Humor and Criticism in Erasmuss Praise of Folly Essay -- essays papers

Humor and Criticism in Erasmuss Praise of Folly Humor and Criticism in Praise of Folly Erasmus’s Praise of Folly is a humor-filled satire of pretty much everything. It is filled with wit and sarcasm which make light of serious problems and blow insignificant issues out of proportion all the while bringing a smile to the reader’s face. It is not stinging humor at the expense of others (unless, of course, the shoe fits), rather it is directed towards everyone. Erasmus even includes himself in the joke, practically parodying himself in the first section (xvi). In Praise of Folly, Erasmus uses this humor to criticize without the harsh judgment of seriousness. His humor parallels the import of his subject. When Folly discusses the issues most significant to Erasmus, she loses her jocularity and ironic tone, whereas in her first voice, Folly laughs at those whose foolish ways are reason for criticism but not for scorn. This section finds great ironic humor in the folly of all types of conceit, pointing out that the most condescending of people have little reason for such egotism. Folly laughs at the conceit of â€Å"the general run of gentry and scholars† with their â€Å"distorted sense of modesty† (11) including â€Å"those who lay special claim to be called the personification of wisdom, even though they strut about ‘like apes in purple’ and ‘asses in lion-skins’† (13). Folly, of course, is guilty of this most of all in dedicating a whole book to praising herself, and she admits the great folly behind this when she asks, â€Å"What could be more fitting than for Folly to trumpet her own merits abroad and ‘sing her own praises’† (11). Erasmus jokes about this type of conceit because it is innocent and commonplace. His point is to en... ...art for any lack of seriousness. Here we see the culmination of Folly’s progression towards Erasmus’s most serious subject and away from humor. Erasmus demonstrates the value of humor by making fun of insignificant issues and teaching us how to laugh at ourselves. â€Å"Jokes of this kind . . . which aren’t lacking in learning and wit† (4) help us put the less significant aspects of life in perspective. They also aim to moderate the level of his criticism making it more constructive than insulting. For it is â€Å"the ridiculous rather than the squalid† (7) to which his humor applies. He reserves a more serious voice for more serious wrongdoing. We see this parallel between humor and subject clearly as Erasmus progresses from constructive criticism of insignificant folly to harsh indictment of religious pretension and most of all in his solemn praise of Christian folly.

Making a Difference through Charity Works

We are all aware that not all people are the same. Although some may say that all people are equal, we can’t still deny the fact that some are just too lucky while others are not. Some have more than enough foods served in their dining table three times a day while others consider themselves fortunate already if they get to eat at least once a day. Some can afford to go to expensive private schools to study while others cannot study even in public schools where tuition fee is free. Some can enjoy the luxury and comfort of a big and fully air-conditioned house while others sleep on dirty and cold sidewalks. These situations are just some realities that cause people to doubt if equality really exists on earth. However, if we look at its brighter side, these situations will make us realize how blessed we are. These will make us think that we should be very thankful that we can eat at least three times a day, that we can afford to go to school and to get the best education that we deserve, and that we can sleep comfortably on our own home. And because we are blessed with these things, we must give back to other people who are less fortunate than us. It takes a caring and special person to undertake charity work, as it takes that same special character to make charity donations. Charity work can be a long, hard and sometimes laborious task. However, it is highly rewarding for the individual doing it and the recipient of the benefits. Charitable works for me can be best defined as the willingness of an individual to provide as many smiles on as many faces as he/she could imagine. Charity is a global act and is not confined to a certain nation, people or a country. It is an act of gratitude and support to those who need help, keeping in mind that earth is one small village. Above all, charity should not be an ostentatious display of wealth. Although it is an act of kindness, it could lose power when it is more concerned about hogging media glare than lending support to the needy and desperate. Charity could also mean love. I believe that the root of charity is love, love for our fellowmen and love for God. Anybody can be an active part of a charity work. It can be you or me or our neighbors. The fulfillment anybody can feel through helping others is incomparable. And I do believe that we can make a difference through participating actively on charity works. I am only one and I know I can’t change the world alone but if I can convince you, my friends, your friends, and our friends’ friends to be more responsible in giving back to our community, for sure we can make a big difference. Charitable work, in its simplest form therefore, is helping one another and the community as a whole.

Ethical Dilemmas of Intellectual Property - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 6 Words: 1674 Downloads: 1 Date added: 2019/02/20 Category Law Essay Level High school Tags: Intellectual Property Essay Did you like this example? The case regarding the companies Acme and Beta Inc. relate to patents. Patents are defined by the court as, â€Å"novel, useful, non-obvious and intangible ideas†, (Colonia, et al., 2005). Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Ethical Dilemmas of Intellectual Property" essay for you Create order These are inventions that must follow a set of guidelines and criteria subject to patent protections. Patents must be new inventions that provide the method or design of a new product. The patent must also be useful. This includes the process required to achieve the new product. While the product is simply an idea for an invention, this idea can be protected by law. It allows for inventors to have the â€Å"exclusive right to make, use, and sell the invention for a period of twenty years†, (Mayers, et al., 2012, p. 1142). As intangible objects, patents represent intellectual property. These are ideas or inventions that can be bought and sold for personal and public gain. In this way, patents are also personal property, (Mayer et al., 2012). The patent can be owned by an individual or a corporation. It not only provides the patent owner exclusive rights to the invention but also works to prevent others from having it. This includes marketing or misuse of the invention, (Colonia, et al., 2005). With these rights, the owner has the ability to modify the invention, restrict the invention, or sell the invention to allow someone else to distribute and manufacture. When the patent is used in part or licensed to others, it allows organizations other than the owner to profit from the invention through royalties, (Mayer, et al., 2012). However, it is up to the owner to decide what to do with the patent. Examples can be seen such as licensing the patent to several entities allowing for exploitation and high expo sure. With these rights the law recognizes the importance of sciences, the arts, technology, and the overall progression of humanity. Protected by the Fifth Amendments Taking Clause of the Constitution, patents give owners special benefits and rights for their ideas, (Mossoff, 2015). Alternative Resolution Although Acme Inc. is the owner of a patent for immortality, Beta Inc. took the liberty to copy, manufacture and release the drug to the public market. This was done without the permission of Acme Inc., practicing patent infringement. Not only did Beta Inc. violate the law, they violated the rights of patent ownership. The owner was not allowed to profit from the patented invention due to Beta Inc.’s lawlessness. As a result, â€Å"the patent holder may seek damages and an injunction against the infringer in federal court, requesting damages for royalties and lost profits as well†, (Mayers, 2012, p. 1147). While court is a common way to litigate judgment, there are additional alternative options. Alternative dispute resolution allows individuals and organizations to argue a case without a long and costly trail. These include mediation, arbitration, and conciliation, (Mayers, 2012). All three options allow both parties to come to an agreement to resolve conflicts under m ore comfortable terms and conditions. Arbitration is a formal and binding commitment recognized by the court. The case is not heard or decided by a judge or jury. It is heard before experienced parties who can resolve patent issues without the stress of a formal court. Arbitrators work as a judge, hearing arguments and deciding a just course of action. They are often retired judges, lawyers, and other experienced individuals with special knowledge of patents and circumstances regarding the case. In many ways, arbitration represents the best alternative due the fast turnaround results and the professional expertise of the arbitrator. Additionally, arbitration does not allow for an appeal process so all decision are final. Decisions are often confidential and preferred because of its ability to preserve business relationships, (Knight, 2012). Arbitration is often favored in patent proceedings and included in most licensing contracts. Also recognized as a route to resolution is mediation. It is unfavored in patent cases be cause the decision is not binding and there is no party to enforce the decision. Other alternative routes can be found in the Leahy-Smith American Invents Act of 2011. The Act includes four additional options that can prevent court intervention. It includes the supplemental examination for patent review, post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings, (Knight, 2012). Enacted by the Obama administration it provides more options for resolving issues with patent. ACME Ethical Dilemma ACME holds patent ownership of a new drug for immortality. This reserves the right for ACME to hold, sell, or distribute the patent product as they see fit. It is done to protect ACME and also to prevent theft and misuse of the product from unlicensed organizations, (Colonia, et al., 2005). In addition, as owners ACME has an obligation to serve the public. This includes marketing products that are beneficial to public health and promotes the progression of art, science, and human life, (Massoff, 2013). Because ACME decided to hold the patent with no movements towards marketing and distribution, it presents an ethical dilemma for the organization. It raises concern â€Å"to the possibility of stifling innovation, copyrights and patents also allow the holder to ransom the health and welfare of the public†, (Colonia, et al., 2005). This suggests that the organization was putting public health in jeopardy. The actions conducted by ACME question the integrity and authenticity to t he organizational intent of the product. ACME has the ability to prevent millions of deaths worldwide. Instead, the organization failed their moral obligations to society by improving health and extending human life. BETA Ethical Dilemma BETA Inc. stands in an ethical dilemma. The organization ignored patent laws by marketing a patent product they did not own. The organization also did not have a license from ACME granting BETA permission to distribute the product. Although BETA did not profit from the distribution, BETA did not apply â€Å"fair use† laws, (Colonia et al., 2005). The fair use law allows organizations to copy patent products for educational purposes only. Furthermore, BETA did not apply â€Å"transformative† use of the product, (Colonia et al., 2005). They did not transform the product into a new item for a different use. For instance, BETA did not modify the product to extend life for a specified period or alter the product to cure deathly illnesses. The organization went against patent protections to distribute the product without permission. Doing so BETA restricted the creativity of the product. AMCE was not given the opportunity to improve the product in any way or provide input in matters of marketing and distribution. Although BETA Inc. worked with good intentions to serve the public and help others, they did not follow federal guidelines granting AMCE the exclusive rights. Theories of Ethical Thought Utilitarianism is a theory of ethical thought that is encouraged throughout government and general public. It is the idea that, â€Å"an action, or set of actions, is generally deemed good or right if it maximizes happiness or pleasure throughout society†, (Mayer, et al., 2012, p.41). It can be applied throughout all aspects of life including law, economy, and government. Utilitarianism is seen as a moral compass for important decisions to be used among individuals and communities. When a product is useful and productive in positive ways it provides the greatest amount of benefit for the people. By manufacturing and distributing an unlicensed product that prolongs life, BETA acted with good intentions for the good of society. Patents protect ideas that help to flourish human life, (Massoff, 2013). As a result, it comes with moral obligations to society that grants rights to the owner. For the service the invention provides to society, patent owners are granted rights, protecti on, and financial compensation for their work. AMCE did not follow its moral obligations to progress life, encouraging BETA to act in its wake. BETA did not generate profits from their distribution demonstrating their act of utilitarianism. Instead, BETA broke the law and violated patent rights by distributing an unlicensed product to improve the health and general welfare of society. An important theory to the case of patent rights and intellectual property is social justice and social contract theory. The patent owned by AMCE is monumental and has the potential to change the landscape of how people live. With the promises of immortality it bears to question the marketing potential of the product and the problems that can ensue as a result. This includes possible limitations to the product. The social justice theory raises the question of who should have access to the product and the potential good and bad that can come from the misuse of the product. Do all people have access to the product including criminals or is the product restricted to those facing illness, old age or death? Placing limitations on the distribution of the product enforces an intermediary to enforce the stipulations of distribution. Through the social contract theory, it allows the government to act as a mediator between the patent owner and the public. This puts the decision out of the hand s of both parties and into the hands of the government. The theory implies the use of an overseer or organization that acts as a watch dog over the people. It goes on to suggest that people must lose something in return and the process of give and take. This is seen in the social contract theory â€Å"where people give up certain rights to government in exchange for security and common benefits†, (Mayer, et al., 2012, p. 44). References 1. Colonia, A., Yonga, N., Hass, B., Juan, J., Luy, J., Yeager, W. (2005). The Ethics of Intellectual Property. Engineering Ethics. University of California Santa Cruz. Spring. Retrieved from: https://classes.soe.ucsc.edu/cmpe080e/Spring05/projects/ip/ 2. Knight Jr., B. (2012). The America invents act alternative dispute resolution. United States Patent and Trademark Office USPTO. March 8. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/aia_implementation/20120308-alternative-dispute-resolution-ip.pdf 3. Massoff, A. (2013). Patents are Property Rights. Foundation for Economic Education FEE. 14 April, 2013. Retrieved from: https://fee.org/resources/patents-are-property-rights/ 4. Mayer, D., Warner, D., Siedel, G. Lieberman, J., Martina, A. (2012). Business Law and the Legal Environment. Washington, D. C. Saylor Foundation. Retrieved from: https://www.saylor.org/site/textbooks/Business%20Law%20and%20the%20Legal%20Environment.pdf