I.

Christian Philosophy of Man

A. The Dignity and Destiny of Man

“Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.” Genesis 2:7
Man’s dignity rest on his destiny. He is not simply from the dust and for the dust but
from God and for God. -Peter J. Kreeft

Crucial to our identity is to recognize the genesis of man. Upon this planet man
continues to muse the questions of where he came from and why he is here? .What is
his ultimate purpose upon which his life will be evaluated, and by whom?
This innate, introspective, quest, distinguishes man from the rest of creation. As man
returns to Genesis, he discovers he is more than an animal, or a backdrop to something
else. The interior journey of each individual takes one full circle. It is at his origin, man
finds upon the formation of Adam and Eve, the non-created, Potter’s hands. It is here
we find the dignity and destiny of man. Like no other work of creation, God designed
man with a capacity to know God and make him known. The Master’s “Piece” of
splendor, upon which the rest of God’s created works surrounds.
As we inventory each day within the context of where we live, we must ask ourselves,
what have we done to know God and make him known to those around us? .So we are
ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us; we entreat you on
behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 2 Corinthians 5:20
As ambassadors of Christ, our created purpose is to become a bridge that escorts
others to the cross of God’s only Son. To create a pathway of presentation,
conversation and example that calls one to God’s Country. To live out loud a life that
causes others to look up and behold our God. Shalom. –Benjamin

The new dignity of man is a bestowed equality with God. According to the original order,
man was placed at the pinnacle of material creation, but was created lower than the
lowest angelic nature. Through the incarnation, God has taken human nature to himself
and redefined its dignity and destiny in Christ. To reconcile man to the will of the Father,
the Holy Spirit draws man into union with God the Son. In becoming one with God the
Son, man is united to divinity in a way that elevates him above all of the angels to
equality with God by grace. God bids the redeemed sinner to share in the divine nature
in a way that is similar to the manner in which God came to share in human nature. On
the original order, man was a creature to whom God gave as much glory and joy as was
fitting to the capacity of human nature. In his new destiny and dignity, man enters into a
magnitude of joy and glory which is, by nature, proper to God alone.
B. The Existence of Moral Obligation

MORAL OBLIGATION-Thomas Pink

1. The problem of moral obligation 

Moral philosophy characteristically sees moral standards as reasons. That an action

would be kind or just or in some way morally admirable is supposed to give us a reason
for performing it. And surely there is something right about the thought that moral
standards imply reasons for conforming to them. For we offer the morality of an action
as a relevant consideration in practical argument - a consideration to support that
action's performance. You should provide the help, because it would be kind, or just,
and so forth. And an argument, surely, is in the business of offering reasons for what
the argument supports. Now reasons and the arguments which convey them apply not
only to our actions but to our psychological attitudes as well. We can have reasons for
actions; but equally we can have reasons for non-actions such as our general beliefs
and desires. And the force of all these reasons and the arguments which provide them
seems to be this - it would be sensible or advisable to perform this action, to form this
belief or desire. Of course, there may be conflicting reasons - there may be reasons for
believing one thing or for doing one thing, but opposing reasons for believing or doing
quite another. And here the reasons in favour of one belief or action may defeat the
opposing reasons for believing and acting otherwise. In which case the sensible person
will be moved by the victorious or defeating reasons to believe or act as they support; it
would be foolish or less than sensible for him to be moved by reasons which have been
defeated. For just as the force of reason is to leave what it supports advisable, so it also
leaves what it opposes inadvisable. To disregard the force of reason and argument is to
be like someone who ignores good advice. It is to be less than sensible, or even to be
downright foolish.

2. Positivising models

There is one feature of moral obligation which has, in the history of philosophy, proved
of fundamental importance. In obligation the language of morality approaches that of the
positive law. By positive law I mean the laws imposed on specific communities by
legislation valid for those communities in particular, whether it be the legislation of
custom or the legislation of formal statute and decree. For notions of obligation of right
and wrong, of being responsible and to blame or of having an excuse – all these are
also expressed in the language of those who impose and enforce requirements under
positive law. 'You are under an obligation to do it' could be spoken by a moralist - or by
a judge or official enforcing the law of the land. And the senses in which the term
'obligation' is being used in the two cases seem, at the very least, closely related. The
parallels between moral obligations and obligations under positive law –legal obligations,
as we naturally term them - seem considerable. In both cases we have the same idea,
not of mere recommendation, but of demand. And we also have a connexion with the
direction of action. For in the positive legal case too, obligation seems something
centrally directive of how we act. For in so far as positive law is about actually getting us
to comply – about getting us actually to meet our obligations - it is very natural to see it
as concerned with the direction of agency. To be more exact, it is natural to see it as
concerned with the direction of things that people can affect voluntarily through
voluntary action or omission. By affecting things voluntarily or through voluntary action I
mean bringing things about or preventing them on the basis of a will, a decision or
intention, so to bring them about or prevent them. Action that is voluntary, I shall say, is
what we do motivated by a will or pro attitude towards doing it, such as a decision or
intention to do it. The first point to make about legal obligatoriness, is the way it induces
obedience to the law. When they move us to comply, legal obligations do so as
legislatively created features of outcomes or states of affairs – features that move us to
decide to produce those obligatory states of affairs. The law might prohibit cars from
speeding above thirty miles per hour in a certain area, for example. People learn of the
prohibition. They see that driving below thirty is now required by law - it is legally
obligatory. And, if they are law-abiding, their immediate response is accordingly to
decide to drive within the new speed limit - a decision which they will generally carryout,
driving within the limit being something that most people at least have the capacity to do
should they so decide.
The scope of moral obligation and blame goes deeper, then, than mere regulation of the
voluntary. Moral obligation and blame are directly concerned with motivations that are
generally non-voluntary - that people cannot in general adopt or abandon at will. Again,
the positivising account of moral obligation's demandingness seems false too. To begin
with, it is surely a real moral problem whether and which moral obligations should be
coercively enforced, and which cases of wrong doing or breach of obligation should be
met with actual punishment -as for example the New Testament story of Jesus and the
woman taken in adultery might remind us, where the idea of an action's being wrong is
importantly detached from the idea that we ought to be punishing it.

3. Anscombe on obligation and divine command

Go back to Anscombe's view of what a distinctively moral obligation would be. Her view
is that the moral obligatoriness of a virtuous action could only consist in that action's
being decreed or commanded by a divine legislator. That is just what moral
obligatoriness is, what it consists in - the feature of being decreed or commanded by
such a moral superior. Which is why disbelief in the existence of such a moral law-giver
and his decrees, in her view, deprives talk of a specifically moral obligation of its
content. Anscombe is clearly putting forward a version of a divine command theory of
moral obligation. Now by a divine command theory I shall mean simply this any theory
which regards all moral obligations as having their source or origin in acts of divine will
or command. But it is important that even if we were to maintain such a theory of moral
obligation, and regard all moral obligations as arising out of divine commands, we need
not do what Anscombe also does - and identify obligatoriness with the feature of being
divinely commanded. And, if we reflect, it is very clear why we should not. It may turn
out to be true that many voluntary actions which are genuinely obligatory are
commanded by a superior - perhaps it may even turn out to be true, as many people
who believe in God suppose, that all of them are.
4. The Force model

We have seen that moral obligations are cited in argument - when we are offering
reasons or justifications for doing one thing rather than another. So let us look, in very
general terms, then, at the structure of practical justification or reason, and at what
elements it involves. Take again actions that are voluntary - by which word 'voluntary'
meaning, as before, actions that we perform, when we do, on the basis of some
motivating pro attitude towards performing the action, such as a decision or intention to
perform it. Deliberation or reasoning about how to act, practical deliberation, is
principally and centrally about which such voluntary actions to perform -about whether
to cross the road say, or make someone a gift of money, and the like. In deliberating we
consider the various features which these possible voluntary actions have. We consider
the actions both as possible ends in themselves, things possibly worth doing for their
own sake, and as possible means to attaining further ends. Certain features of the
voluntary then generate reasons or justifications for performing this voluntary action
rather than that - reasons having a certain kind of force.

5. Moral obligatoriness as a demanding force of reason

On this new Force model of moral obligation, we have identified moral obligatoriness
with a further kind of justificatory force - a force not of Recommendation, but Demand.
And blame is a form of rational criticism - but of a very specific kind. It is criticism for
disregarding this force of Demand. We have within practical reason then two kinds of
justificatory force - the forces of Recommendation and Demand. These are both forces
of practical reason. That is, they are both justificatory forces, forces which attach to
reasons or justifications. But the two forces are nevertheless distinct. It therefore
becomes a serious and I think still a largely open question what the relation is between
them. Suppose I act wrongly and am fairly blamed for so doing. Must I also have been
foolish or less than sensible to act as I did? If blameworthy wrong-doing were ipso facto
less than sensible, then the following would be true. The recommendatory force of any
reasons which we might have had for doing wrong - such as any reason deriving from
the fact that our own self-interest would be furthered - this recommendatory force would
always have to be defeated by the demanding reasons we had for doing right. Only that
way would the wrong action which we are being blamed for be less than sensible too.
But perhaps, on the other hand, reasons equipped with the force of Demand need not
work in this way.

C. Philosophy of Happiness

The philosophy of happiness is an umbrella term for the various philosophical

approaches to explaining the nature of happiness, as well as how to attain it. Both the
classic Western philosophy (Ancient philosophy) and the Eastern philosophy since its
inception deal with the subject of happiness.

Two senses of ‘happiness’

What is happiness? This question has no straightforward answer, because the meaning
of the question itself is unclear. What exactly is being asked? Perhaps you want to know
what the word ‘happiness’ means. In that case your inquiry is linguistic.
Chances are you had something more interesting in mind: perhaps you want to know
about the thing, happiness, itself. Is it pleasure, a life of prosperity, something else? Yet
we can't answer that question until we have some notion of what we mean by the word.
Philosophers who write about “happiness” typically take their subject matter to be either
of two things, each corresponding to a different sense of the term:
1. A state of mind
2. A life that goes well for the person leading it
In the first case our concern is simply a psychological matter. Just as inquiry about
pleasure or depression fundamentally concerns questions of psychology, inquiry about
happiness in this sense—call it the (long-term) “psychological sense”—is fundamentally
the study of certain mental states. What is this state of mind we call happiness? Typical
answers to this question include life satisfaction, pleasure, or a positive emotional
condition.

Having answered that question, a further question arises: how valuable is this mental
state? Since ‘happiness’ in this sense is just a psychological term, you could intelligibly
say that happiness isn't valuable at all. Perhaps you are a high-achieving intellectual
who thinks that only ignoramuses can be happy. On this sort of view, happy people are
to be pitied, not envied. The present article will center on happiness in the psychological
sense. In the second case, our subject matter is a kind of value, namely what
philosophers nowadays tend to call prudential value—or, more commonly, well-being,
welfare, utility or flourishing. (For further discussion, see the entry on well-being.
Whether these terms are really equivalent remains a matter of dispute, but this article
will usually treat them as interchangeable.) “Happiness” in this sense concerns what
benefits a person, is good for her, makes her better off, serves her interests, or is
desirable for her for her sake. To be high in well-being is to be faring well, doing well,
fortunate, or in an enviable condition. Ill-being, or doing badly, may call for sympathy or
pity, whereas we envy or rejoice in the good fortune of others, and feel gratitude for our
own. Being good for someone differs from simply being good, period: perhaps it is
always good, period, for you to be honest; yet it may not always be good for you, as
when it entails self-sacrifice. Not coincidentally, the word ‘happiness’ derives from the
term for good fortune, or “good hap,” and indeed the terms used to translate it in other
languages have similar roots. In this sense of the term—call it the “well-being sense”—
happiness refers to a life of well-being or flourishing: a life that goes well for you.
Importantly, to ascribe happiness in the well-being sense is to make a value judgment:
namely, that the person has whatever it is that benefits a person. [1] If you and I and have
different values, then we may well differ about which lives we consider happy. I might
think Genghis Khan had a happy life, because I think what matters for well-being is
getting what you want; while you deny this because you think a life of evildoing,
however “successful,” is sad and impoverished.
II. Man and Ethics

A. The Moral Philosophy of Communism

Communism is a socio-economic structure that promotes the establishment of a

classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production. It
encourages the formation of a proletarian state in order to overcome the class
structures and alienation of labour that characterize capitalistic societies, and their
legacy of imperialism and nationalism. Communism holds that the only way to solve
these problems is for the working class (or proletariat) to replace the wealthy ruling
class (or bourgeoisie), through revolutionary action, in order to establish a peaceful, free
society, without classes or government.
Philosophy reflects in ones walk of life. For example Zen philosophy reflects in daily life
of a rickshaw puller in Japan so also devotion concept in India, so also Marxism in
china. Any philosophical movement motivates public in general but may be valid or
invalid. Philosophy reflects in every moment of existence. Philosophical propositions
can change the way of thinking. It also can show what was super imposed over reality.
Human thought is nothing but the reflections of philosophical movements of past. A set
of principles or standards of behaviour whereby a community as a whole deem
important.

B. Family and Social Ethics

The family is the core unit of society. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
enacted without dissent by the United Nations in 1948, notes this in stating that “the
family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection
by society and the State.” If society were to be compared to an organism, families would
be the cells. It is in the state’s interest to protect the family because, as the cornerstone
of society, healthy families lead to a healthy society, analogous to healthy cells being
necessary for a healthy organism.

Social ethics form an infrastructure for us to live as a society. Religion, charity, morality,
and family values are all tools used to define standards of behaviour in our society.
Morals are seen by many as an infrastructure on which a community depends. Immoral
behaviour is seen as a threat to the community. More than anything it is a sense of
social responsibility and public opinion that define them for us all. Social ethics are
defined by societal and cultural norms. Religion plays a big role in certain societies. The
concept of charity to others and morality within one's actions are important to many,
especially those who subscribe to family values as a vehicle for their morals. Social
ethics are a religion to some and a mystery to others. Charity and morality are certainly
part of a societal fabric, and many claim family values and the morals espoused within
them are what a society should subscribe to. Social ethics vary in different parts of the
world. The effect of religion on social norms also varies, but charity and morality remain
key components of societal infrastructure. Immoral behaviour will always take place, but
social responsibility and the power of public opinion combine to make social ethics an
important part of everyday life. Social ethics are the philosophical or moral principles
that, in one way or another, represent the collective experience of people and cultures.
C. God - Centered Living

One of the phrases thrown around in Christian circles is “Living the Christ-Centered
Life.”
“The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it.” (Psalm
24:1 NIV)
“The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it. The world and all its people belong to
Him.”
EVERYTHING belong to the Lord. This includes our bodies, our minds, our tongues, our
hands and feet, the money we possess, the vehicles we drive, the jobs we have, the
clothes we wear, the friends we have, the time we have, the parents we have, the
church we attend. EVERYTHING belongs to the Lord. Therefore, we should treat
everything with the utmost respect and care – because we know it doesn’t belong to us.
It belongs to the Lord!
To be God-Centered is a phrase used to describe someone who puts God before
everything and in everything they do. They honor. God above all else and live their daily
lives as ambassadors for him. 1 John 5:3-4 "This is love for God: to obey his
commands. And his commands are not burdensome for everyone born of God
overcomes the world." It means that God is always with us not only God is in us but
the Holy Spirit too. When we were baptize we become to the family of Christ. So starting
of that day when we were baptize God went in our body.

III. Great Famous Philosophers and their Contributions

John Locke and the Tabula Rasa

Locke (1632-1704), an English philosopher and physician, proposed that the mind was
a blank slate or tabula rasa. This states that men are born without innate ideas, and that
knowledge comes from experience and perception, as opposed to predetermined good
and evil nature, as believed by other thinkers. On his treatise “Some Thoughts
Concerning Education”, he emphasized that the knowledge taught during younger years
are more influential than those during maturity because they will be the foundations of
the human mind. Due to this process of associations of ideas, he stressed out that
punishments are unhealthy and educators should teach by examples rather than rules.
This theory on education puts him on a clash with another widely accepted philosophy,
backed by another brilliant mind.

Immanuel Kant and Idealism

They never lived at the same time, but history always put Locke and Kant on a dust up.
A famed German thinker, Kant (1724–1804) was an advocate of public education and of
learning by doing, a process we call training. As he reasons that these are two vastly
different things. He postulated “Above all things, obedience is an essential feature in the
character of a child…”. As opposed to Locke, he surmises that children should always
obey and learn the virtue of duty, because children’s inclination to earn or do something
is something unreliable.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Emile

Plato said that each individual is born with skills appropriate to different castes, or
functions of society. Though Rousseau (1712-1778), a Genevan intellect and writer,
paid respects to the ancient philosopher, he rejected this thinking. He believed that
there was one developmental procedure common to man; it was a built-in, natural
process which the main behavioural manifestation is curiosity. On his book, Emile,
Rousseau outlines the process of an ideal education through a hypothetical boy of the
titular name, from twelve years of age to the time he marries a woman. Critics said this
work of his foreshadowed most modern system of education we have now.

Mortimer J. Adler and the Educational Perrenialism

Adler (1902- 2001) was an American philosopher and educator, and a proponent of
Educational Perennialism. He believed that one should teach the things that one deems
to be of perpetual importance. He proposed that one should teach principles, not facts,
since details of facts change constantly.  And since people are humans, one should
teach them about humans also, not about machines, or theories. He argues that one
should validate the reasoning with the primary descriptions of popular experiments. This
provides students with a human side to the scientific discipline, and demonstrates the
reasoning in deed.

William James and Pragmatism

William James (1842-1910), an American psychologist and philosopher, ascribed to the

philosophy of pragmatism.  He believed that the value of any truth was utterly
dependent upon its use to the person who held it. He maintained that the world is like a
mosaic of different experiences that can only be interpreted through what he calls as
“Radical empiricism”. This means that no observation is completely objective. As the
mind of the observer and the act of observing will simply just affect the outcome of the
observation.

John Dewey and the Progressivism

Dewey (1859-1952), an American philosopher, psychologist and educational reformer,

was a proponent of Educational Progressivism. He held that education is a “participation
of the individual in the social consciousness of the race”, and that it has two sides; the
psychological, which forms the basis of the child’s instincts,  and the sociological, on
which the instinct will be used to form the basis of what is around him. He postulated
that one cannot learn without motivation.

Nel Noddings and the Ethics of Care

A notable American feminist, educationalist, and philosopher, Noddings (1929-Present)

is best known in her work Ethics of Care. The Ethic s of Care establishes the obligation,
and the sense, to do something right when others address us. We do so because either
we love and respect those that address us or we have significant regard for them.
In that way, the recipients of care must respond in a way that authenticates their caring
has been received. The same goes for education. As teachers respond to the needs of
students, they may design a differentiated curriculum because as teachers work closely
with students, they should respond to the students’ different needs and interests. This
response should not be based on a one time virtuous decision but an on going interest
in the student’s welfare.

Jean Piaget and the Genetic Epistemology

Piaget (1896-1980), a Swiss developmental psychologist and philosopher, was

recognized for his epistemological studies with children, and the establishment of
Genetic epistemology. It aims to explain knowledge, on the basis of its history, its
sociogenesis, and particularly, the psychological origins of the notions and operations
upon which it is based. Piaget concluded he could test epistemological questions by
studying the development of thought and action in children. Because of this, he created
Genetic epistemology with its own approaches and questions.

Aristotle

Aristotle topped another of this lister’s lists, heading the category of philosophy, so his
rank on this one is not entirely surprising. But consider that Aristotle is the first to have
written systems by which to understand and criticize everything from pure logic to
ethics, politics, literature, even science. He theorized that there are four “causes”, or
qualities, of anything in existence: the material cause, which is what the subject is made
of; the formal cause, or the arrangement of the subject’s material; the effective cause,
the creator of the thing; and the final cause, which is the purpose for which a subject
exists. That all may sound perfectly obvious and not worth arguing over, but since it
would take far too long for the purpose of a top ten list to expound on classical causality,
suffice to say that all philosophers since Aristotle have had something to say on the
matter, and absolutely everything that has been said, and perhaps can be said, is, or
must be, based on Aristotle’s system of it: it is impossible to discuss causality without
using or trying to debunk Aristotle’s ideas.

Plato

Plato lived from c. 428 to c. 348 BC, and founded the Western world’s first school of
higher education, the Academy of Athens. Almost all of Western philosophy can be
traced back to Plato, who was taught by Socrates, and preserved through his own
writings, some of Socrates’s ideas. If Socrates wrote anything down, it has not survived
directly. Plato and Xenophon, another of his students, recounted a lot of his teachings,
as did the playwright Aristophanes. One of Plato’s most famous quotations concerns
politics, “Until philosophers rule as kings or those who are now called kings and leading
men genuinely and adequately philosophize, that is, until political power and philosophy
entirely coincide, while the many natures who at present pursue either one exclusively
are forcibly prevented from doing so, cities will have no rest from evils…nor, I think, will
the human race.” What he means is that any person(s) in control of a nation or city or
city-state must be wise, and that if they are not, then they are ineffectual rulers.
 It is only through philosophy that the world can be free of evils. Plato’s preferred
government was one of benevolent aristrocrats, those born of nobility, who are well
educated and good, who help the common people to live better lives. He argued against
democracy proper, rule by the people themselves, since in his view, a democracy had
murdered his teacher, Socrates.

IV. A. Raise a Specific Problem or Issue in the Following Areas

1. Economy

NPP have lost moral right to challenge economy

The Greater Accra Regional Chairman of the National Democratic Congress, Mr. Ade
Coker has registered his disgust on the opposition NPP’s snub of government call to
bring their views on how to revive the economy of the nation at the national Economic
Forum and has duly advised them to conveniently refrain from commenting on the state
of the economy to save their near empty bin of credibility from getting drained.
In an exclusive interview with this reporter, Mr Ade Coker indicated that he was
extremely baffled that despite the NPP’s continues lambasting of the NDC government
on the state of the economy; they still had the impetuous to avoid a platform meant to
find solutions to the very problems the NPP complained needed to be solved by the
government. According to him, it take only nation wreckers to desist from contributing to
the development of any nation and by not honoring the governments call to sit together
to solve the problems facing the nation, the NPP have confirmed where their interest
lies. To him, it has nothing to do with making Ghana a betters place. “At a time when
opposition parties in other jurisdictions are collaborating with the respective opponent’s
in power, the NPP still believe their assumption to power is paramount to everything
else and they would rather see this nation collapse under the NDC to brighten their
chances of winning the next elections. “It is very unfortunate that for a party the claims
patriotism in its name, the NPP have used every opportunity to indicate the are the very
opposite of patriotism” He revealed that Ghanaians have finally come to terms with the
interest of the NPP and it does not include making Ghana better but simply winning
power and nothing else. “This is not the first or second time, the NPP have always
avoided being part of any major National Consensus building platform which is not
initiated by them and it confirms that their habitual populace centered attacks on
government are just meant to make them popular and not to necessarily lead to finding
solutions to our problems” He however remained unperturbed that the absence of the
New Patriotic Party was going to have negative effect on the program that with the over
Four Hundred brains to tap into, the forum will come with pragmatic solutions to our
problems. He also told Ghanaians to exercise patience and give the government time to
use every means possible to resolve our problems since it a global phenomenon and
Ghana cannot realistically be expected to be an exception to the rule given our very
dependence on the West.
2. Education

Education gets top billing on Capitol Hill

WASHINGTON (AP) — Lawmakers looking ahead to the November elections are

putting renewed focus on education, tackling issues on Capitol Hill this week ranging
from expanding charter schools to paying off student loan debt.
And, a House committee will examine how higher education and college sports might be
affected by a regional National Labor Relations Board ruling allowing Northwestern
University football players to unionize. Voters rank education high among issues of
importance to them, and this week's activities are likely a nod to that. House Majority
Leader Eric Cantor has made expanding school choice options a priority. Reflecting that
enthusiasm, the House as early as Thursday will consider legislation that would provide
$300 million annually to expand charter schools. It would consolidate two existing
programs, provide state grants to expand and replicate high-quality charter schools and
fund the acquisition of buildings for the schools. Charter schools typically use taxpayer
dollars but are run by outside organizations. "America isn't working when our students
do not have the opportunity to attend a school that best fits their needs," Cantor said in
a statement. Even as many Democrats adamantly oppose school vouchers, expanding
high-quality charter schools is an area where the two sides have found some common
ground. The charter schools bill, for example, has the support of Rep. George Miller, a
California lawmaker who is the ranking Democrat on the House education committee.
While it appeared to have a strong chance of House passage, its future was uncertain in
the Senate. Student loans, the subject of some contentious debate in 2013, are coming
up again in both the House and Senate. With the doubling of interest rates looming,
Congress last year acted to keep them at low level levels for now — but linked those
rates to the financial markets. President Barack Obama had trumpeted the issue in his
2012 re-election bid, and the legislation passed with bipartisan support.
Now, moving forward a Democratic agenda focused on college costs leading to the
November election, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., on Tuesday filed a bill co-
sponsored by more than 20 fellow Democratic senators that would open the door for
potentially millions of federal loan recipients to refinance that debt at the same rate as
current recipients. Undergraduates, for example, qualify for loans at a 3.86 percentage
rate. Warren called the $1.2 trillion in student loan debt in America a "crisis that
threatens our economy." Her plan would fund the effort with a tax increase on wealthy
Americans, but could potentially cost billions. "I think bringing down the interest rates on
existing student loans would be a huge benefit for young people who are trying to build
some economic security and for this economy," Warren said.
Miller and John Tierney, D-Mass., planned to file a companion bill in the House, and the
group Progressive Change Campaign Committee said it would hold grassroots events
this week in support. Rep. Luke Messer, R-Ind., said Republican lawmakers are open to
refinancing student loan debt, but have to be mindful of the cost to taxpayers.
"It's also important we don't drown the future generation in debt," Messer said.
In a March Associated Press-GfK poll, education was one of the few issues where
Democrats had an advantage over Republicans. In the poll, 25 percent of respondents
favored the Democrats approach while 18 percent preferred the Republicans. But
among a public disenchanted with both parties, more — 29 percent — said they trust
neither party on education. Another 26 percent said they trusted both equally.
Despite the renewed focus on education, it does not appear that Congress is close to
rewriting the No Child Left Behind law that's been up for renewal since 2007. The GOP-
led House passed a rewrite of the law, but no vote has been scheduled on the Senate
floor on a Democratic-run Senate education panel's version. Because of the
congressional stalemate, the Obama administration has been issuing waivers allowing
states — and in some cases districts — to ignore parts of the law if they come up with
their own reform plans. Miller said he's getting less optimistic the law and another one
up for renewal focused on higher education will pass this year. "This nation has a lot of
work to do on its education system but there's some belief by a lot of people that the
federal government doesn't make any difference and we don't need to do this, but the
fact of the matter is we're falling further and further behind internationally," Miller said.
But the House was expected to take up a bill focused on research in education that
would reauthorize and update entities such as the Institute of Education Sciences. The
regional NLRB ruling on college athletes unionizing also is attracting some attention in
the Capitol.

3. Transportation

Transportation Dept. issues emergency order on crude oil trains

WASHINGTON — The Transportation Department issued an emergency order

Wednesday requiring that railroads inform state emergency management officials
before moving large shipments of crude oil through their states and urged railroads not
to use older-model tank cars that are easily ruptured in accidents, even at slow speeds.
The emergency order requires that each railroad operating trains containing more than
1 million gallons of crude oil — about 35 tank cars — provide information on their
movement to states they traverse.
Much of the oil from the region is being shipped in trains of 100 cars or more that
accident investigators have described as "moving pipelines." The trains move through
small towns and big cities alike across the country.
"All options are on the table when it comes to improving the safe transportation of crude
oil, and today's actions, the latest in a series that make up an expansive strategy, will
ensure that communities are more informed and that companies are using the strongest
possible tank cars," Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said in a statement.

4. Communication

Changes In World Communication Demand More Equality - Ahmad Shabery

KUALA LUMPUR, May 19 (Bernama) -- Changes in world communication requires all

staff of the Communication and Multimedia Ministry to take bigger responsibilities and to
practice a culture of equality among each other, its minister, Datuk Seri Ahmad Shabery
Cheek, said today.
In this context, he said strategic communication network between agencies and
departments under the ministry would be very important in disseminating accurate
information, as well as to become the source of reference. "On issues such as the
Goods and Services Tax (GST), Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), security,
water and the disappearance of MH370, for example, we have to give more information
and play a bigger role. "Therefore, we need an accurate method of communication to
respond or to counter allegations made by certain quarters, besides the assets and
experts, while making optimum use of the existing communication channels, such as
television, newspapers and social media. "This is the role that should be played more
effectively at the ministry-level," he said at the ministry's monthly assembly at Menara
TM here today. Also present were deputy minister Datuk Jailani Johari and TM Group
chief executive officer Tan Sri Zamzamzairani Mohd Isa. Ahmad Shabery said the skills
and expertise to counter allegations or to respond to public sentiment were vital if the
ministry were to achieve the aspiration to become the leader in strategic
communications. "Anybody who can mold public sentiment or opinion, can become a
strong powerhouse. "With the perfect communication method with correct and accurate
information delivery system, we can become the powerhouse and the source of
reference for other agencies or ministries," he added.
~Bernama

B. Rationalize or Criticize the Problem or Issue and come up with an Attainable

Solution

1. Economy

Everyone with a problem should be able to come up with at least one solution to the
problem. No solution as an answer is not acceptable. There are some ideas while micro
economically appealing may be macro economically disastrous.

2. Education

Our education system needs a lot of reform. One of the biggest area in need of reform
is in the criteria for granting student loans to students with a 2.5 or lower GPA. Those
students should only be granted loans for trade schools, like for heating and air
conditioning, electricians, plumbers, nurses, aid, mechanic, welder. Sending students to
college with poor study habits is for the most part a losing proposition and will end up
equaling a whole lot of students loans not being paid back. Another problem is lending
students money for career courses that do not address the needs of our labor market,
equaling more loans not being paid. Let's right the wrong created so many years ago in
the education of our young. Let blacks and minorities be taught by blacks and
minorities. Let girls be taught by women and boys be taught by men. Let's tear down the
walls built by our society.
V. Significance of Philosophy to Everyday Living

PHILOSOPHY is a study that seeks to understand the mysteries of existence and

reality. It tries to discover the nature of truth and knowledge and to find what is of basic
value and importance in life. It also examines the relationships between humanity and
nature and between the individual and society. Philosophy arises out of wonder,
curiosity, and the desire to know and understand.

Philosophy is a key aspect in life and is regarded very highly because it greatly
influences our everyday life in most situations we encounter.

By studying philosophy, people can clarify what they believe, and they can be
stimulated to think about ultimate questions. A person can study philosophers of the
past to discover why they thought as they did and what value their thoughts may have in
one's own life. There are people who simply enjoy reading the great philosophers,
especially those who were also great writers.

Philosophy has had enormous influence on our everyday lives. The very language we
speak uses classifications derived from philosophy. For example, the classifications of
noun and verb involve the philosophic idea that there is a difference between things and
actions. If we ask what the difference is, we are starting a philosophic inquiry.

Every institution of society is based on philosophic ideas, whether that institution is the
law, government, religion, the family, marriage, industry, business, or education.

Philosophic differences have led to the overthrow of governments, drastic changes in

laws, and the transformation of entire economic systems. Such changes have occurred
because the people involved held certain beliefs about what is important, true, real, and
significant and about how life should be ordered.

Systems of education follow a society's philosophic ideas about what children should be
taught and for what purposes. Democratic societies stress that people learn to think and
make choices for themselves. Nondemocratic societies discourage such activities and
want their citizens to surrender their own interests to those of the state.

The values and skills taught by the educational system of a society thus reflect the
society's philosophic ideas of what is important. Philosophy is thus very important in
everyday life as it influences everything we do as human beings in our environment.
 Rese
arch
Pape
r in
Hum
CONTENT 50%

PRESENTATION 30%

RELEVANCE 20%

TOTAL:

Prepared
by: Joyce
Ann C.
Ebojo Prepared to:
(BSICT) Mrs. Marilyn
C. Pico
(INSTRUCTOR)