Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, At affordable rates
2 seperate claasmates discussion posts to respond to.
One form of environmental consumption that I regularly engage in is using coffee pods for brewing a single serving of coffee. Coffee pods such as Keurig are relatively new and they are plastic cups with coffee grounds in them.
The reality is that this consumption creates a lot of unnecessary trash. It is a convenience product that is more expensive than using a reusable coffee pod or even brewing a whole pot with a paper filter. Because it is more costly, it is for more affluent lifestyles and because it is new, it is a modern commodity.
The environmental impacts are that a lot more trash is being created and the coffee grounds, which are compostable and biodegradable are instead stuck in plastic cups in landfills.
This purchase reflects a want more than a need. Coffee is not a necessity and convenient coffee pods are certainly not a need. If I were to purchase for need, I would not be purchasing the coffee pods at all.
Environmental concerns only impact my consumption choices to a minor degree. I do my best not to buy frivolously but if there is a higher cost associated with a more environmentally friendly substitute, I may not buy it.
So, which philosophy is most like your own? Is human nature animalistic or noble? How can you tell?
Professor Alvarez and Class,
I have mixed views for both Hobbes and Locke. Their senses of deductive reasoning for their arguments are based on conditions from their time and from past actions in history. They both make great points that I can agree with and others that I do not fully support. Some people may have more agreeance swaying either way based upon their experiences in life and conditions of their social environment. For me I can see both points for Hobbes and Locke as just being general statements that are situationally rooted to individual. I understand that arguments and syllogisms such as these are mainly just an overview of a set percentage (sampling) of two to three postulation or assumptions. I grew up in a low-income environment that was crime infested having both good and bad moments. This doesn’t mean that you can us a blanket statement and place a complete society into a given category. You have people that are selfish and unselfish to some degree. With Hobbes, yes we all have self-interest normally but we do have individuals that care about the success of others as well as themselves. I do not agree that everyone needs to have a peaceful and cooperative social order to pursue their self-interest. Working in a competitive industry such as the so-called corporate world has individuals that are “nasty, brutish, and short”. These types of individual would sell their mother’s bones and soul just to get ahead. Locke stated that the state exists to preserve the natural rights of its citizens. That may be true in theory but some leaders in power have their own agendas and are focused on satisfying their own self-interest and gain. As for his suggestion of citizens having to rebel is not a wise decision in today’s time. In today’s society you will be labeled as a terrorist or a hero, only based upon the entities that are supporting your agenda of resistance. An example of this would be white house insurrection vs rights movements and how situations where handled by the government. However, I do agree on withdrawing from the support of unethical or unjust governments and other similar systems. So human nature can be both animalistic and peaceful.