Madonnas Role in a Feminist Culture Essay example -- Papers

Madonna's Role in a Feminist Culture In the book written by bell hooks, Outlaw Culture: Resisting Representations, she criticizes a number of the actions and viewpoints of Madonna. Claiming that Madonna has changed from appearing to be a strong feminist icon into a woman who no longer has a connection with feminist views, bell hooks examines how Madonna chooses to represent herself as well as Madonna’s changing role in the feminist world. According to bell hooks, initially Madonna was a very transgressive in a feminist sense, and now she appears to be almost welcoming of the phallocentric imperialist patriarchal views. I agree with our class discussion and with bell hooks’ critique, feeling that Madonna has changed from a woman who resisted male dominating ideas showing strong feminist characteristics into a more accepting view of patriarchy and sexism. First explaining the Madonna of the past as a cultural icon. Madonna was supported and idolized by feminists, because she portrayed herself as a very independent, strong, and powerful woman, unbounded by sexism and a system flooded with patriarchy. By transgressing the boundary of a sexist society, she showed us that a woman could be strong, independent, sexy, powerful, and just as good as any man, if not better. Over time, bell hooks explains, Madonna has changed, being more accepted by the patriarchal and sexist society, neglecting her previous advocation of feminist images. Madonna has done this, bell hooks argues, by posing very seductively in Vanity Fair magazine. These images supposedly show Madonna in very conventional and typical kiddie-porn photographs. When appearing in images like these, Madonna is implying that she openly welcomes sexist and patriarchal ... ...se show me that bell hooks is correct in her critique of Madonna, changing from a once feminist cultural icon to a representation of the white supremacist patriarchal views. In her book, Outlaw Culture: Resisting Representations, bell hooks gives us a critique of Madonna, giving us examples of how Madonna has transformed into a figure whom has abandoned her feminist thinking. These examples include Madonna’s photographs, her book Sex, and quotations. I agree with bell hooks’ critique of Madonna because I feel that evidence can be shown in Madonna’s actions over time supporting her change in views. From Madonna’s portrayal of a feminist to an advocate of patriarchal ideas, it can clearly be seen that Madonna has withdrawn her stand as a feminist cultural icon. Works Cited hooks, bell. (1994). Outlaw Culture: Resisting Representations. New York, Routledge.

Reinterpretación Filosófica de la Paideia Trágica :: Spanish Essays

Reinterpretacià ³n Filosà ³fica de la Paideia Trà ¡gica ABSTRACT: Philosophy as paideia is shown here as a resignification of tragedy as paideia in consonance with several contemporary thinkers. In this philosophical reading of tragedy, noted as the confirmation of an à ªthos starting from pà ¡thos, the experience of suffering is a privileged instance of learning which generates a peculiar wisdom — anagnà ³risis. Its appropriation gives occasion for a deep conversion that may take place as salvation. Moreover, the tragical paideà ­a is — in the case of Antà ­gone — an exemplary surpassing of violence towards justice, and the surpassing of justice in the paradigm of friendship and human solidarity. From Antà ­gone, it is possible to throw light on the ethical life (Sittlichkeit), so as to see it as did Hegel. In it there is already a constellation of tensions provoked by the connected incidence of destiny and the action of human liberty. This constitutes the tragical conflict which shakes the home or family, the pà ³lis, the phà ½sis and questions of justice and destiny, in order to recover them, perhaps, at a higher level of love and friendship. But above all, Antà ­gone presents an alternative to paideà ­a because she speaks and acts from alterity, from the brother or sister as the other absent, and so allows the other side to emerge, the other side imperfectly seen until now as an obscure, unconscious, underground — the other that one tends to forget and avoid — the excluded, the nothing as mystery of being, the kingdom of shadows that exalts the limits of light-figures, the female principle as the gravity-force of the male principle, femininity as 'irony of the community.' Ensayamos plantear aquà ­ cà ³mo, a partir de Hegel, ciertos textos contemporà ¡neos evidencian una asombrosa afinidad con la paideia trà ¡gica. Las figuras de Antà ­gona y de Edipo, tal como las caracteriza Sà ³focles, recobran asà ­ toda su fuerza educativa de paradigmas à ©ticos de humanizacià ³n. Desde las relecturas de Hegel, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Ricoeur, M. Zambrano, Steiner han sabido liberar nuevas posibilidades a partir de estos modelos trà ¡gicos. 1.- Antà ­gona y el à ªthos trà ¡gico A nosotros nos ha interesado sobre todo la figura de Antà ­gona , porque la obra homà ³nima de Sà ³focles permite no sà ³lo un relevamiento de la eticidad (magistralmente ya realizado por Hegel), sino que presenta tambià ©n una alternativa para la paideia. En cuanto a la eticidad, la piedad fraterna de Antà ­gona tiene raà ­ces mà ¡s profundas que un sentimiento subjetivo y azaroso.

Wittgensteins 1913 Objections To Russells Theory of Belief: A Dialectical Reading :: Philosophy Philosophical Papers

Wittgenstein's 1913 Objections To Russell's Theory of Belief: A Dialectical Reading ABSTRACT: In what follows, I give (following Burton Dreben) a dialectical reading of his dismissal of metaphysics and of Wittgenstein's objections to Russell in 1913. I argue that Wittgenstein must be read as advocating no particular theory or doctrine — that is, philosophy is an activity and not a body of truths. Furthermore, this insistence is thoroughgoing. Put differently, a dialectical reading must be applied to one's own thought and talk. Characteristically, this sort of dialectical philosophy begins with the question, Is there any definiteness to what I am doing in my own thinking and speaking? Such a question undercuts the easy assumption that what we are doing may be expressed in a body of meaningful statements. In particular, I argue that Wittgenstein does not advocate any particular theory of language. A common reading of Wittgenstein is that he aims to prevent us from misusing language. This view assumes that, for Wittgenstein, the notion of a correct, acceptable o r meaningful use of language may be taken for granted. In my view, Wittgenstein does not take the notions of use of language and grammar and its misuse for granted. For Wittgenstein grammar underdetermines what it is to use or misuse language. I argue that an ethical critique is implicit in Wittgenstein's objections to any attempt to speak a priori about language and thought. Distrust of grammar is the first requisite of philosophizing. Notebooks, p. 106. The purpose of my talk this afternoon is to make clear what I shall call, following Burton Dreben, a dialectical reading of Wittgenstein's dismissal of metaphysics in the context of his pre-Tractatus objections to Russell's 1913 theory of belief. The earliest letters to Russell by Wittgenstein read naturally as presentations or proposals, to be read straightforwardly, as they stand. In this spirit, many authors interpret Wittgenstein as rejecting Russell. s attempts to talk about the structure of language and facts, and, further, as insisting that any attempt to state the limits of language is itself nonsense. On such a reading, Wittgenstein is reacting to Russell. s realist attempts to analyze the structure of facts into constituents and the structure of propositions into names by eliminating certain apparent symbols. Wittgenstein relegates their pseudo-uses to what is shown in the use of propositions. Ricketts writes: ....Russell takes relations to be a type of thing — they are constituents of facts, objects of acquaintance, and the designata of names.

Beowulf :: Epic of Beowulf Essays

Beowulf, the Hero The epic poem Beowulf, which was told from generation to generation honoring modern Anglo-Saxon beliefs, describes a heroic man who saves a village in their time of need. By definition a hero is a man of exceptional quality. Exceptional quality doesn’t even begin to describe the man that is Beowulf. Beowulf has many heroic characteristics from his super human strength to victoriously slaying monsters and other ferocious beasts. He has excellent leadership skills and commonly boasts of his achievements. Beowulf emerges as the true Anglo Saxon hero; who risks his life for the lives and well being of others. Others perceive Beowulf as a hero through his physical strength and stories of his glorious feats. Through all of the battles Beowulf fought he lost only two, and his last defeat would be the death of him. The first battle Beowulf lost was his competition with Breca. Unferth was an unbeliever of the strength and determination of Beowulf. Unferth taunted Beowulf one night only to be, in return, taunted back. "Are you the Beowulf that strove with Breca†¦risking your lives on the lonely deep†¦of ocean swimming with out-streched arms†¦with plowing shoulders parted the waves†¦seven nights you toiled in the tossing sea†¦his strength was the greater, his swimming the stronger!" (389-400). As Beowulf explained in his feud with Unferth, "We gripped in our hands naked swords, as we swam the waves, guarding us from the whales’ assault†¦freezing squalls, and the falling night†¦down to the bottom a savage sea beast fiercely dragged me†¦and so I was granted to slay with the sword edge nine of the nicors" (413-443). Basically Beowulf is trying to explain that the only reason he lost to Breca was because he had been swimming for seven days straight and he stopped along the way to kill nine sea creatures to make it easier for other travelers of the sea to get by. This was one of the first heroic acts Beowulf preformed. Through the eyes of an Anglo Saxon, Beowulf saved them from having to deal with the sea creatures, because the sea plays a major role in the life of the Anglo Saxon’s. Beowulf came to rescue the Anglo Saxon’s from a ferocious monster who was terrorizing their town. Beowulf’s uncle is king of the Geats and so he is sent as an emissary to help rid the Danes of this monster, Grendel.

Jane Austens Emma Essay -- Jane Austen Emma Essays

Jane Austen's Emma Jane Austen does indeed present a picture of a community who look to each other for entertainment as well as support, and are content with their limited outlook. The story never leaves the close surroundings of Highbury and there is no desire to do so. When the party goes to Box Hill, away from Highbury, there is tension and the trip is not enjoyed. It is interesting to note that the three characters that come into Highbury, are those which have the potential to ruin the tight community; Mrs Elton and her ‘vulgar†¦self-important, presuming, familiar†¦ manner’, and the deception of Jane Fairfax and Frank Churchill’s secret engagement. The community in Highbury are very close and everyone knows each other’s business. This is represented through the amount of gossiping that occurs throughout Austen’s novel. Even small matters, for example the mystery of Perry’s carriage is discussed with great enthusiasm, ‘†¦and she mentioned it to her in confidence, she had no objection to her telling us, of course†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ Gossiping demonstrates the topics that enthral the community in Highbury are certainly limited in outlook. They are interested in the happenings of their world, and this is the most important thing. With gossip being spread quickly, it is clear why neither Jane Fairfax nor Frank Churchill told anyone of their engagement, which they wanted to remain private. To a modern reader, this is trivial, but a reader in the eighteenth century would understand the harm that this deception could have caused, had it not been in a satirical novel. The society that Austen has created depends on trust and functions interdependently, which fits in with the view of an inward-looking community. This is w... ... very pretty young man to be sure, and a very good young man†¦great regard for him’. Here, Austen reflects one of the many good attributes that knightly has; that he can see past status. I think that in Emma Jane Austen does present an inward looking community, limited in outlook to a certain extent. If you look at Emma’s society as a microcosm of eighteenth Century society as a whole, which had a strict class etiquette, then this opinion is true. However it also represents hope for the ignorance of this etiquette because the reader sees Emma on her journey of self discovery and realisation of man’s worth. Nonetheless, the community are not all inward looking as they regard others of a lower class with respect. With this respect comes a close community, who believes Highbury to be the beginning and end of their lives which makes them limited in outlook.

Friar Lawrence is to Blame for the Deaths of Romeo and Juliet in Shakespeares Work :: Free Romeo and Juliet Essays

"Romeo and Juliet," a famous love story about two star-crossed lovers who take their lives in order to be together. Their deaths are at the fault of one Friar Lawrence who, being an adult, a man of God and a trusted person in the community, betrayed that trust and attempted to cover up his wrong doings with a plan that ended in tragedy. The Friar was supposed to be a responsible adult and a man of God. This means that people would have come to him to confess their sins. Romeo and Juliet were young and naive and Friar Lawrence understood that very well. He also understood their personalities and circumstances, but still chose to marry them in hope that it would end the feud between the two families. As an adult he was also supposed to be a lot smarter ands wiser. Neither of those qualities were shown in any of his decision making. The lines ?For this alliance may so happy prove to turn your households? rancour to pure love,? (said by the Friar) is proof that he truly married them to end the feud. The position of trust that the families had given Friar Lawrence, he misused. This indicates that he didn?t really value that position of trust very much, because he proceeded in the marriage of Romeo and Juliet. When Friar Lawrence says ?In one respect I?ll thy assistant me for this alliance may so happy prove,? is the exact moment when the trust is broken because he has agreed to t marry the young lovers who were obviously too blinded by love to see the reality side of things. The Friar knew this, and he knew what was right, the fact that Romeo was incredibly impulsive and in love with being in love, and Juliet was naive enough to fall for him, but aside from that he gave in and made the wrong decision. The attempt that Friar Lawrence had made to fix up his wrong doings was a mistake and took a huge role in leading up to the two deaths. He had a second chance to come clean and tell the families the truth, but he chose to ignore that opportunity and came up with a plan that resulted in the deaths of Romeo and Juliet. After Romeo had been banished, the plan that the Friar conjured up was for Juliet to take a potion which would make her appear dead.

Right, Duty and Obligation/Responsibility: a Search for Ethical

1 RIGHT, DUTY AND OBLIGATION/RESPONSIBILITY: A SEARCH FOR ETHICAL FUNDAMENTALS By Dr. Ani Casimir K. C 2 1) Introduction: Immanuel Kant gave philosophy four fundamental questions with which it is to concern itself and they are: (1) What can I know? ; (2) What is man? ; (3) What can I hope for, and, (4) Finally, what ought I to do. The latter—‘what ought I to do? ’ is the central subject of ethics,or what is variously called moral philosophy or philosophy of morality. With the concepts of ? right‘, ? uty‘ and obligation‘ and responsibility, we move into the science of ? oughts‘ that define the moral foundation of human society and the stability of its social fabric. The Kantian challenge here is that before we can build a morally strong and ethically virile social order the citizens should know the fundamentals of ? righteousness‘ or the values that build a right and moral citizenship who knows his rights, carries out his duties and co mpels the state, within the bounds of a good moral-legal order, to fulfil its obligations to the citizens. Before we can delve into the meaning of the terms– right, duty, obligation,and its allied responsibility, let us carry out a brief survey of what is meant by ethics or science of morality. 2) Ethics – A Brief View: A lot of people fail to appreciate the fact that back in antiquity, ethics did not constitute an independent study as such,but was part of a bigger course of study. For it was simply known in classical antiquity as the science of ? worth’ or ‘value’ so that what was popular was the study of ? axios’ and not ? ethos‘. Axios’ translates to a meaningful 3 expression ? to be worthy‘ root word for axiology – a more popular science than ethos – the root word for ethics. Ethics meant ? character or the custom‘ so that one can talk about individual character being good or bad and a society‘s custom could be worthy or not. Axiology as the science that propels society and guides her as to what is v aluable, worthy or honourable came from the Greek; it determines and properly classifies the subjects and disciplines which are worthy of being pursued, engaged in or discussed by citizens. From such discussions emerge values which are worthy of emulation by citizens and the state and are classified and codified accordingly. Over time such classifications and codifications became a study and was called ? ethics‘ – or ? worthy of character or valued behaviour. ‘ Professor Egbeka Aja also threw light upon the origins of the ethical science when he did a supportive expose in his book ? philosophy: An Introduction’: ‘Axiology is from the Greek: Axios meaning worthy, of philosophy and logos,meaning discourse. This is the branch that deals with values – both intrinsic and extrinsic values. Values are described as intrinsic when they are pursued for their own sake; while extrinsic values are pursued as a means to other ends. For instance, education can be said have intrinsic value when it is aimed at the improvement of man. It can be said to have extrinsic value when it seen as a means to attaining political power or to acquire material wealth. Axiology can be conveniently divided into the following sub-branches– ethics, aesthetics, social and political philosophy, philosophy of law and education†¦(1) 4 One seminal distinction that has emerged from this classical history is that ethics was only part of a bigger discipline that included law, politics, education and aesthetics. Except in Indian universities, Britain and some Middle Eastern schools, the study of axiology as the science of values (i. e. human values) have almost disappeared. In its place, ethics – its sub-branch– is taking the centre stage as the ? worthy‘ discipline of value for the society. The word ethics comes from the Greek root word – ethos- ? eaning custom or characte’r, defined by professor Aja as: ‘that branch of axiology which is sometimes called moral philosophy. It deals with the values concomitant with human conduct and human character. Ethics should be distinguished from morals or morality. The morals or morality of a person or society are the sum total of all the moral judgements (or moral beliefs or moral beliefs implicit in certain acts or behaviour) of that perso n or society2 3 Right In an ethical sense, a right is any action by man in society seen and interpreted to be into tune with the moral law of a people in such a society. At this juncture, we readily see that right makes us to remember the idea of duty. The concepts of justice, right and fairness, stand to each other as correlatives. But in a legal sense, a right translates into ? a claim which a person can make against others with the backing of the law. The person pressing for a claim to secure his right does so with explicit or implicit knowledge that the law recognizes that right and will justly rationalize his claim to award a compensation where necessary‘. An ethical right must conform to not only the moral law but also to the principles of natural rights embedded in natural law. On the other hand, legal rights must conform to the principles of positive rights whose validity derive from the positive law or the man-made law of the state. Currently there is an increasing movement for the establishment 5 of an African legal system or jurisprudence which will be based upon not only what the law is (positive law) but also what the law ought to be (African public moral values). A June 2008 international conference with the theme ? the law and Africa‘ organised by the Department of Philosophy University of Nigeria, centred upon exploring such possibility of harmonizing state law and African public morality in a new African jurisprudence. Conceptually considered, a right is a moral power that a person possesses to do something, to keep something and to exact something from another so long as the action is not in violation of the law or any attendant obligation. 4 My right, as Dr. Ani Casimir, as a citizen of the Universe and Nigeria in particular could be used to illustrate the morphology of somerville‘s conception of what is a right: Dr. Ani has a right to do something, to keep something, and exact something provided in so doing Dr. Ani does not disregard the rights of others or their interests. So in essence, Dr. Ani‘s right and his enjoyment of them must end where the rights of other members of the society starts. 5 A right is judged by its impact upon the interests of mankind. When a right has a good effect upon others‘ interests it is alled just rights. Otherwise, it is called an unjust right, when it does not promote the well-being of man in the direction of life, liberty, health and reputation. Just rights are interests recognized and protected in law for which people are accordingly punished when they are violated. Violating any of them both in ethics and the law constitutes what is defined as ? wrong’. In other words, when we violate a right we are ? wrong‘ and the law states the punishment for those who have become wrong doers, that threaten the stability of the social order. It becomes immediately clear from the discussion above that we can categorize a right into that of 6 the moral and the legal order. What determines whether a right is classified as moral or legal depends a lot upon its nature, the nature of its source and the importance with which the society within which it operates attaches to it. A moral right invokes a correspondent duty whose violation by the moral agent is against the principles of natural justice. But a legal right is prescribed, recognised, known and protected by the law (positive law). Moral and legal rights are performable and enforceable only within human society and between persons since human beings are rational beings with intelligence to know them and guide their actions accordingly. In what I have insistently decided to call ‘moral sphere’—the stability of subsisting atmosphere of moral values in every society—every right has a corresponding object to which it must perforce relate to. This object makes it possible for the owner of the right to identify and claim his interest, protected and given recognition by the law of the state and the social conscience of the public. The object could either be material, immaterial or even services. In the context of human rights, this is what I define as a social, economic, political or an even environmental benefit, advantage or a constitutional entitlement. Rights can also be classified as either perfect or imperfect. A right is perfect if it corresponds to a duty that is in turn recognized and enforced by the law. A perfect right has both moral and legal correlatives in its source, recognition and execution. In otherwords, we are talking about a moral power that makes a law of society to b enforceable. For according to Nyasani: The enforceability here means that an action, and or criminal, will be taken against a person in breach of it, and if need be, judgement will be executed against him using physical force of the state. where a right is recognizable by the law, the state using its machinery, will have an interest in making sure that the 7 duty of respecting that right is enforced resorting to physical compulsion if necessary. 6 A right can also be classified as either positive or negative. According to the positive right perspective, it enables an individual to receive something more than he already has, whereas under the negative right perspective, the individual goes on to retain what one already has, such as the right to money in his pockets. 7 Another classification of rights is real rights as against personal rights. Real rights (jus in rem) entitles one ? to require that a duty is imposed upon all other persons to respect that person‘s interest? 8 On the other hand, personal rights(rights in personam) ? imposes a duty on a particular or determinate person or persons to respect the other‘s legally protected interested? Professor Nyasani illustrates this new classification with a telling example: My right to the occupation of my house or vehicle is in rem in the sense that all other people†¦ have to respect that right and the interest I have in the house or vehicle if on the other hand, I have my house to a tenant for occupation, the arrangement of its lease and use in between me and him exclusively and that arrangement does not directly enteret other people†¦ this kind of jus in personam which exclusively avails against no other persons but the tenant alone imposes a duty on the tenant to comply with the interert in the property ;eased to him. It is a person to person arrangement which creates an obligation on the party accepting the offer of lease hence personal and not real right with its attendant obligation; on the world at large†¦108 Rights can also be referred to as proprietary and personal if they relate to the person‘s estate, assets and property or to his status or personal condition. 11 Property rights are convertible to monetary values while personal rights relate to status and cannot be converted into money or made an object of commercial exchange. The latter cannot be taken away by any body. This is why such personal rights relating to 8 reputation and the integrity of the human person are described as inalienable and not transferable. On the other hand, proprietary rights are transferable 3 What is a Wrong? As we can see from the foregoing discussion, a right– moral or legal- has several classifications and it is the heart and soul of justice as a virtue. At the opposite end of that pendulum where the first position is occupied by right is what is known as wrong or injury. Just as we did with right, a wrong could be moral or legal in its texture. A moral wrong is an act that is repugnant and contrary to the accepted morals of a community; it is a natural wrong which need not always be a legal wrong10 On the other hand a legal wrong is any act forbidden by law and therefore not contrary to rules governing the proper administration of justice by the state. 11 A legal wrong may not necessarily be a moral wrong. In Britain, for example, the law prohibits the killing of wild games as meat by citizens. But naturalized Nigerians who are living there in Britain are home to a common African delicacy we call ? bush meat‘ as a delicacy. By consuming bush meat Nigerian – Britons who live have committed no moral wrong but they have violated a law prohibiting its consumption in Britain. A legal wrong: don’t kill nor eat wild games; if you do so, it is legally wrong and punishable. 4 Duty/obligation The complexity found in ethical discourses and subjects is fully consummated in the twin concepts of duty and obligation. But we shall attempt to dissemble the complexity through the simple process of marrying the concepts of duty with obligation and drawing out its meaning in bits followed with illustrations. 9 The word duty also comes variously as devoir, il dovere, pflicht or obligation. Duty has to do with the rightness of human actions regardless of whether it has happiness as its goal. Man is seen as having a duty, to live a life of virtue whether it conduces to his happiness or not. In other words, happiness is not that goal of duty but it is what we must do because we have to do it – either in accordance with personal conscience, public morality or the demands of the law. Duty is seen by many ethical scientists as a necessity in human moral conduct that helps to establish a moral society. For Immanuel Kant, duty is relegated to the higher order of the categorical‘ as against conditional or hypothetical imperative – that which we must do when and whenever we are called upon to do it: The categorical imperative makes it the supreme, absolute moral law of all rational, self-determining beings and in such a way that we (as human beginsare able to act on maxims which can at the same time have for their object themselves as universal laws of nature†¦ it posits the necessity of action at an end in itself and not as a possible action posing as a means to something alse that is alled or might be willed†¦12 Kant insists that if there is something whose existence has in itself an absolute worth, that is, something which is an end in itself, that same thing, pursued for its own sake, must become a source of definite laws and that inversely will be the source of a possible categorical imperative13. Kant gave the concept of duty to a humanity that makes public morality a desirable ethical inevitable good for the state and for its citizens a good worthy of being pursued. According to professor Nyasani: The objective principle is that the categorical imperative is beween the supreme practical law and the source of all laws of the will. In this sense then the practical imperative will require everyone of us to act in such a way as to handlet the rest of humanity in the most charitable manner possible so as to see them as an end in themselves and never as a means to an end. It is every one’s duty as a rational being to treat others in the same way as he would like them to treat him. This is the community that Kant so elaborately preached and practised14. 10 We can glean the core idea of duty from the trend of our discussion – duty is a kind of obligation we owe to ourselves, to others and to the society of which we are a members. But duty is a special kind of obligation: Duty as an obligation entails some kind of necessity†¦ not physical necessity by sheer implied command rolled up in the categorical must. It is a moral necessity imposed upon the human – will that ultimately derives its validity and force from the law of human nature which in term upon the eternal law of the author of creation15 5 Duty as Obligation: Duty comes across as a kind of obligation which is fundamental and basic to ny other responsibility we owe to any one because of its divine and natural correlates. As an obligation it comes either as a natural (moral) or legal category. We have a moral duty to obey our parents and not to steal from our neighbour. A moral duty and a legal duty could coincide in the burden imposed upon the individual citizen. If I steal from my neighbour, for example, I could get legal positive measures as punishment. Also, my neglect of my parents could attract social sanctions. So it is the rules that govern particular duties given recognition by their generators (makers) that will make a particular duty either moral or legal. Lacey gives an etymological conception to duty when he relates duty to ? ught obligation, duty-connected to others;‘ we ought‘ suggests a gap which ought to be filled . Obligations are primarily moral or legal. They are also always traced to some moral agent. 16 As against obligation, duty is primarily connected with roles, whether or not there are voluntarily undertaken. Duties tend to be of longer standing and not as ad-hoc as obligation: one meets one‘s obligations as one incurs them, but does one‘s duty or discharges as one incurs them in the normal course of things17 . 11 A ccording to Lacey they have similarities: ?duties and obligations are therefore special kind of things we always ought to perform them since they may be overridden, whether by other duties etc or even by something non-moral 18. Kant, however, has distinguished perfect duties which were absolute and could never be over ridden by other duties or even by, inclinations. As against object of material duties, we have also subjective or putative duties19 which are ? what we think we ought to do? 20 while material duties are ? what we really ought to do21. Finally, we can say with regard to duty that it is an ontological impulse which compels us (by the power of conscience) to act in a particular way, refrain from doing something which could harm or dismay another citizen from enjoying his or her own rights. The object and subject of duty is justice, doing right to oneself and to all . rofessor Nyasani‘s own conception tallies with my dialectical linkage of duty and conscience: It is a positive moral intuition that links in our subconscious conscience that drives an individual to make a crucial decision vis-a-vis the enhancement, protection and preservation of the self and by extension that of the community w hich happens to be the object of any legal legislation and moral norms22. Duties arise from the relationship of parties – say between father and son, husband and wife, duties also arise from commands given to citizens under a statute say tax return. Duties equally arise from contracts for which non-performance may lead to serious damage to public interest. 12 6 Responsibility: How does one‘s duty translate to one‘s responsibility? If I say that I have an obligation to perform a particular task or carry out an action ,can we say it is the same thing as saying that ? I have a responsibility to perform the same task or carryout the action. These questions throw more light on the law segment of our discourse, seeking to know the relationship between a person‘s moral actions, duty and responsibility . what is the single element that holds the three moral concepts together? The word is accountability23. According to Wallace ? responsibility designates a person‘s moral accountability for his actions. The same general idea is expressed by the related term imputability – as a quality of actions, facts or consequences by which they are attributable to an agent, and responsibility is the quality of the agent to which they are attributed. 24 Responsibility can be applied ethico-legally in the following three ways: 1) Descriptive Employment 2) Prescriptive usage 3) Ascriptive application 1) Descriptive Employment: This is the expression of a cause- effect relationship between an agent and an action or a consequence, without implying anything with regard to the ethical character of the act. 2) Prescriptive Usage: This is an expression of a moral obligation bidding one to do or to avoid doing something. For example, when Peter tells his friend Emeka – Emeka it is your 13 responsibility to take care of your parents in the village? It becomes an objective responsibility which Emeka carries for his parents in the village. 3) Ascriptive Application: The term ascribes blame or credit to an agent who acts with or without due conformity to moral norms of conduct. This portrays a more personal and subjective sense of responsibility different from the prescriptive model above. In all moral situation in which the sense of responsibility is questioned, ascertained, prescribed, ascribed or described, before and after the actions, there is a problem introduced when it is no longer a question of one moral agent but two or more agents committing a particular moral action. The name given to that problem is ? cooperation‘ – how to ascertain the degree of responsibility of the agents in carrying out the action. For example, a dead one can aid another living agent to commit evil, but is no longer living. A situation when an agent shares in the intention and modus of an action is defined as formal cooperation. While in a situation such an agent does not share in the intention and refuses to participate on the modus of the action is known as material cooperation because he may unintentionally do something that will lead to the committing of the evil. Conclusion: In dealing with the concept of right, duty, obligation and responsibility as ethical considerations, we have basically dealt, as briefly as we could, with the levers of morality, which is defined as the quality attributable to human action by reason of its conformity to rules according to which it should be regulated. 25 This means that there 14 is, in every society, a subsisting standard to which every human action can be measured. It also means that man is responsible for his moral actions and the consequences. Hence every citizen has a right which the state and every other citizen owe a duty to protect, cherish and promote as an ethical and legal obligation. The moral principles exposed under this chapter become the ethical foundations for the global experience which we define as human rights – which will be treated under another heading in another project. Notes 1 Aja Egbeke, Philosophy: An Introduction, Eungu, Auto century †¦ Ibid p. 13) 2 publishing co Ltd, 1991, p. 12 3 Nyasani; J. M. Nairobi, consolata institute of philosophy press, 1995, 255 4 Ibid 5 Nyasani, Ibid see also Somerville, Francis, Christ is king: A manual of catholic social Doctrine (catholic social Guild, oxford, 1962) p. 12. 6 Ibid pp 29-31 Salomon, John jurisprudence ed. Brullians, London, sweet and maxawell Ltd, 1957, pp 265-266. 8 Ibid 9 Ibid 15 10 Ibid 11 Ibid p. 33 12 Ibid p. 35. 13 Ibid 14 See also imanuel Kant, â€Å"fundamental principles of the metaphysics of morals† oxford, the Clarendon Pr ess, 1954 pp 85-110 15 Nyasani, cit p 22). 16 Ibid p 23 17 ibid 18 Lacey, A. R. A dictionary of philosophy)London, rout ledge and Paul,1976, pp. 148 – 151 19 Ibid p 150. 20 Ibid 21 Ibid 22 H. N. Castanenda Imperative, duties and moral ought, Australian Journal of philosophy, 1966 pp 50-120. 23 Nyasani, Ibid p 24 24 Wallace, W. the elements of philosophy, New York, Alba, House, 2008, p. 53. 25 Wallace, 162