Summarize the Progressives' views on regulating business.

The Progressives’ views on regulating business were that government should regulate business so that businesses could not abuse the people.  They felt that businesses used their economic power to hurt the general public and that the government should prevent this from happening.

The Progressives felt that businesses hurt the general public.  They felt that it was bad for the public when businesses sold things like impure foods or drugs that really did not do anything. ...

The Progressives’ views on regulating business were that government should regulate business so that businesses could not abuse the people.  They felt that businesses used their economic power to hurt the general public and that the government should prevent this from happening.

The Progressives felt that businesses hurt the general public.  They felt that it was bad for the public when businesses sold things like impure foods or drugs that really did not do anything.  They felt that it was bad for the public when businesses made their employees work in unsafe conditions.  They felt that the businesses were using their economic and political power in ways that were bad for society.  Because they felt these things, they believed that it was good for the government to regulate businesses.  They wanted the government to make sure that businesses were not allowed to do things that would hurt the general public.

How does Socrates use ethos, pathos, and logos in Plato’s Apology of Socrates?

Ethos, pathos, and logos are all examples of rhetoric, which is the art of persuasion. All three are ably deployed by Plato in his reconstruction of Socrates's defense speech in Apology. 

First, let us look at ethos. This is a way of appealing to an audience on ethical grounds to try and persuade them of the integrity of the orator's moral character. In making his speech, Socrates is keen to avoid the impression...

Ethos, pathos, and logos are all examples of rhetoric, which is the art of persuasion. All three are ably deployed by Plato in his reconstruction of Socrates's defense speech in Apology. 

First, let us look at ethos. This is a way of appealing to an audience on ethical grounds to try and persuade them of the integrity of the orator's moral character. In making his speech, Socrates is keen to avoid the impression that he thinks himself superior to the members of the citizen jury. To do this, he starts by disavowing his reputation as a wise man. He recalls the time when the Delphic oracle pronounced him as the wisest man in the world. Socrates attempts to clarify what this means by saying that he is only wise insofar as he admits that he does not know everything—nor does he pretend to.

Socrates also uses ethos as a means of blackening the name of his accusers, calling them liars and sophists. He does not just want to defend his own good name, he also wants to attack the moral character of his accusers.

As Socrates is a philosopher, it is inevitable that he should use logos or logical argument in his speech. He uses this most effectively in his cross-examination of Meletus, who has accused Socrates of being an atheist and of corrupting the youth of Athens by introducing them to false gods. However, Socrates logically argues that if he is an atheist, how can he be guilty of introducing false gods at the same time?

Finally, we have pathos, an appeal to the audience's emotions. Socrates tries to claim that he is a loyal citizen of Athens and that his motivation in philosophizing has always been for the greater good of the city-state. His prime concern is for the moral health of Athens. Socrates's way of going about his business as a philosopher may not be in everyone's taste, but he employs his philosophical method to shake his fellow Athenians out of their complacency so that they too may reflect upon the big questions and lead more moral lives.

What is the significance of the shallop flitting away unhail'd?

The lines in which this phrase occurs are: 

 ... by the marge unhail'd 

The shallop flitteth silken sail'd, 

       Skimming down to Camelot. 

What makes these lines somewhat puzzling is that they are located in Part I of the poem and yet seem to describe the Lady of Shallot floating down the river after the curse has come upon her. However, we only discover the curse in Part II, her vision of Lancelot in Part...

The lines in which this phrase occurs are: 

 ... by the marge unhail'd 

The shallop flitteth silken sail'd, 

       Skimming down to Camelot. 

What makes these lines somewhat puzzling is that they are located in Part I of the poem and yet seem to describe the Lady of Shallot floating down the river after the curse has come upon her. However, we only discover the curse in Part II, her vision of Lancelot in Part III, and her departure for Camelot in Part IV. This means that the time sequence of the poem is not linear.

The lines in Part I present us with a mystery, the "royally apparelled" Lady of Shallot lying down dead in a silken bed in a "shallop" (a term meaning a small sail boat) floating down the river to Camelot. This mystery is presented to us in the present time of the poem. Parts II and III explain the events that lead up to this event, with Part II describing her life before Lancelot and Part III describing the arrival of Lancelot and how the curse is triggered. Part IV leads us back to the "present" of Part I, with the Lady floating dying and eventually dead down the river in the shallop. 

The mention of her departure being "unhail'd" is in a way sad, because it suggests that no one really cares about or notices her death; it emphasizes her loneliness.

How is loneliness portrayed in Great Expectations?

In Great Expectations by Charles Dickens, loneliness is conveyed through the use of setting, pathetic fallacy, and characterization.

The novel opens with a desolate setting that imitates the emotion of the orphan Pip, who describes his first impression of things occurring "on a memorable raw afternoon toward evening." He later learns that the place in which he walks is the churchyard where his parents are buried.

I knew that the dark flat wilderness beyond was the marshes; and that the low leaden line beyond was the river; and that the distant savage lair from which the wind was rushing was the sea. (Ch.1)

This use of pathetic fallacy (that is, the treatment of inanimate things as if they are human, with feelings, thoughts, or emotions) gives the sea a dangerous quality; it is described as being a "savage lair." The bleakness of the marshes and surrounding area suggest loneliness; the headstones with the names of his father and mother certainly convey little Pip's sense of being alone in the world.

In chapter 8, setting connotes loneliness, when Pip goes to Satis House on the request of Miss Havisham to bring a boy to play with her ward, Estella. As the young girl leads Pip up to the rooms of the house where they will play, Pip describes a lonely scene.

. . . the passages were all dark, and that she had left a candle burning there. She took it up, and we went through more passages and up a staircase, and still it was all dark, and only the candle lighted us. (Ch.8)

When Pip first encounters Miss Havisham, his impression of her depicts her strange and isolated appearance. Pip states that it is as though he "had been taken to one of our old marsh churches to see a skeleton in the ashes of a rich dress that had been dug out of a vault under the church pavement."

Miss Havisham sits alone in a dark room, wearing a decaying wedding dress. She sat, "corpse-like, as we played at cards." Later, Pip remarks,

I have often thought since, that she must have looked as if the admission of the natural light of day would have struck her to dust.

In chapter 38, Estella returns to Satis House where Miss Havisham scolds Estella for her coldness towards her. Estella replies that Miss Havisham has made her what she is.

“O, look at her, look at her!” cried Miss Havisham, bitterly; “Look at her so hard and thankless, on the hearth where she was reared! Where I took her into this wretched breast when it was first bleeding from its stabs, and where I have lavished years of tenderness upon her!” (Ch.38)

Miss Havisham has meant to avenge herself upon men through Estella, but she has not intended for Estella to be cruel to her. Estella explains that she can only be what she has been made to be, and Miss Havisham has formed her nature and caused her to become hard and cruel. The lonely Miss Havisham exclaims that Estella demonstrates no love for her.

“But to be proud and hard to me!” Miss Havisham quite shrieked, as she stretched out her arms. “Estella, Estella, Estella, to be proud and hard to me!”

“Would it be weakness to return my love?” exclaimed Miss Havisham. “But yes, yes, she would call it so!” (Ch.38)

These depictions of Miss Havisham convey her sense of loneliness and isolation.

What are some current unjust laws?

This is a very subjective question, and my answer might not match your opinion. When forming your own answer about unjust laws, consider

1. Popular opinion: does the general populace find the law valuable, or oppressive?


2. Pragmatic effects: does the law cause more harm than it prevents?


3. Moral value: does the law adhere to moral codes, either societies or those espoused by a higher power?


4. Constitutionality: is the law consistent with the highest laws of the land?


5. Legitimacy: was the law passed by legitimate democratic means?

My personal answer for an unjust law hinges on the first four of those points. I believe that Civil Forfeiture is a profoundly unjust legal principle.

Civil Forfeiture allows police and other law enforcement officers to seize property of people not charged with a crime. Even if the people are innocent of that crime, they often cannot get their property back, because the property was charged with a crime, and the property does not have a right to a presumption of innocence. 

Popular opinion is almost universally opposed to Civil Forfeiture, and the primary effect is to encourage law enforcement to target lucrative 'criminals' rather than potentially dangerous ones. It's immoral to use a legal fiction to take innocent people's property, and the Constitution is supposed to protect American citizens from unjustified seizure. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court held that civil forfeiture was legal in 1966, and the Justice Department recently reverse guidelines restricting the practice.

Predestination explained

Predestination is a religious concept that is most closely associated with the Calvinists in the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation.

In the early 16th century, Martin Luther campaigned against the Catholic Church by exposing corrupt practices.  This culminated with his famous 95 theses, nailed to the door of a Catholic Church in Wittenberg, Germany. As a result of the religious upheaval in Northern Europe, many different branches of Christianity fractured from Catholicism. One of those...

Predestination is a religious concept that is most closely associated with the Calvinists in the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation.

In the early 16th century, Martin Luther campaigned against the Catholic Church by exposing corrupt practices.  This culminated with his famous 95 theses, nailed to the door of a Catholic Church in Wittenberg, Germany. As a result of the religious upheaval in Northern Europe, many different branches of Christianity fractured from Catholicism. One of those followed John Calvin and his ideas on predestination.

Predestination is the idea that God decides whether a person is destined for heaven or hell. This is contrary to other groups at the time, like Protestants (who believe that through faith alone one can get into heaven) or Catholics (who believe faith and good works can get a person into heaven). Calvinists believe that their place after death has been decided—faith or good works could not change your course. Being a "good Christian" could, however, affect your time on earth and the community in which you lived, so despite believing that they could not change their final destination, Calvinists still obeyed the Commandments and Biblical teachings.

How does Montaigne feel about scientific progress?

In keeping with his general philosophical stance, Montaigne was appropriately skeptical of scientific progress. Indeed, he was deeply skeptical of the very idea of progress in human knowledge as a whole. Montaigne's radical skepticism was so strong that he doubted we could know anything for certain. In the case of scientific knowledge, this was especially problematic. Scientific knowledge, of its very nature, changes and develops over time. What was once the general consensus on any...

In keeping with his general philosophical stance, Montaigne was appropriately skeptical of scientific progress. Indeed, he was deeply skeptical of the very idea of progress in human knowledge as a whole. Montaigne's radical skepticism was so strong that he doubted we could know anything for certain. In the case of scientific knowledge, this was especially problematic. Scientific knowledge, of its very nature, changes and develops over time. What was once the general consensus on any particular scientific matter is replaced over time by another one. Montaigne argues eventually that scientific paradigm will itself change in the light of new evidence, and so on. At no point can we have absolutely certain knowledge of ourselves or the world around us, as both we and the world in which we live are in a constant state of change.

Montaigne's skepticism can be criticized on the basis that he sets too high a standard for human knowledge to reach. Just because we can't know something with absolute certainty doesn't mean that we can't know anything. Nonetheless, Montaigne is an interesting figure in the history of philosophy in that he used skepticism differently to how it had previously been used by other philosophers.

In the past, philosophers and other thinkers had used skepticism as a means of challenging the truth claims of religion. Montaigne, however, turns the tables on the anti-religious skeptics and uses skepticism as a way of undermining what he sees as the (false) claims of science to certain knowledge. In doing so, he is defending religious faith, specifically Catholicism. If we cannot attain absolute knowledge of ourselves and of the world around us, then the only true certainty that remains is faith.