Objective: Obtain a working knowledge of the Victimization theories and be able to differentiate between them.

It is important to understand how our modern criminal justice system evolved from the old systems. This will provide a strong foundation for how and where the criminal justice we use today developed.

• Read Chapter 3 in your textbook.
• Discuss one of the Victimization theories.
• Ensure the following points are addressed:
  • Select one of the theories and define it.
  • Describe the origin of the selected theory.
  • Determine if the theory makes sense with what we know today.

The four types of language ‘meanings’ are semantic meaning, perceptual meaning, syntactic meaning, and pragmatic meaning. Define each and talk about how/why these 4 meanings are different. Minimum of 250 words. Be sure to use information from the textbook and at least 2 other Virtual Library resources to support or expand on your writing.

What would have changed in America if the federal government chose to annex Cuba as it did Puerto Rico?

How did some of the pictures at Jim Crow museum make you feel?

which theory (relationships among institutions, relationships within the institution or relationships between an institution an the public) do you think best fits with documentary films as a technological medium of media communication? Why? does the media provide important functions for society? Is the media a reflection of powerful interests? How does the media create the meanings we attach to objects?

What is satres perspective on religion?

I will confess a bias towards what I'm choosing to call the the "old" atheists (Sartre and Nietzsche) rather than the new; I think that what Nietzsche and Sartre had to say about the implications of atheism is more interesting than all of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris put together. I have put a lot of effort into trying to explain the Sartre excerpt. This is because Sartre attempts to criticize the relevance of religion, whereas the New Atheist writers (see Hitchens) tend to focus on the truth of religion. If something is irrelevant, it no longer matters whether it is true, allowing Sartre's perspective to circumvent the endless debates on whether or not this or that miracle happened, or whether to trust the feeling one might have when one prays.

Nietzsche is, significantly, who Sartre is responding to in his excerpt. There is no assigned reading for Nietzsche in this class; for our purposes, his thoughts on ethics can be summarized thus: all morality consists of different fictions, not unlike novels, that different groups make up from scratch. The primary genres of morality are 'master morality' and 'slave morality.' Nothing actually is right or wrong, just as nothing actually is beauitful or ugly, true or false. This is why Nietzsche's philosophy is sometimes called 'nihilism.' Nietzsche responded to the challenge from religion in the following way: you're right, he said. There is no morality without God. However, there also is no God. There simply is no morality, and almost no-one can handle the truth of that, which is why most of us turn to God. Hargrave, Lewis, and many others claim that lack of religion leads to nihilism. Ironically, religious thinkers tend to love teaching Nietzsche.

Sartre's objections to religion are obvious; it is important to note that Sartre did NOT believe that he could prove that God did not exist, but rather that if He did exist, God, gods, or anything else supernatural is simply irrelevant to our moral situation, our moral plight.

Sartre's objection to other atheists is more subtle. Sartre's mission in his 1946 speech is predominately to, as the title implies, defend the idea that existentialism is a form of humanism, that it is not nihilism. Another way of putting this is that Sartre was trying to argue that there was at least one form of atheism (existentialist) that was NOT nihilistic. All of which begs several questions, but let's start with: what's nihilism?

A humanist is someone who believes that a, "man is the measure of all things," and takes joy in this, feels like the potential of the human being to create art, ideas, community, values, etc. is beautiful, is sublime, and can give life true meaning. At the heart of Sartre argument is a very simple, very idealistic claim: that if we only made all decisions in total freedom, if we only thoughts of these decisions in terms of complete responsibility, then the world would be a much better place. There is a right and wrong way of making decisions, but no absolutely right or wrong decision.

What do you think of Sartre's foundational premise that existence precedes essence, that there is no human nature? Are we blank slates, or is this idea a bit dated??

Read the proposed survey questions. Answer the following for each: Why is it weak? How can the question be re-worded to improve it?

1. When you were in 1st grade did you have neat handwriting?

2. How many days a week do you smoke marijuana?

3. Teachers work very hard and often spend their own money on classroom supplies. They also often spend their free time working on lessons, mentoring clubs, or tutoring students. Do you think teachers should be paid more for all the hard work they do?

Interest groups are an important part of the policymaking process in the United States. Define an interest group. Explain the ways that interest groups attract members. Why do interest groups have to incentivize membership in these ways?

Feminist ethics is guided by the principle that we ought to eliminate gender and other oppressions. That is why feminist ethics is only for, and only practicable by, women.

Select one:

True

False

Compare and contrast the work of Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas by considering their contributions to laying a foundation for Christian ethics and how do they each define "the good life"?