The Role of Religion and Philosophy as as a Basis for the Establishment of Social Structure and Politics

Table of Contents Buddhism Confucianism Socratic Philosophy Summary Conclusion The creation of ancient societies require the participation of the individual either as an ordinary member of the community or as a leader. Both ruler and subject require a set of principles or a belief system that will guide them. In most cases this is provided by the state religion. In others it is supplied by a philosophy that guides them in their thought process and provided ground rules in making crucial decisions.Advertising We will write a custom term paper sample on The Role of Religion and Philosophy as as a Basis for the Establishment of Social Structure and Politics specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More In ancient India one can find a religion established by Gautama Buddha. In ancient China one can find Confucianism as a guiding light. In Greece one can find the Socratic philosophy that was so influential it even transformed the whole of Weste rn civilization. In this study Buddhism, Confucianism, and Socratic philosophy will be examined side-by-side to understand how principles gleaned from these three systems of belief were used to help individuals discover their role in ancient society. Buddhism In Buddhism one of the most influential principles can be gleaned from Gautama Buddha’s Four Noble Truths. In the First Noble Truth there is an important teaching about misery its causes and how to eradicate from a person’s life. This idea has transformed the way Buddhist societies functioned especially when it comes to the role that individuals should play in society. One of the most significant idea that can be found under the First Noble Truth is the one that says: â€Å"to wish for what one cannot have is misery† (Stearns, p.70). It was a radical statement in those times. Just like today, people in ancient worlds lusted for power, wealth, and prestige. One can just imagine the striving, the competition, the desire to get ahead and the need for more influence, clout, more money, more servants, more properties. All of a sudden this teaching comes along and people were told that the desires of men is the root cause of misery. It must had been a sobering thought for many. For those who struggle to get ahead in the social rat race the idea was revolutionary. It was as if a burden was lifted from the shoulders of those who cannot handle the competition and the exploitation. When this teaching became popular it was no longer necessary to aspire for greatness and to accumulate wealth because all were vanity. More importantly these things will not make a person happy. This is probably the reason why Buddhism became very popular in this region during ancient times. It gave people hope. It gave them direction in life. It gave them rest, a respite from a life full of strife, deceit, and suffering.Advertising Looking for term paper on philosophy? Let's see if we can help you! Get your fir st paper with 15% OFF Learn More From a political standpoint the teachings of Buddha is also very important because the leaders, especially if they were Buddhists themselves can make the people calm down, make them less restless and help them feel more contented with what they have. In other words leaders can actually use these principles to create a society filled with individuals that are less prone to rise up in rebellion and demand for more benefits and more individual rights. Buddhism also teaches that it is the unfulfilled desires of men and women that causes misery and therefore the removal of these desires from the consciousness of the individual will solve all of society’s problems. This is why in the Third Noble Truth, one can find this maxim: â€Å"Where anything is delightful and agreeable to men; there desire wanes and disappears, there it is broken up and destroyed† (Stearns, p.72). One can easily imagine the consequence of this belief system, es pecially when Buddhism became the state religion. This meant that political leaders who were Buddhist can make the general population submissive to their ideas without them knowing that they are being subjugated. On the other hand a good leader, one who is truly noble can use the same belief system and inspire people to build a just and humane society. Rules need not be enforced by strong-arm tactics because the citizens will come to realize the importance of peace for it is one of the paths to the cessation of misery. In theory there will be less conflict because the community who embraced the tenets of Buddhism need not struggle for material wealth, fame and power. They had everything they need by letting go of their desires. Confucianism In comparison to Confucianism, Buddhism seems to lack focus, structure, and direction. Buddhism is more fluid while Confucianism is more rigid. However, there are similarities. Buddhism aims to remove misery and therefore it abhors conflict. It s trives to remove conflict within the individual and within society. Nirvana the state of bliss which is the primary goal of all Buddhist is characterized by inner peace and an existence without misery. In Confucianism, bliss is understood to come in the form of a stable government and structure of governance that can help all those who are under it experience a better life. But this means that the people will submit to this government and even contribute what they can to sustain it. Buddhism asks the individual to let go of his desires. Confucianism asks the individual to have more restraint especially when it comes to dealing with the government. In Buddhism the goal is the cessation of misery. In Confucianism the goal is tranquility. It can be argued that there are major similarities here because Buddhism also talks about inner-peace. However, the methodology differs because in Confucianism there is a principle that says tranquility can be achieved by abiding in the highest good a nd by loving the people (Strearns, p.36). This is very important because Confucianism teaches the individual to put society above self.Advertising We will write a custom term paper sample on The Role of Religion and Philosophy as as a Basis for the Establishment of Social Structure and Politics specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Socratic Philosophy The Socratic philosophy is centered on the individual. The core ideal of Socratic philosophy is the importance of the individual. This is seen in the life and teachings of Socrates who was sentenced to death for allegedly corrupting the youth of Athens. But in his trial he pinpointed the main reason why he was put on trial, and it was the charge that he was responsible for undermining the morality and religious traditions of Athens (Bulliet et al., p.122). In other words Socratic philosophy did not only encourage people to value the person but also to question what was perceived to be ir reversible trends and to challenge traditions that were in existence for hundreds of years. The Socratic philosophy is also based on the Socratic method of asking questions. An individual was taught to ask hard questions regarding life, society, and politics. Even if Greek city-states were ruled by aristocrats, as time passed by, an ordinary person in Athens was given the chance to acquire rights, privileges and even the capability to say and do what he believes is important. As a result a democratic movement was birthed and henceforward, â€Å"Athenians of moderate or slender means could hold office and participate in politics† (Bulliet et al., p.119). Power was transferred to popular organs of government such as the Assembly, the Council of 500, and the People’s Courts so that the Assembly of all free citizens â€Å"held open debates several times a month; anyone could speak to the issue of the day† (Bulliet et al., p.119). Without a doubt this system of gover nance was far from perfect but it was a precursor to modern democracies. The ability to debate the aristocrats and the right to question traditions is something that is uniquely Greek. No one in the ancient world could challenge the gods but they did, especially Socrates who blazed a path for them. This is very interesting because it contrasts with other forms of nation-building mofrld discussed earlier. Buddhism was purely spiritual and although its main goal was to free human beings from the negative effect of unfulfilled desires the ultimate goal was intensely personal not the establishment of a nation. Socratic philosophy as utilized by the Greeks also differed sharply from Confucianism because in China the individual is not the most important component of society – it is the State or the government. Everyone will benefit if they focus on building a centralized government that in turn will be the source of administrative power that will ensure stability and peace.Advertis ing Looking for term paper on philosophy? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Summary If one will compare and contrast Buddhism, Confucianism, and Socratic philosophy in the context of the individual then one can see only a few similarities but many differences. Although Buddhism deals with the individual, it is done from a spiritual perspective. In fact it does not bother with the evolution of human society from primitive to modern. It is not even concern with the eradication of poverty and the establishment of a just government that will serve the people. Without a doubt Buddhism can still be utilized by power-hungry men who would love nothing more than to dominate others. They can profess their adherence to Buddhist teachings and for them to effectively rule they can convince others that the path to nirvana is by learning how to let go of all forms of desires. However, this kind of position is difficult to sustain because ideally speaking the ruler does not have any incentive to govern his people. Confucianism and the Socratic philosophy offers a more prac tical solution to socio-political problems. Confucianism and the Socratic philosophy are philosophical frameworks that are also interested in the plight of the individual but less concern with the spiritual aspect of life and more on the political. Confucianism in a nutshell asserts that an individual will benefit greatly not from being individualistic but in the acknowledgement that he must serve society and the State. In ancient China, just like in other ancient civilizations the masses were forced to obey by coercion such as the teaching that Kings descended from the gods. But with the correct application of Confucianism there was no longer any need for all of that. The main thrust was to educate the individual and make him understand that being part of a system – in their case it is the Civil Service – is not only beneficial for the individual but also the whole of society. Socratic philosophy applied to the individual is less rigid compared to Confucianism. The St ate or the ruling class does not impose its will on the individual but a democratic form of government is preferred. This is less stable, and based on the history of the Greek people not always reliable. One has to remember that Alexander the Great came after Socrates and Plato. This is proof that Greek people clamored for a tyrant to keep them safe from their enemies and ensure stability. Conclusion Buddhism, Confucianism and the Socratic philosophy gave birth to different models of how individuals should behave in ancient societies. Buddhism is focused on the spiritual aspect of the individual and cared less about the socio-political consequences of its teaching. Confucianism on the other hand offers a solution to problems of society but requires absolute adherence to rules and systems. The Socratic philosophy values the individual by giving him freedom to ask questions, to challenge the status quo. However, it proved to be unreliable in many occasions. Nevertheless, it became the precursor to establishment of modern-day democratic societies. This term paper on The Role of Religion and Philosophy as as a Basis for the Establishment of Social Structure and Politics was written and submitted by user Tanner H. 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.

92 Paolo Faccini Dori â€v- Recreb Srl (1994) The WritePass Journal

A Critical Analysis of Case C-91/92 Paolo Faccini Dori –v- Recreb Srl (1994) Executive Summary A Critical Analysis of Case C-91/92 Paolo Faccini Dori –v- Recreb Srl (1994) Executive Summary Facts of the Case Decision of the Case Beyond the Approach in FacciniConclusions ReferencesRelated Executive Summary EU directives are considered not to have horizontal direct effect, i.e. the provisions of the European directive cannot be relied upon by private individuals, when it comes to a legal dispute where they have not been transposed by member states into international law. This was the position in the case in question, here, of Faccini and has been largely supported by future case law and academic analysis in this area. Despite this, there have been some cases which argue that there should be a direct effect[1]. Although these have been distinguished on a matter of fact between the position in Faccini and the decisions reached in later cases, it is argued, here, that the basic rule remains current and good law, albeit with an element of uncertainty, particularly where there is an aspect of public law and order and an obligation on the member states, rather than it being downplayed as a purely contractual relationship between the individual parties. Facts of the Case EU Directive 85/577[2] places a requirement on member states to protect consumers when they are entering into contracts which are negotiated away from the business place, for example, over the phone or, more recently, this would apply to internet-based purchases. This offers a right to cancellation and although there is a degree of flexibility offered to member states in how they ensure that consumers are protected in this way (article 4 and article 5 of directive), there are still minimum rights being afforded to consumers in this situation; the precise terms may also vary from member states to member state, in terms of how the consumers are informed of this right. However, fundamentally, the right is still present[3]. In this case, Faccini Dori contracted with Interdiffusion Srl, in order to purchase an English language course. However, she later attempted to cancel the purchase because, in the meantime, the provision of the course had been assigned to Recreb Srl, who then sued Faccini Dori for the cost of the course which she had failed to pay, as she wished to cancel her purchase. Faccini Dori argued that she would have been entitled to cancel the contract, as it had been a business arrangement made outside of the business premises, under the EU directive; however, it was the failure of the Italian government to implement the contents of the directive, which meant that the provisions did not seemingly apply in the case of Recreb Srl. The question, therefore, arose as to whether or not this directive had horizontal directive effect, thus enabling the individual to rely on the directive when dealing with a dispute between two private individuals. The weakness in the Faccini’s argument was b ased on the fact that the directive had not been implemented and the question arose as to whether or not an unimplemented directive can be relied upon as, had it been implemented, it would be part of Italian law in any event. Decision of the Case In this case, relying on the Marshall case, it was held that Faccini could not rely on the directive, as it has not been implemented into Italian law and therefore it was not possible for individuals to apply the rules contained within the directive, as this lacked horizontal directive applicability and could not therefore be used as the basis for a legal action[4]. According to Article 249 (was 189 at the time of the case) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a European directive is binding on the member states, in terms of achieving the objectives of the directive, but that it is up to member states to determine how this will apply in their jurisdiction. The argument, therefore, arose as to whether or not this means that the directive enables individuals to rely on the concept of the directive in a private action, even where the member state had failed to transpose the directive into national law. In this case, however, it was held that the directive was applicable vertically and could be seen to impose an obligation on the member states, but not be used by individuals in a horizontal plane i.e. between private parties. As noted in the cited case of Marshall[5], the Faccini case relied on this and argued that, whilst it would be possible for private individuals to bring an action against the state for their failure to enact the provisions of the directive, it could not be used as the basis of legal action between the two individuals. Beyond the Approach in Faccini Although the rules laid out in the Faccini case seemed to state clearly that a non-enacted directive could not be relied upon by a private individual, although there has been some future debate as to whether case law has made inroads into this strict position. Case law has developed in this area to such an extent that it creates a situation where it would be possible to have a direct effect or direct link between individuals, even when they have not been transposed into national law[6]. Take, for example, the case relating to CIA Security[7], where an argument arose between three private individuals all of whom were competitors in the provision of security systems. In this argument, it was alleged that CIA Security was not suitably authorised and therefore should not be selling alarm systems, under Belgian law. An argument was presented by CIA that there had been unfair trading practices based on the fact that adopting the requirements to be authorised without notification was a breach of directive 83/189, article 8[8]. It was argued, in this case, that it was possible for the individuals to rely on the provisions of this directive as part of the case of the national court. In this situation, the court held that the provisions of the directive could be relied upon, which seemed to go against the decision in Faccini. As part of the judgement, Advocate Elmer distinguished from the Faccini case by stating that the provisions in directive 83/189 had been written in such a way that there were duties being imposed on the member state, whereas the directive in the Faccini case had placed the requirement on the individuals, alone, and not with the relationship between individuals. A better update emerged in the Unilever case[9]. This case dealt with a contractual relationship between two parties and a boundary dispute between Unilever and Central Food whereby Unilever had been supplying olive oil to Central Food. However, Central Food then took issue with Unilever, given the fact that the oils had not been labelled correctly, so they were no longer in compliance with the appropriate Italian law. As a result, Central Food stated that it would not pay for the oil delivered by Unilever. Unilever’s counterargument was that, although the Italian government had observed certain parts of the provisions of directive 83/189, the actual national law had not taken into account article 9 of the directive and therefore should not have been enacted and should not be applied. In this case, it was held that as the directive had been misapplied and this had resulted in a national standard which was opposed to the directive, national standards could not therefore be applied and could not be enforced against individuals. Certain distinctions were drawn between the Unilever and the CIA case, primarily based on the fact that it was a contractual relationship between the parties and was not linked to arguments associated with unfair trade practices and thus allowed the decisions to be distinguished from the case of Faccini. The difficulty going forward, therefore, is how cases such as the CIA case can potentially create a situation where there is horizontal direct effect to directives allowing private parties to rely upon the provisions of any unimplemented directive, in order to impact on their own personal dispute. On the face of it, therefore, it would appear that the CIA case had indeed created a situation whereby the basic ruling in the Faccini case could be softened. The main argument for this development is that, in the CIA case, there is a public law element, as there had been a failure on behalf of the member state, rather than a pure issue of private law such as contractual relations[10]. Conclusions There are clear difficulties when it comes to reconciling the basic provision laid out in Marshall and the Faccini cases; however, although it has been argued that there is a public law element in the cases which have been decided in a different way from the Faccini case, the net result is that this creates a different relationship between private individuals. Despite this, it is contended here that the basic rule in Faccini, in that the directive does not have horizontal direct effect, and therefore cannot be relied upon as a legal basis for action between private individuals, remains. There is, however, the need to consider cases such as CIA, which can create at least some uncertainty as to whether or not this will be strictly applied, in all situations. References Case C-194/94, CIA Security International SA v. Signalson SA and Securitel SPRL [1996] ECR1-2201, para. 13-15. Case 152/84, Marshall v. Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority (Teaching) [1986] ECR 723, para. 48. Case C-91/92 Paolo Faccini Dori –v- Recreh Srl (1994) Case C-443/98, Unileverltalia SpA v. Central Food SpA [2000] ECR1-7535. Council Directive (EC) 85/577 Consumer Protection in the Case of Contracts Negotiated Away from Business Premises Council Directive (EC) 83/189 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations Michael. Dougan, The Disguised Vertical Direct Effect of Directives?, The Cambridge Law Journal, 2000, vol. 59(3), pp.586-612 at 587 Paul Craig, Directives: Direct Effect, Indirect Effect and the Construction of National Legislation, EL Rev., 1997, vol. 22, pp.519-538 at 519. Paul Craig and Grainne de Burca, EU Law Text, Cases, and Materials, (3rd Ed., Oxford University Press, United Kingdom 2003), p.202, 203 Stephen Weatherhill, Breach of Directives and Breach of Contract, EL Rev., 2001, vol.26, pp. 177-186 at 182.