Co-operatives are very crucial to both small growers and large growers. In the supply chain, co-operatives are essential in the following ways:
They have bargaining power in the market. This is because they have a harvest collection; hence they control prices in the market. This helps in the value addition of the income earned by both small and large-scale growers.
For small growers whose harvest is less, the co-operatives offer transport facilities. They transport the products from the farms to the industry for processing.
Small farmers are typically grouped, and the co-operative gives each group a machine that might be too expensive. This could either be a tractor for plowing or a harvesting machine. This factor is generally referred to as machine pooling.
The co-operative is responsible for doing the marketing. They, therefore, look for large markets hence increasing the product demand. This guarantees large growers a large market for their products and encourages them even to grow their farms.
The individuals responsible for the crisis the farmers face are the agricultural officers in the USDA. If they had carried out their inspection as expected, they would have detected the problem the moment it arose. They would have then alerted the beef farms to treat their cattle and also inform the meat traders to have the meat inspected before any purchase.
The desired outcome is for the USDA to find ways of taming the disease. They should also lay out strategies on dealing with such cases in case any arose. This makes them set aside enough resources and carry out more research.
The actual outcome is that they have to look at the problem from the source. This will take time, and therefore farmers and the traders will have incurred huge losses. This is because the consumers are aware of the disease and the media is advising them to take caution.
Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount.
For both Aristotle and Machiavelli, virtue or virtu is crucial to politics.
Use only the book and the slides I will post in the instruction 750 words max each question, I will put sample question and answer in the instruction (For both Aristotle and Machiavelli, virtue or virtu is crucial to politics. Compare and contrast the views of these two thinkers on the subject of virtue/virtu in politics as found in The Nicomachean Ethics and Politics and in The Prince and the Discourses.
For both Aristotle and Machiavelli, virtue or virtu is crucial to politics
How to approach the question: The question in the first instance calls for definitions. As in any essay, clearly defining terms is the first step to formulating a successful (convincing) argument. It is helpful in an essay of this sort to quote from the text(s) to illustrate the terms you are defining. Because the questions ask you to explain the connection between virtue and politics (as seen by the two thinkers), you want to make sure you don’t simply define terms but also show just how Aristotle and Machiavelli connected virtue to the world of politics. Finally, because the question asks you to compare and contrast their views, you have to be prepared to talk about what is common (if anything) between their respective views of virtue and politics and what distinguishes their understanding of the matter.
Sample answer:
For Aristotle, virtue or arete refers to the characteristic excellence of man (Aristotle assumes only men are capable of fully developed virtue). Virtue is displayed in actions that are seen to be noble or admirable. Such virtuous actions are described by Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics as consisting of a mean: “Virtue…is a state that decides, consisting in a mean, the mean relative to us, which is defined by reference to reason.” Acts that display courage or generosity or modesty are thus virtuous because they are said to lay between the extremes of excess and deficiency in behaviour. However, there is no single set of rules a person must follow to exhibit virtue according to Aristotle. Rather, virtue is something of a relative concept. Virtue is relative to the person who is acting, and to the circumstance in which he finds himself when performing particular acts. At the same time, it is not a wholly relative concept because Aristotle insists that the decision as to what is the appropriate act a person should commit to is something to be determined by practical reason—not what someone feels is right for him. Practical reason is gained through education and experience. Concretely, a person trains himself to become virtuous by continually performing virtuous acts so that the inclination to carry out such acts becomes part of one’s character. Thus, in the final analysis, virtue is a function of character—the predisposition to act virtuously.
Aristotle links virtue to politics through his observation that man is by nature a political animal. Men are naturally suited to live together in a polis, the purpose of which is to make possible the good life. For that reason, the type of political regime one lives in is crucial to whether or not virtuous characters can flourish. The regime best suited to a life of virtue is one where an aristocracy of virtuous men rule. If that is not possible, a second-best regime, a middle-class polity, is practically best, for even if men performing truly noble deeds will be rarer in such a regime, the fact that the majority enjoy only moderate wealth means that they tend to be free from the arrogance that characterizes the rich and the envy that characterizes the poor. Such a middle way is at least conducive to political stability and with political stability, ordinary virtue can still find a home.
Machiavelli’s concept of virtu departs significantly from the Aristotelian conception. Machiavelli talks about virtu in two different contexts: the virtu of a prince who is able to seize and maintain power and the virtu of citizens in a republic. In both cases, virtu is seen as a purely political quality. For a prince, virtu means force, skill, cunning—attributes necessary to succeed in a world where power is the only currency that everyone recognizes. A prince displaying virtu is one who knows how to adapt to necessity and how to use violence effectively and economically. A virtuous prince is one who must be prepared to abandon ordinary moral constraints in order to obtain his objectives. And he must be prepared to challenge whatever bad fortune he confronts. Virtu for a prince means being audacious.
When he speaks of citizen virtu, by contrast, Machiavelli refers primarily to their abiding love of liberty which conditions them to sacrifice their own immediate self-interest in favour of a common good—that common good being securing a political space free of tyranny.
In comparing Aristotle and Machiavelli on virtue, the one thing they hold in common is that both see virtue not as a set of rules but as something exhibited practically in response to concrete circumstances individuals find themselves in. But their differences are far greater. For Aristotle, living a life of virtue is part of living well. Virtue has an unmistakably moral connotation. For Machiavelli, by contrast, virtu is a purely political concept. It is used to describe the attributes needed for success in the world of power politics—success measured, on the one hand, by the ability of a prince to seize and maintain power, and, on the other hand, by the ability of the people to resist tyranny. In neither case does virtu resemble a moral quality of individuals, but rather it is that which allows one to succeed in politics.
On the face of it, the Aristotelian and Machiavellian conceptions of virtue in politics seem to converge when the former discusses the advantages of a polity (a mixed regime) and the latter extols a republic (an institutionalized balancing of the ambitions of the rich and poor). While their political prescriptions may be similar, they are offered for different reasons. Aristotle favours a polity because of the stability it provides which allows for the practice of ordinary virtue. Machiavelli is partial to republics because they are the grounding for liberty which he understands as a political rather than a moral value.) Link for the book: <link is hidden> /> The questions the writer will be working on:
1. Readers of the Republic frequently complain that in their debate over the nature of justice, Thrasymachus gave up his argument with Socrates too easily. Write an essay on the respective views of Thrasymachus and Socrates on what justice entails. How would you continue Thrasymachus’ argument—that is, how would you advance his argument beyond the point he left it at the end of Book 1 of the dialogue?
2. In Book 2 of the Politics, Aristotle offers a critique of the communal life that Plato suggest the Guardian class must live if justice is to be realized in the ideal city. Write an essay analysing Aristotle’s critique of Plato’s political prescriptions. Do you think that Aristotle misunderstood Plato’s communalism?
Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount.
Why is the difference between a sign and a symbol so crucial to understanding the nature of human language.
Need discussion board type answers to the following questions. No word length, but must be substantial.
1. Why is the difference between a sign and a symbol so crucial to understanding the nature of human language? Is there a relationship between a culture’s basic socio-cultural patterns and the ways in which its members use language?
2. Can you think of ways in your own lives that sex or gender have an effect on what you ordinarily do? Optional Credit possibility: In some cultures a woman may marry another woman and a man may marry another man. What does this tell us about the relationships among sex, gender and life in society? In those societies? or in general? 3. What generalizations can you make about the relationships among environment, technology and carrying capacity? Optional Credit Possibility: Some scholars have suggested that ultimately the development of food growing technologies around 10,000 B.C.E. can be thought of as a disaster for human socio-cultural life. Put together some arguments supporting and some arguments contradicting this argumernt 4. What conditions do you think are necessary for a society to adopt large or small kin groups as a major organizing system? Optional Credit possibility: What are some of the functions of large extended kin groups in the societies in which they are found?5. Can you suggest a factor or factors that have contributed to the emergence of stratified societies? Optional Credit possibility: What is the evidence leading to the assertion that social stratrification is not a natural outgrowth of human nature?6. How do the ideas of Means of Production and their ownership/control help you to understand the political and economic arrangements of the contemporary world7. You need to deal with only one of these, but, of course, you may deal with both. 1) Is there a necessary conflict between science and religion? 2) What is your response to the idea that there are peoples in the world whose local languages do not have a word that can be translated as “art,” but who still have some highly developed arts? Either one of these would be suitable for an Optional Credit essay.8. Do you think globalization always puts emerging nations at a disadvantage? What is your evidence? Optional Credit possibility: Can you see some ways in which some of the processes we include in “globalization? are also gendered?
