The Problem Of Evil Philosophy Essay

The Problem Of Evil Philosophy Essay The Problem of Evil is a provocative philosophical issue that has perplexed the minds of great thinkers throughout the ages up to the present time. Intellectuals such Aristotle, Averroes, and Kant have vigorously debated and held various positions concerning the reality of malevolence in the world and how it correlates to the eminence of a Higher Being, better known as God. Questions such as If God is altogether good, where does evil come from? and Why does God reveal that he is going to punish the wicked if He created them to be that way in the first place? are among literally hundreds of others that have been contemplated in the minds of millions all over the world. The objective of this paper will be to address questions such as the aforementioned, as well as to spotlight an associated dilemma, The True Innate Nature of Man, which quite fittingly arises as a subheading under this broad heading of The Problem of Evil. The True Innate Nature of Man also serves as a quandary for numerous individuals who aspire to comprehend the supposed world beyond sensible perception. This too can be a confounding issue for most students of knowledge, as there are various opinions about what the correct stance of mans nature in relation to Gods is; although some may be deemed as more correct than others. Is it that man was created in the image of God, yet still in a corrupt state of sin due to a crime committed by his alleged father Adam for which he needs redemption, as affirmed by Christian theologians such as Thomas Aquinas? Or is that man is born absolutely pure on the true, bona fide nature of goodness or fitra (in Arabic) but may be tarnished by his environment, as asserted by Islamic metaphysicians such as Avicenna and Averroes? Perhaps it is neither, and man was actually born inherently evil and immoral, but may be trained to do good by following the Tao or Proper Way as is taught by Confucians including Xun Zi, also known as Hsun-tzu. A thorough investigation into the topic of The Problem of Evil and its sub related subject matter, The True Innate Nature of Man, is sure to clear many misconceptions and reveal the fundamentals of the issue. God, as defined by The American Century Dictionary, refers to the creator and ruler of the universe and the being or spirit worshipped as immortal and with supernatural power over nature, human fortunes, etc. As such, due to the postulation that God is the One that creates human beings, bestows on them reason and intelligence, provides for them food and drink, and promises a reward in one way or another for the righteous, while not asking anything from them except that they worship Him alone, the rational mainstream view is that He is a good God. Not only is he just a good God, but He is a perfect God; a God that is absolutely and eternally free from any and all faults and shortcomings of any kind, whether inwardly or outwardly, or deliberately or unintentionally. The supposed problem does arise for the skeptic, however, when this perception of God is applied practically to the sensible world that is filled with crimes such as theft, murder, and rape, as well as diseases including HI V/AIDS, leukemia, and cancer. There seems to be an apparent contradiction in the notion of God being a good God and there being evil in the world. According to the logic of the skeptic, since God created everything from nothing and can be traced back to the origin of everything and identified as the unmoved mover, He must also be accredited with having evil as one of His attributes. In reality, there is no genuine contradiction between the actualities of God being good and there being evil in the world. The misapprehension here stems from the fact that there is confusion in the minds of many with regards to the free will of man and the omniscience of God. Human beings have been created with a choice of whether or not they want to be virtuous upright citizens on earth. Their free will allows them to commit immoral actions if they truly wish to do so. The choices that they have are merely a reflection of the circumstances around them which may or may not be favorable. Nevertheless, they still do have a choice and may opt to do the right thing. The selection to be virtuous or immoral is ultimately made by the human being himself and not by God. Even though God knows any and all things that have already happened or will take place in the future, the choice is left to the person to do as he pleases. The knowledge of God is not to be confused with the deeds of man; th e latter being imperfect, while the former, flawless. Evil actions such as murder and prostitution are thus a result of the imperfections of man and are not to be attributed to God directly because He does not force any of His servants to commit the crime. Rather, He allows them to commit the offenses out of their own desires and in conjunction with His infinite wisdom. As a result, it may be said that since God is the creator of each and every single thing in the universe from nothing, He is also indirectly the creator of evil since even though human beings are directly to blame for the evil perpetrated on earth, He created the human beings to begin with. With that issue being settled, a more complicated one still remains in that of natural diseases, disasters, and occurrences. Part of the reason that diseases such as HIV/AIDS and cancer infect people is because of their refusal to act in a prudent and temperate manner. Before proceeding, however, it is necessary to explain what this virtue of temperance is and how it should apply in human beings day to day life: The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines temperance as a habitual moderation in the indulgence of the appetites or passions. The ancient, as well as contemporary scholars of philosophy such as Thomas Aquinas, Stephen Pope, and Diana Cates generally seem to agree with this definition by consensus on a broad level. It is located in the concupiscible appetite, which deals primarily with the human lusts of eating, drinking and sexual desire; as opposed to the irascible appetite that is involved in the emotions of anger and exasperation. As Thomas Aquinas indicates in Summa Theologica IIa IIae, q. 141, a. 2, ad 2, temperance is a habit of responding with tranquility or serenity of soul to sense impressions of food, drink, and sexual relations. Its principal function is to moderate in the mean between extremes the emotions of enjoyments and service concerning the pleasures of touch and taste in order to achieve the good of reason as known in the concupiscible passions. Furthermore, it is con cerned with the sentiment of maintaining the gratification of sense pleasure as a whole, especially in the elation supplementing the impression of predominantly touch and secondarily taste. The ideal balance of temperance is generally found between the excess extreme of indulgence and the defect extreme of insensibility, while leaning slightly towards insensibility in this respect. Since the human species has an overwhelming innate desire for excess with regards to the pleasures of the flesh, it is only natural that most people seek to avoid this excess, and lean towards the defect while seeking to uphold the integrity of moral standards. The proximate object of temperance is the concupiscible appetite; pleasure on a general level, and contentment and grief more specifically. The remote object of this cardinal virtue is anything and everything that generates the gratification of touch and taste in an individual person; that is to say, food, drink, and sex. Through habitual moderation of temperance, as with any other virtue, the good of reason can be achieved in this regard. (Introduction to Ethics by John A. Osterle) It is clear from this brief introduction to temperance that this is a most serious issue that many people are heedless of. Moderation in deeds, particularly those of the sexual nature, preserves the wellbeing of individuals while an excess leads to their ruin. HIV/AIDS is the direct cause of the choice of human beings to be promiscuous in their sexual activities or act in some other carnal manner. God should not be held liable for the intemperate and depraved actions of human beings. Similarly, the diseases of certain types of cancers such as lung cancer and other ailments of the kidneys and such are usually the result of the choices of man to smoke sedatives or drink alcohol. Even though man has knowledge of the fact that these items have harmful effects on their wellbeing, he still chooses to willingly purchase and utilize them anyway; not only damaging ones self, but paying money to do so as well! The evil result of these diseases is brought upon only from the intemperate and male volent actions of man. While God did indeed create these types of diseases, He undoubtedly cannot be attributed as being the direct cause of someone acquiring them, as He does not force anyone to take the means to obtain these diseases even though He has perfect knowledge of the unfortunate individuals who will. The final type of alleged evil that occurs in the world which some people mistakenly attribute directly to God is that of natural disasters or occurrences such as earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, inherited diseases (both mental and physical), and the like that result in casualties. With regards to this type of evil, there is no clear cut definitive answer and it must be accepted that since God is described as All-Wise, there is wisdom behind all of these perceived tragedies. To explain, the perception of human beings is deficient, while Gods knowledge and wisdom are perfect. Even the greatest of metaphysicians such as Aristotle and Plato attested to this actuality. It would be irrational to try and prove that God creates evil through these calamities because human beings do not know the wisdom behind these occurrences. The truth of the matter is that there is actually much good behind these perceived dreadful and appalling incidents. A case in point example which may be likened to the understanding of this concept of the perception of natural disasters by human beings is that of when a parent accompanies his or her young child to the doctors office to obtain a flu vaccination from the doctor. The young child would be shocked at the fact that his parent would allow a person to thrust a six inch needle into his arm. The child does not have the foresight to understand that this is what is best and most beneficial for him; his perception of the action leads him to believe that this is a malicious undertaking being committed. However, it is apparent to any logical person that the good of this action by the doctor far outweighs any temporary harm that the needle may have been caused to the youth. Accordingly, this action would not be deemed an evil act. On the contrary, this action would be considered virtuous and very much necessary, even though the child might not agree at this point in his development. Similarly, since all human beings are mortal and vastly dis similar to God in that they are neither All-Wise nor Omniscient, they do not have the foresight that God does. Therefore, it would be extremely rash for them to label something as evil even though they do not understand the very core foundation of it. The good of these so-called natural disasters is evidently there, even if people do not have the perception to sense or understand it. A sub-related theme to The Problem of Evil is known as The True Innate Nature of Man. The genuine natural disposition of human beings is essential to understanding The Problem of Evil because if it can be proven that the mans natural disposition is one that is towards righteousness, this would also strengthen the argument in favor of the proposition that there is no valid Problem of Evil. Since the creation often reflects the creator, a legitimately good concept of the internal disposition of man would indicate an eternally good God, while an evil concept of the internal disposition of man would suggest some legitimacy to the Problem of Evil. Basically, the two main views with regards to The True Innate Nature of Man are that it is either one of vice and iniquity or it is one of morality and virtue. Scholars have rigorously debated this topic with great diligence in order to persuade the masses of people to see things from their perspective. The vast majority of religious scholars, h owever, have settled upon the notion that man is born virtuous, but with the ability to perform evil. The reasons for this view are abundant and not difficult to comprehend. Another view held by some of the scholars is that man is born inherently evil, but may be trained to do virtuous deeds. Attempting to explain and refute this view would certainly be much more remarkable, as the vast majority of people are oblivious to the arguments presented by the philosophers for this view and whether or not they actually carry any weight. One such unorthodox philosophical intellectual who believed that The True Innate Nature of Man is evil was a Confucian by the name of Xun Zi, better known as Hsun-tzu. He held the belief that all human beings are born inherently evil by nature. According to him, human beings must be trained thoroughly in order to become virtuous. Goodness is acquired by learning and cultivation from the sages. He puts a great deal of emphasis on the sages and regarded learning from these sages as an essential aspect in an individuals journey towards righteousness. Furthermore, Hsun-tzu made a clear distinction between nature and conscious activity. Whereas the nature of humans is the characteristics they are born with (i.e. natural instincts) and can never be changed or controlled, conscious activity is something that can be learned and taught by the sages; this is the part of man than can be changed and acquired through learning and effort. In order to support these various claims, Hsun-tzu also lai d down several arguments so that he could expound his bold stance on this issue. His foremost argument to support his claims is the notion that if a ruler did not have any limits or rules to abide by, then he would be unjust to his subjects beneath him. A different argument he uses is that the sage kings and ritual principles recognized that man was born evil, and hence, had to train the common man so that he would be good. Yet another argument presented was the assertion that people are born with intrinsic desires naturally in them, and these desires are never-ending. Clearly, Hsun-tzu is one of the greatest philosophers ever known to hold the view that human beings are born evil, but his arguments for this are questionable at best. Hsun-tzus primary argument for deeming the human nature of man to be evil is his allegation that the people underneath a ruler would be treated unjustly if he did not have any limits to his power. If the entire world were to function this way, there would be immense commotion and disarray. Similarly, if a man did not have any rules to live by, he would also be corrupt and evil. Conscious activity would be needed to show any goodness, and the leaders natural inclination would be towards evil. Therefore, the sage kings are needed so that a person can be transformed from the person he is born as into a moral individual that can eventually be able to honorably lead an entire nation. It may contended, though, that while it is true that a person needs to have some kind of formal training in order to be a just leader, the sage kings and Confucianism in general are not always required. This occurrence has undoubtedly taken place in many parts of the world. Authoritative rulers such as dictators tend to abuse their powers more than democratically elected officials do. This has always been the case throughout history. Since dictators are given much more power than elected individuals, they tend to oppress their citizens more as well. On the other hand, le aders that are given less power, such as the ones in most of the Western world, have a less chance to of becoming tyrannical and obsessed with power. The citizens of these Western countries are more easily able to prevent corruption in the government when it takes place. However, there are exceptions to this argument proposed by Hsun-tzu. There have been instances in history where dictators have not had a repressive stance towards their people. Leaders such as Napoleon Bonaparte and Mustafa Kemal Ataturk have been classified by historians as treating their people with dignity and respect. These dictators, as well as others, did not abuse their powers even though they were never trained by the sage kings or even followed the Tao. While Hsun-tzu may argue that the dictators of recent centuries do not have unlimited power, it should be noted that they still have enough to be able to oppress the masses of people in their country and still get away with it. Perhaps following the Tao woul d help improve upon the leadership performance of many of todays heads of states, but this remains to be seen. Hsun- tzus argument that leaders would be unjust if no limitations were placed upon them is an unpersuasive one, as there are still some flaws in it which need to be addressed. Another of Hsun-tzus foremost arguments regarding the True Innate Nature of Man as evil is the affirmation that the sage kings of ancient times were aware of the fact that man was born inherently evil, and thus, they had to train the common man so that he would be good. By the use of ritual principles and setting guidelines and punishments for the individuals actions, a person is refined from his original malevolent nature into a more honorable and virtuous individual. This person then must continually practice Confucianism and the Tao and continually strive to become a better person. According to Hsun-tzu, there would be absolutely no need for sages if the people were naturally born righteous. Logic would hold that this view is vastly constricted. Hsun-tzu is thinking only from the point of view of a Confucian. If a person does not want to follow the Tao or Confucian way or life, then it becomes impossible for this person to develop into a state of goodness. Furthermore, Hsun-tzu is assuming that the sage kings are good people and able to cultivate others just because they are sages, but if they are not known as such in the community, does that make them any less wise or less competent in terms of teaching others about how to become righteous people? Just because a person known as a sage decides something to be correct, doesnt make it so. The sages arent the only morally good people in the world. People in todays society can be known as righteous, and many of them have never even heard about the Tao. The conclusion that Hsun-tzu seems to be drawing is that the fact that there are sages is proof that human beings are intrinsically inclined towards evil. This is illogical because he is basing his whole argument on what some people during the ancient times decided upon. There are people in todays society that do not follow the way of the sage kings and ritual principles, and can still be considered to be moral, righteous beings. This argument of Hsun-tzus may have been true during his time, but definitely not today. The fact that the sages teach humans to be good is not evidence that they are evil. On the contrary, this can go to show just how good humans actually are in their quest to improve their virtuosity from when they are born until they die. Conclusively, a final argument of Hsun-tzus is that human beings are born with intrinsic desires naturally in them, and these desires are endless. No matter how often these desires or natural impulses are acted upon, human beings are never satisfied and will always strive to satisfy these desires, though they can be contained by following the Tao and learning from the sages. Goodness is not natural to people; conscious activity is required to reach a certain level of virtuousness. According to Hsun-tzu, this is proof that people are naturally born evil and must learn to be good. This view of Hsun-tzus is a flawed one because it actually can be proven that goodness is natural to people. An example of this is when human beings deal with infants. Even the most hardened criminals in jail seem to show an exceptional amount of mercy and compassion when dealing with babies and little children. This shows that there is a quantity of good in all human beings that can come out when the circums tances are right. It is definitely true that humans have innate carnal desired similar to those which animals have. In spite of this, humans can be classified of being moral or immoral, while animals cannot. The intelligence of human beings is the aspect that separates them from animals and allows them to be judged according to their respective actions. This same intelligence that people possess causes them to learn to distinguish between what is right and wrong. If peoples psyche can be honed so that they can easily perceive malevolence and righteousness and act accordingly, they can undoubtedly become better human beings. This means that according to this logic, the true nature of human beings must be virtuous because there is an amount of good in the human, however small, that can be honed and cultivated. If humans continually give in to all of their desires like most species of animals do, they will eventually be overcome by them and be deemed immoral by society. Since people are naturally not adept at containing many of our societys taboo desires, they must learn to do so from experienced people such as the sages. Consequently, people will learn how to contain their infinite desires, and over time it will become like second nature for regular people as it has already become for the sage kings. This argument of Hsun-tzus can definitely be deemed as an adequate one, but still not sufficient to prove that human beings are inherently evil. Human beings have to greatly strive in order to stop themselves from acting upon these instincts, so this must mean that they have to continue to consciously act to become virtuous, and goodness is something natural and feasible if one tries hard enough. Clearly, the debate on whether mans intrinsic nature is truly virtuous or immoral is a highly controversial one that many people have strong opinions on and tend to disagree about. The Confucian philosopher Hsun-tzu was of the opinion that human beings are born naturally evil and must be thoroughly trained in order to become good people. He further believed that man is born with natural inclinations towards profit, envy, hatred and desire and if left unattended, these mere inclinations can transform into attributes of strife, violence, crime, and wantonness. However, he also believed that there is no limit to how righteous an individual can become, but true goodness must be attained through thorough and continual learning and cultivation from the sages. Anybody and everybody can become virtuous, although not just anyone can reach the moral level of a sage. The key is to follow Confucianism, the Tao, and learning from the sages. Learning is the most essential concept in an individuals path towards righteousness. Hsun-tzu also made an apparent distinction between nature and conscious activity. By conscious activity and learning from the sages, and following the Confucian rites rigorously, he can transform himself into a morally good person. To further expand on his views, Hsun-tzu presented a number of arguments to convince the masses of people to see things from his perspective. Firstly, he felt that if a ruler is not subject to any limits or rules, then he would be unjust to his the citizens beneath him. This assertion is true sometimes, but not always. There have been exceptions throughout history that contradict this theory. Another argument he proposes is that the sage kings with their ritual principles took notice that people were born evil, and as a result, had to teach the common men so that they would be good. This logic may be deemed as flawed because it took place during th e ancient times and may not be applicable today or even true for that matter, as many individuals would strongly disagree with this claim. The final and most reasonable, although unsound, argument presented by Hsun-tzu is the contention that human beings are born with intrinsic desires naturally in them, and these desires are endless. These desires are never to be completely satisfied no matter how much a person tries to satisfy them. However, they can be controlled through learning from the sages and following the Tao, which is to be in harmony with the laws of heaven. Clearly, there are various positions that can be taken with regards to the true nature of man and Hsun-tzu was of the opinion that human nature is evil. This is a rather ineffectual view, as it can be easily disproven by the use of logic in examining the arguments he presents. The Problem of Evil is a subject matter of philosophy that has been around since the first days of scholarly discussion. The metaphysicians have held various positions on it with the correct position being that there is no real Problem of Evil, but only an apparent misunderstanding of what evil actually is and how it takes place. God may be seemed as the creator of evil in the sense that He is the creator of each and every single thing in the universe out of nothing. In spite of this, He is not the direct reason that evil continually comes into existence, but rather it is due to the actions of human beings and their misjudgments of what the accurate perception of good is that the evil comes to be. Hence, God is indirectly the cause of evil, while man is the direct cause. As for the natural disasters and occurrences such as floods or diseases that happen on earth, there is the perception of evil by human beings but actually there is good in all of these happenings. The All-Wise and Omniscient God is far above what any human being can ever imagine or become, so it is only logical that the humans perception has some weaknesses and shortcomings in it, while Gods does not. This can be likened to a baby in front of its parents; the parents know what is good for the baby while the baby does not even really know what is good for its self. Likewise, God knows what is good for the human beings while the human beings, even though they may think they know, do not unquestionably know what is right or wrong for themselves. As one can clearly see, due to the cumulative evidence provided, The Problem of Evil is not really a problem at all and may be accounted for if a person uses logic and reason to try and contemplate over the nature and characteristics of God. The Innate Nature of Man, as proven earlier, is not inherently evil and thus, by default, should be inherently good. Hopefully, in the future, people will begin to realize these realities so that they can cease to blame others, such as God, for their shortcomings and live up to their respective natures as being citizens with a natural propensity towards goodness and excellence in conduct.

The Truth About Physics And Religion :: essays research papers

The Truth About Physics and Religion Many people believe that physics and religion are separate entities. They claim that physics deals only with the objective, material world, while religion deals only with the world of values. It is obvious, from these, and from many other comparisons, that conflicts have arisen between physics and religion. Many are convinced that the two fields completely oppose each other, and are not related in any ways. Many people, who follow a particular religion, feel offended by the claims that physicists have made, while physicists believe that religion has no basis in reality. I will show, however, that these conflicts are founded on a misunderstanding, and that there is no division between physics and religion. I will also prove that the misunderstanding lies in the parables of religion and in the statements made by physicists. Furthermore, I will show that only physicists can really know the truth of physics, and only religious followers can know the truth of that religion; everyone else has to take it on faith.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Many people believe that physics and religion are entirely separate. They claim that physics is only concerned with discovering what is true or false, while religion is concerned with what is good or evil. Scientists appear to agree that â€Å"physics is the manner in which we argue about the objective side of reality.† Religious followers, on the other hand, agree that â€Å"religion is the way we express the subjective decisions that help us choose the standards by which we live.† Although these definitions seem to be contrasting, an important element remains absent, an element that must first be considered before religion and physics can be compared.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Those who think that religion has no basis in reality also believe that there is an â€Å"obvious† separation between the two fields. They think that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. Paul Dirac, a physicist, once said: The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. Dirac, and those who think the same way, however, fails to consider the essential element that has caused many to misunderstand the relationship between physics and religion. What they fail to realize is that religion uses language in quite a different way from science. The language of religion is more closely related to the language of poetry than to the language of science.

Essay --

In mijn essay behandel ik het boek het Maatschappelijke verdrag van Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Ik heb voor dit boek gekozen, omdat Rousseau mij heel erg interesseerde toen ik hem tegenkwam in handboek 2, het oog in de storm geschreven door Ellen Geerlings. Ik was vooral aangetrokken door zijn denken over de staat, omdat ik mijzelf al lang afvraag waar het naar toe gaat met deze maatschappij waar wij nu in leven, en zo kwam ik bij het Maatschappelijke verdrag terecht. Rousseau is geboren in 1712 te Genà ¨ve. Zijn moeder overleed kort na zijn geboorte en zijn vader leerde hem lezen en schrijven op goed niveau. Op zijn 17e bekeerde hij zich tot het katholicisme. En hij gaat naar Parijs in 1742. Zijn interesse naar de filosofie kwam in zijn 37e levensjaar toen hij de opstelwedstrijd: â€Å"Welke bijdrage heeft de versterkte positie van wetenschappen en kunsten geleverd aan de verfijning der zeden?† won en daardoor in 1 klap een beroemde schrijver is. Zijn interesse voor de filosofie groeit. Hij keert terug naar Genà ¨ve en wordt weer protestants. De plotselinge aandacht die hij kreeg maakte het moeilijk om zijn visie weer te geven. Rousseau is een contractdenker, die de ongelijkheid in deze maatschappij ziet als een voortbrengsel van cultuurhistorische teruggang, doordat bezit en liefde naar onszelf toe ingang hebben gevonden in een meer oorspronkelijke natuurtoestand van samenleven. Er is een verschil tussen mensen die in de natuurtoestand leven en tussen mensen die leven in de maatschappij. Iemand moet de stad gaan bewonen en voordeel doen, en niet doen wat de rest van de stad doet. Rousseau zijn denken in het algemeen is dat de mens terug naar de natuur moet om helemaal vrij te zijn, maar hier bedoelt hij niet mee dat mensen weer in het wo... ...us gevormd door een ieder die zich aan dit Maatschappelijke verdrag houdt. De staat zijn dus dezelfde mensen als de Soeverein. Dus de burgers bepalen wat ze willen en dan zijn zij ook de onderdanen die doen wat zij zelf willen, dus die de algemene wil volgen. Hierdoor ontstaat er voor iedereen vrijheid, omdat iedereen doet wat hij/zij zelf bepaald heeft. Er ontstaat natuurlijk ook zelfbehoud, omdat iedereen bepaald heeft en het dan ook iedereen zijn verantwoordelijkheid is dat elk individu beschermd wordt tegen aanvallen. Datgene wat de burgers (soeverein) bepaald over het belang worden wetten genoemd. Hierin staat de vrijheid van het volk en dit zijn geen wetten die de vrijheid willen beperken. Dit is volgens Rousseau ‘’de enige menselijke vorm die de vrijheid kan aannemen wanneer men het zelfbehoud als uitgangspunt neemt’’ (blz.20 Het Maatschappelijke verdrag) .

Essay on Chaucers Canterbury Tales - Evil Exposed in The Pardoners Ta

The Root of Evil Exposed in The Pardoner's Tale    "The root of all evil is money."   Because this phrase has been repeated so many times throughout history, one can fail to realize the truth in this timeless statement.   Whether applied to the corrupt clergy of Geoffrey Chaucer's time, selling indulgences, or the corrupt televangelists of today, auctioning off salvation to those who can afford it, this truth never seems to lose its validity.   In Chaucer's famous work The Canterbury Tales, he points out many inherent flaws of human nature, all of which still apply today.   Many things have changed since the fourteenth century, but humanity's ability to act foolish is not one of them.   Perhaps the best example of this is illustrated in "The Pardoner's Tale."   His account of three rioters who set out to conquer Death and instead deliver it upon each other, as well as the prologue which precedes the tale, reveal the truthfulness of the aforementioned statement as it applies to humanity in general and the Pardoner himself.      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Before he even begins his tale, the Pardoner delivers a sort of disclaimer, informing the pilgrims of his practices within the church.      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The Pardoner was an expert at exploiting parishioners' guilt for his financial gain.   He sold them various "relics" that supposedly cured ailments ranging from sick cattle to jealousy.   And if the relics didn't seem to work, it was obviously because of the sinful man or woman who purchased them, and no fault of the Pardoner.   He had a few lines he would routinely say to his potential customers;      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   "Good men and women, here's a word of of... ...aucer does a great job of pointing out flaws of human nature, as well as the hypocrisy of organized religion.   He shows in several ways that money is indeed the root of evil.   In addition to the obvious message of "The Pardoner's Tale", Chaucer also paints a vivid picture of the Pardoner's character and uses this to further reinforce his point.  Ã‚   By examining both "The Pardoner's Tale" and the Pardoner himself, it isn't hard to see that the statement continues to ring true just as it did 500 years ago:   The root of evil is money.    Works Cited and Consulted Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Pardoner's Prologue and Tale. In The Norton Anthology of English Literature. Ed. M.H. Abrams et al. 6th ed. 1 vol. New York: Norton. 1:164-178. French, Robert Dudley. A Chaucer Handbook, 2nd ed. New York: Appleton Century Crofts Inc., 1955.

Animal Farm – Literary Essay

Is it not everyone's dream to live in a world where each person  is equal? Karl Marx came up with a  solution  to the problem of inequality and called it communism. The idea of  communism  looks like a good  plan  on paper but it could never work in real life because of ones’ large desire  for power. George Orwell uses his novel  Animal Farm  to show how one’s greed can lead a great plan to fail, regardless of the situation. He does this by showing how one loses focus of the original idea because they crave power, how one then goes against the original idea, and finally how one turns the original idea into something it was never supposed to be. In the beginning of the  book, Old Major tells the animals his dream of freedom for all animals. Then, Old Major dies, leaving behind his wisdom and his vision for all animals. Throughout the book the other animals carry out his dream and they name it Animalism. They even come up with rules, known as the seven commandments. â€Å"THE SEVEN COMMANDMENTS 1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy. 2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend. 3. No animal shall wear clothes. 4. No animal shall sleep in a bed. 5. No animal shall drink alcohol. 6. No animal shall kill any other animal. 7. All animals are equal,† (page – chapter 2). The animals then  paint  these commandments on the wall and live by them every day. Even though these are great rules the pigs start to lose focus and start to battle for power. After Old Major dies and the plans for Animalism start to take off both Napoleon and Snowball fight for power over the farm. Two people cannot share power, because power cannot be shared. It is greed that pushes one leader to gain all of the power. In the book Animal Farm Snowball and Napoleon are battling for power. Orwell writes, â€Å"At last the day came when Snowball's plans were completed. At the Meeting on the following Sunday the question of whether or not to begin work on the windmill was to be put to the vote. When the animals had assembled in the big barn, Snowball stood up and, though occasionally interrupted by bleating from the sheep, set forth his reasons for advocating the building of the windmill. Then Napoleon stood up to reply. He said very quietly that the windmill was nonsense and that he advised nobody to vote for it, and promptly sat down again; he had spoken for barely thirty seconds, and seemed almost indifferent as to the effect he produced, (Chapter 5 paragraph 3). † Napoleon seems to strive for power more than Snowball does and he will take any chance he has to take Snowball down, which completely defeats Old Major’s vision of Animalism and its purpose of equality. Power was not a part of Old major’s vision. While Snowball is very intelligent and seems to want the best for Animal Farm Napoleon is just power-hungry. It is clear that Napoleon is jealous of Snowball, so he begins to plan how to get rid of him. To do this, Napoleon uses the dogs to chase Snowball off the farm. When they return to him it’s as if they have no regret. â€Å"It was noticed that they wagged their tails to him in the same way as the other dogs had been used to do to Mr. Jones,† (5. 15). Napoleon has a taste for power, and now that he has it he is only going to want more. After Snowball is gone, Napoleon has complete control of the farm, which is not a good thing. He rarely speaks for himself because he has Squealer to do it for him. Napoleon gets rid of the meetings, which also gets rid of opportunity for the other animals to speak. He also gives himself all of the luxuries. â€Å"In these days Napoleon rarely appeared in public, but spent all his time in the farmhouse, which was guarded at each door by fierce-looking dogs. When he did emerge, it was in a ceremonial manner, with an escort of six dogs who closely surrounded him and growled if anyone came too near,†Ã‚  (7. ) Napoleon is now the most important animal on the farm, and even re-writes history to make himself seem even better. Napoleon was not the only one to re-write history though, although, he was the one that demanded the others to make false confessions just so they could be killed. â€Å"And so the tale of confessions and executions went on, until there was a pile of corpses l ying before Napoleon’s feet and the air was heavy with the smell of blood, which had been unknown there since the time of Jones,†Ã‚  (7. 6). Napoleon wanted to prove his power to the other animals and he would stop at nothing to do so. One could say that Napoleon became worse than Mr. Jones, the original farm owner, ever was. A plan that started out to make the farm a communist place turns out to be ruled by a dictator, again. George Orwell used the book Animal Farm to write about how Karl Marx’s idea of communism and how easily it can fail because one loses focus of the original idea.

The Importance of Organizational Ethics

In today's world, it is all too prevalent to see more and more people hungry to gain success at an ever-increasing rate. Modern culture can and indeed is labelled ‘greedy' and ‘thoughtless'. Through my relatively short time spent in business, I have encountered many of these types of people. But who are they hungry for? Who benefits from their thoughtlessness, and why do they do what they do? More importantly, who is to blame when things don't go according to plan? These are all questions asked constantly in the business domain, questions that often seem to include the word ‘ethics' in their answer. Whether we look to consequentialism and always consider the outcome of a particular action, or conform to a more deontological form of ethical thinking and focus on always acting in a manner that seems ‘right', I believe that a person cannot always be ‘ethical', all of the time. If it were that easy, ethics would be a very small area of study. So what does the word ‘ethical' mean? To me, it is to take into account every aspect involved in any given situation, peoples' feelings, thoughts and well-being, both now and in the future, and act as best one can to achieve the most satisfactory outcome for all concerned. From my viewpoint, acting in an ethical manner comes from each and every individual, each having learned from the environment in which they have grown and developed. Should the judgement, therefore, always be left to the individual? This is certainly not the case, as more and more organisations in the business world develop codes of ethics that they expect each member to follow. This definition and management of ethics can be seen as a control-oriented position. This control paradigm for organisational ethics is largely concerned with extracting the best possible results for the organisation as a whole. When acting within a certain environment, be it local, national or global, the organisation must be seen to be ‘socially acceptable'. I believe this idea of control of the organisation's self-interest together with maintaining a good standing in the public eye to be the main factor for preparing these ethical codes. Both of these can only be achieved through clearly defined codes of ethics from which individuals' roles can conform through a manner of standardisation. However, through the enforcement of ethical codes, people revoke to a basic level of thinking, judgement and acting as identified in Lawrence Kohlberg's pre-conventional level. When put simply, it allows little room for individual thought or expression, only rewarding good actions and punishing those that are bad. Can it be right to control tasks that involve ethical reasoning by individuals? This is certainly much different than, say, controlling how someone operates a particular machine. Conversely, the autonomy paradigm, present in some organisations' ethical policies, is put in place to promote individual critique through their moral thought and judgement. It emphasises a feeling of a ‘moral community', seen before in Kant's work, and from which Kohlberg developed his post-conventional level, that allows people to apply their own reasoning to daily situations. As Durkheim suggests and with which I agree, individuals submit to the environment in which they work and how others have previously cast out norms and values. This applies to general situations and therefore the majority. At other times, in more complex situations, an individual would then be left to choose their own actions. McMahon identifies that the legitimacy of managerial authority lies within a contract or promise. An employee, therefore, willingly submits to the thoughts and ideals of the organisation when they sign the contract of employment. â€Å"That is, the exchange of labour for wages in which employment consists involves a promise on the part of employees to accept the directives of managers. To be sure, employees may be expected to use their own judgement in carrying out the tasks assigned to them. But if a managerial directive conflicts with an employee's judgement, the directive must take precedence. Otherwise the employee is attempting to renege on a morally binding agreement† (McMahon, 1989). Whilst this in law is true, I feel that it should be left wholly to the individual's own moral judgement. What is to say that those who have prepared the code of ethics for a particular organisation are better ‘ethically equipped' to make the decisions for others? That is to say, why is a senior manager more ethically right than a lower employee? I don't believe that as a rule he/she is, more they and others responsible for making the decisions would like to think they are. Yes they may have more experience in their particular industry or even technical and conceptual skills, but that does not make them better suited to exert their moral judgement over another individual's. Once again, this control is clearly forcing employees back down to a Kohlbergian pre-conventional level. In such free-speaking times as we now live therefore, why do organisations attempt to dictate our thoughts and actions? As I earlier identified, the organisation does not want to be seen to be ‘socially unacceptable' whilst simultaneously achieving the best possible results. Therefore, from where do the key decisions originate? Should it be left to the managers to ensure that employees follow an ethical code or should it be left to the individual's judgement? In my view, autonomy is the generally the best approach as I am a firm believer in individual expression. We have moved from such times as to rule with an iron fist, we should go on from here and not regress. Do many organisations simply issue a code of ethics because it is the ‘done thing', a reactive gesture rather than a proactive exercise? Is it the case that they are only acting merely not to appear unethical? This certainly is the case in many organisations in my opinion. What is left to examine is which organisation subscribes to which approach and for what reasons? I consider the major factor in this to be the issue of responsibility. The term responsible is â€Å"firstly, sometimes used to mean ‘trustworthy' or ‘dependable'†¦ second, the term is used to mean ‘obligation'. Third, responsibility is sometimes used to indicate that an action or its consequences are attributable to a certain agent† (Velasquez, 1983). It is this third explanation that I shall focus on. Can corporations have moral responsibility? This is a question that certainly needs addressing here, and one that has been previously considered by Richard De George. He focused on collective responsibility as it related to organisations, and identified two views, the organisational view and the moralistic view. â€Å"The organisational view maintains that moral responsibility cannot properly be assigned either to a corporation, nor to the agents of a corporation when they act as corporate agents. As legal entities corporations can be legally restrained and can have legal responsibility. But they cannot logically be held morally responsible or have moral responsibility. For they are not moral agents or entities† (De George, 1981). His moralistic view, as he claims, is extremely outrageous. In essence, it states that organisations have moral immunity, whereby an individual could be morally condemned for their actions, they could not if they were pursuing the goals of their organisation. De George lists the example of morally condemning a murderer for their actions, but how â€Å"Murders Inc. cannot be faulted from a moral point of view for pursuing its goal, nor can its agents for doing what is necessary to achieve the organisation's ends. Whilst this addresses the issue of whether organisations can be morally responsible, it does not answer the question. Therefore, we have to determine whether it is the organisation that acts, the management or the people. â€Å"Whenever organisations act, people act, and for every act of an organisation there are at least some acts of individuals such that if these individuals had not performed their acts, and no one else had, then the organisation would not have performed the act attributed to it† (Haworth, 1959). This quote, in my opinion begins to attribute responsibility wholly to individuals, and thus removes any need for a control-oriented approach. Since the organisation as an entity cannot be held responsible, why then should any body of people seek to control the moral judgement and actions of others? If I am likely to be held accountable for my actions, then I know I want to exert my own moral judgement before acting. Therefore, as it appears to me, it is the actions of the people (be it a manager or a cleaner) that are accountable, and consequently the people who are responsible! So why do some organisations take this control-oriented approach? I'm sure that with some it is simply to keep the power in their own hands; these people think they need to have power in order to be successful. However, I think a more pertinent reason as to why some organisations take this approach is to hide behind the organisation themselves. Many individuals within organisations are scared of the book stopping with them so they create a ‘code of ethics' which, in terms of blame, is large enough to hide behind. Surely then, with the control-oriented approach the organisation should be responsible? On the contrary, with an organisation that employs the autonomous approach, each individual must be responsible for their own actions since they are solely attributable for every part of every move they make. In listing these two types of approaches and the degree of control that they attempt to possess, can it be said of any one organisation that it has successfully adopted a control-oriented or autonomous approach, and that there is no middle ground? I believe there to be a large scope for contention with any organisation that states outright it has employed one of the two approaches in its entirety. Perhaps the two approaches are simply styles of operating, maybe even ideal? Having looked into the two different styles, therefore, I think that to control someone's moral and ethical thinking with the ultimate aim to enforce them to acting in a particular way is wrong. Each individual, unless impaired by disability, has the power to determine what is right for them in a certain situation and therefore should have the opportunity to act accordingly. A person should not be told what to think simply for the corporate ‘good'. â€Å"If we are to deter corporate wrongdoing and be assured that corporate members will comply with our moral and legal norms, our blame and punishment must travel beyond the corporate veil to lodge with those who knowingly bring about the corporation's acts† (Velasquez, 1983). In conclusion, if we as individuals want the power to think and judge for ourselves then we must accept the consequences of our own actions. Organisations should give us this choice.

Buddhism in the United States

It has almost become part of a regular routine. Like a habit. Practitioners enter this type of monastery to chant and meditate using Tibetan mantras while sitting cross-legged on mats, simultaneously being led by a lama. Their surroundings – bright Tibetan paintings – depict of a scene quite unfamiliar from their own. Indeed this picture can portray an Asian vista, but it is not in Asia.This is private in the Rime Center, located just off Interstate 35 in Kansas City, identified as one of approximately 1,000 Buddhist centers in the United States (Browning, 2007). In 2006, National Geographic magazine accounted that Buddhism has become one of United States’ religion with an increasing number of supporters, given an estimated 1. 5% of the country’s total population (Jan Hai, 2006). This is strongly held up by an established 2,000 Buddhist societies and associations of various sizes found in the United States (Jan Hai, 2006).To further highlight the prevalenc e of Buddhism in the West, Dalai Lama, the Tibetan leader, has done several visits to cities of the United States for public talks and other forms of assemblies with young peacemakers, scientists, the academe, business executives and to all other budding faithful Americans (Lampman, 2006). According to the 2006 edition of the Christian Science Monitor, â€Å"Dalai Lama’s visits spotlights the fact that with 1. 5 million adherents, Buddhism is America’s fourth largest religion. †Buddhism is steadily growing in the region and is incessantly spreading as American-born leaders present this traditionally ancient belief structured into the Western perspective and conditions (Lampman, 2006). America, with its diverse environment and cultures for Buddhism, lays out a unique history on how this religion laid its foundation and further distinguished itself towards a continuing process of development in the nation (Wikipedia, 2007). Buddhism making History in the United St ates Buddhism originated as a progeny of Hinduism in India (Zukeran, 1994). Founded by Siddharta Gautama (the Enlightened One) in the 6th century B.C. , Buddhism’s central focus is to sought the answer of the existence of pain and suffering in this world (Browning, 2007). The basic teachings of Buddhism – the Four Noble Truths and the Eight-fold Path – aim to address these. It is only through the total self-annihilation of desires made by following these teachings is one able to attain the eternal state of being called, Nirvana (Zukeran, 1994). This belief was carried on to various parts of Asia, with almost every denomination represented: Southeast Asian, Vietnamese, Tibetan, Korean, Chinese and Japanese varieties of ancient Buddhism (Gross, 2005).Buddhism endlessly spread across Asia. James Browning, an English Pastor of Englewood Baptist Church noted that Buddhism came to the United States in the 20th century due to three factors: (1) large number of Asian Bu ddhist immigrants, and the contact of Westerners with Asia during and after the World War II; (2) diaspora of Buddhist leaders from Tibet, China and Southeast Asia instigated by the Marxist Revolutions; and (3) the various missionary activities of Buddhist teachers in the United States (Browning, 2007).With the Asian immigrants spreading across the United States with their teachings in Buddhism, American intellectuals were starting to become involved and took interest to this religion or belief. (Wikipedia, 2007). To name a few, Englishmen William Jones and Charles Wilkins initiated translation works from Sanskrit to English to comprehend the ancient religion. Even Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson took the extra mile in understanding the Buddhist philosophy and published later the first English version of the Lotus Sutra.Henry Steel Olcott was the first popular American to publicly convert himself to the religion. And the most remarkable event in the history of Buddhism i n America was when the World Parliament of Religions was held in Chicago in 1893 to pave way for a public forum wherein Buddhists can freely communicate with the rest of the Western public (Wikipedia, 2007). Types of Buddhism in the United States With the successful emergence of Buddhism in the United States, even to date, both immigrants and native-born continue to practice Buddhism in diverse forms (Browning, 2007).According to some scholars such as Charles Prebish, three broad types of Buddhism in America are predominantly being carried out (Wikipedia, 2007). The oldest and largest is the â€Å"immigrant† or what is called â€Å"ethnic Buddhism†. The next oldest and what is accorded to be the most evident is the â€Å"import Buddhism†, which is also sometimes called as â€Å"elite Buddhism†. Finally, the newest sect of Buddhism actively purported in America from various backgrounds is the â€Å"export† or â€Å"evangelical Buddhism† (Wiki pedia, 2007).The differences and distinctions of these three types will be elaborated further below. Immigrant Buddhism is largely the Buddhist tradition brought about by the early Asian Buddhist settlers in the United States. This is home to the Buddhists from China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, and from nearly all other Buddhist country in the world over (Wikipedia, 2007). The largest national immigrant Buddhism in the United States is the Buddhist Churches of America or the BCA. Japanese immigrants founded this organization and are linked with the Jodo Shinshu (Pure Land) branch of Buddhism.Its model has incorporated certain devotional practices with the likes of American Protestantism (Browning, 2007). Import Buddhism on the one hand, has its nature as its definition. As American intellectuals seek the truth and pursue a quest from a variety of countries in Asia, three trends of Import Buddhism have emerged, as follows: Zen, Tibetan Buddhism and Vipassana (caused b y Theravada Buddhism). (Wikipedia, 2007). Several Zen centers are already situated in the United States with emphasis on sitting meditation (zazen), and are being taught by a master (roshi).Zen is able to attract individuals due to its minimalism, its center of attention on both spontaneity and discipline, its mystique, its appeal with the arts (examples of its respective poetry includes haiku, gardening, ink landscape paintings, and No Theater) and its likeness towards martial arts (Browning, 2007). Tibetan Buddhism stems from its ancestors’ teachings with the most prominent Buddhist teacher in the world as their current Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso. He has attracted a number of celebrities in the Hollywood arena and ahs established a series of meditation centers, also called as Dharmadhatu (Wikipedia, 2007).Currently there are four major schools of Tibetan Buddhism in the West: the Gelug, the Kagyu, the Nyingma, and the Sakya (Wikipedia, 2007). The last trend of Import Buddhis m is Vipassana which is rooted from Theravada teachings. With a rough translation of â€Å"insight meditation†, Vipassana’s ancient meditative practices aim to simplify ritual and other ceremonial activities in order to achieve a more effective and available-to-all type of meditation. This sect is more open to lay involvement which sets Theravada differently amongst other teachings (Wikipedia, 2007).Import Buddhism was earlier noted as an â€Å"elite Buddhism†, reason being is the nature of its origins. The elite American society with its keen interest to know more of the religion tends to go overseas in various Asian regions to pursue their explorations. Lastly, Export Buddhism focused on recruiting converts from the public, one of which is Soka Gakkai’s Nichiren Buddhism. Nicheren Shoshu of America or NSA’s goal is world peace and harmony which can be achieved by the total transformation of lives. Their central focus in their meditation centers a re on the Buddhist sculpture, the Lotus Sutra. (Browning, 2007).NSA actively promotes its chanting of mantra expressing its allegiance to the Lotus Sutra. The most distinct feature that sets Soka Gakkai apart is its meditative technique solely articulated through chanting. Over the years, Buddhism in the United States has developed and made itself suitable to its environment. With the numerous sects branching out from Buddhism, it is not unlikely that another trend has developed in the West: socially engaged Buddhism. With the notion of quietism and passive approach to the society, this new trend sets to bring forth Buddhism in a different angle – moving it outside its norms.Engaged Buddhism is simply to apply its values and teachings to a wider and more involved spectrum in the society. This may concern the environment, political issues and community welfare. (Wikipedia, 2007). Role of Buddhism in Revolutionizing the West With all these sectors of Buddhism prevalent in the U nited States, another question boils down, regardless which sect you are involved into: What is it in Buddhism that has created an enormous appeal, interest and following in the Western way of living?Perhaps what is drawing people is Buddhism’s non-missionizing approach that suits the American’s search for more meaningful spiritual ways (Lampman, 2006). According to Lama Surya Das, a highly-trained American lama in the Tibetan tradition, â€Å"they are not building big temples, but offering wisdom, and ways of reconciliation and peacemaking, which are so much needed. † (Lampman, 2006). Westerners are in search of meaning of their traditional spiritual practices, and they have found answers in the transformative practices of meditation.Though this may suggest Buddhism as being able to serve as one of the answers being sought after by the faithful Americans, it should also be noted that the entry of Buddhism in the United States, particularly in North America was not as natural. Americanization of Buddhism: Its Limitations Americanization of Buddhism has emerged due to the convert Buddhists whose concerns are primarily different from those of traditionally Buddhist populations (Gross, 2005). Convert Buddhists find the Asian culture forms encase Buddhism in an uncomfortable manner (Gross, 2005).They have therefore developed approaches to Buddhist teachings that suits best their new religious identity in the Western point of view. In addition to the controversial topic of â€Å"Americanization† of Buddhism, the role of women was also tapped as another concern in the United States. It can be observed that in almost all major world religions, it is always male-dominated, similar to that of Buddhism. With Japan as an exception, another feature to note is that all traditional Buddhist societies or associations are empowered by lay-monastic dichotomy.Male denouncers for their religion are often labeled with prestige and honor, yet it is the other way around for women. Finally a deeper complication surfaced. The very teachings of Buddhism, when extrapolated, can be seen as depicting mostly lineage ancestors of men (Gross, 2005). Nevertheless, this did not hinder American women from participating in American Buddhism. It is apparent that women had taken the task in meditation centers and other Buddhist forums.Based on some observers, they claim that this is the most noticeable difference between Asian and American Buddhist centers (Gross, 2005). This seemingly key concern of women involvement in American Buddhism can be highly attributed to the second wave of feminism simultaneously occurring when the Asian Buddhist immigrants arrived in the United States. They say that if it were not for this coincidence, the face of American Buddhism will have changed forever (Gross, 2005). Buddhism Side by Side ChristianityAmerican Buddhism clearly made its mark in the region being the fourth-largest religion, after Christianity, Juda ism and Islam (Lampman, 2006). According to Dr. Seager, a professor of religious studies in Hamilton College, immigrants from Asia may have accounted for 67% of the total and the converts around one-third. Christianity being the number one religion practiced in the United States can be set in a comparative study between Buddhism to further illustrate what sets the two apart and how the two are so different (Zukeran, 1994). Here is a brief review of these two religions.As much of the Buddhist scriptures, Lotus Sutra for instance, were written hundreds of years after the death of Gautama, the factor of accuracy is questioned. In Christianity, however, the Bible is made of human testaments, of eyewitnesses surrounding the life of Jesus and the events taking place then (Zukeran, 1994). The concept of â€Å"God† also differs between the two religions. Buddhists claims that the Absolute does not play a vital role in their everyday living, unlike for Christians, where God is the cen tral of the universe – omnipotent and omniscient.The Christian God is a personal god (Zukeran, 1994). It was also made clear that Buddha is not deity. Jesus, on the other hand, claimed to be God, the Saviour of mankind. Although various sects in general sees Buddha as having a status of god, Buddha clearly and solely sees himself as the way-shower of Nirvana (Zukeran, 1994). The final distinction that can be illustrated further here is the concept of the final destination – where does one religion aim to go to? Buddhism does not aim for salvation or life after death as with Christianity.After the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Christians no longer fear death as they themselves have witnessed that their God did conquered the grave. Buddhists hope to enter the state of Nirvana, despite its unclear description of what it really is (Zukeran, 1994). Intensification of Buddhism in the United States Finally, Buddhism has definitely proven its firm foundation in the Western cul ture when the variety of Buddhist groups started establishing institutions of higher learning in America. (Wikipedia, 2007). Naropa University was the first four-year Buddhist College in the U.S, founded by Chogyam Trungpa. It is a fully accredited institution which offers degrees not necessarily or not directly related to Buddhism. His Lai University is also another Buddhist university. There is also the Dharma Realm Buddhist University which is a four-year college university offering mainly subjects into Buddhism, but also including generalized ones. BCA runs its own Institute of Buddhist Studies in California which offers a seminary-type of Buddhist Studies (Wikipedia, 2007). The contemplative practice of Buddhism infiltrated successfully that of the United States.The Buddhist experience continuously challenges its practitioners and adherents to cope with the cultural demands and social implications, at the same time, to reap and share the merits of this religion. It goes on furt her, as the sphere of influence of Buddhism in the United States is still in-progress. References James Browning. (2007). Buddhism in the United States. Retrieved from www. ethicsdaily. com Jan Hai. (2006). Spread of Buddhism. Retrieved from www. bjreview. com Jane Lampman. (2006). American Buddhism on the Rise. The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from www. csmonitor.com Pat Zukeran. (1994). Buddhism. Retrieved from www. leaderu. com Rita M. Gross. (2005). How American Women Are Changing Buddhism. Retrieved from www. shambhalasun. com Ven. Mahinda Deegalle. (2004). Buddhist Experience in North America. Retrieved from www. uri. org Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2007). Buddhism in the United States. Retrieved from www. wikipedia. org Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2006). Buddhism in the United States. Retrieved from www. wikipedia. org Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2006). Timeline of Buddhism. Retrieved from www. wikipedia. org