Differences Of Lying And Not Telling The Truth

Differences Of Lying And Not Telling The Truth Lying and not-telling the truth are different in their own right, and have moral and ethical implications associated with each one. This is not merely a matter of semantics; it is a matter of substance. By the use of analogy, there are major difference between justified and unjustified homicide. Murder is unjustified homicide and will always be considered wrong by a moral society. Not every instance of killing a person, however, is considered murder. In scenarios of capital punishment and self-defense occasions can justified homicide. Similarly, in the case of a lie there is an unjustified discrepancy between what you believe and what you say, and so lying is may always be considered immoral. In some circumstances, not telling the truth in order to preserve a higher moral law may well be considered the right thing to do and thus is not actually a lie. While Kant asserted that lying, or deception of any kind, should be forbidden under any interpretation and in any circumstance. He stated this because if it is universally acceptable to lie, then no one would believe anyone and all truths would always be assumed to be lies or deceptions. He also stated that the right to deceive an individual couldnt also be used because it would discard the rights of the person being deceived as an end in itself. Therefore, Kant denied the right to lie or deceive any person for any reason, regardless of context or anticipated consequences. While Kant proclaimed this notion of never lying, there are pitfalls in his universalizing. Throughout these examples the pitfalls of Kants universal laws will be exposed. There are several circumstances that not telling the truth wouldnt be considered a lie. For instance in the case of national security, the United States government might omit or falsify information that is given to the public to ultimately protect their own interests or assets. For example, General H. Norman Schwarzkopf during the lead up to the first Gulf War he was known to give many press conferences leading up to the invasion. During these press conferences not all the information that he presented regarding his invasion strategy could be considered a full truth. During this time Schwarzkopf would have falsified information about the invasion date to the media, in effort to deceive them. While knowing that this information was a non-truth, this information mislead the enemy and gave the United States military a strategic advantage. In effect by not-telling the truth, Schwarzkopf gave the military the element of surprise, which could have resulted in saving thousands of American l ives. Should Schwarzkopf be considered a liar in this case? In this case, while Schwarzkopf had been telling false-truths it was done for moral reasons and shouldnt be considered a lie. Since the ends justify the means it is morally acceptable by not telling the truth and it shouldnt be construed as a lie. While in the previous scenario not telling the truth isnt considered lying, there are other situations cannot be interpreted in the same fashion. If an omission of the truth is used to mislead or deceive someone for your own greater ends, or for an immoral goal, then the non-truth cannot be construed in the same way. For instance during the most recent financial collapse many banks and financial firms mislead the country and their clients about the value of different products they were trying to sell. Since their intentions were to mislead, or deceive their clients on the sole purpose to turn a profit, thus it cannot be considered a morally justified act. If the intentions of these firms like Goldman Sachs wasnt done to mislead, but done in the interests of their clients, unknowing the unfortunate consequences. Then this company shouldnt be considered a liar, but unfortunately they knowing lied and mislead their clients. Since the act was done for malice, and for their own greed, the n their act of deception must be considered a blatant lie. While in most cases, such as the ones already presented the distinction between lying and not-telling the truth are made quite clear. On the other hand, these distinctions cannot always be viewed in black and white, but in varying shades of gray. If the intentions of the lie is not done for your own self-interests, or for your own ends, but done in a manner to save a person from embarrassment and humiliation, thus it cannot be considered a lie. For example if a loved one asks am I over weight? While knowing all along the answer is yes is it in their best interest and yours to be absolutely blunt with them? If their condition isnt life threating or will cause ailment to the individual in the future, then the act of lying to protect their feelings isnt morally wrong and should be considered a lie. If your wife asks you does this dress look good? while knowing all along that you dont like the dress, telling her what she wants to hear doesnt harm or effect anyone. If in the situation you have nothing to gain and your purpose is to protect the other person from pain or grief then not telling the truth, may be the right thing to do and therefore morally acceptable. While distinctions between lying or not-telling the truth can be made. Is the omission of details considered lying? For instants lets say you are being interrogated for a crime, during the interrogation you answer all the questions truthfully and only answer the question that was precisely given. Even though you might have committed this crime, should the omission of details shouldnt be considered lying? Its the fault of the interrogator not asking the proper questions during the interview which lead them from not discovering the whole truth. Thus since no false-truths were given to any of the questions the one being interrogated shouldnt be perceived as a liar. Throughout this essay many examples were given to help clarify the distinction between lying and not-telling the truth. In all cases, to label someone a liar certain factors must be met to determine whether an individual telling a lie or just simply not-telling the truth. The most major underlying distinctions between them is the intentions of the person telling the lie. If the lie is done so in a manner that doesnt harm or cause pain to the person, and has moral and ethical intentions, then the person shouldnt be considered a liar. Contrariwise, if the individuals intentions are to deceive or cause harm to another individual, then the intentions are clear on what they wish to achieve, thus should be labeled a liar.

Kazakhstan’s 20 Years of Independence

Kazakhstan’s 20 Years of Independence When Kazakhstan became independent after the collapse of Soviet Union in December 1991, many experts had predicted the collapse of the Central Asian nation under the burden of economic and social problems. But 20 years since then, the country of over 16 million people has become the largest economy in the Central Asian region due to its enormous oil, gas and uranium reserves and bold market economic reforms and political stability in the nation of 130 ethnic groups.According to official figures, Kazakhstan's GDP per capita grew from $700 in 1994 to more than $9,000 last year. In fact the growth was five years ahead of the schedule, and faster than in any other country in the first 20 years of its independence. Kazakhstan held year-long celebrations across the nation to celebrate its success and look towards what needs to be done to maintain the growth curve. The rapid economic and industrial growth of the oil and energy rich nation is attr ibuted to Kazakhstan's concerted efforts to create a stable, investor-friendly environment.Despite the 2008 economic downturn, Kazakhstan retained and attracted a remarkable inflow of foreign direct investment (FDI). Last year, the nation scored among the the top 10 nations attracting FDI in the entire world. According to official figures, the country has attracted $132 billion in FDI in the last 20 years. Officials attribute the reasons to the economic growth to the political stability in the country and some of the bold decisions by President Nursultan Nazarbayev. Nazarbayev moved the capital from Almaty to Astana in December 1997 which has proven to be a critical moment.The new capital has come up as a dynamic centre of a rapidly growing nation and a modern 21st century city of some 750,000 people. The model of inter-ethnic relations that has preserved peace and harmony in the ethnically and religiously diverse society of Kazakhstan is another cause for the countries strong growt h. On the political front, Kazakhstan is now moving towards multi-party democracy with the parliament elections to be conducted in January next year. Kazakhstan was the chair of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in 2010 and hosted the OSCE summit at Astana in December.An Astana Commemorative Declaration was signed, renewing commitment to a better cooperation within the organization of 56 participating states from North America, Europe and Eurasia. In 2011, Kazakhstan also chaired the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, seeking to strengthen it as a critical instrument of promoting multi-faceted cooperation among its six members. And in June, Kazakhstan assumed the one-year presidency in the 57-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation seeking to promote peace, cooperation and development.

The German Blitz

Where and when did the Blitz start? At 4:56pm on 7 September 1940, the air raid sirens wailed as the luftwaffe (the German Air Force), launched a massive attack on London. Around 350 bombers flew across the English Channel from France and dropped 300 tonnes of bombs on the docks and streets of London. Other places that were affected? Other important military and industrial centres, such as Aberdeen, Belfast, Birmingham, Cardiff, Exeter, Glasgow, Sheffield, Swansea, Liverpool, Manchester, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Nottingham, Brighton, Eastbourne, Sunderland, and Southhampton, suffered heavy air raids and high numbers of casualties. Bootle and Hull were the most badly damaged cities city after London. Birmingham and Coventry were targeted because of the Spitfire and tank factories based in Birmingham and the many munitions factories in Coventry. Who did it affect and where did they go? Around 827,000 Schoolchildren and their teachers were evacuated, 524,000 Mothers with children under five and some pregnant women and disabled people. They were evacuated by trains and via the road to smaller towns in the countryside. Some children went to stay with relatives but most were sent to live with complete strangers. Where did people go during the air raids? As the night raids became so frequent, many people who were tired of repeatedly interrupting their sleep to go back and forth to the shelters, virtually took up residence in a shelter. There was different types of air raid shelters, there was the anderson shelter which were small corrugated iron shelters half buried in the ground with earth heaped on top to protect them from bomb blasts. Another type of shelter was the morrison shelter, it was made specifically for people without gardens, it was made from heavy steel and could also be used as a table, people sheltered underneath it during a raid. On September 21, 1940 the London Underground started to be used as an air raid shelter. On the busiest night in 1940, 177,000 people slept on platforms. In other parts of Britain caves where used to shelter in. When did the blitz stop? The Blitz ended in mid-may 1941 due to German Planes being sent to the east of Europe to prepare for the invasion of Russia.

Using the Spanish Verb Venir

Venir is a common Spanish verb with a variety of meanings. Fortunately, many of them can be translated using the English verb to come, which also has numerous meanings. Venir is a cousin of English -vent words such as invent and convent as well of venue and venire (a legal term). Keep in mind that venir  is conjugated irregularly, having forms such as vengo (I come) and vendrà ¡n (they will come). Using Venir To Refer to Coming From a Place Most commonly, venir is used to talk about coming to or arriving at a place: Cuando yo vine a California fui a Disneylandia. (When I came to California, I went to Disneyland.)Venimos en bus con un maestro y pagamos por nuestro transporte. (We came by bus with a teacher and paid for our own transportation.)Tenà ­a sà ³lo un aà ±o cuando vino desde Espaà ±a. (He was only a year old when he came from Spain.) ¡Ven aquà ­! (Come here!)No vienen hasta las 14.30. (They arent coming until 2:30 p.m.) In context, venir can convey the idea of coming back or returning: No vengas a mà ­. (Tà ­tulo de cancià ³n) (Dont come back to me. (song title))Es importante que vengas temprano. (Its important you come back early.) Using Venir To Point Out Qualities Venir can mean to include, to be, or to have, often in a way that can be translated by to come: El primer iPad no viene con webcam. (The first iPad doesnt come with (include) a webcam.)Estas bicicletas vienen de Surinam. (These bicycles are (come) from Suriname.)El à ºnico que viene con excusas eres tà º. (The only one who comes with (has) excuses is you.)Las servilletas vienen en distintos tamaà ±os. (The napkins come (are) in different sizes.)Viene en caja sellada. (It comes (is) in a sealed box.) Especially when used with bien or mal, venir can be used to indicate suitability: No ser muy famoso me viene bien. (Not being very famous is fine with me.)A ningà ºn paà ­s le viene mal la globalizacià ³n. (Globalization doesnt serve any country poorly.)Al libro le venà ­a bien la promocià ³n. (The promotion was good for the book.) Using Venir With a Gerund Venir can be used as an auxiliary verb with the gerund (also known as the present participle) to indicate a continuing action, often in an increasingly intense way. Hace mucho tiempo que se viene hablando de la necesidad de una nueva constitucià ³n. (The need for a new constitution has been talked about and talked about for a long time.)El presidente viene sufriendo derrota tras derrota. (The president continues to suffer defeat after defeat.)El chofer del camià ³n venà ­a hablando por telà ©fono. (The truck driver kept on talking on a telephone.)   Using Venirse The reflexive form, venirse, like the standard form, can mean to come from a place. But it places more emphasis on where the thing or person has come from. La rumba se vino de Miami. (The rumba came from Miami. La rumba vino de Miami might be translated the same way, but making the verb reflexive calls extra attention to Miami, perhaps because the fact of the sentence may be surprising.)Los turistas se vienen de otros paà ­ses. (The tourists are coming from other countries.)Necesitaremos agua por quà © nos venimos del desierto. (We will need water because we are coming from the desert.) The reflexive can also suggest that the verbs action was sudden or unexpected: Era lo primero que se vino a cabeza. (It was the first thing that came to mind.)Otra hipà ³tesis es que el puente se vino abajo por la fragilidad de sus pilares. (Another theory is that the bridge came down because of the fragility of its pillars.)Los vientos se vinieron de un solo golpe. (The winds came suddenly in a single blow.) Key Takeaways Venir can usually be translated as to come, whether it is used to mean coming from a place or to have a certain quality.Venir can be used with gerunds to indicate continuous action.The reflexive venirse can be used to emphasize the origins of where someone is coming from or to emphasize the suddenness of an action.