Liberalist and Socialist Responses to Khomeini

Introduction Khomeini was an outstanding political leader who strived to reorganize the government and imposes his religious vision of ruling the economy.Advertising We will write a custom term paper sample on Liberalist and Socialist Responses to Khomeini specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More In particular, his work entitled as The Necessity for the Islamic Government, he outlines his position towards the government and his vigorous apposition against Western tendencies in administering the state. The main point of his work is based on the idea that government should be guided by divine laws and there should be executive and administering organs that would implement laws and ordinances of Islam. In addition, Khomeini is reluctant to accept corrupt and ruthless regimes that contradict Islam teachings. He was more concerned with the necessity to preserve national and religious identity being the basic need of Islamic people. In contrast to his judgments, liberalist and socialist views on the government and its functions are quite different. To be more exact, their outlooks contradict Khomeini’s views on the government and power in terms of religion, political system, and social rights of people. Liberalism Response to Khomeini By juxtaposing liberalist and Khomeini’s outlook on the government, there are numerous aspects and ideas that considerably differ from each other. This particularly concerns such issues as individual freedom and equality of human rights. Another serious discrepancy is revealed through different views on the relation of religion and government. Hence, Khomeini envisions religion as the basis for constructing laws and regulations within governmental bodies believing that this will contribute to the â€Å"production of morally upright and virtual human beings† (Khomeini 42). In contrast, liberalism insists on the necessity to separate the church and the state believing that religion should not be involved in governing and administering people. Considering religious views, particularly the views on separation of the church and the state, it is necessary to resort to Thomas Jefferson provides his position which challenges Khomeini’s view. Hence, Jefferson believes that a religion is â€Å"a concern purely between our God and our consciences, for which we were accountable to him, and not to priests† (Jefferson as cited in Jefferson and Beileson 34). Interpreting this statement, liberalism envision religion is not a social phenomenon, there is no connection between religion and government because they are based on different outlooks. Besides, liberalism could also oppose to Khomeini’s idea about close connection of government to morality stating that these notions cannot be considered within one context.Advertising Looking for term paper on political sciences? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More As it has been mentioned previously, the liberal ideas centers on the need of individual freedom. It was supported by many philosophers who did not believe in power of monarchy. Liberalism is known to entail different beliefs and ideas in what they call a better life. The liberalists seem to back Khomeini’s idea of having a good life in future without what they call a tyrannical authority. The renowned liberalism philosophers include John Locke, Thomas Paine and John Stuart Mill all of whom their work seems to advocate for a liberal and free kind of society. John Lock in his works Two Treatises on Government states that there are two liberal components which are the intellectual liberty, which include the freedom of conscience and the economic liberty (Locke 4). This issue is expounded by the philosopher as freedom to possess property and deal with it in any manner. He goes further to explain what intellectual liberty entailed in his Letter Concerning Toleration . John Locke shares the same religious ideas such as Khomeini where he argues in his works that man was created by God who gave his commands that man enjoys whatever is on the earth. In response to Khomeini’s views on religion, the philosopher has a different perception of this concept with regard to the government. In particular, he believes that although a person should be concerned with the divinity laws, there still should be the idea of individualism. In addition, he was less extreme in his views on religion as an integral part of the administrative and executive organs. It should be the basis of the political system (Locke 13). These ideas are similar to those of Khomeini who argues the necessity to form a government that will serve as a protector to the society when it comes to enforcing the rights of individuals. Further in his work, Khomeini bases his arguments on the Quran, the same concept used by Locke when he backs his argument on the concept of creation. However , Locke seems to disagree with Khomeini on the concept of entrusting the government wholly to govern man. He argues that man should be left to acquire his natural state of living and should not live under certain rules. He argues that the government should act as a trustee only.Advertising We will write a custom term paper sample on Liberalist and Socialist Responses to Khomeini specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Thomas Paine on the other hand wrote several articles backing the need of freedom of man. In his articles, he criticized the monarchies and the social institutions. He went further to expose the government’s wrongs such as fraud in a bid to promote individual freedom and degradation. He reasons with Khomeini on the need of a government that promotes individual rights rather than living under a certain tyrannical body with no proper rules of law put in place. He however was not affiliated with any religion and argued that he believed that his mind was his religion. His pamphlet, common sense is said to contribute to the idea of a republic government. It advocated for a better form of government other than the tyrannical one that Americans had been accustomed to at the time (Paine and Philp 7). John Stuart Mill on the other hand advocated for Utilitarianism and one of the chief campaigners for liberty. He also had the same idea like the other two philosophers about attaining some form of happiness to the people. He argued that the monarchs had excess powers to the peril of the common citizen and he became an advocate of fighting for those powers to be shed so that people should attain their freedom (Mill 15). He further contended that though power had been given to people through what he calls democratic governments, the threat is that liberty has been denied to people because of the laws imposed or social pressure. Socialism Response to Khomeini Confronting socialist views to Khomeini’s position about governmental system, it should be noted that socialistic school of thought greatly opposes to Islamic teaching that rejects the individuality and human consciousness. This is especially connected with the concept of equality, individual freedom, and necessity for changes. Like liberalist, they are also in a strong apposition to religion rejecting to accept divinity laws as the basis for governmental system. According to Marks, â€Å"[r]eligion is the general theory of that world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in a popular form, its spiritualistic point d’honeur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn completion, its universal ground for consolation and justification† ( Marx 20). On the one hand, the socialism idealist accepts religion as the essence of a human being (Marx 20). On the other hand, Marx perceives religion as a parallel world that does not have anything in common with politics and government. The social theorists base their arguments on the modern capitalism. They refer socialism as a society that is made up of political movement or philosophy (Lenin 240). In contrast to Islamic teachings that impose some sort of duties and obligations in front of God, socialism is more concerned with equality of human rights and the formation of consciousness independent of religion.Advertising Looking for term paper on political sciences? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More However, the similarity of views is based on the assumption that all people should be equal in wealth and opportunities. But this slight congruence is deceptive because there is much more serious divergence in views with regard to political system. Judging from Khomeini’s views, the philosopher considers government as an absolute monarchy where the governor is considered to be the envoy of God. In response to this judgment, socialist insist that political power belong to people who have the right to participate in administering the state. Such a position is extremely opposed to Islamic governmental system that finds it extremely important to have one ruler for avoiding chaos and disorder. The proletariats on the other hand were the working class who sold their labor power. They argue that proletariat would take over the economy which would lead to diminishing social classes (Marx et al. 12). The Marxism theory is based on social change and the main aspects included the materi alist and dialectical historical concept which explains the struggle in social classes. The other aspect is capitalism criticism where Marx argues that the bourgeoisie oppressed the proletariat in a capitalist society and lastly is the aspect of proletarian revolution where the working class will take over the power in a social revolution (Bernstein 3). The socialism philosophers believed that man should fight to be free of any tyranny or any kind of anarchism (Zedong 12). Other socialism philosophers like Trotsky tend to differ with Marx opinion of the Proletariat taking over the economy (Trotsky 13). Conclusion It can be seen that while both the philosophers of liberalism and socialism present quite different arguments on freedoms of individuals, governmental system and religion, but still they are rigidly apposed to Khomeini’s image of the Islamic government. Hence, the supporters of liberalism are more concerned with individual freedom where human rights and interests sho uld be protected by the government. They defend democratic values and believe that the state should be separated from the church. The socialism theorists base their arguments of certain classes of the individuals oppressing their counterparts and not a governing body. The Marxist theory reveals that the weaker class will take over the stronger class through a social revolution, which contradicts Khomeini idea about the necessity to introduce executive and administrative bodies. On the other hand, the liberalism theorists support Khomeini arguments that indeed a government is very necessary but that very same government should not withhold the freedom of the people. Works Cited Bernstein, Eduard, Evolutionary socialism: a criticism and affirmation, Stuttgart: Huebsch, 1911. Jefferson, Thomas and Belienson Nick. Thomas Jefferson: His Words and Visions. NJ: Peter Pauper press, 1998. Khomeini, Imam. Islam and Revolution: writings and declarations of Imam Khomeini. Trans. Hamid Algar. US : Mizan Press, 1998 Lenin, Vladimir. Revisionism, Imperialism, and Revolution. Ideals and Ideologies, Terence Ball and Richard Dagger.   New York: Pearson Longman, 1967 Locke, John. Two Treatises on Government. US: Urie R, 1957. Marx Karl, Engels Friedrich, and Gaspe, Philip. The Communist Manifesto: A road Map to History’s Most Important Political Document, Canada: Haymarket Books, 2005. Marx, Karl. Marxism, Socialism, and Religion. US: Resistance Books, 2001. Mill, John. On Liberty and Utilitarianism. France: Bantam; 1993. Paine, Thomas Philp, Mark. Rights of Man; Common sense and other political writings. Oxford University Press, London, 1998 Trotsky, Leon. Revolution; the permanent revolution; 1931. Web. www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/index.htm Zedong, Mao. Democratic Dictatorship. Basic postulates.1949. Web. www.latest-science-articles.com/†¦/The-Study-of-the-Relationship-between-Lenin-Oriental-Theory-and-Mao-zedong-Thoug-6 This term paper on Liberalist and Socialist Responses to Khomeini was written and submitted by user Emelia P. 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.

Essay on Just War

Essay on Just War Essay on Just War Essay on Just WarThe concept of the â€Å"Just War† is controversial. On the one hand, the war implies injustice, because parties involved in the war use extreme violence and often military actions result in casualties among civilians. On the other hand, the concept of just war implies that the war may start for a good reason, which is morally justifiable, that makes the war just. For instance, the prevention of genocide is a morally reasonable cause to launch the war and such war may be viewed as just. Hence, the war can be justified if the war has good intentions or matches existing moral or ethical rules (McMahan, 2013). However, such a view on the concept of just war stands on the deontological ground because it pursues the idea that the war may be just if it adheres to existing moral norms and rules, including the possible protection of human rights, response to aggression and other issues. Alternatively there are other views on the concept of just war which have a differ ent theoretical background. For instance, the utilitarian theory views the just war as the war that pursues the common good, while the egoist theory implies that the just war pursues individual needs of certain countries. Therefore, the concept of just war may be viewed from different perspective but the problem is that there is no universal explanation of this concept that could offer a plausible explanation of the concept of the just war without the risk of confronting severe and just criticism.Many proponents of the concept of just war (McMahan, 2013), including those, who stand on the deontological ground, insist that the war is just, when it is conducted in accordance to moral norms and standards that imply the protection of human rights as one of major duties of the civil society. For instance, the war may be just when it protects the population of a country from the violation of their basic human rights by an authoritarian government or when the army of one country is used to conduct the genocide of an ethnic group.However, the borderline between the just war and unjust war is very fragile, because the use of military forces leads to casualties, destructions, or even crimes against humanity. In such a situation, the question concerning the boundary of the just war rises. In case of the just war from the deonotological perspective the major question that arises is how to keep all actions of the military during the war morally correct. For instance, if the military operation conducted to prevent the genocide results in the death of civilians because of the erroneous targeting of an airstrike, then such action is morally wrong that means the this part of the military operation is morally wrong and unjust. However, if a part of the war is unjust, can the entire war be just then? Such problems may arise among all parties involved in the war. Consequently, the practical application of the concept of just war is very difficult and just war is rather hypothetic al or abstract concept that does not exist in the real life.Furthermore, the concept of just war may not always be applicable because totally different cultures have different moral norms and values (Mosser, 2013). Therefore, one culture may perceive actions of a party in the war as just, whereas another party may perceive those actions as unjust that makes the war unjust. In such a way, the development of the concept of the just war is possible only on the condition of the elaboration of universal cultural norms and values which allow assessing actions of parties involved in the war to determine whether the war is just or not, but, in the real world, such agreement between representatives of different cultures is virtually impossible.Alternatively, the concept of the just war may be viewed from the utilitarian perspective. In such a context, the war may be viewed as just, if it matches the principle of utility. To put it more precisely, the war may be just, if it pursues interests of the majority and serves to the common good. For instance, if an ethnic minority rebels and the government uses the army to suppress the rebellion, the government serves to the interests of the majority and the fast suppression of the rebellion is good and justifiable because this will minimize casualties, before the conflict becomes large scale. However, such a view on the just war disregards interests and rights of individuals. In other words, the majority turns out to be always right and any crimes against humanity that may be committed in the course of the war are justifiable and morally correct as long as they serve to the common good, according to the utilitarian perspective.Furthermore, the concept of just war may be viewed from the standpoint of egoism which put interests of the self and its needs above all. In case of the just war, this means that the war may be just, if it serves to the interests of the self (Guthrie Quinlan, 2007). The self may be viewed not only at th e individual but also collective level. Countries may pursue its national interests, while starting a war. For instance, a country may launch a war to gain control over resources vitally important for the survival of the population of the country. Such war may be just from the egoist perspective (Crawford, 2003). However, there is still the question concerning the moral justifiability of such actions. For instance, the war for resources may be important but probably there are other options to meet national interests and the population of the country. For instance, the introduction of innovations can minimize the consumption of resources that will make the war unnecessary. In fact, the main drawback of the egoist view on the concept of just war is the disrespect to needs and interests of others. Egoism admits the possibility of the war on any reason as long as the war meets needs of certain country that launches the war (Mosser, 2013). However, such policy and justification of the wa r may result in extremely aggressive policies conducted by the government of a country. In such a situation, the government just has to find a plausible pretext for the war to make it just. The government just needs to find the reason for the war that will show that the country does need the war, while the refusal from the war will have devastating effects and will be harmful for the population of the country.Thus, the concept of just war is very controversial and the borderline between the just and unjust war is fragile and not always evident. Hypothetically, the deontological theory can justify the war, if the war is conducted in accordance to moral norms and rules, i.e. when actions of parties involved in the war match those moral norms and standards. However, such cases are exceptional since even if the reason for the war and goals parties pursue in the war may be fair and just, but means with the parties use are often unjust and contradict to moral norms and principles. Similar ly, the utilitarian theory also fails to provide the plausible explanation of the concept of the just war. The utilitarian theory develops the concept of the just war based on the principle of utility that makes the war just as long as it serves to the common good, but this theory disrespects interests and rights of individuals to the extent that their rights may be absolutely neglected but the war will remain just because it serves to the common good. Finally, the egoist theory makes the war just as long as it serves to individualistic needs and interests, but this theory fails to respect needs of others that also makes the egoist concept of the just war morally questionable.

Competitive Strategies Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Competitive Strategies - Research Paper Example This paper concentrates on competition between two rival companies, Coca Cola Company and PepsiCo, and the strategies they employ to make sales and increase profits in the soft drink industry. How PepsiCo corporate cultures differ from Coca Cola Company The strategies that the two companies use differ in their method of advertising, search for new markets whether globally or nationally, and uncovering market niche that they can they control easily. Pepsi controls the youth markets for soft drinks in America while Coca Cola concentrates in the others. Coca Cola went global and seized a new market, which Pepsi has been unable to penetrate. These companies also employ the method of cutting costs. Coca Cola uses a lot of money for advertisements compared to Pepsi, which uses relatively a low amount. This helps Pepsi cut costs even though it makes huge profits. These companies also use anti-competitive practices such as exclusive dealing. Pepsi and Coca Cola companies exclusively supply c ertain businesses enterprises with their products and ensure that the rival’s products are not sold (Capparell, 2007). Advertising is crucial as it helps draw attention to a product and enables in the recognition of a company. Coca Cola and Pepsi companies have engaged in many advertisements across the globe in a bid to promote sales of their products (Moses & Vest, 2010). To a certain extent, Coca Cola and Pepsi have produced advertisements with common themes emphasizing on having fun but have continued on different courses over the years (Foster, 2008). Coca Cola leans towards an emotional position of branding while Pepsi maintains an energetic, music-oriented and humorous strategy. Pepsi’s advertisement strategy appeals to a younger audience since they largely use celebrity endorsements thus helping Coca Cola focus on the older generation. Coca Cola’s advertisement strategy ensures that the theme focuses on the global aspect, therefore, attracting a wider arr ay of consumers. Pepsi started its global campaign in 2012, therefore, has not been able to target consumers globally (Emerald Group, 2006). In order to keep pace with each other, both companies have employed different tactics that have seen an increase in sales and profit margin. In order to induce demand for its soft drinks, the Pepsi Company utilizes a pull strategy, employed in its distribution channels. However, this strategy concentrates on the younger generation, which is the main target market for Pepsi. As compared to Coca Cola, Pepsi’ product positioning controls the youth market in terms of demographics. The two companies constantly have to come up with new marketing ideas that help them capture their target markets (Johnson, 2013). How competition has benefited the rival company Due to the intense competition between these companies, innovations have been introduced to give each company an advantage over the other. The two companies have introduced a wide range of new products, which are sold at premium prices. PepsiCo has introduced alternative beverages such as Gatorade and Aquafina, which are sold at high prices. The brands bring high profits to the company due to customer’s brand loyalty that has been built over the years. Coca Cola also introduced numerous alternative beverages brands and they have made profits competing with PepsiCo, as some consumers prefer their products to the other companies (Thompson, 2012). Competition between PepsiCo and Coca