How to Calculate an Equilibrium Equation in Economics

Essay about Steroids - 545 Words

Steroids In the past three decades, steroids has been becoming a serious problem more than ever in the athletic field. Steroids are anabolic drug to build growth hormones that include the androgens (male sex hormones) principally testosterone and estrogen and progestogens (female sex hormones). Steroids were first developed for medical purposes. Theyre used in controlling inflammation, strengthening weakened hearts, preventing conception, and alleviating symptoms of arthritis and asthma. Unfortunately research has shown that steroids have been abused in almost every kind of sport. Although steroids contribute to a muscular body, usage should remain illegal because they physically deteriorate and mentally destroy the body. Many†¦show more content†¦However, steroids should remain illegal because they physically deteriorate the whole body system. When injected one risks the chances of developing hematoma and contracting AIDS. In women steroids contribute to the growth of facial hair, enlargements of the clitoris, shrinkage of the uterus, sterility, deepening of the voice, decrease in breast size and irregularity of the menstrual cycle. In men steroids cause shrinkage of the testicles, decrease in sperm count, sterility, impotence, prostate enlargement and growth of female breast. In both men and women hair loss, liver ailments, acne, atherosierosis and cancer are very common. This dangerous drug shortens the life span up to twenty years and increases the chance of obtaining diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and hypertension. The side effects and reactions from enduring anabolic steroids are endless. Along with the physical problems there are also mental 54reactions associated with the usage of steroids. This drug becomes very addictive and damaging to the mind. It causes violent episodes which an athlete can claim a legal insanity defense to it. They get so wrapped up psychologically that the negative effects doesnt matter to them. Research has also discovered that steroids cause psychotic side effects sometimes referred to as roid mania. Along with these are wild aggressive, combative behavior, depression, listlessness and delusions during and after performance. Even though theShow MoreRelatedSteroid Use Of Bodybuilding And Steroids889 Words   |  4 PagesSteroid Use in Bodybuilding Chayla Vines Clover Park Technical College Abstract [The abstract should be one paragraph of between 150 and 250 words. It is not indented. Section titles, such as the word Abstract above, are not considered headings so they don’t use bold heading format. Instead, use the Section Title style. This style automatically starts your section on a new page, so you don’t have to add page breaks. Note that all of the styles for this template are available on the Home tabRead MoreAnabolic Steroids And Steroids Use1525 Words   |  7 Pagesbeans and hype (Steroids and their). All of these words are slang for the illegal substance known more commonly as anabolic steroids and HGH (human growth hormone). The controversy surrounding anabolic steroids and HGH in sports has stormed to the forefront of the many problems that plague America today. Anabolic steroids are synthetic chemicals that mimic the effects of the male sex hormone testosterone. Some athletes seeking increased muscular strength and size abuse anabolic steroids (R icki Lewis)Read MoreAnabolic Steroids And Substance Steroids1814 Words   |  8 PagesMerriam-Webster Dictionary anabolic steroids are any of a group of usually synthetic hormones that are derivatives of testosterone, are used medically specially to promote tissue growth, and are sometimes abused by athletes to increase the size and strength of their muscles and improve endurance. The main purpose of anabolic steroids is to gain strength and muscle very quickly and faster than any other drug enhancement. There are many types of models that relate to anabolic steroids. One model is high schoolRead MoreSteroids : Sports And Steroids1169 Words   |  5 PagesPresident George W. Bush says â€Å"Steroids are dangerous in sports and steroids send the wrong message: There are shortcuts to accomplishments and performance is more important than character.† Steroids are a hormone like substance made by the body. Steroids are closely related to the male prime hormone, testosterone which is the main development of male characteristics such as facial hair, deeper voice and larger muscles. It is bad to use steroids because they cause heart problems, hormonal issuesRead More steroids in Baseball Essay1151 Words   |  5 Pages Steroids in Baseball: The Future of Baseball nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;It was a warm, sultry night in September. The fans were crazed in anticipation as Mark McGwire stepped to the plate. With a gentle stretch, he paused, patiently poised, waiting for what would eventually be the greatest hit baseball had ever seen. The pitcher, Steve Trachsel, came set. He shot a determined look to the dirt. In a rivalry such as this (Cubs, Cardinals) he did not want to be the one to give up the great numberRead MoreAnabolic Steroid Use And Anabolic Steroids1335 Words   |  6 Pagesathletes get so hooked on this so called â€Å"Steroid† ? I’m interested in this question, because that’s the question that truly caught my attention the most and, also keeps me wondering. If people who use it have seen improvement, why do they keep using it. The anabolic steroid also known as the anabolic-androgenic steroid is a drug that athletes use to give more muscle mass to the body and create more testosterone in the body. If traced back to the 1940’s steroids first appeared in Germany. Athletes hadRead MoreSteroids Essay950 Words   |  4 Pages Steroids, what they are why people use them What are anabolic steroids? â€Å"Anabolic steroids are a group molecules that include the male sex hormone testosterone and synthetic analogs of testosterone† (Taylor,1991) Anabolic steroids are used by many people in sports today due to the rapid increase in muscle mass. Anabolic steroids are made synthetically and are very powerful. â€Å"Recent evidence suggests that there may be over 3,000,000 regular anabolic steroid users in the United States and mostRead MoreEssay on Steroids772 Words   |  4 Pagesmuscular build? Have you ever thought steroids would be a helpful tool in doing so? If you have you must know that steroids are a deadly and illegal drug. After reading my paper I hope that the thought of using steroids will leave your mind forever and encourage you to keep others of them. To understand why you should stay off steroids you must first know what steroids are. The steroid of which you hear most are called, â€Å"anabolic steroids.† This kind of steroid is called anabolic because anabolicRead More Anabolic Steroids Essay1560 Words   |  7 Pages Steroids Probably one of the biggest stories in the news today is steroids in Major League Baseball. This is one of the reasons that I chose to do my research paper on steroids. I knew that it would not be hard to find information on the issue. I also needed to have a topic that relates to my service learning project. This is helping coach a high school track and field team. And as you will read later, I talk about steroids with high school athletes. I also wanted to improve my knowledge on theRead MoreAnabolic Steroid Abuse666 Words   |  3 Pages Anabolic steroid abuse has become a huge concern among high school athletes. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of athletes using performance enhancing drugs in high school, almost double the number since the 1980s. Student athletes feel that steroids give them a competitive edge that they think they need to boost themselves past competition. Athletes, whether they are young or old, professional or amateur, are always looking to gai n an advantage over their opponents to come away

A Selfish Army General free essay sample

When I was four years old living in Russia I was molested, it caused me to have bad relationships with people still to this day. I do not interact well with others. One night, while I was sleeping, my father woke me up, put a hammer in my hands and told me to hit him as hard as I could. I had dreams and flashbacks of that moment for years on. My father almost killed my sister and me when we were taking a trip up to the lake. He was drunk, of course, and we were on his motorcycle when he almost drove off a cliff. I was abused by my father until I was six years old before I was put in an orphanage. Now, I am diagnosed with PTSD. When I was ten I was adopted and my parents saw how angry I was. I fought in school, with my parents and siblings and made bad decisions. When I was sixteen, my parents had enough of my actions, so they took me to a psychiatrist for an evaluation. I was diagnosed with PTSD, depression, anxiety and a mood disorder which I am currently being medicated for. When people hear about PTSD they automatically think of people at war, but what they aren’t aware of is that a lot of other people have it. A lot of people start out experiencing PTSD as a child, which could carry on for years without treatment. â€Å"Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a mental disorder which is caused from experiencing one or more traumatic events.† Most common events are combat exposure, rape, child abuse, sexual molestation, physical attack and being threatened with a weapon. Other events include fire, natural disaster, mugging or robbery, car accident, kidnapping and terrorist attacks. â€Å"It is also caused by a mix of other things such as inherited mental health risks, inherited aspects of your personality, and the way your brain regulates chemicals and hormones.† â€Å"People with PTSD experience symptoms such as avoidance, anger and relationship problems.† They have difficulties taking care of themselves and adjusting because symptoms can completely shake up your life. People have intense memories where they have dreams and flashbacks, or reliving the event for minutes at a time. â€Å"They have a high risk of getting depression, eating disorders, suffering from drug or alcohol abuse, and suicidal tendencies.† Avoidance symptoms include not talking to anyone, always being on guard, avoiding situations that remind you of that event, trouble concentrating and feeling emotionally numb. It is best to get treatment right away, as symptoms appear within three months, to prevent long term PTSD, but as a child you may not notice it. â€Å"Anxiety symptoms include irritability and anger, guilt and shame, self-destructive behavior such as drinking or taking drugs, and trouble sleeping.† You may also have trouble getting your life together and may be suicidal. If symptoms last more than a month you should get help right away. Having a mental illness can be genetically transferred. Both my mom and dad, who are now deceased, had depression, so I had a higher risk of getting it. It’s like alcoholism; my dad was an alcoholic and one of my coping skills was drinking. I drank a lot; my emotions turned into actions and I was more violent when I drank. Once, at a party, I got mad for no reason so I went over to a table where three girls and some guys were sitting. I slapped one girl, punched one and pushed another into the table with her chair. When I was asked to leave, I told them I would see them in school on Monday. I had no clue why I did that, I just knew I was angry. People don’t understand how serious PTSD can be and it annoys me when people are apathetic about it. An army general wants to change PTSD to PTSI, post-traumatic stress inury because he doesn’t think it’s a disorder. First Lutenant, Paul Rieckoff said, â€Å"We believe that PTSD is a wound you suffer in combat, like a bullet wound, and if you don’t take care of it and treat it, it becomes a problem.† Men in the war won’t get help because they don’t understand the definition and don’t think it applies to them. The problem is that they don’t want to seem weak because, one: they are men and two: they are in the military. Some don’t even believe PTSD is real and won’t get the proper treatment they need. The general thinks that if the American Psychiatric Association changes the name the men would be more likely to get help. The chairman of the psychiatrist’s committee replied, â€Å"There is no useful purpose of changing the name.† They are all selfish because PTSD does not only apply to military personnel. Many others have it and changing the name won’t do anything. Men will still act â€Å"tough† and won’t admit that they are mentally ill. It’s the same diagnosis and treatment process, so they should suck it up and get help. Although, I do see where they are coming from. When my psychiatrist wanted to put me on medication I was convinced I was fine and wasn’t mentally ill. I wouldn’t get help for a few years because I didn’t want to seem weak. The psychiatrist said that admitting you have a problem is a sign of maturity and strength. Even though I still didn’t want to be treated, I did it to make my family happy. The point is: why does it matter what the definition of the mental illness is? It’s unnecessary to change the name because they think it will help the military where most likely, they still won’t get treatment. I don’t know what it’s like to be in the military, but I assume it’s terrifying. The men should admit they have a problem, get treatment and live a happier, healthy life they deserve. I want to become a social worker, in the field of mental health, to help people with illnesses such as PTSD get their life back on track. Works Cited Page -http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/post-traumatic-stress-disorder/basics/definition/con-20022540 -http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/military-july-dec11-stress_11-04/ Graduate Study in Psychology. American Psychological Association (2013) REF BF77.G73 -The Dictionary of Psychology. Raymond J. Corsini (1999) REF BF31.C72 International Handbook on Social Work Education. (1995) REF HV11.I565

What are the differences between Kant and Arendt on radical evil Essay Example

What are the differences between Kant and Arendt on radical evil Paper The concept of evil is one that for all of us is difficult to come to terms with. In our everyday life, in the news and in all forms of historical contemplation we encounter acts of what we call evil, and we intuitively attempt to calibrate them. We look to find a scale against which we wish to measure ourselves in order to justify our own actions and for the religious of us, to estimate the chances of an eternal life with God. Philosophers and theologians alike, have looked for an explanation for the wrong doing around them and they theorise in an attempt to understand whether evil is inherent in human nature or not. Are we essentially evil? Can we work towards purifying ourselves or are we inherently good and is evil an incomplete development of the capacity for good1? Immanuel Kant introduced the notion of radical evil in his essay Of Radical Evil in Human Nature taken from his paper Religion within the bounds of mere reason. This was a theory that went against all of his previous convictions on the notions of good, evil and free-will. We will write a custom essay sample on What are the differences between Kant and Arendt on radical evil specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on What are the differences between Kant and Arendt on radical evil specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on What are the differences between Kant and Arendt on radical evil specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer Previously, in Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) and Critique of Practical Reason (1788), evil had been for Kant varying degrees of the absence of the capacity for good. He now claimed that man could not be good and evil in varying degrees but that he was either absolutely good or absolutely evil. He is free to either choose to adhere to the moral law or to deviate from it. This view has influenced many thinkers from the time of inception to this very day, famously including Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) who abandoned this idea for her theory on The Banality of Evil. It is the relationship between these ideas that I wish to discuss. I shall begin with a more comprehensive description of Kants doctrine of radical evil in order to provide a basis for this discussion and then, in contrast Arendts transition from radical evil to the banality of evil. This will, I hope, allow us to see some of the differences in their thinking and the reasoning behind them. Kant had discovered a problem with his previous convictions. On closer inspection of them, they seemed to say that man was not morally responsible for his actions. He had asserted that mans moral experience indicates a division between the sensual world of inclination and desire, the animality2of human nature; and the intelligible world which is always in conformity with the dictates of reason (this is proven empirically we are all aware of concepts such as good and ought and right). Firstly, the animal part of mans nature is not subject to free-will, so can be considered neither morally good nor morally bad in the same way as a cat could not be held morally responsible for bringing home a mouse. The cat does not have the facility within him to choose otherwise. Secondly, for the perfectly reasonable part of mans nature, it is only possible to conform to the moral law. He is not only aware of the moral law but he is also compelled to abide by it, so there is also without the freedom of choice. It would follow then, that for man to be morally obligated and to have a genuine free-will he must be given the freedom to choose and that choice must only be a choice between good and evil. Without this choice his life would be determined by his inclinations which are imposed upon him and a strictly formatted sense of reason from which, if he is healthy, he cannot escape either. We can now see that Kant introduced his doctrine of radical evil so as to make freedom, in this sense, intelligible to give a full and adequate justification of moral freedom3 It must therefore follow that evil is a necessary part of human nature. The possibility of evil must somehow lie in human nature itself. 4 Seemingly negatively, Kant begins his essay by pointing out that evil is something that we cannot deny exists within all of us; There is no man who liveth and sinneth not. 5It is impossible to deny that man can be cruel for cruelties sake. This is empirically evident. If this were not the case, how could we hold anyone responsible for harm done to us? Anyone who genuinely believes in Kants original, unintended deterministic view is committed to accepting all that comes his way and laying no blame. There, however, seems to be no such person. Even those who believe themselves to be determinists seem to object and be outraged when they are treated brutally and think that the perpetrator ought not to have done it. It is important to note at this point, that Kant is famously known to believe that there can be a specific moral code. That it is possible for our moral system to be universalized. He, however strongly supports the possibility of acting in a way that is in opposition to it, again in support of the freedom to choose. It is in this, for Kant, that the basic constituent of free will resides. A man can choose to uphold the moral law or he can choose to deviate from it. Man is a rational being who lives by an over-all principle6 He must be either radically good or radically evil. Even one deviation from the moral law implies that he is radically evil. He has made a decision to deviate which is part of his overall maxim. The human being is evil, cannot mean anything else than that he is conscious of the moral law and yet has incorporated into his maxim the (occasional) deviation from it. With free will as a foundation for beings who act according to their self-constructed overall maxims it is important for them to construct them carefully. Kant suggests the use of his categorical imperative: Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature. There is no excuse for neglecting the responsibility to think, to be mindful of your actions, to consider the categorical imperative when creating your maxims. In this way Kant and Arendt are similar. Hannah Arendt was, unlike Kant, a post-Holocaust thinker and she had sought to come to grips with the methodical destruction of the European Jewry. She had studied the cold minded murder of millions of human beings by ordinary upstanding citizens and also attended and documented the trial of a significant cog in this mechanism of destruction, Adolf Eichmann. This had a momentous affect on her thinking: She had written in a letter to a significant historian at the time that she had backed down from her previous views on Kants doctrine on radical evil and now held a different view; It is indeed my opinion now, that evil is never radical, that it is only extreme, and that it possesses neither depth nor any demonic dimension. It can overgrow and lay waste the whole world precisely because it spreads like a fungus on the surface. It is thought-defying, as I said, because thought tries to reach some depth, to go to the roots, and the moment it concerns itself with evil, it is frustrated because there is nothing. That is its banality. Only the good has depth and can be radical. 7 Arendt found this banality extremely difficult to understand. She had set herself on a quest to understand what evil was and what it meant. She had also hoped that the presence of evil would be clear and comprehensible at Eichmanns trial in Jerusalem. She, however, was disappointed. Eichman doings were set in banality there was no demon. She was nevertheless sure that Eichman was the perpetrator. Many who met Eichmann including Arendt witnessed that this man was not a monster8 , he was a normal family man. This was concluded after a long series of psychological tests. How could somebody so normal be responsible for the deaths of so many people? Even the judges had trouble accepting that Eichmann was normal and incapable of telling right from wrong. They preferred to conclude that he was a liar. 9 Eichmann was not alone. He was part of a nation responsible as a whole for racial genocide. He could not have completed his objectives alone, without the help of normal, everyday people. These ordinary people were merely carrying out [orders] given by Hitler10 It is not surprising then that they guilty not of crimes but acts of state11 Brutal acts of murder were objectified. Killing with lethal gases for us seems a heinous crime but for those who carried out such acts during Hitlers regime it was a medical matter12 Arendt deduced from these experiences that evil is the absence of thought the shallowness of the evildoer. For Arendt, thinking amounts to a quest to understand the meaning of our world, the ceaseless and restless activity of questioning that which we encounter internally and externally. The value of thinking is not that it yields conclusive results in the same way that empirical knowledge does, but that it constantly returns to question again and again. This, for Arendt, is the cause of our moral responsibility. It was precisely the failure of this capacity that characterized the banality of Eichmanns inclination to participate in political evil. As Plato said thinking is an activity without which life would not be much. Our lives would become mechanical and determined. We are according to Arendt obliged to question things like justice and love etc The people of Germany had the task of thinking alleviated by their Fuhrer. Hitler had created a culture which seemed legitimate to those living in it. With his clever use of propaganda and symbolism he managed to convince his people of the legitimacy of his ideals and intentions. He used stricking phrases such as: the battle of destiny for the german people13 which created a false image of the Nazi regime. The battle of destiny implies that the war against the Jews was a battle that was destined to happen and was unavoidable. Architecture was another tool used by Hitler to create the symbol of world domination and the Nazi ideology. The Olympic stadium, for example, designed by Walter Marsh, symbolized the self confidence of the masters of the German people. These were a contribution to the mind set that all is under control and therefore officially legal and morally correct. Eichmann epitomised the natural gullibility of human beings in general. He, as did many others did not realize that [he was] being manipulated14 They were not aware that Hitler had conspired to present himself with divine radiance. Albert Speer, Hitlers architect was quoted to have said that he was thinking as a specialist and not as a human being. [He] forgot that humanity is the most important part of life. 15 With the benefit of hindsight it is easy to say that it is better to be out of tune with everyone else than with yourself. Hannah Arendt said in her essay, Thinking and Moral Considerations a Lecture, that within our minds is an original split. We have within us the reflector and the reflected. We in effect witness our own thoughts, thus creating an internal dialogue between me and a certain otherness. It is this dialogue that manifests consciousness and it is extremely important to be friends with this other. Socrates once said that he can be friends with the sufferer of evil but I cannot live with a murderer. This implies that we are internally punished for our external actions, but, only those who know that they are doing wrong will suffer as a result of this internal dialogue. The people who do not suffer are the ones who do not know that they are doing wrong.