Ethical egoism

Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to act in their own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism. Ethical egoism differs from rational egoism, which holds that it is rational to act in one's self-interest. Ethical egoism holds, that actions whose consequences will benefit the doer can be considered ethical in this sense. Ethical egoism contrasts with ethical altruism, which holds that moral agents have an obligation to help others. Egoism and altruism both contrast with ethical utilitarianism, which holds that a moral agent should treat one's self with no higher regard than one has for others, but it holds that one is not obligated to sacrifice one's own interests to help others' interests, so long as one's own interests are equivalent to the others' interests and well-being, but he has the choice to do so. Egoism and altruism are all forms of consequentialism, but egoism and altruism contrast with utilitarianism, in that egoism and altruism are both agent-focused forms of consequentialism.

However, utilitarianism is held to be agent-neutral: it does not treat the subject's own interests as being more or less important than the interests, desires, or well-being of others. Ethical egoism does not, require moral agents to harm the interests and well-being of others when making moral deliberation. Individualism allows for others' interest and well-being to be disregarded or not, as long as what is chosen is efficacious in satisfying the self-interest of the agent. Nor does ethical egoism entail that, in pursuing self-interest, one ought always to do what one wants to do. Fleeting pleasure takes a back seat to protracted eudaimonia. In the words of James Rachels, "Ethical egoism... endorses selfishness, but it doesn't endorse foolishness."Ethical egoism is used as the philosophical basis for support of right-libertarianism and individualist anarchism. These are political positions based on a belief that individuals should not coercively prevent others from exercising freedom of action.

Ethical egoism can be broadly divided into three categories: individual and universal. An individual ethical egoist would hold that all people should do whatever benefits "my" self-interest. Ethical egoism was introduced by the philosopher Henry Sidgwick in his book The Methods of Ethics, written in 1874. Sidgwick compared egoism to the philosophy of utilitarianism, writing that whereas utilitarianism sought to maximize overall pleasure, egoism focused only on maximizing individual pleasure. Philosophers before Sidgwick have retroactively been identified as ethical egoists. One ancient example is the philosophy of Yang Zhu, who views wei wo, or "everything for myself", as the only virtue necessary for self-cultivation. Ancient Greek philosophers like Plato and the Stoics were exponents of virtue ethics, "did not accept the formal principle that whatever the good is, we should seek only our own good, or prefer it to the good of others." However, the beliefs of the Cyrenaics have been referred to as a "form of egoistic hedonism", while some refer to Epicurus' hedonism as a form of virtue ethics, others argue his ethics are more properly described as ethical egoism.

Philosopher James Rachels, in an essay that takes as its title the theory's name, outlines the three arguments most touted in its favor: "The first argument," writes Rachels, "has several variations, each suggesting the same general point:"Each of us is intimately familiar with our own individual wants and needs. Moreover, each of us is uniquely placed to pursue those needs effectively. At the same time, we know the desires and needs of others only imperfectly, we are not well situated to pursue them. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that if we set out to be'our brother's keeper,' we would bungle the job and end up doing more mischief than good." To give charity to someone is to degrade him, implying as it does that he is reliant on such munificence and quite unable to look out for himself. "That," reckons Rachels, "is why the recipients of'charity' are so resentful rather than appreciative." Altruism denies an individual's value and is therefore destructive both to society and its individual components, viewing life as a thing to be sacrificed.

Philosopher Ayn Rand is quoted as writing that, "f a man accepts the ethics of altruism, his first concern is not how to live his life but how to sacrifice it." Moreover, "he basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification for his existence, that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue or value." Rather, she writes, "he purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live." All of our accepted moral duties, from doing no harm unto others to speaking always the truth to keeping p

Grey-headed fish eagle

The grey-headed fish eagle is a fish-eating bird of prey from South East Asia. It is a large stocky raptor with adults having dark brown upper body, grey head and lighter underbelly and white legs. Juveniles are paler with darker streaking, it is confused with the lesser fish eagle and the Pallas's fish eagle. The lesser fish eagle is similar in plumage but smaller and the Pallas's fish eagle shares the same habitat and feeding behaviour but is larger with longer wings and darker underparts. Is called tank eagle in Sri Lanka due to its fondness for irrigation tanks; the grey-headed fish eagle is included in the order Accipitriformes and the family Accipitridae, which includes most birds of prey except for the ospreys and falcons. Lerner & Mindell placed the grey-headed fish eagle in the subfamily Haliaeetinae, which includes the genera Haliaeetus It was first described by Horsfield in 1841 as Falco ichthyaetus; this paraphyletic group forms a close sister relationship with the subfamily Milvinae, based on the shared trait of basal fusion of the second and third phalanges found only in these two groups.

Some taxonomic authorities place this species in the monotypic genus Ichthyophaga. A smallish to medium-sized but quite bulky fish eagle. Has a small bill, a small head on long neck, rounded tail and shortish legs with unfeathered tarsi and long talons. Wings aren't long and wingtips reach less than halfway down tail. Males and females are sexually dimorphic; the grey-headed fish eagle has a body length of 61–75 cm. Females are heavier than males at 2.3–2.7 kg compared to 1.6 kg. The tail measures between 23–28 cm and the tarsus 8.5–10 cm. The wingspan measure between 155–170 cm. Adults are grey-brown with a pale grey head and pale iris and tail are white with the having a broad black subterminal band. Breast and neck are brown, with the wings on top dark brown with below brown. Juveniles the head and neck are brown, greyer on the ides of throat, with buff supercilia and whitish streaks; the rest of the upperparts are darker brown, edged with grey and secondaries and tertials faintly barred. Tail black and white marbled with white tip.

Belly and thighs white, while breast and flanks brown streaked with white. Iris is darker than adult; as juveniles mature subterminal band becomes more prominent, head becomes greyer and loses streaking becoming uniformly brown. The grey-headed fish eagle has a wide distribution that encompasses India and South-East Asia to Malaysia, Western Indonesia and Philippines, it is uncommon but can be rare or local. In North and East India it is found in Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Assam, it is uncommon in North and East Sri Lanka and local in Nepal and uncommon and local in Bangladesh. It is local in South Thailand and rare in Laos. Grey-headed fish eagles live in lowland forests up to 1,500 m above sea-level, their nests are close to bodies of water such as slow-moving rivers and streams, lagoons, marshes and coastal lagoons and estuaries. They are known to frequent irrigation tanks in Sri Lanka, hence where their alternate English in Sri Lanka comes from, it is a sedentary bird that can occur in pairs.

It is non-migratory. Juveniles disperse from the breeding areas in search of mates or another food source; the grey headed fish eagle spends much of its time perching upright on bare branches over water bodies flying down to catch fish. Flight is heavy looking with full wing-beats on flattish wings. Spends little time in the air soaring due to habitat it lives in and no other aerial displays have been described; the breeding season of the grey-headed fish eagle takes place between November and May across most of its mainland range, but changes from December to March in Sri Lanka, November to January in India. Nests have been found in January–March in Burma, April in Sumatra and August in Borneo, it is unclear whether these nest were old or being used for breeding. Breeding in the Prek Toal protected area of the Tonlé Sap follow the flood regimes that begin in September, with eggs near hatching or hatching at peak flood waters in October–November; the grey-headed fish eagle builds a huge stick nest, up to 1.5 metres across and, with repeated use, up to 2 metres deep.

The nest is lined with green leaves and were situated in tall trees on or near the top of the tree with an open crown structure, which can be in a forest or a standalone tree. Nest sites were always near or by a water source with the avoidance of human habitations and is consistent with other fish eagles due to ease of access and food abundance; the clutch size can be between 2 and 4 eggs but 2 unmarked white eggs are laid per couple. Little is known about the level of parental care employed by the grey headed fish eagle, the evidence points towards monogamy and shared parental care duties. Both incubation and fledgling feeding are carried out by the male and female, with incubation lasting 45–50 days and the fledgling period 70 days; as the common name suggests the grey-headed fish eagle is a specialist piscivore, which preys upon live fish and scavenges dead fish and reptiles and terrestrial birds and small mammals. Tingay et al. found that the diet of the grey-headed fish eagle in the Prek Toal protected area of the Tonlé Sap contains the endangered Tonlé Sap water snake.

Whether this is the primary prey item of their diet or a seasonal occurrence in this are remains uncle

Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege"

Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege": Struggles for Freedom of Expression in American History is a non-fiction book about the history of freedom of speech in the United States written by Michael Kent Curtis and published in 2000 by Duke University Press. The book discusses the evolution of free speech in the U. S. within the context of the actions of individuals and how they affected change. The author writes that protests and actions by citizens helped to evolve the notions surrounding free speech in the U. S. before definitive statements on the matter from U. S. courts. Curtis writes that free speech rights were first developed in "the forum of public opinion", that, "The history of free speech shows the need for broadly protective free speech rules applied and equally". For his work on Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege", Curtis received the Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award and the Mayflower Cup Award. Critics gave the book a positive reception. A review in Columbia Journalism Review called it a "rich and original study", The Journal of American History said that it includes "fine analytic discussions".

Perspectives on Political Science called the book "an valuable contribution to the literature addressing the history of free speech in America." Timothy C. Shiell of the University of Wisconsin–Stout reviewed it for The Historian and wrote, "Michael Kent Curtis offers a major contribution to the scholarship of both that era and of free speech." Curtis' previous book, No State Shall Abridge: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights, was published in 1986. The Journal of Information Ethics said that before the book's publication, Curtis had "written quite extensively on the subject" of freedom of speech, cited articles in Constitutional Commentary, Wake Forest Law Review. With J. Wilson Parker, Davison Douglas, Paul Finkelman, Curtis served as editor of the 2003 work, Constitutional Law in Context. In 2002, Curtis was a professor of law at Wake Forest University, where he taught American legal and constitutional history, free speech law, constitutional law. In 2004, Curtis was Constitutional Law at Wake Forest University.

Structured in chronological order, Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege" discusses the development of free speech through controversies which arose during the history of the United States. These include the Quasi-War with France, the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, conflict regarding speech related to abolitionism and criticism of slavery, speech related to criticism of the American Civil War. Curtis discusses the efforts of abolitionists Elijah Hinton Helper; the book discusses in detail attempts by U. S. President Abraham Lincoln to curtail free speech during the American Civil War, he comments on the ways attitudes about free speech affected events in history related to this period of time, "The weakness of the popular free-speech tradition encouraged violence that did not end with the Civil War... revived during Reconstruction to silence those who supported civil and political rights for blacks". Curtis discusses conflict involving people related to these historical events, including editors, political activists, politicians.

The author discusses advocates of free speech before the recognition of this right in the U. S. court system. Curtis writes that despite the actions of the government, it is the actions of individuals through speech and protest that allow democracy to function appropriately; the author states that, "again and again, people in power have treated speech that advocated lawful change through democratic process as an incitement to lawless action". Curtis says that free speech rights in the U. S. which at present are believed to be given through 20th century court rulings, were developed first in "the forum of public opinion". He says, "The history of free speech shows the need for broadly protective free speech rules applied and equally", he writes that during the 18th and 19th centuries in the U. S. protests by individuals and the press predated court judgments regarding the development of free speech. The author says, "as Madison had expected, constitutional guarantees of liberty do their work at popular levels as well as at the level of institutions such as the Supreme Court of the United States, state supreme courts and state legislatures.

Popular views limit and channel both legislation and private action, each of which can either constrain or empower speech". Curtis says that, "The similarity of current suppression theories to those of the past suggests caution. Historic attempts to use these ideas to suppress democratic discussion of positive social change should make us wary of attempts to resurrect them for benevolent purposes". For his work on the book, Michael Kent Curtis was recognized with the Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award, which recognizes contributions to the First Amendment, he received the Mayflower Cup Award, which honors the best non-fiction work by an individual from North Carolina, from the North Carolina Literary and Historical Association. In a review of the book for the Columbia Journalism Review, James Boylan said Curtis' work is a "rich and original study". Reviewing the book for The Journal of American History, Michael P. Zuckert called it a "very fine book", "gracefully written and engaging to read".

He said, "After Curtis's book, nobody should be able to say that the Bill of Rights was unlikely to be on the minds of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment." Zuckert wrote, "Sprinkled into the stories are fine analytic discussions."Writing in Perspectives on Political Science, Paul Weizer described the book as "an valuable contribution to the literature addressing the history of free speech in Ame