Get help from the best in academic writing.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Dependency Essay

The dependency thesis states that what is good or bad depends on what the people of that particular society, regard as wrong or right. Another definition is that; the moral principles that have been accepted by a certain cultural are the correct ones, irrespective of what other cultures practice. If a certain community accepts that upon meeting someone older than yourself you should bow your head, then not bowing your head to an elder person is morally wrong (1).

The dependency thesis has some strengths and weaknesses. One of the strengths is that; if by any chance you get entangled in another community, you become unaffected by some of the earlier obligations.

For example, in a Kenyan society, abortion is wrong. If a Kenyan girl is married to a Chinese, whose culture condones abortion, she will be free from the no abortion rule. When this Kenyan girl is married to a Chinese, she will have the choice of aborting if wished. According to the thesis, it is not right for one community to force its rule unto another person from a different community.

This means that a foreigner may live amidst another community, and continue practicing what he thinks is right. For example, a reporter from BBC will be able to report the lifestyle of the Fulani people, without himself being forced to abide to the traditions of the Fulani (3).

If somebody is supposed to adhere to his culture’s principles, it means that there is no supreme person who is supposed to judge everybody. This means there is nothing that entitles one human being to judge others. The thesis also advocates that we should see other people’s culture as important as ours.

This has enabled people to tolerate other people’s culture. Being able to tolerate other people’s culture has enabled people from different cultures to live together. For example, a Muslim and a Christian can be very good roommates even if they have different believes. Both cultures teach to respect other people’s culture (4).

One of the major draw back of this thesis is that, it gives room for one community rising over the other with catastrophic results. From the thesis, Hitler can be viewed to be equally moral as Gandhi. Both Hitler and Gandhi did and preached what they believed is right for their people.

Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours Learn More If a certain community has a moral principle which allows one to kill another person, the results can be catastrophic. During the crusade mission in the 10th century, Muslims and Christians slaughtered each other. Both of them were thinking that they were doing the right thing.

One irony in this case is that they were all killing, each other to please the same person. During the Rwandan genocide, the Hutus were made to believe that they needed to defend their country from Tutsis. Even though they were the majority, they went on to kill approximately 800,000 Tutsis (5).

The other flaw of this thesis is that, people who advocate for change are considered to be wrong. For example, can we say that Jesus was morally wrong sine he was not accepted by his community? People who may come up with ways that are supposed to make the living condition of a community better, maybe shut down since they may be going against what is accepted as morally right. Another fault is that a person can fail to be held responsible for doing something wrong, simply because he does not belong to any community (7).

Work Cited Beebe, James. “Ethical Relativism.” ACSU. ACSU, 15 January 2003. Web.

Why is society stratified? Essay

Nursing Assignment Help Sociological theory is a complex theoretical and analytical inquiry that is used to explain a discourse of social study. Sociological study is well constructed under the auspices of sociological concepts.

Of all sociological theorizations, the inception and continued stay of class in society has inspired many a theorists. The questions are why there are people of low class and others of higher class. Why has nature designed poor people and rich fortunate ones and why? In the helm of explaining this phenomena are Karl Marx, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim.

Right from the time of Karl Marx, society acquired a new dimension in terms of stratification and class formation. Marx was a functionalist in the 1960s whose thought inspired many movements in the social sciences.

Karl Marx endeavored to explain the reason as to why society is highly stratified and he did this from economic point of view. Karl Marx had noted that his society was dominated by people who own the means of production though they were a minority while proletariats or workers whose only commodity of sale was their mere labor are the majority. Interestingly, their lack of material possession had rendered them powerless economically and socially.

For instance Marx noted that the bourgeoisie class depended on the working class. Actually industries produced their goods after workers worked and there was a lot of exploitation of the worker and this dehumanized the worker and occasioned his demotion to a lower status.

It was his position that one’s humanity inheres in his labor and therefore, one is ultimately dehumanized whenever his or her labor is directed by another person. As a result of this, society is classified into the poor and the rich, the bourgeoisie and the workers. This would lead to rational choice theory whereby the interaction between the bourgeoisie and the working class is critically examined.

Emile Durkheim on his side would explain class difference by claiming that out of this interaction and dominance search is born social facts (Bert 1). The working class, strewn of their social power and their lack of material wealth, prefer to be subservient and hence laying ground for exploitation, dehumanization and discrimination by the higher class.

Get your 100% original paper on any topic done in as little as 3 hours Learn More Social differences according to Durkheim are a product of inculcated ‘social facts’ for instance social norms, values, behavioral patterns; that exist and persist in a society so that they are deeply entrenched and alternatives are never to be embraced.

Another social scientist, who came forward in the modern era to explain social differences, was Max Weber. He, like Karl Marx, saw social status authority as more of economic oriented than nothing else. In his explaining these differences Weber believes that power is all about change of man in his quest for own will in a command action, even in resistance of others who are participating in this action.

Power is nothing but a fruit that one man has a crave for and he is determined to pick it whatever it takes even if it takes sniffing life from another human being. This is where the concept of reducing man as a means presents itself on the social stage. For those sociologists who use Darwinian concept, this is explained in terms of the constant struggle for survival. Existence of class in society is therefore as a result of competition for materials.

In modern society in fact business of capitalism has been rooted in the lives of a people. People take capitalism as a vocation and therefore they attend to it honestly, efficiently and with sincerity. What Weber is trying to analyze is that people are placed in their social position by a force that they have accepted in consensus concertedly. This is what Durkheim was branding ‘social facts’ in fact.

Weber further explains that power grants confidence in a man who bears it and the bearer of power is able to realize his ends in a proper manner against those who are just spectators on the edges. This power that is acquired through capital ownership is an existential factor that positions people in their respective classes (Bert 1). He sees society therefore as made up of the owners of property and those who offer services.

The placement is inspired by what he calls orders. Society is made of three orders: social order that conjures up status group, economic order that makes proper arrangements for the distribution of economic opportunities without social honor and legal order that acts as a judge in determining constitutional status of a group.

Unlike Karl Marx, Weber believes that class is guided by the economic factor; therefore property and lack of property are the key vehicles of class situation.

We will write a custom Essay on Why is society stratified? specifically for you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More The economic group chances are the key determinants of class groups according to Max Weber. In conclusion it is deducible form these social theorists that the major impetus behind inequality of class in the society is just economic factors or material possession. The obsession is well rooted into the society and the prefect of this is none other than capitalism that society in whole has greedily swallowed.

Works Cited Bert N. Adams and R.A., Sydie, Sociological Theory, Pine Forge Press. London, 2001. Web.