Global Injustice in Modern World

Introduction Distinguished pastors and writers have preached and written respectively that human beings are equal before the eyes of God. They have put emphasis on how human beings have taken too much of the world things and forgotten the principles that connect them with God. However, it is surprising to find that the same pastors live luxuriously. Their subjects are not even able to sustain their daily meals.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Global Injustice in Modern World specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More We find pastors driving modern cars worthily millions of money. Some even have private jets. It is inconceivable that pastors preach the word of God with respect to the life of Jesus Christ. Right from the Holy Bible, Jesus was never rich. He lived and preached the agreeable news to people. He is said to have eaten with sinners and the exact humble men (Mark 2:13, Coogan, 2011). This is what should be happenin g in today’s world. This is the genesis of global inequality, which is addressed in this paper. People believe in the Christian life, so if the injustice begins there, then it becomes even serious when we talk about it. Religion should be the uniting factor. It should bring equity among the people of all categories. This I believe is true to all the religions in the world. Global Injustice Global injustice is as old as human kind. It has alarmingly been on the increase with the advent of technology and the demographic changes. It is an aspect of social, economic and political unevenness. It extends to the point of people starving to death while others dying of health related diseases. It is that simple. Thousands of people are dying of obesity due to eating too much junk food. The global injustice could be prevented but due to the greediness of human, it has existed in the negative state. I strongly side with Pogge’s argument that the world poor is because of the doubl e standard that people keep on playing. People have the means of production and, they hold them to enrich themselves. They have it in mind that giving something will lead to a suffering at a letter date on their side. Singer, P. (1972), talks of the world contribution to save life. He describes the deal governments and their contributions toward fighting hunger. This should be something jointly done. It should not be left to the government. It should be common knowledge that there are people out there languishing. People should be magnanimous enough to see in to it. They should not play games and blames on who should contribute. It is a dirty for everyone to save life or prolong it. Singer P gives an example of pulling a child from a state of danger.Advertising Looking for essay on philosophy? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More The other thing would be saving a drowning man. These two examples demonstrate the need to do selfless things where possible. Beitz, R. (2001) accounts that giving some amount for the sake of the needy helps considerably to save a dying kid in the refugee camps. He explains that giving should not be balanced on how much one gives. The double standard again here brings the whole issue to an undesirable standard. The doing because someone is acting to this extent should not arise in this situation. Humanity and empathy should play an influential role rather than thinking of what extent the neighbor is giving. Pogge, T. (2002), describes the social inequality in terms of socioeconomic status. There are people who buy clothes for fun and not because of the primary reason (Singer, 1972). Rationally these people could have given this money in aid of a hungry child in the refugee camp. What they argue is that the government is there for such people. They also give reason as if helping these people is only postponing the whole problem for the future. It is reasonable to do the right thing wh en it matter rather than relaxing to see things getting worse. If one is capable of saving a life, why would he not do it? We are all people with senses with same destiny. The difference is how we live. Giving does not mean that one is rich or he is showing off. The kind heart drives them to help. Fighting for a utopian world is rather difficult. What is crucial is just some justice. It is imperative to reduce the rate of death and crying mouths in the world. Having the joy for all even if not at the same status is the most valuable thing. Doing justice should be the priority to everyone. There should be no pointing fingers at the government or the other person because they did not give anything to help. If that person did not do as expected, then be the person to do that without expecting any reward. It is all about the purity of heart. In the churches, there is giving every Sunday. However, it is surprising to find that these churches are less concerned with giving out. Receiving is sweet, but giving is painful. A good example of global injustice is demonstrated in Kenya. Some few months ago, the country was crying because people were perishing. Livestock was being wiped out by the drought. So many organizations volunteered to assist. There was the famous hunger drive philosophy of Kenya for Kenyans; it was to my astonishment that I did not hear any of the churches donating anything.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Global Injustice in Modern World specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The question goes back to the idea of churches. They are ringleaders in preaching equality, but they were nowhere during this catastrophic event. The global poverty can be seen rooting from the point where people expect hope. Poverty will keep on increasing for years. On the other hand, those who are rich will continue becoming rich. In the African contest, there are street children and families. There are peopl e living below the line of poverty. Recently after the post election violence, Kenya has grown to be a tourist center because of the people living in tents. This is so painful to note that these people were once able to sustain their needs (Nasong’o Murunga, 2007). The greedy politicians came and robbed them their belongings. They now live in devastating situations. The fact is that, this inequality can easily be eliminated. Nevertheless it has been considered to be an area rich of votes for the next general elections. This is due to the cultural diversity that led the country to a civil/tribal war (Olunya Njogu, 2007). The political power as it can be seen has a significant influence on the global injustice. The politicians are financially stable. They are the representatives of the common person. However, they do not consider that fact. They keep on enriching themselves. They impose legislation that is significant to them. They do not want to lose. They think that if they make the common citizen well off, then they will not have the chance of getting back to parliament. For this reason, the socioeconomic injustices continue to thrive. This happens because of the double standard that Pogge talks about. No one wants to take responsibility. No one wants to take risks. The world is full of injustices, not because it cannot be controlled, but because people are too much into themselves. Charity and relief organizations are the best place to contribute to save a life. Very few people are willing to contribute. They have certain ideologies negative about the charity organizations. This is an indication of the fact that people fear doing some right things because they know the effects would be detrimental to their wealth. Pogge, T. (2002) gives a clear indication of the fact that the ruling power does not take the interests of the poor people. The poor people normally think of help and aspire for it from their representatives. It is only to their surprise t hat they find being neglected and betrayed by their own men.Advertising Looking for essay on philosophy? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More The political power is always interested in those who are willing to give in terms of finance. This is because they will only have a keen interest in other governments and even tourists and never their own people. Human rights are also given in terms of he who owns the power to have them (Barry, 1997). Human right such as health is not a privilege. However, it has been taken for granted. This explains why the global injustice has gone deeper to the level of health services provision. Those who are rich will always get the best services. There is the issue of privatization of companies. This is more considerable in the countries that practices capitalism. Private hospitals are for the rich and the public for the poor. It is evident even in the education sector. Rich parents take their children in private schools to get the best education. The poor kids will fall under the category of public schools. It is a fact that they have money, but what about the poor children. Nobody chooses w here to be born. No one will ever want to be born in a poor family. If this happens, it should be fair enough to create some equity for the betterment of the whole population. The global inequality will thrive as long as man will keep on giving reasons against helping the situation. The spirit of goodwill should be revived. Man should be more human than he is today. The idea of everyone for himself should not be the case today. The ethical, cultural norms should be inculcated within the human race. People should be willing to do something they see is worth doing. They are not supposed to think of what other people should do, will do or ought to done. The spirit of love for each other will help bring down the injustice in the world. Spiritual leaders should change their techniques. They should practice what they preach rather than doing the opposite. Conclusion Man is the most valuable creature of the Most High. Despite his inconsistencies, his social status and his economic status, his life is valuable. The short life that God has granted us should be meaningful to everyone. Everybody wants to be happy. The way the poor sees life be sweet is the same way the rich man views it. The only difference is means of production. Man must change for a better place for generations to come. There should be no pretense of incapability because man can do anything. References Barry, B. (1997). Humanity and Justice in Global Perspective, Contemporary Political Philosophy. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell publishers. Beitz, C. (2001). Does Global Inequality Matter? Metaphilosophy. Malden, USA: Blackwell publishers. Coogan, M. D. (ed.) (2001).The New Oxford Annotated Bible. New York: Oxford UP. Nasong’o, V. Murunga, R. (2007). Kenya: The Struggle for Democracy. Nairobi, Kenya: Zed books Ltd. Olunya, O. Njogu K. (2007).Cultural Production and Social Changes in Kenya: Building Bridges. Nairobi, Kenya: Twaweza Communications Ltd. Pogge, T. (2002). World Poverty and human Rights. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell publishers. Singer, P. (1972). Famine, Affluence and Morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs, New York, USA: Princenton University Press This essay on Global Injustice in Modern World was written and submitted by user Natalia Brennan to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

medea as tragic hero essays

medea as tragic hero essays According to Aristotle, a tragic hero is either an aristocrat or someone of royalty that cannot be evil. The hero has a flaw that causes a mistake in his judgement and leads to the downfall of himself or those around him. Also, the character must recognize his guilt. The Greek play Medea is the tale of a sorceress, Medea, and a fleet commander, Jason, and the conflicts that arise among them. Medea abandons her home and flees to Corinth after foolishly falling in love with Jason. There, two sons are born to them. Jason and Medea remain happy until Jason finds a new love, the King of Corinth's daughter. Filled with rage and overcome with jealousy, her two flaws, Medea sends her rival a poisoned robe, her mistake. Because she fears the king will attempt to avenge the death of his daughter by harming her sons, Medea kills them. By realizing that she will feel the lifelong agony of her sons' deaths, Medea is the tragic hero. The first requirement of being a tragic hero is the character must be either noble or royal. As the daughter of Aeetes, King of Colchis, Medea is royal. However, because she kills her brother and deceives her father, they exile Medea from her home of Colchis. But because Medea is a "sorceress," she possesses magical powers. Therefore, Medea qualifies for being aristocratic or royal. A second characteristic of a tragic hero is he or she cannot be evil. It may seem Medea is evil because she is a "sorceress," but she has a conscience. In act two when Medea says "O women, I cannot do it! . . . Farewell to all my plans! ," she shows that she is considering allowing her children to live. Although Medea kills her sons in the end, having a conscience shows she is not evil. Jealousy and rage are Medea's flaws. When she discovers Jason's new marriage, she becomes furious. Her first reaction is to kill the princess, which is her mistake. After killing the princess, she fears someone will har ...