Definition and Examples of Indeterminacy in Language

In linguistics  and literary studies, the term indeterminacy refers to  the instability of meaning, the uncertainty of reference, and the variations in interpretations of grammatical forms and categories  in any  natural language. As David A. Swinney has observed, Indeterminacy exists at essentially every descriptive level of word, sentence, and discourse analysis (Understanding Word and Sentence, 1991). Examples and Observations A basic reason for linguistic indeterminacy is the fact that language is not a logical product, but originates from the conventional practice of individuals, which depends on the particular context of the terms used by them. (Gerhard Hafner, Subsequent Agreements and Practice. Treaties and Subsequent Practice, ed. by Georg Nolte. Oxford University Press, 2013) Indeterminacy in Grammar Clear-cut grammatical categories, rules, etc. are not always attainable, since the system of grammar is arguably subject to gradience. The same considerations apply to the notions of correct and incorrect usage since there are areas where native speakers disagree as to what is grammatically acceptable. Indeterminacy is, therefore, a feature of grammar and usage. Grammarians also speak of indeterminacy in cases where two grammatical analyses of a particular structure are plausible. (Bas Aarts, Sylvia Chalker, and Edmund Weiner, The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, 2014) Determinacy and Indeterminacy An assumption usually made in syntactic theory and description is that particular elements combine with one another in very specific and determinate ways. . . . This supposed property, that it is possible to give a definite and precise specification of the elements connected to one another and how they are connected, will be referred to as determinacy. The doctrine of determinacy belongs to a broader conception of language, mind, and meaning, which holds that language is a separate mental module, that syntax is autonomous, and that semantics is well-delimited and fully compositional. This broader conception is not however well-founded. Over the last few decades, research in cognitive linguistics has demonstrated that grammar is not autonomous from semantics, that semantics is neither well-delimited nor fully compositional, and that language draws on more general cognitive systems and mental capacities from which it cannot be neatly separated. . . . I suggest that the usual situation is not one of determinacy, but rather indeterminacy (Langacker 1998a). Precise, determinate connections between specific elements represent a special and perhaps unusual case. It is more common for there to be some vagueness or indeterminacy in regard to either the elements participating in grammatical relationships or the specific nature of their connection. Otherwise stated, grammar is basically metonymic, in that the information explicitly coded linguistically does not itself establish the precise connections apprehended by the speaker and hearer in using an expression. (Ronald W. Langacker, Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Mouton de Gruyter, 2009) Indeterminacy and Ambiguity Indeterminacy refers to . . . the capacity . . . of certain elements to be notionally related to other elements in more than one way . . .. Ambiguity, on the other hand, refers to the failure of an increment to make a distinction which is crucial to the discharge of the speakers present obligations. . . . But if ambiguity is rare, indeterminacy is an all-pervading feature of speech, and one which users are quite accustomed to living with. We might even argue that it is an indispensable feature of verbal communication, allowing for an economy without which language would be impossibly unwieldy. Let us examine two illustrations of this. The first comes from the conversation that was attributed to the friend and the old lady immediately after the latter had asked for a lift: Where does your daughter live? She lives near the Rose and Crown. Here, the reply is obviously indeterminate, as there are any number of public houses of that name, and often more than one in the same town. It creates no problems for the friend, however, because many other factors than the label, including, no doubt, her knowledge of the locality, are taken into account in identifying the place referred to. Had it been a problem, she could have asked: Which Rose and Crown? The everyday use of personal names, some of which may be shared by several acquaintances of both participants, but which are nevertheless usually sufficient to identify the intended individual, provide a similar way indeterminacy is ignored in practice. It is worth noting in passing that, were it not for users tolerance of indeterminacy, every pub and every person would have to be uniquely named! (David Brazil, A Grammar of Speech. Oxford University Press, 1995) Indeterminacy and Optionality [W]hat appears to be indeterminacy may actually reflect optionality in the grammar, i.e., a representation that allows multiple surface realizations of a single construction, such as the choice of relatives in Theres the boy (that/whom/0) Mary likes. In L2A, a learner who accepts John *seeked Fred at Time 1, then John sought Fred at Time 2, might be inconsistent not because of indeterminacy in the grammar, but because the grammar permits both forms optionally. (Observe that optionality in this instance would reflect a grammar that diverges from the English target grammar.) (David Birdsong, Second Language Acquisition and Ultimate Attainment. Handbook of Applied Linguistics, ed. by Alan Davies and Catherine Elder. Blackwell, 2004)

Essay on Marx And Mills - 1185 Words

Marx And Mills John Stuart Mill suggests that a person’s ethical decision-making process should be based solely upon the amount of happiness that the person can receive. Although Mill fully justifies himself, his approach lacks certain criteria for which happiness can be considered. Happiness should be judged, not only by pleasure, but by pain as well. This paper will examine Mill’s position on happiness, and the reasoning behind it. Showing where there are agreements and where there are disagreements will critique the theory of Utilitarianism. By showing the problems that the theory have will reveal what should make up ethical decision-making. John Stuart Mill supports and explains his reasoning in his book, Utilitarianism. Mill†¦show more content†¦If one is to avoid all pain in his or her life, then how will that person truly know what true pleasure feels like? True pleasure comes only after experiencing pain. If a person always wins a race, does he or she feel true pleasu re each time they win or does it turn into a feeling that they come to expect? If there is a person who loses races constantly, will his happiness be greater when he finally wins? The rewards and pleasures of the second person would greatly outweigh the feelings of happiness the first had because he or she knows how it feels to be defeated. The second person knows the pain that is received because of failure so when he when he will recognize the joy and pleasure that comes with winning. Using this same setting, would it be better for the second person to run in races filled with people who are not matched in skill just so he may always win or should he or she race individuals who are equally matched? Although the first would produce pleasure, the second example would yield the greater amount of pleasure due to the understanding that the competition was evenly matched. Both of these examples show that pain can ultimately cause pleasure, and in some cases the presence of pain will inc rease the feeling of happiness. Another point were there is disagreement is when Mill justifies the pursuit of pleasure by saying â€Å"actions are rightShow MoreRelatedMarx and Mills Essay1203 Words   |  5 PagesJohn Stuart Mill suggests that a persons ethical decision-making process should be based solely upon the amount of happiness that the person can receive. Although Mill fully justifies himself, his approach lacks certain criteria for which happiness can be considered. Happiness should be judged, not only by pleasure, but by pain as well. This paper will examine Mills position on happiness, and the reasoning behind it. Showing where there are agreements and where there are disagreements will critiqueRead MoreComparing Karl Marx And The Mill Mill On Their Understandings Of Freedom2522 Words   |  11 Pagesessay compares and contrasts Karl Marx and J.S. Mill on their understandings of freedom and their analyses of the impediments to its realization. Both Marx and Mil l agree that human beings are capable of making progress and that the concept of freedom is an end in itself. Thus, they saw freedom as a means to realise individual potential and self-determination. However, both differ on the concept of freedom realisation and the impediments to freedom. Mill argues that the impediment to freedomRead MoreKarl Marx And John Stuart Mill Essay1576 Words   |  7 PagesKarl Marx and John Stuart Mill were both philosophers who lived in the 1800s. Beginning with Karl Marx, he was a German philosopher, journalist, and revolutionary socialist. In his adult years, Marx was not recognized as a citizen of any country even though he was born in Germany and he spent most of his years in London, England. There, he continued to evolve his philosophy and social thought in participation or collaboration with a German thinker called Friedrich Engels. They worked together andRead More Comparing Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill Essay4553 Words   |  19 Pages Karl Marx was born and educated in Prussia, where he fell under the influence of Ludwig Feuerbach and other radical Hegelians. Although he shared Hegels belief in dialectical structure and historical inevitability, Marx held that the foundations of reality lay in the material base of economics rather than in the abstract thought of idealistic philosophy. He earned a doctorate at Jena in 1841, writing on the materialism and atheism of Greek atomists, then moved to Kà ¶ln, where he founded and editedRead MoreViews of Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill Essay examples1184 Words   |  5 Pageshis private caprice. Karl Marx, On the Jewish Question The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty While, after reading the above two quotations, it may appear that Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill take seemingly opposing views on the proper relationship betweenRead MoreA Comparison of Marx and Engels with Mill Regarding Social and Economic Progress3483 Words   |  14 PagesA Comparison of Marx and Engels with Mill Regarding Social and Economic Progress To understand what these two different philosophies tell us about the nature of social and economic progress it is important to clearly establish, for the purpose of this essay, a definition of the word progress. Many philosophers see progress as being a positive, continuous advancement into the future where, if we do not gain full scientific and empirical knowledge of our surroundings one dayRead MoreMarx, Mill And Freud s Critique Of Political Economy And The Communist Manifesto Essay1133 Words   |  5 Pagesmerely implicit) notions of freedom and unfreedom we find in the texts we have read by Marx, Mill and Freud. Use the esoteric traditions we have examined thus far (from the Book of Job to Plato) as a comparative yardstick, or point of reference, but without letting them take over the foreground in your paper -- the latter should be reserved for these three figures. Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, and John Stuart Mill are three authors who tackle the topic of freedom in unique ways, but their messages areRead MoreFilling the Void: Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill and Others on Identity1145 Words   |  5 Pages More specifically, new political movements, ideas of nationalism, and change of social norms brought on by many writers and theorists such as Karl Marx, John Mill, and many others. The spread of such ideas was also helped by the spread of public education and rising literacy rates in western society. The Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is a short publication that contains Marx’s and Engel’s theories on the nature of society and politics, as well as class struggleRead MoreThe Macroeconomic Perspectives of David Ricardo, Karl Marx, and John Stuart Mill2163 Words   |  9 PagesThe Macroeconomic Perspectives of David Ricardo, Karl Marx, and John Stuart Mill ECON 350 19 November 2012 Abstract The author surveys three influential economists of the Classical era—Ricardo, Marx, and John Stuart Mill—and introduces the reader to their Macroeconomic perspectives based on some of their more prominent Macroeconomic theories. David Ricardo David Ricardo was a Classical Economist who lived from 1772 to 1823. In his professional life he woreRead More A Comparison of the Economic Philosophies of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and Karl Marx1781 Words   |  8 Pagesgatherers who share whatever the day has brought to them within their tribe, or a larger community which within its structure lie the inner dwellings of division of labor and societal classes. Adam Smith (18th Century), John Stuart Mill (19th Century), and Karl Marx (19th Century) are of the same cloth, but in modern terms their community is referenced as a government, and they each have their own distinct opinions on the drive instilled within human nature that shape their personal economic

History of Tattoos in Australia Free Essays

A tattoo is the permanent insertion of ink or other pigments below the skin using a sharp instrument, as a form of decorative form of body modification. The word tattoo is derived from the Tahitian term â€Å"tatua,† which means â€Å"to mark. † Since the dawn of time, tattoos have been used for all kinds of purposes. We will write a custom essay sample on History of Tattoos in Australia or any similar topic only for you Order Now Tattoos have served as symbols of rights, symbols of rank or seniority, symbols of spirituality, devotion, religion, rewards for bravery and security. In ancient times, they were also used as symbols of punishment, slavery and conviction. However, over the past century, tattoos have been most frequently used as body art. The art of tattooing cannot be traced back to a specific time or place. One of the oldest tattoos however, was found to be engraved on the back of a well – preserved natural mummy of a man (now known as â€Å"Otzi the Iceman†) who was buried alive on the slopes of the Alps over 5000 years ago. However, research shows that if the skin rots after death, evidence of a tattoo completely disappears. This means that tattoos may have been around for longer than 5000 years, yet there’s no evidence to prove this. Numerous mummies that were excavated from the pyramids in Egypt have also been found to have tattoos. These tattoos however, were engraved near waists of the women who longed for children and were a symbol of their goddess of fertility. There has been evidence to suggest that in the past tattooing was done for medicinal purposes and that the pigments used in tattoos had some sort of healing effect. For example, societies in the Arctic believe tattoos have powers that can ward off illness or protect people from all types of harm. They believed diseases such as rheumatism were caused by an imbalance in their souls, caused by evil spirits. They thought that these evil spirits entered their bodies through their joints, so they tattooed designs on their joints in an attempt to block them out. Furthermore, ‘protective’ or ‘guardian’ tattoos could be used by these societies to save people from disasters at sea, help them on a journey through the unknown, or even guard against the death of a new born. The art of tattooing was also popular amongst Christian adherents (as many received the tattoo symbolising ‘the Stigmata of the Lord Jesus’) until the church edict forbade them on the pretext of some quotes in the Bible. The Old Testament law commanded the Israelites, â€Å"Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD† (Leviticus 19:28). This command from God is further explained in 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 : â€Å"Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honour God with your body. † Therefore, the number of tattoos amongst Christian adherents significantly decreased. Tattoos have since then persisted in various parts of the world for various reasons and although tattoos have now become acceptable in contemporary societies, ‘tattoos are still condemned in God’s eyes. ’ In the Western world, tattooing has historically served as a brand of criminality or a sign of shame (as seen in â€Å"The Scarlet Letter† of Nathaniel Hawthorne. ) These branding mimicked those of the branding of slaves, the tattooing of prisoners of war in ancient Athens and the marking of the foreheads of French prisoners in the 18th and 19th centuries with letters signifying their punishment. Australia has a rich historical background in which the art of tattooing has a special place. Date back to almost 4,000 years, the Samoan and the Maori tribes displayed a wide range of tattoos on specific parts of their body. In fact, these tribes of Australia represent the major history of tattooing. The Samoan tribes used to cover their lower body completely with all-embracing tattoos, though these tattoos held no specific cultural significance beyond fashion. However, having a tattoo proved a statement that an individual could bear pain and those who didn’t have a tattoo were vulnerable to severe criticism from others as they were seen to be weak cowards. The average Samoan design could take as long as six months to complete. In order to complete the arduous task, a special tattooing shed was specifically built; only to be burned down at the completion of the tattoo. Special combs were utilised by Samoan tattoo artists to apply the designs. The combs would be dipped in ink and then tapped along the skin, so that the pointed teeth of the comb would puncture the surface and insert the ink. This extremely painful procedure posed several hygiene issues and usually led to several health problems, such as infections. While the Samoans covered their lower bodies with tattoos, the Maori of New Zealand covered their faces. This tattooing technique, called â€Å"moko† was unique to the Maori. Each man wore an individualised pattern as the design was based on his own particular facial features. The tattooing artist would study the man’s face and create a design that would accentuate them, in an attempt to make his appearance more dignified and forceful. The pattern would be carved into the skin with a bone chisel and the ink would be placed in the cuts to create the tattoo. The whole process, which took up to weeks to complete one face, was awfully painful and would consequently cause a lot of swelling. Maori women also had their faces tattooed, but it was limited to the lips and chin only. In Australia, the modern art of tattooing began when the European convicts were sent into exile here in the late 1700’s, after Captain James Cook brought tattoos back to England as curiosities after encountering Tahitian tattoos when in the South Pacific in the 1760’s. To express diverse human emotions, the prisoners used to make tattoos by etching the black sediments of the oil lamps into their skin, forever recording their hopes, beliefs, loves and disappointments. At this time, tattoos became a way for convicts to make human statements about themselves. The positioning of a tattoo was also particularly significant as the most personal of messages were reserved for parts of the body that were usually covered up. For some convicts, tattoos were purely decorative, while others transcribed the dates of their trials, or dates when their sentences were up. Family trees and slogans and religious symbols were also quite common. The most popular tattoo however, was the anchor, which was a symbol of hope and loyalty, and was often attached to a loved one’s initials. The period between the First and Second World Wars has been dubbed the â€Å"Golden Age of Tattooing† as many servicemen in the army and navy tattooed themselves as acts of patriotism and nationalism. During this period, tattoos served as symbols of group identity, memorial dedications to home, girlfriends, wives, family and the wars themselves. These tattoos were almost exclusively a male practice and connoted a bond between men forged by patriotic and militaristic duty, and by necessary association, masculinity and power. A new form of street or ‘biker’ tattoo began to emerge after the Second World War. Instead of patriotic values, however, this new style of tattooing had embedded in it defiance, â€Å"a challenge to mainstream middle-class values as well as to the traditional form of patriotic and love-inspired working class tattoo† (DeMello 2000:67). This style of tattooing became synonymous with biker and prison convict subcultures, and continues relatively unchanged to this day. Although they began as an exclusive practice amongst males, they are now commonly found on women also. ‘Bikers’ were typically heavily tattooed with entire sleeves, legs, chests or backs covered in ink. Popular imagery included religious icons (Jesus Christ, crucifixes, the Virgin Mary), scales of justice, skulls, dragons, spiders, motorcycles, and biblical quotes. Specific tattoos identified the wearer as a member of a particular social group, gang or ethnicity. Throughout the several phases during the twentieth century, the tattoo industry was primarily underground and was relegated to the lower working classes. In the 1960’s, however, tattoos ‘fragmented’ and were used as important identity symbols for convicts, punks, bikers and many subcultures within society. This fragmentation ultimately lead to the ‘tattoo renaissance’ which lead tattoos to become popular culture icons in the 1980’s and 1990’s. With the â€Å"tattoo renaissance,† tattoos came to be seen as an anthropological, sociological and ethnographic phenomenon which changed society’s views of the human body. Punk tattoos of the 1970’s were part of a lexicon of highly visible signs and symbols of sub cultural identity. Inspired by the punk scene that emerged from the British punk scene in the early 1970’s, the punk subculture in Australia epitomised social marginalisation, hostile rebellion and protest. Punks manipulated their clothes, hairstyles and bodies as a form of self creation. Vividly and implicitly displayed in public, punk tattoos were the seeds of what would become mainstream tattoo practices. Nowadays, tattoos are â€Å"not just for bikers anymore† and are now the domain of the middle-class, educated and professionals. Many musicians, athletes, icons and role models now have tattoos, which has also been a contributing factor to their popularity. But most importantly, women now make up 50% of those who have tattoos, as opposed to the past, when it was rare for women to have a tattoo. Today, tattoos generally tend to avoid the â€Å"negative† imagery associated with many traditional prison, biker or punk styled tattoos. Studies show that tattoos worn by the â€Å"career-oriented† include a wide variety of symbols and styles, from the big and colourful, to the small and monochromatic, from Christian iconography to tribal or indigenous designs. Further research has revealed the most popular tattoo designs to be small crosses, butterflies, flowers, Celtic rings and arm and ankle bracelets These days, tattoos have become a large part of our popular culture. The demand for tattoos has grown rapidly, both amongst the rich and famous and within the general population as a whole. One in every seven adults today sports a tattoo as they have now become major fashion statement throughout society. The tattoo industry is growing tremendously, with an increased demand for tattoos, tattoo parlours, tattoo artists and tattoo supplies due to the recent acceptance of tattoos into mainstream culture. How to cite History of Tattoos in Australia, Essay examples

Should Britain continue to hav... free essay sample

Should Britain continue to have a foreign policy with moral-ethical considerations?Karl Pitt 6 Jun 2018In order to answer the question, we need to first understand what is meant by moral-ethical. Ethics refers to rules provided by an external source e.g. human right or codes of conduct. Moral refers to an individuals own principles regarding right or wrong. This essay will demonstrate that Britain should continue to ensure they support other people with their democratic rights using principles for right and wrong when producing foreign policy. This will be done by providing the understanding of moral ethics, explaining where British ethical foreign policy derived from and give two British case studies, where ethical interventions were conducted without a UN Charter or the backing of the Security Council, explaining why one was seen as accepted and the other not.With an example from British history we can see where Britain has taken moral-ethical considerations prior to 1997 to avoid conflict as well as implementing western values. The conclusion will be to demonstrate in this essay that moral ethical considerations must be taken into account when producing foreign policy.Understanding Moral EthicsAll foreign policy has to have ethical considerations as we are ethically constrained in everything we do. This statement is also reiterated by Dan Bully in his book Intervention when he states that the subject of ethics is foreign policy: it examines how we ought to relate to otherness, and that if foreign policy is a practice of building otherness and relating to it, the question of foreign policy must be how we ought to do this: a question of ethics. Albeit not an obligation, It is generally understood that governments are required to make ethical considerations and take more of an open-minded view of their own values or ethics as well as others. Their foreign policy should look to protect human rights, encourage moral-ethical understanding and promote peace in the international community as Britain did in 2007 when Robin Cook stated, referring to human tragedy in foreign countries to which Britain are obliged to take moral responsibility for. Our foreign policy must have an ethical dimension and must support the demands of other peoples for the democratic rights on which we insist for ourselves, The biggest issue with ethical foreign policy is how far a state is willing to go to extend its moral duty. As the pathfinder to introducing moral-ethical considerations to foreign policy and considering the interventions in Kosovo (1999) and Iraq (2003), these two case studies, from Tony Blair and new labour, will explore how, despite both motives appearing to be the same for intervention, the contradictory nature of British decision making with regards to its foreign policies sees two different outcomes. While agreeing that t he government had moral ethical considerations in mind in both accounts not both were accepted as ethical interventions.BackgroundIn the late 1990s with a new labour government, Tony Blair and Robin cook felt that the human suffering and violation of human rights should be a British obligation to intervene and as such should be included in British foreign policy. In 1997 Robin Cook stated that British foreign policy with be a moral ethical policy. The following two years showed New Labour profiling its ethical stance on foreign policy and, receiving support both by the British public and international community. In 1999 they were able to execute their policy by intervening in Kosovo.Case Study 1 Kosovo 1999 Due to the ethnic cleansing and forced expulsion of Albanians from Serbia, Britain (Tony Blair) and America (Bill Clinton) convinced NATO to intervene, despite having no UN Charter or support from the Security Council. The reason was Ethical and the intervention was accepted from both the British people and the international community.The Serbian Albanians were in need of assistance and as Britains contribution was seen to be going far beyond protecting or advancing National Security, intervention due to moral-ethics was accepted and this was deemed a high point of the new labour foreign policy.Yet, for all that, Kosovo has been a success of liberal interventionism. Two things are clear. One is that it was absolutely right to stand up to the Serbian nationalism epitomised by Slobodan Milosevic. The most shameful policy of John Majors Government was its appeasement of aggression in the Balkans, standing aside from ethnic cleansing. The Kosovo war of 1999 finally put an end to all that. As a result, Milosevic fell and Serbia began the long journey to joining the international community .Case Study 2 Iraq 2003 In 2003, post 9/11, Britain (Tony Blair) and America (George Bush) decided to intervene in Iraq. It could be stated this was not originally an ethical intervention and was a matter of national security, however it was eventually deemed to be about the Iraqi people, how Britain and America were going to install democracy and implement the rule of Law.As per the previous case, there was no UN Charter or backing from the Security Council, however, despite intervening under ethical grounds it was not accepted by the British public or international community as an ethical intervention and has been deemed a low point in the new labour foreign policy.The view that the 2003 Ir aq War was a disaster has become a fixed point of agreement in public opinion. The decision of the United States, Great Britain and other Coalition forces to invade Iraq soured western reputations across the world, undermined confidence in the motives and accountability of governments and created a humanitarian crisis in Iraq. Each of the reasons proffered to support the case for going to war were flawed and have henceforth been demolished by the reality of the intervening wars. Analysis of Case StudyMy belief in why, despite the origins of intervention being the same, there was a conflict in opinion for both cases is because Britain misinterpreted the meaning of the term moral ethical when considering the intervention into Iraq.The original reason for the Iraq intervention were in response to Sadam Hussain refusing UN weapons inspectors to an open inspection in Iraq. It was deemed by Bush and Blair that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that as allies we should intervene under an interest of National Security.To justify the intervention ethical reason s were then declared however when addressing the moral ethical considerations these were determined by Blair and Bush. Did the Iraq people want Britain or America to intervene, was the country after democracy and did they require the rule of Law?If we were to now look at the definition of moral-ethical we might understand how Britain should have considered them for Iraq. Moral is defined as being a personal or individuals own principles regarding right/wrong and ethical is the standards distinguished by a community or social setting. In the Iraq intervention it was an Anglo-American ideal being imposed on the Iraqi people. Did they want assistance? Possibly, did they require a democracy or the rule of law? Again possibly however it was not the choice of Blair and Bush to possibly assume an intervention was needed. This is why Iraq was not supported by the British public and international community and not accepted as an ethical intervention.In Kosovo the moral-ethical considerations were aimed at the Albanians and the intervention stopped the mass slaughter and complete disregard of the ethnic Albanian human rights. It could be argued that it was still a Blair, Clinton decision with no consideration to the Albanians and that Kosovo being a European country, their moral-ethics are similar to the British making it default an excepted ethical inter vention due to commonality in countries.An Example in HistoryBritain could be seen to consider British values and standards when determining right from wrong. Is this correct and should Britain maintain its western ideals on non western countries? I think Britain has a history of failing to recognise cultural differences and what might be un-ethical in Britain and western society is deemed acceptable elsewhere. Britain has got the balance correct through history as well. A good example of this is India in the 19th century.After the British rule in India, Indian society underwent many changes. Previous practices such as child marriage and polygamy were common practice, women were classed as second class citizens and were disadvantaged through society. Education was for men and only a selected few of the upper class. These, according to the British were deemed against human values and the British went about changing the ethics of India. This in turn created a divide in the country with some of the population supporting the movement for change however others resisting. Britain at the time did declare it did not want to interfere too much in India as it did not want an uprising, this is despite pressure from a group of radicals in England who wanted India to have a humanistic ideology and become part of the modern world.The British government understood the cultural differences and resisted the pressure and despite talk of reform very few were taken however ownership from the movements who wanted change saw women being educated and the child age of marriage changing to 14 for girls and 18 for boys.This example is taken from one source and is a very optimistic view on the British occupation in India and is purely used for the purpose of this paper. In by no means does this paper suggest that the discontentment that resulted from British rule in India and the rise of the resistant movements, such as the Sanyasi, Faaki r, Wahabi and Santhal, which resulted didnt have consequences to the British.ConclusionIn all the cases and examples in this essay there have been moral-ethical considerations. Whether the moral-ethical considerations have been considered for the right group of people is debatable and whether Britains values and standards are the right ethics to impart on nations is also debatable. What is not debatable is the need for moral ethical consideration.To reemphasise Frost, we ethically constrained in everything we do, a state must take moral-ethical considerations into account when determining foreign policy just the nature of the terminology moral-ethical makes it morally ethical to consider it. The reason states get it wrong is when they are addressing whose morals and ethics should be considered.If the producers of the foreign policy always consider their own ethics and morals without understating cultural differences and beliefs then the policy and subsequent choices could go wrong resulting in Intervention without support and rejection as ethical. If the justification to intervene is ethical then a state must seek support by ensuring the considerations are balanced.Britain must continue to have a foreign policy that has moral and ethical considerations.