. ‘He was a young gardener of her acquaintance. She told him the particulars of the late event, and they stood silent,’ this shows us there is some kind of awkwardness between these two people. They begin to converse. They start walking towards Sophy’s mothers door, with Sam presenting his arm around her waist, as you can see from this, Sam likes her in a sexual way, but from Sophy’s reaction, ‘she gently removed it’ the feeling isn’t mutual. We move on to meet the Parson, Mr Twycott.

Singer vs Regan

Environmental Ethics: Singer vs Regan Environmental ethics is defined: as a part of philosophy which considers extending the traditional boundaries of ethics from solely including humans to including the nonhuman world (Wikipedia). For example, this includes the preservation of plants and an increase of animal rights. Peter Singer and Tom Regan both argue that animals need a greater voice than their own in the debate of ethical treatment.Despite their very different philosophical views, Singer and Regan want a similar outcome when dealing with environmental ethics it today’s society. Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher, takes a utilitarian view on nonhuman liberation. In other words actions should be judged strictly by their consequences. For example if an action benefits the largest number of individuals, over a lesser number, then that action must be good.His central view is that moral consideration should be given to all living things but that â€Å"†¦does not mea n treating them alike or holding their lives to be of equal value (Singer p. 58). Singer adds that â€Å"We may recognize that the interests of one being are greater than those of another, and equal consideration will then lead us to sacrifice the being with lesser interest, if one or the other must be sacrificed† (Singer p. 58). This as a whole sounds brutal but on the positive end of moral consideration is that interest shared by both humans and nonhumans have to be given equal weight.Singer argues that â€Å"We can now draw at least one conclusion as to how the existence of nonhuman living things should enter into our deliberations about actions affecting the environment: Where our actions are likely to make animals suffer, that suffering must count in our deliberations, and it should count equally with a like amount of suffering by human beings, insofar as rough comparisons can be made† (Singer p. 59). He adds that the conclusion of making these choices will be con troversial but there will be a clear cut winner. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Tom Regan is an American philosopher that takes a much different view.He argues that not only humans have rights but animals have rights as well. Regan adds that â€Å"To be for animal welfare, as distinct from merely being against animal cruelty, is to believe that we may have a duty to improve the quality of animal life, by ensuring – so far as this is possible – that other animals are the beneficiaries of what is good for them not merely that we should avoid being cruel to them† (Regan p. 66). He emphasizes that â€Å"The welfare of nonhuman animals is important. But it is not the only thing that is important† (Regan p. 67).Regan’s aim is to simply abolish, not reform, the current system of human and nonhuman relations. He argues that it is morally wrong for humans to use animals for their needs, stating that this action, as a result, deprives animals of their individual rights. Regan asserts that all animals have intrinsic value because they have feelings, desires, and preferences. As a result of his beliefs Regan feels that the animal rights movement is no different than the human rights movement. Peter Singer and Tom Regan have similar goals concerning environmental ethics but have much different approaches.Singer takes a utilitarian view stating that the best solution to a moral problem is the one with the best likely consequences for the majority concerned. While on the other hand Regan takes a deontological approach to animal rights. He basis his reasoning on that like humans, animals have an understanding of the world and know what they desire from life. One problem that is worth pointing out between Singer and Regan is the loophole concerning endangered species. Singer does not look at individuals he looks at a group. With endangered species the group is small and therefore does not carry a large voice in conservation.On the other hand Regan cannot argue for the group that is endangered but only the individual that is in question. As a result endangered species are left is constant feeling of limbo waiting for a definite answer on their place in society. Despite the differences between Peter Singer and Tom Regan they are both in agreement that some action needs to take place. The world would continue to crumble around us if it was not for two great philosophers willing to put their reputations on the line for the greater good for both humans and nonhumans. Environmental Ethics, ed. Andrew Light and Holmes Rolston III. Singer vs Regan Environmental Ethics: Singer vs Regan Environmental ethics is defined: as a part of philosophy which considers extending the traditional boundaries of ethics from solely including humans to including the nonhuman world (Wikipedia). For example, this includes the preservation of plants and an increase of animal rights. Peter Singer and Tom Regan both argue that animals need a greater voice than their own in the debate of ethical treatment.Despite their very different philosophical views, Singer and Regan want a similar outcome when dealing with environmental ethics it today’s society. Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher, takes a utilitarian view on nonhuman liberation. In other words actions should be judged strictly by their consequences. For example if an action benefits the largest number of individuals, over a lesser number, then that action must be good.His central view is that moral consideration should be given to all living things but that â€Å"†¦does not mea n treating them alike or holding their lives to be of equal value (Singer p. 58). Singer adds that â€Å"We may recognize that the interests of one being are greater than those of another, and equal consideration will then lead us to sacrifice the being with lesser interest, if one or the other must be sacrificed† (Singer p. 58). This as a whole sounds brutal but on the positive end of moral consideration is that interest shared by both humans and nonhumans have to be given equal weight.Singer argues that â€Å"We can now draw at least one conclusion as to how the existence of nonhuman living things should enter into our deliberations about actions affecting the environment: Where our actions are likely to make animals suffer, that suffering must count in our deliberations, and it should count equally with a like amount of suffering by human beings, insofar as rough comparisons can be made† (Singer p. 59). He adds that the conclusion of making these choices will be con troversial but there will be a clear cut winner. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Tom Regan is an American philosopher that takes a much different view.He argues that not only humans have rights but animals have rights as well. Regan adds that â€Å"To be for animal welfare, as distinct from merely being against animal cruelty, is to believe that we may have a duty to improve the quality of animal life, by ensuring – so far as this is possible – that other animals are the beneficiaries of what is good for them not merely that we should avoid being cruel to them† (Regan p. 66). He emphasizes that â€Å"The welfare of nonhuman animals is important. But it is not the only thing that is important† (Regan p. 67).Regan’s aim is to simply abolish, not reform, the current system of human and nonhuman relations. He argues that it is morally wrong for humans to use animals for their needs, stating that this action, as a result, deprives animals of their individual rights. Regan asserts that all animals have intrinsic value because they have feelings, desires, and preferences. As a result of his beliefs Regan feels that the animal rights movement is no different than the human rights movement. Peter Singer and Tom Regan have similar goals concerning environmental ethics but have much different approaches.Singer takes a utilitarian view stating that the best solution to a moral problem is the one with the best likely consequences for the majority concerned. While on the other hand Regan takes a deontological approach to animal rights. He basis his reasoning on that like humans, animals have an understanding of the world and know what they desire from life. One problem that is worth pointing out between Singer and Regan is the loophole concerning endangered species. Singer does not look at individuals he looks at a group. With endangered species the group is small and therefore does not carry a large voice in conservation.On the other hand Regan cannot argue for the group that is endangered but only the individual that is in question. As a result endangered species are left is constant feeling of limbo waiting for a definite answer on their place in society. Despite the differences between Peter Singer and Tom Regan they are both in agreement that some action needs to take place. The world would continue to crumble around us if it was not for two great philosophers willing to put their reputations on the line for the greater good for both humans and nonhumans. Environmental Ethics, ed. Andrew Light and Holmes Rolston III.

Computer Shipments Continue Decline And Sales - 1750 Words

The most precipitous decline in personal computer shipments and sales have led many technology writers to inscribe in a plethora of online articles about what may inevitably be the demise of the personal computer. The purpose of this paper is to inform its reader about five (5) articles that were written to highlight the decline in personal computer shipments and sales in the third and fourth quarters of 2013 and how the introduction of Windows 8 as the operating system for these devices may have been the leading contributory factor of the decline. Various comparisons were summarised and personal input made in the reasons for Windows 8 failure upon entry to the technology market. Farber in his article titled â€Å"PC shipments continue†¦show more content†¦This statement they alluded to the consumer’s shift from personal computers to tablets for daily content consumption that continued to decrease the installed base of personal computers both in mature as well as in emerging markets. Keizer in his article â€Å"Windows 8 s complexity tax shackles Microsoft†, suggested that the labyrinth composition of the Windows 8 from an end user’s viewpoint led to its nosedive. Thompson (2014) in the article, â€Å"Windows 8 and the cost of complexity† stated that ‘computer makers have been hurt as consumers and businesses spend more time on smartphones and tablets, and are slower to replace aging personal computers’. Both Faber and Evangehlo’s articles echo the same argument that personal computer sales and shipments, in general, have been continuing its downward spiral because tablets and smartphones have replaced personal computers especially in incipient markets. Though Faber’s article drew focus on Apple’s MacIntosh growing 28.5 percent year over year, Evangehlo focus drew on Intel’s confirmation that new processors will be capable of switching between Android and Windows instantaneously. In comparison to Pettey and van der Meulen’s article, â€Å"Gartner Says Worldwide PC Shipments in the Third Quarter of 2013 Declined 8.6 Percent† with Faber and Evangehlo’s articles, all three articles ascribed the fall of personal computer shipments and sales throughout 2013 as the