Read the following passage carefully:
(1) Gossip. All humans partake in some form, despite the age-old adage, "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all." Whether it's workplace chatter, the sharing of family news or group texts between friends, it's inevitable that anyone who participates in the above, talks about other people.
(2) People tend to think of gossip as synonymous with malicious rumours, put-downs, or the breathless propagation of a tabloid scoop. But researchers often define it more broadly as "talking about people who aren't present," says an assistant professor of psychology. "It's something that comes very naturally to us" - an integral part of conversation, information sharing, and even community building.
(3) "It's not necessarily negative," adds a professor of psychology. "It can be positive or neutral." Some researchers argue that gossip helped our ancestors survive. Evolutionary psychologists first pioneered this idea, comparing gossip to the grooming primates engage in as a means of bonding.
(4) People are usually resistant to thinking about gossip as anything but bad. It is true that there are some types of gossip that should be avoided, such as gossip that is purely harmful and serves no purpose like mean comments on someone's way of dressing. In such a scenario no one benefits. Gossip can also be both active and passive. Active gossiping refers to directly sharing negative information about someone else. An active gossiper initiates the conversation and actively spreads it. Passive gossiping on the other hand involves more subtle behaviour like hinting, dropping suggestive comments or participating in gossip by listening without actively contributing, but still allowing the gossip to spread through their presence.
(5) It's interesting to note that gossiping also says something about relationships people have with one another. The act of gossiping often implies a level of trust and closeness with someone, which are key aspects of a good friendship.
(6) Research has found that gossip can stave off loneliness, while other studies have found it can facilitate bonding and closeness and serve as a form of entertainment. So, keep on talking. And when your conversation turns to gossip, as it inevitably will, remember that some good can come of it - with the right intentions, of course.
Answer the following questions, based on the above passage:
During Bentham’s lifetime, revolutions occurred in the American colonies and in France, producing the Bill of Rights and the Declaration des Droits deHomme (Declaration of the Rights of Man), both of which were based on liberty, equality, and self-determination. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published The Communist Manifesto in 1848. Revolutionary movements broke out that year in France, Italy, Austria, Poland, and elsewhere. In addition, the Indus trial Revolution transformed Great Britain and eventually the rest of Europe from an agrarian (farm-based) society into an industrial one, in which steam and coal increased manufacturing production dramatically, changing the nature of work, property ownership, and family. This period also included advances in chemistry, astronomy, navigation, human anatomy, and im munology, among other sciences.
Given this historical context, it is understandable that Bentham used reason and science to explain human behaviour. His ethical system was an attempt to quantify happiness and the good so they would meet the conditions of the scientific method. Ethics had to be empirical, quantifiable, verifiable, and reproducible across time and space. Just as science was beginning to understand the workings of cause and effect in the body, so ethics would explain the causal relationships of the mind. Bentham rejected religious authority and wrote a rebuttal to the Declaration of Independence in which he railed against natural rights as “rhetorical nonsense, nonsense upon stilts.” Instead, the fundamental unit of human action for him was utility—solid, certain, and factual.
What is utility? Bentham’s fundamental axiom, which underlies utilitarianism, was that all so cial morals and government legislation should aim for producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism, therefore, emphasizes the consequences or ultimate purpose of an act rather than the character of the actor, the actor’s motivation, or the particu lar circumstances surrounding the act. It has these characteristics: (1) universality, because it applies to all acts of human behaviour, even those that appear to be done from altruistic mo tives; (2) objectivity, meaning it operates beyond individual thought, desire, and perspective; (3) rationality, because it is not based in metaphysics or theology; and (4) quantifiability in its reliance on utility.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights”.
This statement, in spite of literal inaccuracy in its every phrase, served the purpose for which it was written. It expressed an aspiration, and it was a fighting slogan. In order that slogans may serve their purpose, it is necessary that they shall arouse strong, emotional belief, but it is not at all necessary that they shall be literally accurate. A large part of each human being’s time on earth is spent in declaiming about his “rights,” asserting their existence, complaining of their violation, describing them as present or future, vested or contingent, absolute or conditional, perfect or inchoate, alienable or inalienable, legal or equitable, in rem or in personam, primary or secondary, moral or jural (legal), inherent or acquired, natural or artificial, human or divine. No doubt still other adjectives are available. Each one expresses some idea, but not always the same idea even when used twice by one and the same person.
They all need definition in the interest of understanding and peace. In his table of correlatives, Hohfeld set “right” over against “duty” as its necessary correlative. This had been done num berless times by other men. He also carefully distinguished it from the concepts expressed in his table by the terms “privilege,” “power,” and “immunity.” To the present writer, the value of his work seems beyond question and the practical convenience of his classification is convincing. However, the adoption of Hohfeld’s classification and the correlating of the terms “right” and “duty” do not complete the work of classification and definition.