Debate on Same Sex Marriage - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 10 Words: 2989 Downloads: 4 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Argumentative essay Level High school Tags: Gender Essay Same Sex Marriage Essay Did you like this example? DEBATE ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Introduction Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Debate on Same Sex Marriage" essay for you Create order Same sex marriage has been a controversial issue in the society today. It is among those issues which philosophers and debaters have argued and ponder upon. Regardless of all the attention, or possibly due to the attention, instead of resolving the issue, the controversy surrounding it continues to increase. It appears that the issue of same-sex marriage has outstripped what is acceptable by only reasons that are publicly identifiable, as claims against the practice have appeared to move towards the public field of wide-ranging values instead of remaining within the public sphere and explained from the point of view of public reason. This paper is a discussion of the argument that public reason as conceived by John Rawls is incapable of providing solution to resolving the issue of same-sex marriage. Considering the Marriage Privatization Model to prove that the Rawlsian doctrine is insufficient in addressing the issue of same-sex marriage. The argument that the institution of marriage is a significant cultural one, does not lead to the notion that the institutions is not flexible. On the other hand, there is an even stronger claim against the estimation of Dworkin, which is that there is an even greater position against the practice than it is illustrated. This paper will provide an argument against same-sex marriage using the Marriage Privatization Model. From the model, the argument is that the support of same-sex marriage by the government is not appropriate, and thus, the most legitimate and convincing claim against the practice would be that the support of the practice by the states all over the world should be condemned[1]. From a Rawlsian point of view, which is based on public reason, this paper will prove that the public reason argument is inadequate in resolving the issue. The state should not support civil unions between two people of the same sex, but only those of heterosexual couples. Therefore, the argum ent presented in this paper is that the only convincing and sustainable argument to oppose same-sex marriage is the argument to make the marriages private. The Marriage Privatization Model is the only one that is sustainable as long as it is related to the Rawlsian doctrine. There is also a significant reason why people should commit themselves to public reason in dealing with controversial issues like same-sex marriage[2]. Before digressing into the main issue it will be important to discuss and bring up the the definition of public reason, according to the Rawlsian doctrine. The notion of public reason is one of the components that Rawls as made up as an organized constitutional democratic society. Public reason plays a key role in defining the content and form which the people should apply in debating with one another in important argumentative issues[3]. The argument presented by Rawls is that public reason is important due to the fact that the society which is democratic should have reasonable variety[4]. This means that the society is expected to have numerous contradictory religious and well as moral wide-ranging philosophies. Also, it should be noted that public reason does not challenges or criticize the wide-ranging doctrines, unless in the case that it contradicts with the basic public reason, or when the doctrine fails to accept legitimate law and democratic regime. Citizens in a democratic society are viewed as being reasonable, considering each other free as well as equal and in a system characterized by social unity from generation to generation, and therefore prepared to provide each other with fair cooperation terms based on what is considered to be rational idea of justice. The people will always have contrary ideas of what they think is meant by reasonable political justice. Therefore, in making any decision on an issue of fundamental justice, acting from the perspective of public reason by all, it will be possible to make legitimate law from the opinion of the majority. The legitimate law made will also be morally binding on all the citizens[5]. The argument presented leads to the deliberation that moral believe is the only enduring element of the society. As a result, avoiding the slippery slope to moral relativism from moral pluralism, then a stake must be made. This means that the society should have a fair procedure used in discussing and considering opinions regarding controversial issues in the society, whether social or political such as same-sex marriage. The idea of public reason conceived by Rawls offers the model for this kind of deliberation process. The support of Rawlsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s conception of public reason in dealing with such issues, results from the realization that a society that is morally pluralistic comprises of numerous wide-ranging doctrines. As understood in this case and by Rawls, the comprehensive doctrines are characterized by a logically rational comprehension of the world[6]. These wide-ranging doctrines can either be secular or religious[7]. Thinking about the realism of moral pluralism is the basis for looking into debatable issues from the point of view of public reason. By Rawls and in real sense, moral pluralism is understandable through realizing that a society that is liberal is expected. This is a kind of society where humans are free to use their human conscience, have a diversity of beliefs and values and practice doctrines related to ethics and morality. Due to the limitations of human rationality, such diversity is the most permanent characteristic of the society. These limitations include what Rawls refers to as the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Burdens of Judgment.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [8] The burdens of judgment can be explained as comprising the usual dangers that must be encountered by all individuals who are reflective, and in the course of moral or political speculation. In any society that is diverse and characterized by various wide-ranging doctrines, some of them will be reasonable and acceptable. A comprehensive doctrine which is reasonable will also be rational from the point of view that it is consistent or coherent. On the other hand, a wide-ranging doctrine recognizing the burdens of judgment which are real in the choice of values and concepts can also be considered as reasonable. These kinds of comprehensive doctrines that are comprehensive are suggested to take time to evolve from the point of view of what, from its perspective and what it considered sufficient reason and good[9]. According to Rawls, a person is considered reasonable if he or she realizes and is ready to take up the outcomes of the burdens of judgment. Thus, such persons and who follow the comprehensive doctrines which are reasonable realizes the limitations on what is justifiable to other persons following other wide-ranging doctrines. While some people might not be satisf ied with the limits, they are suggested to have intellectual honesty which requires them to accept these limits. In such a society which is characterized by reasonable pluralism, the public reason notion comes out as the most adequate mechanism for negotiating social and ethical dilemmas like same sex marriage. This idea of public reason requires that when the society is faced with such controversial issues which are associated with the rights of equal and free citizens, it is necessary that the issues are negotiated within the public sphere. This means that it is only within the public sphere that these issues can find answers and solutions, and for the endorsed solutions to gain public support[10]. The argument in this case is that in the public debating of such matters as same-sex marriage, it is important that the problem is not conceptualized as religious or secular comprehensive values. The only adequate way of conceptualizing such issues should be through the public debate suggested by Rawls, as it is the only way to come up with solutions with greater support from the public. Therefore, in a democratic society such as the United States, which is characterized by moral pluralism, religious or secular values should not be the basis for developing policies or legislative decisions. It has been suggested that there are few classes of political debates which can emanate from the perspective of public reason. Among the options is to come up with a sort of compromise from the public sphere and also from a public level. For example, this can be indicated from the argument in support of civil unions as the most plausible accommodation for the minority same-sex marriage upholding rights of marriage to couples that are heterosexual. However, this argument and compromise level has been dismissed as unsatisfactory. Besides the weaknesses inherent in this option, it has been dismissed basically because it is a position of compromise. Such positions have been suggested not to be stable and just as they tend to lean towards a specific direction[11]. As a result, in a just liberal democracy boils, the need for public reason is important as it boils down to alternatives between decisions at the federal or state level. Generally, state-by-state debates do not achieve much more than simply moving the matter being debated one step back in the debate process. Whether the issue is being debated at the federal or state level, there is the original question of how the debate should be carried out that will always remain[12]. In addition, the outcome of differing laws from state-to-state on the issue being debated appears unjustly impulsive. It is for the same reason that the debate surrounding same-sex marriage should not be done at the state, but the federal level. From this discussion, it appears that from the point of view of public reason, the accommodating answer proposed by appealing to civil liberties is the one that ought to be supported. It might appear unreasonable that failure to have reasonable public claims opposing same-sex marriages, that the state must recognize these kinds of marriages[13]. On the other hand, in the argument that in supporting whichever idea of marriage that is open to anyone, the state would be supporting justification of the public of a specific marriage definition, that is the comprehensive marriage definition which allows both heterosexuals and homosexuals to engage in marital unions[14]. This melts down to a public support for an all-inclusive marriage definition which, from the public reason point of view, is more suitable compared to the limited marriage definition as occurring between a man and a woman. From a serious consideration of the public reason, it leads to the notion of the same-sex marriage being legal which can be just as unjust as its prohibition. However, this cannot be avoided given the fact that it is not possible to actually envisage a definition of marriage which fails in some way to use the comprehensive idea of what is meant by the concept of marriage. Comprehensive doctrines, with no exception, are always bracketed in the decisions made within the public sphere from the public reason perspective[15]. Various questions are raised in the discussion of the application of comprehensive doctrines related to public reason. The most important question is that since the compromise position is dismissed as unstable, what would be meant by a just society from the point of view of public reason and in making decisions related to such issues as same sex marriage. The Marriage Privatization Model which is founded on the Rawlsian political approach is adequate in providing an explanation for policy making to address the issue of same-sex marriage. The Rawlsian approach to liberalism is the basis for the use of Marriage Privatization Model in explaining same-sex marriage provided the moral pluralism reality[16]. The argument opposed to same-sex marriage from the public reason is explained through this model. The argument is that no state in the world should endorse same-sex marriage. From the point of view of the model, the comprehensive doctrines can either support or oppose same-sex marriage. This is from the point of view of each having a differing conception of what marriage is. For example, the catholic religion might be completely opposed to a marriage between two persons from the same gender by arguing that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman[17]. On the other hand, some Episcopalian diocese might be acceptable to individuals of the same gender uniting in marriage. This is the question of debate based on the kind of comprehensive doctrine at play. The liberal legitimacy principle which supports the reasonable comprehensive doctrines freedom appears to argue that the state should not support or condemn any practice given the fact that the members of the society are exercising their freedom as dictated by their diverse doctrines. Defining the concept of marriage outside the comprehensive doctrines is not possible. Thus, from the point of view of public reason, the state can provide the justification for this by citing public reason in the case of marriage. The argument can be that it is appropriate to have civil unions that assure the rights of couples in any form of union, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Marriage should always be defined in a comprehensive manner. This means that there are some values that can be dismissed in support of others. This means that marriage is inherently connected to the wide-ranging doctrines and therefore, it is totally out of the actual public reason sphere. In the actual use of the public reason argument, any civil union will be endorsed, with all the associated rights as well as benefits. This means that the society would be completely open to all marriages including same-sex ones[18]. This suggests that there is no one who will be obligated to go against his or her comprehensive doctrine. For example, a catholic priest who is opposed to same-sex marriage will not be forced to unite, in marital union, same-sex couples. However, there should remain some form of freedom for the citizens to debate the issue based on their own comprehensive doctrines. This means that in whatever decision is made in relation to the issue of same-sex marriage, the voice of the citizens should be evident[19]. After all, the discussions related to such issues are doctrinal ones within whichever tradition. After all, the limitations in terms of reason from the perspective of the public reason are many. While from the point of view of the doctrine all the citizens would be considered free and equal, the divergences in comprehensive doctrines constrain this reality. Therefore, social issues that are contentious should be not be left in the public reason sphere, but should be protected at the private institution level without violating the rights of the citizens. Conclusion Therefore, the argument proposed in this case is that it is insufficient to completely use of the Rawlsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ focus on public reason in the debate related to the issue of same-sex marriage. The state should not endorse any kind of civil union as the doctrine dictates. The state should not endorse marriages between individuals of the same gender, and to prevent this from happening, policies should be put in place at the state or federal level. This will prevent the various doctrines from dictating their own definitions of marriage. With such a policy in place, there will be equality in dealing with the issue of same-sex marriage, as well as a uniform ground for debating it. Therefore, in conclusion, such a decision made at the policy level is the most suitable in ensuring that there is no single comprehensive doctrine, secular or religious, is given more priority or inclination at the public level. It is necessary that all the people have a voice in deciding their civic ri ghts and benefits in a democratic society such as the United States. BIBLIOGRAPHY Andrew Lister, How to Defend (Same-Sex) Marriage, 37 POLITY 409 (2005). Beyer Jason A. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Public Dilemmas and Gay Marriage: Contra Jordonà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  Journal of SocialPhilosophy (2002) 33:1 Dent Jr., George W. Traditional Marriage: Still Worth Defending. BYU Journal Of Public Law 18, no. 2 (January 2004): 419-447. Dworkin Ronald, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Three Questions for America,à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  The New York Review of Books, (2006) Sept. 21, pp. 24-30 Gerstmann Eva N, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Same Sex Marriage and the Constitutionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (Cambridge University Press, 2004) McLain Linda C. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Evolutionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬ Or Endà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬ Of Marriage?: Reflections on the Impasse of Same-Sex Marriageà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  Family Court Review (2006) 44:2 200 Petrovic, J. E. (2013). Reason, Liberalism, and Democratic Education: A Deweyan Approach to Teaching About Homosexuality. Educational Theory, 63(5), 525-541. Posner, Richard A. The problematics of moral and legal theory. Harvard Law Review 111, no. 7 (May 1998): 1637 Rawls John, Political Liberalism, (Columbia University Press 1993) Rawls John, Justice as Fairness: A Restatemen, (Harvard University Press, 2002) Reno, R. R. THE PUBLIC SQUARE. First Things: A Monthly Journal Of Religion Public Life no. 242 (April 2014): 3-7. Russell Bertrand, Sceptical Essays, (Routledge 2005) 1 [1] Gerstmann Eva N, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Same Sex Marriage and the Constitutionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (Cambridge University Press, 2004) [2] Reno, R. R. THE PUBLIC SQUARE. First Things: A Monthly Journal Of Religion Public Life no. 242 (April 2014): 3-7. [3] Russell Bertrand, Sceptical Essays, (Routledge 2005) [4] Rawls John, Justice as Fairness: A Restatemen, (Harvard University Press, 2002) [5] Gerstmann Eva N, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Same Sex Marriage and the Constitutionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (Cambridge University Press, 2004) [6] Petrovic, J. E. (2013). Reason, Liberalism, and Democratic Education: A Deweyan Approach to Teaching About Homosexuality. Educational Theory, 63(5), 525-541. [7] Petrovic, J. E. (2013). Reason, Liberalism, and Democratic Education: A Deweyan Approach to Teaching About Homosexuality. Educational Theory, 63(5), 525-541. [8] Rawls John, Political Liberalism, (Columbia University Press 1993) [9] Russell Bertrand, Sceptical Essays, (Routledge 2005) [10] Andrew Lister, How to Defend (Same-Sex) Marriage, 37 POLITY 409 (2005). [11] Rawls John, Justice as Fairness: A Restatemen, (Harvard University Press, 2002) [12] Posner, Richard A. The problematic of moral and legal theory. Harvard Law Review 111, no. 7 (May 1998): 1637 [13] Beyer Jason A. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Public Dilemmas and Gay Marriage: Contra Jordonà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  Journal of Social Philosophy (2002) 33:1 [14] McLain Linda C. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Evolutionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬ Or Endà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬ Of Marriage?: Reflections on the Impasse of Same-Sex Marriageà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  Family Court Review (2006) 44:2 200 [15] Dent Jr., George W. Traditional Marriage: Still Worth Defending. BYU Journal Of Public Law 18, no. 2 (January 2004): 419-447. [16] Petrovic, J. E. (2013). Reason, Liberalism, and Democratic Education: A Deweyan Approach to Teaching About Homosexuality. Educational Theory, 63(5), 525-541. [17] Posner, Richard A. The problematics of moral and legal theory. Harvard Law Review 111, no. 7 (May 1998): 1637 [18] Dent Jr., George W. Traditional Marriage: Still Worth Defending. BYU Journal Of Public Law 18, no. 2 (January 2004): 419-447. [19] McLain Linda C. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Evolutionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬ Or Endà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬ Of Marriage?: Reflections on the Impasse of Same-Sex Marriageà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  Family Court Review (2006) 44:2 200

Question Compare And Contrast The Realist And Liberal

Question: Compare and contrast the realist and liberal approaches to International Relations. How might these approaches be used to understand the current state of US-China Relations? The Relationship between US and China brings many approaches to the current state between them. The current state between them tells us that they are two very different countries and each have a realist and liberal approach to them and portray that both theories have an importance of both states and the influences they both have on each other such as military power, human rights, opportunity and freedom, but how also both theories can have implications towards the states. In International Relations Liberalism is related to theories that emphasize the†¦show more content†¦Implications for realism includes the character of fear, whenever anarchy arises it results in conflict. Since today’s society is more modern, realism is too outdated and we now have more problems e.g. terrorism, crime, environment etc. Realists the demand for power to gain peace and security is direct. For Liberals, it is a more complex relationship. In IR Liberals dispute that is it preposterous to acquire military power. There are different types of Realism. The pessimistic nature of Realism compares to China that is arrogant and anarchic, this is due to that China misses a governing authority of the state. Which leaves China a state competing for power and security. China is an independent state and can rise without alliances due to that it has a huge population, strong military force, manufactures own resources, since China is a communist country, they are more focused on the military force and state security, which is ideal to have a realist theory towards it. Although China is a very strong state there are some negative impacts of the state, such as that some people do not have freedom or human rights or opportunity and Internet censorship. China’s economic growth plays an important part with the increase of military spending and technological advancement. This would materialistically add to Realist perceptions of China that wants to â€Å"adjust the international system† and  "achieve globalShow MoreRelatedGlobalization: Liberal Approach More Useful than Neo-realist1978 Words   |  8 Pages Neo-realist and liberal approaches towards globalisation have been debated about for many decades. Traditionally the liberal view towards globalisation has exaggerated the idea of globalisation, whilst neo-realist views have played down the importance of globalisation. The word â€Å"useful† can be defined on various different levels in order to come to a conclusion. Usefulness can be looked at as to how well each approach can help understand globalisation, however, usefulness can also be used to describeRead MoreContemporary Mainstream Approaches : Neo Realism And Neo Liberalism1527 Words   |  7 Pagesideologies. Both theories differ on their definitions of power and anarchy along with their respective model structures of the international system. Two neo-realist branches study security strategies; these branches are offensive and defensive realism. Offe nsive realists often agree with the traditional realist ideologies, while defensive realist, often confused with their neo-liberalist counterparts, believe that relations amongst states is based on their friendship and in some situations war is unavoidableRead MoreNegative Effects Of Globalization1552 Words   |  7 Pagesand will spin liberal values out of control leaving capitalism as we know it behind. An attention grabber conclusion was made by the chairman of the WGS 2017, his Excellency Mohammed Al Gergawi suggesting that all negatives that occurred throughout the current globalization wave can be dealt with. (Staff Report, 2017) His words prove his sharp vision and his ability to see the ongoing changes, however his methodology is not proving to be as effective as one would hope. His liberal approach to findingRead MoreDifferent Types of Leadership and Liberalism Essay1632 Words   |  7 Pagesshort, Liberalism contrasts realism in that it sees the world can relate through forums and settings which if set in place well, then they would be effective. As liberalism tends to focus on globalization and relations amongst states, realism tends to focus on states as individuals. The realists tend to believe that the world is real in that everyone for himself God for us all. With that knowledge now then, one can look at leadership and foreign policy in terms of the Liberal and realis t views discussingRead MoreInternational Organizations And The Humanitarian Efforts Of The United Nations2063 Words   |  9 Pagesindependence where they are not reliant on these organizations for assistance. However, until developing nations have the means to be self-sustaining, international organizations are an inevitable necessity. Part II: Question Two Scholars have constantly tried to answer the following question: what is development? Most economist view development as a macroeconomic principle that is determined by economic conditions such as wealth and the level of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, with a higherRead MoreLiberal Absolutism Vs Liberal Liberalism Essay1805 Words   |  8 PagesThe objective of this paper is to firstly, compare and contrast the Hobbesian notion of liberal absolutism with Lockean liberal constitutionalism and secondly, elucidate how these similarities and differences impact the American presidency. I will begin by explicating liberal absolutism and liberal constitutionalism and then proceed to articulate their points of similarity and difference. Next, I claim that these two liberalisms can blur the lines in understanding the role of the executive. LetRead MoreThe Uniqueness And Complexity Of David Foster Wallace s `` Infinite Jest `` Essay1791 Words   |  8 Pagesnarrative situationâ₠¬  (KuÃ… ¡nà ­r). At first glance, a modernist or realist lens appear appropriate for Wallace, due to his view of fiction depicting â€Å"what it is like to be a fucking human being,† thus including a search for truth using realism to convey accuracy (Giles 335-336). However, KuÃ… ¡nà ­r is puzzled by Wallace’s multiple levels of meaning within any given passage (KuÃ… ¡nà ­r). KuÃ… ¡nà ­r changes his mind throughout his essay, labeling Wallace as a realist, modernist, postmodernist, post-structuralist, and post-neorealistRead MoreUnited Nations Peacekeeping Operations Before and After the Cold War2644 Words   |  11 PagesWar the UN and its peacekeeping missions where renewed and ran through drastically transformations. The evolution of the missions into a more modern and international model could be seen in the operations they completed before and nowadays. If you compare the operations from the pre to the post- cold war operations we can see that the operation s changed from two countries fighting each other to an internal conflict where minorities fight for territory for example. (Ryan, p28) Humanitarian InterventionRead MoreThe Strengths And Weaknesses Of Neo Realism And The English School1968 Words   |  8 Pagesthe HI. But for the further analysis, as Lechner (2010: 438) writes, it is almost necessary to reformulate the whole theoretical thought of realism as an ethical theory. Using ethics to provides a common methodological ground that able us to compare realist (prudential) and humanitarian (moralist) arguments. THE ENGLISH SCHOOL: HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION The English school (ES) is the result of the second great debate, it has tried to fill out the emptiness left by the Behaviourism without reallyRead MoreEssay on Georg Lukacs, quot;the Ideology of Modernismquot;7555 Words   |  31 Pageshuman belonging in literary form. Because capitalist society is too corrupt and too chaotic to find meaning any longer, modernists insist that there is no meaning anywhere, and people who believe in meaning are just old-fashioned. Realism, by contrast, grounds literature in human social and political and economic realities. Realistic fiction shows us the way things really are. There is an interesting irony in this project: realism was the literary movement of nineteenth- century capitalism

The Journey of becoming oneself free essay sample

The journey to be oneself In todays world, we are used to being disguised. Whether for the fear of rejection by others or for the fear of disappointing ourselves. Often, we are simply afraid to find out who we really are. But not always are we disguised or afraid. Sometimes we simply go through life thinking we are something that we are not. We mistake the identity that we have created for ourselves for our real soul. And this is a big challenge on the journey of finding ourselves: not to be deceived by what seems to be our personality on the surface, but to dig deeper and find out who we really are. College is known as one of the best places to embark on this journey. But why is the journey known to be so risky? Besides the fact that it is easy to mistake whats on the outside for whats on the inside, there are deeper, more important, and therefore, more dangerous risks that come with being oneself. We will write a custom essay sample on The Journey of becoming oneself or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page In my understanding, one of those is is the fact that others dont always accept us for who we are. That is a well known truth. However, a less well known, yet such a simple fact is that we, ourselves, dont always accept us for who we are. So what is the danger of fully accepting not only our strengths but also, weaknesses that none of us is spared of? Everybody wants to be perfect, that is why. And with accepting and acting fully like ourselves and not superheroes that we all want to be, comes a high possibility of disappointment and confusion. What if someone who thought himself brave and courageous finds out he is in reality a coward? Imagine the disappointment and devastation that person must feel. Therefore, perhaps even harder than finding out who we are is accepting who we are. The answer is to learn to love oneself completely and to embrace self-identity. Without knowing of ourselves, we are lost in this world. As cliche as it sounds, we cannot begin to try to understand the world around us without first understanding ourselves at the deepest, most personal levels. It is so beautiful to be the way we really are, without fear, without any limitations, that I sometimes wonder why so many people try to deceive themselves and those around them. From the beginning of time, philosophers, scientists, fortune tellers and all the other people were searching for the Truth, so why is everybody running away from it? Truth- it is greater than any of us will ever be, why not make ourselves, in body and soul, a small part of it? I have always valued honesty. The ability of being fair and honest is at the top of my list of values, along with the ability to be kind and compassionate. I have tried my best to be honest with those around me, but moreover, with myself. For those reasons I think that I have made considerable progress in my journey of understanding myself. However, college will definitely change life as I know it. I am looking forward to the exciting new experience of living on campus. Despite all the influences I will encounter, I have promised myself that I will not compromise my values and will stay true to myself. It is easy to get carried away by the desire to be accepted among classmates at college. That is one of the biggest dangers of not being able to find oneself during this extremely important college years.. Of course it is important to form good, lasting friendships, but it is even more important to do so without compromising who one is as a person. If a student changes his personality and becomes somebody who his friends want him to be, somebody other than his true self, he is lost. Despite numerous challenges and temptations that a student will encounter during college years, it is the perfect place to discover oneself with which comes the realization of ones real dreams and goals, and to, ultimately, begin leading a beautiful life. God has created such a beautiful and balanced world. The core of our being- our souls are as beautiful as the world around us. I believe that only knowing, really knowing who we are on the inside will result in us being more in tune with the outside world. The journey of becoming and staying yourself always, no matter the situation, is not easy. One may encounter disappointment and will certainly experience a great deal of confusion along the way. But one must have the courage and character to continue, despite the difficulties. It is a long, but rewarding journey of understanding and enlightenment. A journey that one day will lead to the individuals true happiness, and perhaps, if more and more people start to look into their souls for answers instead of their minds that work on the â€Å"survival of the fittest† principal, we will all live in a better world.